HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-12-11Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
DECEMBER 11, 2013
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
AUDITORIUM
4:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order.
2. Work Session: Five-Year Financial Plan – General Government.
3. Recess.
6:00 p.m.
4. Call to Order.
5. Pledge of Allegiance.
6. Moment of Silence.
7. Adoption of Final Agenda.
8. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
9. Recognitions.
a. William B. “Petie” Craddock.
b. Duane Snow.
c. Rodney Thomas.
10. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
11. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
12. ACSA-2013-00002. Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. - Albemarle County
Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area Request. Request to amend the Albemarle
County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area Boundary to provide sewer service to Tax Map 78, Parcels 22 and
23, and provide water and sewer service to Tax Map 77, Parcel 31, Tax Map 78, Parcel 25, and Tax Map 92, Parcel 1,
located on Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Route 53) approximately 2 miles east of the intersection of Scottsville Road (Route
20) and Route 53.
13. PROJECT: ZMA-2012-00003. Out of Bounds (Sign #6). PROPOSAL: Rezone a 9.42
acre property from R-1 Residential (1unit/acre) to NMD Neighborhood Model District which allows residential (3-34 units/
acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses. Maximum of 56 residential units with the preservation of an
existing residence on 0.68 acres for a proposed density of 6 units/gross acre. No commercial is proposed. ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: Yes. PROFFERS: Yes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential- residential (3-6 units/
acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small-scale non-residential uses in Neighborhood
7. LOCATION: Located on Barracks Road (Route 654) across from its intersection with Georgetown Road (Route 656).
225 Out of Bounds Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06000000006500. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Jack Jouett. (Deferred from November 13, 2013.)
14. ZMA-2012-00004. Avon Park II (Signs #89&91). PROPOSAL: Rezone 5.262 acres from
R-6 zoning district for which allows residential uses at a density of 6 units per acre to PRD zoning district which allows
residential uses with limited commercial uses at a density of 3 - 34 units/acre. 32 maximum units proposed for a density of
6 units/acre. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. PROFFERS: Yes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/1211/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 4) [10/5/2020 3:25:12 PM]
Tentative
Residential– residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small-scale non-
residential uses. LOCATION: 1960 Avon Street Extended. Approximately 1000 feet north of the intersection of Avon Street
Extended and Route 20, south of existing Avon Court. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09000000003100. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Scottsville (deferred from September 11, 2013).
15. ZMA-2013-000001. The Lofts At Meadowcreek (Sign #15). 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 Master Plan. LOCATION: 605 Rio Road East in Neighborhood 2. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061A0000001500 and
061A0000001700. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
16. ZMA-2012-00005. Hollymead Town Center (A-1) (Signs #33&35).
PROPOSAL: Request to amend the Application Plan and Proffers on property zoned PD-MC which allows large-
scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre). PURPOSE OF NOTICE AND HEARING:
Intention of the Planning Commission to make recommendation on the Proposal to the Board of Supervisors ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: Yes PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Mixed Use (in
Centers) – retail, residential, commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space. (6.01-34 dwelling units per
acre) in Hollymead Development Area. LOCATION: Hollymead Town Center Area A-1, the southwest quadrant of
Seminole Trail (US 29) and Towncenter Drive in the Hollymead Development Area TAX MAP/PARCEL:
032000000042A0, 03200000004400, 03200000004500 (portion), 04600000000500, 046000000005A0 MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Rio.
17. ZMA-2013-00007. North Pointe Amendment (Signs #61&62). PROPOSAL:
Request to amend approved proffers from ZMA200000009 on property zoned Planned Development – Mixed Commercial
(PD-MC) zoning district which allows large-scale commercial uses; residential by special use permit (15 units/acre) uses.
A maximum of 893 units on approximately 269 acres is approved by special use permit at a gross density of 3.31 units/
acre. No new dwellings proposed. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes FLOOD HAZARD
OVERLAY: Yes PROFFERS: Yes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Mixed Use (in Destination and Community Centers) –
retail, residential, commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space; Urban Density Residential – residential
(6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses;
Neighborhood Density Residential – residential (3 – 6 units/acre) supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools
and other small-scale non-residential uses; Privately Owned Open Space; Environmental Features – privately owned
recreational amenities and open space; floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, and other environmental features; and
Institutional – civic uses, parks, recreational facilities, and similar uses on County-owned property. LOCATION: North of
Proffit Road, east of Route 29 North, west of Pritchett Lane and south of the Rivanna River.TAX MAP/PARCEL:
03200000002000; 032000000020A0; 032000000020A1; 032000000020A2; 032000000020A3; 032000000029I0;
03200000002300; 032000000023A0; 032000000023B0; 032000000023C0; 032000000023D0; 032000000023E0;
032000000023F0; 032000000023G0; 032000000023H0; 032000000023J0; and 032000000022K0 MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Rivanna.
18. ZMA-2013-00002. Pantops Corner (Sign #66). PROPOSAL: Rezone 2.246 acres from R-
1 zoning district which allows residential uses at a density of 1 unit per acre to HC zoning district which allows commercial
and service uses; residential by special use permit at a density of 15 units per acre. No dwellings proposed. ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: 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 and Greenspace –
undeveloped areas in Neighborhood 3 - Pantops. LOCATION: Approximately 575 feet north from the intersection of Route
250 and Stony Point Road (Route 20) on the east side of Route 20. Back portion of 1248 Richmond Road, fronting Route
20. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 078000000058G1. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/1211/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 4) [10/5/2020 3:25:12 PM]
Tentative
19. SP-2013-000015. Mahone Family (Sign #12). PROPOSAL: Additional development right
on 21 acres for 1 new unit with a density of up to 0.5 dwelling units per acre on the new lot. ZONING: RA Rural Areas -
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots) LOCATION: 1688 Dudley Mountain Road TAX MAP/
PARCEL: 08900-00-00-062B0 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
20. ZTA-2013-00006. Residential and Industrial Uses in Downtown Crozet
Zoning District (“DCD”). Ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 18, Zoning, to amend Sec. 20B.2,
Permitted Uses, and to add Sec. 20B.8, Residential Uses Allowed by Special Permit; Additional Factors When
Considering Special Use Permits. This ordinance would amend Sec. 20B.2 (A) and (E) to reorganize by right and special
permit uses, to allow Laboratories/Research and Development/Experimental Testing by right and to allow Storage/
Warehousing/Distribution/Transportation and Manufacturing/ Processing/Assembly/ Fabrication and Recycling by special
use permit; would add Sec. 20B.2 (F) to allow by special use permit residential uses of any authorized dwelling type in the
DCD without requiring first-floor non-residential uses; and would add Sec. 20B.8 to add factors when considering special
use permits.
21. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
22. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
23. Adjourn to December 12, 2013, 3:00 p.m., Room 241.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
11.0 Approval of Minutes: August 7, 2013.
11.1 SDP-2011-1. Hollymead Town Center Area A-1 Special Exception to Authorize Variations from the Application
Plan and Proffers Associated with ZMA2010-14.
11.2 Special exception for: Terra Voice Music Home Occupation Class A, modification of Section 18.5.2.e of the Zoning
Ordinance for traffic generation.
11.5 Joint Board of Supervisors/School Board Letter to Legislators, re: support for three issues of concern.
FOR INFORMATION:
11.3 Copy of letter dated November 26, 2013, from Francis H. MacCall, Principal Planner, to Bob Headrick, Nest
Realty, re: LOD-2013-00021 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD AND
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - Tax Map 60E1-00-0N, Parcel 1 (property of Dogwood Lane Properties
LLC), Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
11.4 Copy of letter dated November 19, 2013, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning/Deputy Zoning Administrator, to
Evergreen 651 LLC (c/o Therese Elron) re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS, Tax Map Parcel
059D1-02-0H-01400 (property of Evergreen 61 LLC), Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/1211/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 4) [10/5/2020 3:25:12 PM]
Tentative
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/1211/0.0_Agenda.htm (4 of 4) [10/5/2020 3:25:12 PM]
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP2011-1. Hollymead Town Center Area A-1 Special
Exception to Authorize Variations from the Application
Plan and Proffers Associated with ZMA2010-14.
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Special exception to authorize variations to reduce
building square footage and change parking.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Benish, Ms. Baldwin
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE:
December 11, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Hollymead Town Center Area A-1 (“HTC A-1”) fronts on Route 29 and Town Center Boulevard. HTC A-1 was rezoned to
PD-MC with proffers and an application plan on September 11, 2007 and the rezonin g was amended in January 2011
(ZMA2010-14). There currently is a zoning map amendment before the Board to revise the bus stop and greenway
proffers. A site plan has been previously approved and the site contains several commercial buildings. The applican t
would like to reduce the square footage of one building, with the opportunity to use the square footage elsewhere within
HTC A-1, and to change the parking configuration and number of parking spaces. The applicant is requesting a special
exception to authorize variations from the approved Application Plan.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
5. Ensure the health and safety of the community
DISCUSSION:
The applicant has submitted a variation request (Variation #1) seeking three variations to the Application Plan. These
variations involve reducing the square footage of Building J from 28,968 square feet to 17,018 square feet with the
opportunity to reserve the remaining square footage of 11,950 for futur e development within A-1. The parking
configuration and number of spaces is also proposed to change; there will be 7 additional spaces and the revised parking
layout is shown on the attached plan (Attachment A). Due to the proximity of the building to the Entrance Corridor, the
ARB has also reviewed the proposal and has no objection to the proposed changes. Staff is recommending approval
of the special exception.
VARIATION REQUEST #1:
Staff analysis of the Variation Request is provided below:
1) The variations are consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
These variations are consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. The land use pattern
reflected in the existing Application Plan will generally be maintained. The building location and orientation will
not change. The proposed parking lot layout has essentially the same visual impact as the existing plan.
2) The variations do not increase the approved development density or intensity of development.
Density is not increased; the reserve square footage will be used toward a future building.
3) The variations do not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development
in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected.
4) The variations do not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variations are in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application.
These variations are in general accord with the approved rezoning application. Because this proposal is to move
the square footage and slightly alter the parking configuration, no significant impacts are anticipated.
2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Variation Request #1 to reduce the square footage of Building J, while reserving the
remaining square footage for future development, and to change the parking lot configuration and the number of parking
spaces as described above and consistent with the Application Plan entitled “Hollymead T own Center Area A-1 Minor Site
Plan Amendment,” last revised 11/19/13.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Letter requesting variation to Building J and Application Plan Hollymead Town Center Area A -1 Minor Site
Plan Amendment last revised 11/19/13.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
JOB NO.SHEET NO.EWVMMOC
AGRE
RNEONESFSIONLEAGI No. 35791PRN
O
INIIHTLAFOSCALE800 E. JEFFERSON STREET - CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719
C-5AS NOTEDORIGINAL LAYOUT - APPROVED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT #1PROPOSED AMENDED LAYOUT
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
HO 2013-160, Terra Voce Music Special Exception
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request for a Special Exception to modify Section 5.2 (e) of
the Zoning Ordinance allow an increase in permitted traffic
generation for a Home Occupation Class A (HOCA).
STAFF CONTACT(S):
David Benish
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
December 11, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting a Home Occupation Class A (HOCA) modification for the number of trips generated by the
HOCA use. A concurrent application is being processed for a HOCA clearance to provide music lessons from the
residence. The applicant is requesting up to thirty (30) clients per week.
Characteristics of the anticipated operation:
Operating hours are by appointment, Monday through Saturday.
Hours of operation: Monday-Friday, 10:00 AM – 7:30 PM and Saturday, 9:30 – 3:00 PM
Sessions typically range from 30 to 60 minutes
Average annual attendance is 20 clients per week, but during school year clients may increase to 25 -30 per week
during some periods.
Most students are children that will be dropped off at the home; there are some adult students
The property (TMP 056B0-00-00-00400) is located on Ballard Drive in Crozet. The home is approximately 400 feet south
of the Ballard Drive-Crozet Avenue intersection. The .51 acre parcel is zoned R-2, Residential. Ballard Drive consists of
single-family detached homes.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant is seeking a modification of Section 5.2 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance for home occupations, which states,
“[t]he traffic generated by a home occupation shall not exceed the volume that would normally be expected by a dwelling
unit in a residential neighborhood.” The Zoning Administrator assumes the “normal volume” of traffic for a dwelling unit is
5 round trips per day (10 vehicle trips per day) and will also allow one additional round trip per day for clients, provided
that these trips should be spread throughout the week (seven per week ). The applicant’s request is to be allowed to serve
up to 30 clients per week six days per week (Monday through Saturday). This would result in up to 60 round trips per
week from the home occupation use (or up to 10 round trips per day). A “round trip” means one vehicle entering and
exiting the site.
Staff has evaluated the request based on the traffic impacts to Ballard Drive and the neighborhood. Planning staff typically
evaluates traffic generation of this type of request against other uses permitted by-right within residences, most
particularly a family day home serving up to five (5) children (a special use permit is required for a family day home
serving six or more children). A by-right family day home would generate up to 50/60 round trips per week (Mon.-Fri./Sat.)
and 10 round trips per day (2 round trips/day per child for drop-off and pick-up) in addition to the 5 round trips from the
residential use. The applicant’s proposal is generally consistent with the comparable by-right family day home use.
The applicant’s request is also consistent with the threshold established for Rural Area Home Occupations, which is to not
exceed 30 vehicle round trips per week . That section of the ordinance (Section 5.2A.e.) is provided below:
“Traffic generated by a major home occupation. The traffic generated by a major home occupation shall not
exceed ten (10) vehicle round trips per day or more than thirty (30) vehicle round trips per week. For the purposes
of this section, a “vehicle round trip” means one vehicle entering and exiting the site.”
There is a 60+ foot long driveway which is adequate to accommodate client parking and/or pick -up and drop-off. Ballard
Drive is in adequate condition to accommodate the limited additional traffic generated from this proposal.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. This property has had a home occupation use on site without complaint.
2. The use will not produce any excess noise, waste, or light.
3. The level of traffic potentially generated from this request is consistent with other by-right uses permitted
within residences (including day care for up to 5 children);
4. Ballard Drive and the driveway serving the residents/home occupation can adequately a ccommodate
anticipated traffic and parking activity generated by this request.
Staff has not identified any unfavorable factors.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this Special Exception to modify Section 5.2 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an
increase in permitted traffic generation for HO 2013-160 above that allowed by Section 5.2(e), subject to the following
condition:
1. No more than 30 clients per week (Monday through Saturday).
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT A – Location Map
ATTACHMENT B – Neighborhood Level Aerial Photo
ATTACHMENT C – Applicant’s Proposal
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
HOCA 2013-160, Terra Voce Music ATTACHMENT A
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources November 25, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
228 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
HOCA 2013-160, Terra Voce Music ATTACHMENT B
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources November 25, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
85 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
TMP 60E1-00-0N-1 Dogwood Lane Properties
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources November 26, 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
Phone (434) 296-5832
November 19, 2013
Evergreen 651 LLC
clo Therese Elron
1125 Old Garth Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Received
NOV 27 2013
COUNTY OF ALB.EMARLE County of Albemarle
Department of Commulllty Development 8 d of Supervisor's Office
401 McIntire Road, North Wing oa r
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax (434) 972-4126
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS--Tax Map Parcel -059D1-02-0H-
01400 (Property of Evergreen 61 LLC) -Samuel Miller Magisterial District
Dear Ms . Elron :
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
Tax Map Parcel 059D1-02-0H-01400 is two R-1 zoned parcels of record. The basis for
this determination follows.
Our records indicate Tax Map 59D1-02-0H , Parcel 14 contains 3.35 acres and one (1)
dwelling . The property is not within an Agricultural and Forestal District. The most recent
recorded instrument for this property is recorded in Deed Book 4419, page 397.
This analysis begins with the deed of record in Deed Book 458, page 327 that is dated
May 20, 1969. The deed is a "Statement of Subdivision of Section Four" and contains
reference to an attached plat by R. O. Snow and Associates, Certified Land Surveyors
dated March 24,1969 that shows lots 14-19, Section Four. Based on this deed , Tax
Map Parcel 059D1-02-0H-01400 is determined to be two parcels of record (Lots 14
& 15 on referenced plat), zoned R-1 residential. Each of the two lots contain more
than one acre of land.
Deed Book 458, page 618 , dated May 22 , 1969, conveyed "those two certain lots or
parcels of land ... containing in the aggregate 3.347 acres of land and designated as Lot
Nos. 14 and 15, both in block H, Section Four of Ednam Forest SUbdivision ... " from The
Ednam Forest Corporation to W. W. Talbott and Barbara N.(sic) Talbott, husband and
wife .. ". The land is described as the same as shown on the plat referenced in Deed
Book 458, page 327. This transaction had no effect on the parcels.
In 1970 Mr. and Mrs . Talbott had built a single family residence on the two lots , which
rested across the common lot line of the lots . No plat or deed was recorded at the time
to officially combine Lots 14 & 15. This action had no effect on the parcels.
Evergreen 651, LLC
November 19, 2013
Page 2
Deed Book 611, page 316, dated December 20, 1976, conveyed 3.347 acres from W.
W. Talbott and Barbara M. Talbot to Barbara M. Talbott. The property is described as
being the same as was conveyed by Deed Book 458, page 618. This transaction had
no effect on the parcels.
Deed Book 4340, page 173, dated April 24, 2013, conveyed 3.347 acres from the
Executors of the Estate of Barbara M. Talbott to the Trustees of the Eugenia Elizabeth
Talbott Trust and the Trustees of the Elissa Talbot Tatton Trust, "both Trusts Under the
Will of Barbara M. Talbott". The property is described as being the same as was
conveyed by Deed Book 611, page 316. This transaction had no effect on the
parcels.
Deed Book 4419, page 397, dated September 25, 2013, conveyed 3.347 acres from
the two Trusts under the Will of Barbara M. Talbott as defined in Deed Book 4340, page
173, to Evergreen 651, LLC. The property is described as being the same as was
conveyed by Deed Book 4340, page 173. This transaction had no effect on the
parcels.
It should be noted that in order to build a second single family residence on this
property a Boundary Line Adjustment, which places the current residence on its
own lot having at least one acre and leaves at least one acre vacant, will have to
be submitted to the County Department of Community Development for review
and approval.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of
the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final
and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator
and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the
appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $240.
The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
" -;,?'
Sine .ely, ~
t':. .~
Ronald L. Higgins, AI ~
Chief of Zoning/Deputy Zoning Administrator
Copy: ReaJEstate
~ Jordan, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
2
Map is for Display Purposes Only' Aeriallmageryirom the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources
Legend
(Nole: Some ilems on map may not appear in legend)
",,,,oOO<ot~,,,,.,·,
Geo9raphi~ Data Services
'>'I1'ffl.albama,la.org
(43<1) 296-5B32
J
J
October 15, 2013
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. - Albemarle
County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area
Request (ACSA201300002)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing on request to amend the Albemarle County
Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area Boundary to
provide sewer service to Tax Map 78, Parcels 22 and 23,
and provide water and sewer service to Tax Map 77,
Parcel 31, Tax Map 78, parcel 25, and Tax Map 92, Parcel
1, located on Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Route 53)
approximately 2 miles east of the intersection of Scottsville
Road (Route 20) and Route 53.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Benish
PRESENTER (S): David Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 11, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Thomas Jefferson Foundation (“TJF”) is requesting Albemarle County Service Authority (“ACSA”) Jurisdictional Area
designation for public water and/or sewer service to parcels and buildings owned and/or operated by it as follows:
Sewer service to the Monticello Main House area, including the main house, staff offices, original gift shop, and
restrooms (TMP 78-22).
Sewer service to the Visitor Center (also TMP 78-22 and 23) and a map correction to the Jurisdictional Area Map
to include the Visitor Center site for water service.
Water and sewer service to Kenwood House (International Center for Jefferson Studies) (TMP 92-01) and future
administrative campus (TMP 78-25).
Water and sewer service to the Robert Smith Center at Montalto (property leased by TJF from UVA Foundation)
(TMP 77-31).
These sites are located east of Route 20 on Route 53 (see Attachment A). The parcels are designated Rural Area in the
County’s Comprehensive Plan and are located in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Public water service is currently
provided to the Monticello Main House area and Visitor Center site on TMP 77-22 and 77-23. Private sewage facilities
currently serve all properties subject to the request. The Board conducted a worksession on November 6, 2013 (See
Attachment A) and at that time set a public hearing for amending the Jurisdictional Area Boundary as requested by the
applicant.
DISCUSSION:
By policy stated in the Comprehensive Plan, public water and sewer services are intended to serve the designated
Development Areas where growth is encouraged and are to be discouraged in the Rural Area because utility services are
a potential catalyst for growth. Public water supply and sewer system capacities need to be efficiently and effectively used
and reserved to serve the Development Areas. The continued connection of properties in the Rural Area to the public
systems results in further extension of lines from the fringe of the existing Jurisdictional Area into the Rural Area,
potentially straining water and sewer resources and the capacity to serve higher priority needs.
As acknowledged by the Board at the work session on November 6, 2013, there are unique circumstances that relate to
the request for public water and sewer service to the parcels and buildings owned and leased by the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation, Inc. The Monticello Main House and Visitor Center sites have a very high level of usage and visitation;
approximately 440,000 people each year.
In addition, the Monticello Main House area has historic resources that could be adversely impacted by the installation of
new private sewer systems. W hile there is not a documented health or safety issue associated with the existing private
sewage system, there could be a significant impact to TJF’s facilities operations and public health if the sites were to close
due to failure of the aging private sewage facilities. In addition, if the existing drainfield site could not be used (already
repaired once over 30 years ago), significant land disturbance at the Monticello Main House site would be needed (most
AGENDA TITLE: Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. -- Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional
Area Request (ACSA201300002)
December 11, 2013
Page 2
likely at the site of Jefferson’s orchards). Given the archeological resources on that site, TJF strongly desires to leave
those areas undisturbed so that archeological resources will be left in place for study sometime in the future. Land
disturbance for a drainfield would significantly damage and alter an area adjacent to the Main House, which is not desired.
Finally, there are historically significant and invaluable resources and materials/collections located and archived on these
properties which are in need of adequate fire protection to better ensure for their long term preservation.
An additional unique aspect of this application is the new 250,000 gallon underground water storage tank proposed on the
Montalto parcel (TMP 77-31). The water storage tank would serve to improve the fire suppression capabilities of the entire
Monticello complex including the Visitor Center and Main House area (due to the higher elevation of the Montalto site).
Given the site’s status as a UNESCO World Heritage site and the number of annual visitors to the Visitor’s Center and
Main House area, additional fire suppression capacity is an important consideration.
Although staff believes that the request does not meet the guiding principles provided for expansions of the Jurisdictional
Areas, due to the unique circumstances set forth, staff believes there is merit to amending the limited service designation
to permit service to the site consistent with the conditions of Zoning Map Amendments ZMA 2004 -05 and ZMA 2007-23.
The Zoning Map Amendments for Monticello Historic District (MHD) limited the scope and scal e of future development to
what has been previously approved by the Board. No additional development would be proposed if the jurisdictional area
request is approved.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The property owner would bear all of the costs for connection to public water and public sewer services.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve an amendment of the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area to
provide limited water and sewer service to TMPs 77-31, 78-22, 78-23, 78-25, and 92-1, and that water and sewer service
continue to be provided to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. complex on ly as approved under ZMA 2004-05 and
ZMA 2007-23. Amendment of the ACSA Jurisdictional Area Boundary shall provide limited service as follows:
Sewer service to the Monticello Main House area, including the main house, staff offices, original gift shop, a nd
restrooms (TMP 78-22).
Sewer service to the Visitor Center (also TMP 78-22 and 23) and a map correction to the Jurisdictional Area Map
to include the Visitor Center site for water service.
Water and sewer service to Kenwood House (International Center for Jefferson Studies) (TMP 92-01) and future
administrative campus, consistent with the approved application plan for the Monticello Historic District (TMP 78-
25).
Water and sewer service to the Robert Smith Center at Montalto (TMP 77-31).
ATTACHMENTS
A – 11/6/2013 Board Executive Summary (with location maps attached)
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. - Albemarle
County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area
Request (ACSA201300002)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA) Jurisdictional Area Boundary to provide sewer
service to Tax Map 78, Parcels 22 and 23, and provide
water and sewer service to Tax Map 77, Parcel 31, Tax
Map 78, Parcel 25, and Tax Map 92, Parcel 1, located on
Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Route 53) approximately 2
miles east of the intersection of Scottsville Road (Route
20) and Route 53.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Benish, Sorrell
PRESENTER (S): David Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Thomas Jefferson Foundation (“TJF”) is requesting Albemarle County Service Authority (“ACSA”) Jurisdictional Area
designation for public water and/or sewer service to parcels and buildings owned by it as follows:
Sewer service to the Monticello Main House area, including the main house, staff offices, original gift shop, and
restrooms (TMP 78-22).
Sewer service to the Visitor Center (also TMP 78-22 and 23) and a map correction to the Jurisdictional Area Map
to include the Visitor Center site for water service.
Water and sewer service to Kenwood House (International Center for Jefferson Studies) (TMP 92-01) and future
administrative campus (TMP 78-25).
Water and sewer service to the Robert Smith Center at Montalto (TMP 77-31).
These sites are located east of Route 20 on Route 53 (see Attachment B). The parcels are designated Rural Area in the
County’s Comprehensive Plan and are located in the Scottsville Magisterial District.
A portion of TMP 78-22 consisting of the Monticello Main House area is the only area in the request currently located
within the Jurisdictional Area for public water service. This area has been provided public water service for over 50 years
(as early as 1948). A 100,000 gallon underground water storage tank is filled to provide domestic service and fire
suppression (see Attachment B). Water service was extended from the Monticello Main House area (storage tank) to the
new Visitor Center in 2007. The Kenwood and Montalto sites are currently served by private wells and all of the buildings
and parcels in this request (including the Main House Area and Visitor Center) are currently served by private sewage
systems.
With the exception of the Jefferson Library at Kenwood (TMP 92-01, zoned RA), all of the other parcels included in this
request are zoned Monticello Historic District (MHD). In the 2004 review of the rezoning application that created the
Monticello Historic District, there was no discussion of the expansion of the jurisdictional area to include any of the MHD
area. At that time, the existing infrastructure was considered adequate and the alternative wastewater disposal system
planned to serve the new Visitor Center was determined to be adequate to meet facility needs. At the time Montalto was
rezoned to MHD in 2008, private water and sewer facilities were also believed to be adequate for that use. Since that
time, additional infrastructure studies and planning has been conducted by the TJF. A 2011 study (Attachment C) found
that water flow for firefighting was inadequate to serve the Monticello Main House location and the new Visitor Center, as
well as Kenwood House. In addition, other infrastructure was aging and had high maintenance costs.
TJF has stated that the overarching need for public water and sewer service is to provide adequate fire protection and to
maintain reliable ongoing operations. The current fire suppression capabilities are inadequate for multiple buildings and
there is a concern that the continued high level of use of the existing private sewage facilities for the Main House area and
the Visitor Center could result in unexpected and more frequent system failures, which could affect operations over an
extended period of time while repairs are made. TJF has submitted this jurisdictional area request to ensure the
AGENDA TITLE: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation -- Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional
Area Request (ACSA201300002)
November 6, 2013
Page 2
continued long-term viability of Monticello and its associated facilities. TJF’s plan is to provide water for fire suppression
through a proposed water storage tank at Montalto.
In the immediate area, the Michie Tavern site is in the Jurisdictional Area for water and sewer while the Monticello
Memorial Gardens site is in the Jurisdictional Area for Water Only. Both areas were provided service prior to the
establishment of the ACSA Jurisdictional Area and associated policies (Michie Tavern received service in the 1970s).
Both sites are in the designated Rural Areas. T he former Blue Ridge Hospital site is also in the ACSA Jurisdictional Area
for water and sewer (and is located in the Urban Area 4).
DISCUSSION:
The subject parcels can be grouped into two categories based on the number of users /visitors to the sites. The first
category would be for the Main House Area and the Thomas Jefferson Visitor’s Center and Smith Education Center area
on TMP’s 78-22 and 23. The second category would include the International Center for Jefferson Studies – Kenwood
and Jefferson Library (TMP 92-1), the future administrative campus (TMP 78-25) and the Robert H. Smith Center at
Montalto (TMP 77-31). These sites have many fewer visitors - similar in number to the site visitors and events found with
rural churches and rural special events.
Category 1: Main House Area and Visitor Center
Public sewer is requested to serve these parcels. TJF estimates that annual visitation to these sites is over 450,000
people. This is significantly higher than most any other use located in the Rural Area. The Main House and adjacent
buildings are served by drainfields originally installed in the 1930s and repaired in the 1970s. TJF has stated that they
believe these facilities have exceeded their useful life and should be replaced. The Health Department has noted that
while all onsite sewage systems have a limited lifespan, it is difficult to determine the life span of an existing system. The
lifespan for a septic system is determined by many factors , such as wastewater flow, wastewater strength, site and soil
conditions, natural weather variations, and regular maintenance over the lifetime of the system . The Health Department
also notes that an evaluation by a professional engineer is required before it can be determined with certainty that an
onsite sewage disposal system would not serve the proposed use. Given the amount of property that TJF owns, there
may be an onsite solution. There are no noted system leaks or malfunctions on record with the Health Department and
no known problems exist at this time; however, the applicant has stated that this is likely because TJF regularly pumps out
the septic tanks on a schedule twice as often as typically recommended by the Health Department.
For TJF, an important limiting factor for locating new onsite sewage disposal areas near the Monticello Main House area
is the potential for the associated land disturbance to impact historic resources. Monticello is only one of two World
Heritage sites in the United States. As such, TJF has stated in its application that additional land disturbance for new
onsite disposal facilities would require disturbance of an area (and perhaps other areas) of Monticello’s historic orchard.
TJF strongly prefers to leave areas where archeological resources may lie in-place, allowing for future study by
researchers. In addition, if permitted to install public sewer lines, TJF has stated its desire to use a directional bore
technique along an existing cleared trail to limit the land disturbance along the location of the sewer line and protect
potential historical resources in the archeological layer above the line , which would not require disturbance as when a
traditional method is used.
The Visitor Center uses an alternative sewage treatment system and onsite drainfield that was installed in 2006. TJF
states that the system has a 10 year life span, and that together with on-going maintenance and monitoring, that the
system is difficult and expensive to maintain, particularly during peak usage periods. The Health Department has noted
that it is not aware of documentation from the manufacturer of the system that suggests that the septic system serving the
Visitor Center has a predetermined lifespan. Again, there are many variables involved.
Category 2: Kenwood, Future Administrative Campus, and Montalto
Both public water and sewer are requested to serve parcels in this category. The parcels in this category have
significantly less visitors than the Main House area and Visitor Center. However, in keeping with the overarching theme of
this application, a major reason public water has been requested for these areas is for fire suppression.
Kenwood House is currently served by a private groundwater well and has the capacity of 30,000 gallons for onsite fire
suppression. TJF estimates this to be half the need in the case of a fire. Given the number of unique and historic
AGENDA TITLE: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation -- Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional
Area Request (ACSA201300002)
November 6, 2013
Page 3
documents and other materials on file in the library, TJF desires public water to improve water capacity for fire flow.
Connection to public water would also improve drinking water quality by improved filtration.
Kenwood House is currently served by a traditional onsite septic system for wastewater disposal. TJF feels the onsite
system is also approaching the end of its useful life and TJF desires to connect to the same public sewer line proposed for
sites in category 1.
The future administrative campus will be located on the parcel immediately adjacent to the west side of the Kenwood
House. The location of the future offices is the same as what was proposed in the 2004 rezoning of the property to MHD
and is currently the site of an existing dwelling. The site is served by private groundwater wells. Connection to the publi c
water supply would allow for better water filtration for the domestic water supply. TJF has stated that it does not believe
that the existing groundwater wells would support the site; however, additional documentation is needed to support this
conclusion.
The future administrative campus site is served by a conventional onsite sewer system that TJF feels is also at the end of
its useful life. TJF has stated that it does not believe that an additional or new conventional onsite septic system would be
supported on the site, however, additional documentation is needed to suppor t this conclusion.
The Robert H. Smith Center is located at the top of the Montalto site at an elevation above the other facilities operated by
TJF and is served by groundwater wells. When TJF completed its infrastructure planning study in 2011, it was concluded
that the Montalto site should contain a new underground 250,000 gallon water storage tank that could be used to supply
water for domestic and fire suppression needs for Mon talto, the Main House Area (of Monticello), the Visitor Center,
Kenwood House, and the future administrative campus site. Because of Montalto’s higher elevation, it would provide a
gravity flow to these other areas. The Health Department does not have any documentation regarding any issues with the
water on this site. TJF has stated that it does not believe that the groundwater wells would support the site, however,
given the site’s high elevation, TJF has stated that there has been difficulty in supplying water to the site in the past and
that additional wells have been drilled closer to Route 53, which has necessitated a water pump station about halfway up
the drive to Montalto to pump water to the site. Additional information supporting the difficulty in obtaining water at the site
is requested to document the additional wells drilled (that were needed to continue site usage).
Montalto is currently served by a private onsite septic system that was upgraded in the last several years. TJF indicates
that the system is currently working adequately and that there are no documented issues associated with the system.
However, TJF desires to connect to the same public sewer line as proposed for the other facilities.
Summary and Findings:
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following recommendations concerning the provision of public water and sewer
service:
“General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 114).”
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 130).”
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.130).”
“Only allow changes in the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated Development Areas in cases where the
property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety is in danger (p. 130).”
By policy, water and sewer services are intended to serve the designated Development Areas where growth is
encouraged and are to be discouraged in the Rural Area because utility services are a potential catalyst for growth. Water
supply and system capacities need to be efficiently and effectively used and reserved to serve the Development Areas.
The continued connection of properties in the Rural Area to the public system results in further extension of lines from the
fringe of the existing Jurisdictional Area into the Rural Area, potentially straining water and sewer resources and the
capacity to serve higher priority needs.
Staff finds that these requests are not consistent with existing County policy for the provision of public water and sewer
service. All of these properties are located within the designated Rural Area. With regard s to the recommendation which
states “Only allow changes in the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated Development Areas in cases where the
AGENDA TITLE: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation -- Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional
Area Request (ACSA201300002)
November 6, 2013
Page 4
property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety is in danger,” there is no documented current or
eminent public health or safety issue (such as a system contamination or failure) and no documentation stating that new
private systems could not be installed on these sites. The Kenwood parcel is not adjacent to existing water or sewer
lines. The Montalto parcel is not adjacent to existing water lines.
There are, however, unique circumstances that relate to the request for sewer service to the Monticello Main House and
Visitor Center sites, including: the high level of usage/visitation to the sites and the historic resources potentially impacted
by the installation of new private sewer systems. Given the unique nature of the nearly half a million annual visitors to the
Monticello Main House and Visitor Center, while there is not a documented health or safety issue associated with the
existing private sewerage system , there could be a significant impact to the facilities operations and public health if the
sites were to have to close due to failure of the aging private sewerage facilities. In addition, if the existing drainfield site
could not be used (already repaired once over 30 years ago), significant land disturbance at the Monticello Main House
site would be needed (most likely at the site of Jefferson’s orchards). Given the archeological resources on that site, TJF
strongly desires to leave those areas undisturbed so that archeological resources will be left in place for study sometime
in the future. Land disturbance for a drainfield would significantly damage and alter an area adjacent to the Main House ,
which is not desired.
An additional unique aspect of this application is the new 250,000 gallon underground water storage tank proposed
on the Montalto parcel (77-31). The water storage tank would serve to improve the fire suppression capabilities of the
entire Monticello complex including the Visitor Center and Main House area (due to the higher elevation of the
Montalto site). Given the site’s status as a UNESCO World Heritage site and the number of annual visitors to the
Visitor’s Center and Main House area, additional fire suppression is an important consideration. Despite these
unusual circumstances, staff’s conclusion is that the request does not meet the guiding principles.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The property owner would bear all of the costs for connection to public water and public sewer services.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The requests for the following amendments to the ACSA Jurisdictional Area boundaries for water and sewer service are
not consistent with the policies and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for the provision of public water and
sewer, therefore staff recommends that no public hearing be scheduled for these request s.
Sewer service to the Monticello Main House area, including the main house, staff offices, original gift shop, and
restrooms (TMP 78-22).
Sewer service to the Visitor Center (also TMP 78-22 and 23) and a map correction to the Jurisdictional Area Map
to include the visitor center site for water service.
Water and sewer service to Kenwood House (International Center for Jefferson Studies) (TMP 92-01) and future
administrative campus (TMP 78-25).
Water and sewer service to the Robert Smith Center at Montalto (TMP 77-31).
Should the Board decide that the unique conditions/circumstances related to the Monticello Main House site and Visitor
Center (TMP’s 78-22 and 23) outweigh the strict application of the policies and recommendations for Jurisdictional Area
Map amendments, staff recommends that a public hearing be set to consider amending the ACSA Jurisdictional Area Map
to provide limited sewer service to the existing structures only on TMP 78-22 and 23.
In addition, should the Board decide that the unique circumstances relating to the water storage tank on the Montalto site
(TMP 77-31) outweigh the strict application of the policies and recommendations for Jurisdictional Area Map
amendments, staff recommends that a public hearing also be set to consider amending the ACSA Jurisdictional Area Map
to provide limited water service to TMP 77-31 for the purpose of providing water to the proposed fire suppression tank.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Applicant’s Request
B – Location Map and Jurisdictional Area Designations
C – 2011 TJF Water and Sewer Study Maps (existing and proposed)
AGENDA TITLE: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation -- Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional
Area Request (ACSA201300002)
November 6, 2013
Page 5
Return to 12/11 Exec Summary
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
ACSA Jurisdictional Areas
No Service
Water Only
Water and Sewer
Water Only To Existing Str
Limited Service
City Water and Sewer
Attachment B -ACSA 2013-00002 Current ACSA Jurisdictional Boundaries
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources October 23, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
2037 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
Comp Plan Land Use Info
Urban Development Area
Comprehensive Plan Area
Comp Plan Roadway Impr
Crozet Master Plan Land
Greenspace *
Neighborhood Density (Lo
Neighborhood Density
Urban Density
Mixed-Use
Downtown
Institutional
Light Industrial
See Crozet Masterplan Te
Pantops Master Plan Land
Neighborhood Density
Urban Density
Urban Mixed Use
Institutional
Employment District
Employment Mixed Use
Commercial Mixed Use
Parks
Greenspace
River Corridor
Rural Area
Places29 Master Plan Mix
C - Community Center
D - Destination Center
NS - Neighborhood Servic
Up - Uptown
Places29 Master Plan Lan
Airport District
Urban Mixed Use (in Cent
Urban Mixed Use (in area
Commercial Mixed Use
Urban Density
Neighborhood Density
Office / R & D / Flex / Light
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Institutional
Public Open Space
Privately Owned Open Sp
Village of Rivanna Master
Comp Plan Land Use
Community Service
Industrial Service
Institutional
Neighborhood Density
Neighborhood Service
Office Service
Office/Regional Service
Parks and Greenways
Regional Service
Town/Village Center
Transitional
Urban Density
Rural Area
See Development Area Te
Master Plan Areas
Attachment B - ACSA 2013-0002 Current Zoning
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources October 23, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
2037 ft
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE
ZMA-2012-003. Out of Bounds
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Rezone a 9.42 acre property from R-1 Residential
(1unit/acre) to NMD Neighborhood Model District which
allows residential (3-34 units/acre) mixed with
commercial, service and industrial uses. Maximum of 56
residential units with the preservation of an existing
residence on 0.68 acres for a proposed density of 6
units/gross acre. No commercial is proposed.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Graham, Benish, Brooks, Roberge, Yaniglos
Presenter(s): Megan Yaniglos
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
December 11, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On November 13, 2013, the Board of Supervisors heard the above petition and voted to defer the application at the
applicant’s request. The Board stated that the proffers needed to be revised to coordinate the timing of the traffic signal
improvements with VDOT’s replacem ent schedule and to clarify the owner’s obligation to maintain a downstream drainage
channel within the Canterbury Hills neighborhood.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant has revised the proffers to reflect changes desired by the Board. Proffer 4 has been amended to provide
that the Owner will modify the traffic signal at the intersection of Barracks Road and Georgetown Road to
accommodate the extension of Georgetown Road into the project either when requested by VDOT or as a condition to
the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs sooner. This amendment will allow VDOT to ensure
that this new leg of the signal will be upgraded in conjunction with the remaining legs of the signal under VDOT’s
current replacement schedule.
Proffer 5B has been amended to clarify the Owner’s obligations to maintain the downstream drainage channel in the
Canterbury Hills neighborhood. The revised proffer establishes deadlines by which needed repairs will be performed,
requires the Owner to submit an inspection report to the County Engineer, allows the County Engineer to require
repairs to be performed in less time than proposed by the Owner if deemed necessary, and provides that the
maintenance and repair work will be performed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. These revisions will improve
the enforceability of Proffer 5B.
Proffer 5C has been amended to clarify the Owner’s commitment to contribute 5% of the cost of the construction of
new drainage improvements associated with the drainage channel that are initiated by the Canterbury Hills Association
or an impacted property owner. The revised proffer requires that the Association or the impacted property owner
provide the Owner with written notice of the proposed improvements and their cost before construction begins, and that
the Owner provide that same notice to the County Engineer. The revised proffer also obligates the Owner to make its
5% contribution within 60 days after receipt of proof of payment for the construction. Lastly, the revised proffer provides
that these new improvements will become part of the Owner’s maintenance and repair obligations under Proffer 5B.
These revisions also will improve the enforceability of Proffer 5C.
The applicant also is proposing a credit for the by-right lots under the cash proffer and has adjusted Proffer #3 to allow
for this credit. The applicant has provided a by-right subdivision plat (Attachment X) showing a total of nine lots allowed
by right under the current R-1 zoning. Staff as reviewed the plat, and finds that the development of 9 lots is feasible.
The owner also made some minor technical changes at staff’s request. The proffers have been reviewed by the
Zoning, Engineering and Planning staff and the County Attorney and are in an acceptable form for approval.
2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The applicant has addressed the expectations of the Board of Supervisiors and staff recommends that the Board approve
ZMA2012-003 Out of Bounds inclusive of the proffers dated November 18, 2013 and signed November 25, 2013
(Attachment A), and the Code of Development dated 8/26/2013 (Attachment B).
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Proffers Dated November 18, 2013
B- Application Plan Inclusive of the Code of Development- Revision Date 8/26/2013
C- Executive Summary November 13, 2013
D- Subdivision Exhibit Plat
Planning Commission minutes
Return to agenda
REZONING APPLICATION PLAN FOROUT OF BOUNDSTMP 06000-00-00-06500JACK JOUETT DISTRICT, ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIASHEET INDEXC1 - COVER SHEETC2 - REGIONAL CONTEXT MAPC3 - EXISTING CONDITIONS/DEMO PLANC4 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLANC5 - BLOCK PLANC6 - CODE OF DEVELOPMENTC7- SITE DETAILSC8- REQUIRED SCREENING & LANDSCAPING PLANVICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=1,000'IMAGE PROVIDED BY GOOGLE MAPSCOVER SHEETPROPERTY INFORMATIONOWNER:BARRACKS HEIGHTS LLC.195 RIVERBEND DR.CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911DEVELOPER:VITO CETTA1730 OWENSFIELD DRCHARLOTTESVILLE 22901LEGAL REFERENCE:DB 4254 PG 660TMP 06000-00-00-06500 (9.42 ACRES TOTAL)MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:JACK JOUETTBASE INFORMATIONSOURCE OF BOUNDARY SURVEY:BOUNDARY PLAT BY ROGER W. RAY & ASSOCIATES, INC. DB 3875 PG 65 (04/28/2010)SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY:FOUR (4) FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL TOPOGRAPHY FROM ALBEMARLE COUNTY GIS DATA.FIELD SURVEY OF BENNINGTON ROAD AND OFFSITE UTILITIES BY ROGER W. RAY INC.BENCHMARK(S):NAVD88 - ELEVATIONS BASED ON ALBEMARLE COUNTY GIS DATA.EXISTING UTILITIES:GIS DATA PROVIDED BY ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY AND FIELD VERIFICATIONWATER SOURCE:ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITYSEWER SERVICE:ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITYTHIS PROPERTY IS ZONED: R1 - RESIDENTIAL, EC - ENTRANCE CORRIDOR, & AIA - AIRPORT IMPACT AREAAPPLICATION PLAN NOTES:1. THIS APPLICATION PLAN PROPOSES A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM R-1 (RESIDENTIAL) TO NMD (NEIGHBORHOODMODEL DISTRICT) TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE.2. THIS SITE LIES WITHIN THE MEADOW CREEK WATERSHED.3. REFER TO CODE OF DEVELOPMENT ON SHEET 6 FOR PROJECT DESCRIPTION.4. ACCORDING TO THE FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, EFFECTIVE DATE FEBRUARY 4, 2005 (COMMUNITYPANEL 51003C0267D), THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT LIE IN A ZONE A 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN.SITE
REGIONAL CONTEXT MAPREGIONAL CONTEXT MAP - NEIGHBORHOOD 6 LAND USE PLANSITE
STATE ROUTE 656GEORGETOWN ROADHUNTWOOD LANECENTERLINEST. RT. 654 - BARRACKS RD.VARIABLE WIDTH ROWEXISTING CONDITIONS/DEMO PLAN
AABB
CCDDSTATE ROUTE 656GEORGETOWN ROADHUNTWOOD LANEST. RT. 654 - BARRACKS RD.VARIABLE WIDTH ROWGENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
BLOCK PLANDEVELOPMENT BLOCK SUMMARYBLOCKACREAGEPERMITTEDUSEMAXIMUMRESIDENTIALDENSITYMIN. RES. LOTSIZEMIN. LOT WIDTHFRONTBUILD-TO LINEBLOCK 11.20RESIDENTIAL6 UNITS3200 SF32 FT18FT - 36FTBLOCK 20.68RESIDENTIAL1 SFD UNIT21,780 SFN/AN/ABLOCK 30.57RESIDENTIAL11 UNITS1500 SF18 FT6FT - 18FTBLOCK 4A0.77RESIDENTIAL6 UNITS3200 SF32 FT18FT - 25FTBLOCK 4B0.78RESIDENTIAL6 UNITS3200 SF32 FT18FT - 25FTBLOCK 51.34RESIDENTIAL26 UNITS1500 SF18 FT8FT - 15FTBLOCK 6A1.25OPEN SPACEN/AN/AN/AN/ABLOCK 6B0.33OPEN SPACEN/AN/AN/AN/ABLOCK 6C0.43OPEN SPACEN/AN/AN/AN/ABLOCK 6D0.34OPEN SPACEN/AN/AN/AN/ABLOCK 6E0.14OPEN SPACEN/AN/AN/AN/AINTERNALRIGHT-OF-WAYDEDICATION1.59PUBLIC R.O.W.N/AN/AN/AN/ATOTAL9.4256 MAXIMUM(NOTE 2)LAND USE AREA SUMMARYUSEACREAGEPERCENTAGE OFTOTAL SITERESIDENTIAL5.3456.7%OPEN SPACE2.4926.4%ROADDEDICATIONS1.5916.9%TOTAL9.42100.0%OFF-STREET PARKING:1.THE MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES WITHONE OR TWO BEDROOMS IN BLOCK 3 SHALL BE1.5 SPACES PER UNIT (ROUNDED UP TO THENEAREST WHOLE NUMBER). GARAGE SPACES MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THISPROVISION.2.THE MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES SHALL BE2.0 SPACES PER UNIT. GARAGE SPACES MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THISPROVISION.3.A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED PARKING MAY BE PERMITTED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR BASEDON THE TYPES OF USES, HOURS OF OPERATION, AND ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATIONPROVISIONS. A JUSTIFICATION FOR A REQUESTED REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED PARKING SHALLBE SUBMITTED TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR REVIEW WITH A SITEPLAN APPLICATION.RECREATIONAL AMENITIES:1.RECREATIONAL AMENITIES ARE PROVIDED IN BLOCK 6A AND SHALL CONSIST OF COMMUNITYFACILITIES SUCH AS: GARDENS, PLAYGROUND, PICNIC SHELTER, TRAILS, OR ACTIVERECREATIONAL AREAS. FURTHER DETAILS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH DEVELOPMENT PROFFERS.SIGNAGE AND ARCHITECTURE:1. SEE CODE OF DEVELOPMENT ON SHEET 6 FOR SIGNAGE AND ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES.STREET SETBACKS:1. ALL BUILDINGS SHALL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 30 FEET FROM STATE ROUTE 654 RIGHT-OF-WAY.2.ALL OFF-STREET SURFACE PARKING LOTS (FOUR OR MORE SPACES) SHALL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 50 FEETFROM STATE ROUTE 654 RIGHT-OF-WAY.STREET FRONTAGE:1.ALL SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AND DETACHED UNITS SHALL HAVE FRONTAGE ON PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY ORPRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS WITH WITH ADEQUATE ACCESS PROVISIONS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES.2.BLOCKS 1,3, 4, AND 5 SHALL BE FRONT-LOADED DRIVEWAY/PARKING/GARAGES ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET.SIDE AND REAR YARD REGULATIONS:1.FOR MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS, TOWNHOMES, AND ALL PARKING LOTS OF FOUR OR MORE SPACES; THEMINIMUM SIDE OR REAR YARD ADJOINING ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE 15 FEET ANDSHALL INCLUDE AN EIGHT FOOT DEPTH OF LANDSCAPE SCREENING WHERE EXISTING SCREENING DOESNOT EXIST.2.FOR ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS THAT DO NOT SHARE A COMMON WALL, THE MINIMUM SIDEYARD SETBACK SHALL BE 3 FEET AND THE MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK SHALL BE 15 FEET.BUILDING HEIGHTS:1. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS, MIXED-USE BUILDINGS, AND TOWNHOMES SHALL BE 45FEET.2.THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS SHALL BE 35 FEET.DEVELOPMENT BLOCK SUMMARY NOTES:(REFER TO CODE OF DEVELOPMENT ON SHEET 6 FOR DETAILS OF PERMITTED USES)1. ALL BUILDINGS SHALL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 30 FT FROM STATE ROUTE 654.2. THERE IS A MAXIMUM PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY PER BLOCK AND A MAXIMUM PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT.RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TYPES:1. BLOCK 1 SHALL BE TOWNHOMES, ATTACHED, OR OR DETACHED UNITS.2. BLOCK 2 SHALL BE A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOME3.BLOCK 3 SHALL BE TOWNHOMES, ATTACHED, OR MULTI-FAMILY UNITS.4.BLOCKS 4 AND 5 SHALL BE TOWNHOMES, ATTACHED, OR OR DETACHED UNITS.5.BLOCK 6 SHALL HAVE NO RESIDENTIAL UNITS.GREEN SPACES INCLUDE OPEN SPACE AREAS AND THE PRESERVED YARD AREA INBLOCK 2.THE CUMULATIVE ACREAGES OF OPEN SPACE AREAS AND BLOCK 2 SHALL NOT BELESS THAN 2.35 ACRES (25% OF SITE AREA).TRIP GENERATION FIGURES
CODE OF DEVELOPMENT VI. Development Narrative:The Out of Bounds property is 9.42 acres, located in Neighborhood 7 on the southside of Barracks Road at the intersection of Georgetown Road. This site lies withinthe Neighborhood Density designation of the Comprehensive Plan, whichrecommends 3-6 units per acre of residential density. In addition, theComprehensive Plan recommends that "New developments adjacent to existingsubdivisions or developments shall be developed at higher densities and a form inkeeping with the Nieghborhood Model to support infill development efforts. The Outof Bounds property lies between The Collonades (PRD zoning) and CanterburyHills (R2 zoning).Typical slopes on the site are 5% with maximum slopes between 15% and 25%.There are no identifiable wetlands, streams, or critical resources on the site.$SSUR[LPDWHO\RIWKHVLWHLVZRRGHGZLWK´GLDPHWHUPL[HGKDUGZRRGVThe existing house may be considered as an historic resource.The focal point of the development plan is the integration of the existing homesite ina new Neighborhood Model development that extends Bennington Road, extendsGeorgetown Road, and creates a new streetscape at the intersection ofGeorgetown Road and Barracks Road. The existing two story Federal style homedates to the early 20th century and sits on a site with impressive landscaping andshade trees. The Georgetown Road extension is designed to preserve thishomesite on a large parcel (0.5 Ac min.) and to provide an urban street connectionto Bennington Road behind it.Block 1, located along the frontage of Barracks Road, is provided with a landscapebuffer because of it's unique location at the intersection of two prominent collectorroads. The General Development Plan shows 6 attached dwellings (villas), and theBlock Plan and Code of Development permit some variation of residential options.Any development of this site will require approval of the Albemarle CountyArchitectural Review Board as SR 654 is an Entrance Corridor to the County.Stormwater management facilities will be provided on site. Underground detentionwith infiltration/groundwater recharge is envisioned for the front and rear of theproperty. Final designs for stormwater management will be based on engineeringevaluation of soils and actual build out of the site. Existing sanitary sewer andwater connections are available to the site and the Applicant is procuringeasements as needed. Improvements, including a left turn lane on SR 654 will beprovided at the entrance to the site. A potential future extension of BenningtonRoad to the adjacent Colonnades propoerty is provided for in the design of theright-of-way.Three locations for amenities are anticipated as shown on sheet 4: approximately4,000 square feet is provided for a playground in the southeast corner of theproperty, and two areas of approximately 9,000 square feet are provided in Block6A. It is anticipated that the large open space amenity areas will be developed as aCommunity Park/Garden space with features to be proffered by the Applicant.Additional public recreation facilities, Charlotte Humphries Park, McIntire Park, andIvy Creek Natural Area are located nearby.Landscaping shall consist of large shade trees lining the proposed streets,sidewalks, and pedestrian ways throughout the site as well as within designatedOpen Space areas. Shade trees, interspersed with ornamental trees, shrubs, andgrasses, will be planted along the SR 654 Entrance Corridor, design of which willbe subject to review by the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board. Allparking areas will be screened both to protect views from SR 654 as well asneighboring residences. Along the eastern property line of Block 6D, a combinationof mixed evergreen trees and shrubs will also be planted to enhance the existingtrees and screening of the adjacent property.OUT OF BOUNDSCODE OF DEVELOPMENTTable of ContentsI.General Project InformationSheets 1,2,3II.General Development PlanSheet 4III.Block PlanSheet 5IV.Land Use SummarySheet 5V.Lot and Building RegulationsSheet 5VI.Development NarrativeSheet 6VII.Block CharacteristicsSheet 6VIII.Green Spaces and AmenitiesSheet 6IX. Existing Features to be PreservedSheet 6X. Architectural and Landscape StandardsSheet 6XI. Road Sections and DetailsSheet 7VII. Block Characteristics:Block 1Block 1 shall consist of 1-3 story residential buildings that front on Internal "RoadA". Parking shall be relegated to the front of the buildings (away from BarracksRoad. A streetscape with planting strips, sidewalks, and parallel parking (one side)shall be provided in Block 1.Block 2Block 2 shall consist of the existing single-family residence on a separate parcelfronting on the extension of Georgetown Road. Existing yard and landscapingaround the existing house shall be preserved within the lot.Block 3Block 3 shall consist of 11 residential units (attached and/or multi-family) accessedfrom Internal Private "Road A". The eight multi-family residences shown on thesouth side of the block shall be provided as affordable residential units (accordingto Albemarle County Affordable Housing Policy) and shall have a minimum of 1.5parking spaces per unit.Block 4ABlock 4A shall consist of 6 single family attached residences, 1-3 stories, withfront-loaded garages on a landscaped public street extension of S. BenningtonRoad. Off-street parking shall be provided on site and additional parking isprovided on-street along the extension of Georgetown Road.Block 4BBlock 4B shall consist of 6 single family attached residences, 1-3 stories, withfront-loaded garages on a landscaped public street extension of S. BenningtonRoad. Off-street parking shall be provided on site and additional parking isprovided on-street along the extension of Georgetown Road. the lower level, rearof these units shall front on a common Open Area, Block 6A.Block 5Block 5 shall consist of a 26 townhomes, fronting on Private Road B. Thetownhomes shall be 2-3 stories in height and guest parking and access shall beprovided from Georgetown Road Ext. through the Open Space Block 6A.Block 6Block 6 shall consist of the Open Space areas that provide vegetative screening,lanscape buffers (Block 6A), vegetative screening/buffers (Block 6B), andCommunity amenity areas and trails (Blocks 6A and 6B).Restrictions/Requirements Associated with Uses AbovexIn the table above, Attached Single Family housing refers to 2-4 units perbuilding and townhomes refers to 5 or more units per building. "Stacked"units are permitted in Single Family Attached buildings and Townhomesprovided that each unit has it's own ground level entrance.xNo stand-alone commercial uses are permitted.VIII. Green Space and Amenities:The neighborhood includes 2.35 acres of open space for: future road connections,stormwater management areas, community gardens and recreation, andlandscapebuffers. In addition, Blocks 2 and 6 provide some areas for treepreservation and mitigation.Architectural and Landscape Standards:Form, Massing, and Proportion of structuresAttached building facades facing a street shall not extend for more than 60 feetwithout a change in plane. The minimum change in plane shall be 2 feet and thecumulative total length of the change in plane shall extend for no less than 10% ofWKHOHQJWKRIWKHEXLOGLQJIDoDGH.Garages will be set back from face of porches within Blocks 1,3, and 4 to minimizethe appearance of garage doors along the street fronts. The architectural front ofunits in Block 5 faces the Open Space. Road B within Block 5 serves as the streetfrontage for purposes of subdivision but is architecturally a rear alley.Permitted Architectural Styles:To encourage flexibility and diversity of architecture, no restrictions on architectural style are specified in this code of development. Architectural designs shall be reviewed by a architecture subcommittee of the neighborhood association for approval. Initially, the developer/owner will fulfill therole of the neighborhood association.Permitted Building Materials:Exposed foundations shall be finished in stone, brick or stucco,Vinyl siding shall not be permitted.Masonry, wood, and composites of wood are permitted on facades,Roofs shall be architectural dimensional shingles, tile, or metal,&RORUVDQG)DoDGH7UHDWPHQW All exterior wood finishes (except flooring) shall be painted,Windows shall be proportional to the building massing,Buildings with siding shall have trim boards (minimum 5/4 x 4 width)Visibly discernible stories shall be achieved through the use of windows and/orbuilding entries on each story, using varied building materials, specialJURXQGIORRUGHVLJQWUHDWPHQWVDQGRWKHUIDoDGHHOHPHQWVRURWKHUarchitectural details.Roof Pitch and Design:Dormers shall match main roof in style and pitchMinimum roof pitch shall be 4:12, except for flat roof sections.The mass of the buildings in Block 1 as well as their respective roofs shouldbe broken up in order to achieve an appropriate look for the EntranceCorridor. A minimum of 2 distinct roof elevations shall be incorporated toachieve this. In addition to steps in the roof elements, other elements shouldbe incorporated such as: balconies, chimneys, dormers, and clerestories.For Blocks 2, 3, and 4: Dormers shall be incorporated into building design ofattached housing. Front entrances shall be covered and entrance roofdesigns shall vary. Garage doors should have decorative trim and be screenedwith landscaping.For Block 5: Any new architecture and landscaping should be designed toenhance the existing site features as shown on sheet C3. Garage doorsshould have decorative trim and be screened with landscaping.Architectural Review Committee:The neighborhood Architectural Review Committee shall approve detailedarchitectural standards based on the Code of Development prior to building permitapplication to Albemarle County. Prior to the recordation of the covenants andrestrictions for the neighborhood, they shall be submitted to the Director of Planningfor review to ensure compliance with the Code of Development. The developershall establish the neighborhood Architectural Review Committee prior to theissuance of the first building permit in order to enforce the Code of Development'sarchitectural and landscape standards set forth herein. A certificate of approvalfrom the neighborhood Architectural Review Committee must be approved prior tothe commencement of construction.Landscape Treatment:For all street tree and parking lot landscaping, as well as for screening of Blocks 1,refer to Section 32 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Albemarle CountyEntrance Corridor landscape guidelines also apply.IX. Existing Features to be Preserved:Sheet C3 of the Application Plan provides areas for tree preservation in the OpenSpace and the preservation of the existing homesite, to be incorporated as Block 2in the Application.Table of Uses by BlockBlockResidential Uses12345Detached Single-FamilyPPPAttached Single-FamilyPPPPTownhousePPPPMulti-FamilyPBoarding HousesSPSPSPSPSPHomes for DevelopmentallyDisabledPPPPPTourist LodgingResidential AccessoryUsesAccessory ApartmentPAccessory Buildings andUses including StorageBuildingsPBlockCommunity Uses12345Electric, gas, oil andcommunication facilities,excluding tower structures,owned and operated by apublic utilityPPPPPPublic Uses and BuildingsSPSPSPSPSPStormwater ManagementFacilitiesPPPPPBlockMiscellaneous Uses12345Home Occupation, Class APPPPPHome Occupation, Class BSPSPSPSPSPTemporary ConstructionUsesPPPPPTier I and Tier II personalwireless service facilityPPPPPX. Stormwater Management:The maximum density is subject to approval of stormwater management and streetstandards approved by the County Engineer.
SITE DETAILS
AABB
CCDDSTATE ROUTE 656GEORGETOWN ROADHUNTWOOD LANEST. RT. 654 - BARRACKS RD.VARIABLE WIDTH ROWREQUIRED SCREENING &
LANDSCAPING PLANwww.CADdetails.com3527(&7('%<&23<5,*+7&$'GHWDLOVFRP/7' AVAILABLE IN GRAND ILLUSIONS 35 COLORS AND 5 AUTHENTIC WOODGRAINSGRANDILLUsioNsCOLORRCSPETUMALL STYLESRANDLLUSIONSGIWOODGRAIN VINYL FENCE6' SOLID T&G WITH SMALL DIAGONAL LATTICEREVISION DATE 05/22/20123708-1086"90.5"2"
5.5"8.5"5.5"C5.5"B
AVinyl Screening Fence V3215DS-6SELECT DESIRED POST CAP MODELNEW ENGLAND - V55NE95.5"NOTES:1. ALL ILLUSIONS VINYL FENCES ARE ASTM F964-09 COMPLIANT2. FENCE TO BE BROWN WITH COLOR CODE L1063. INCLUDES METAL REINFORCEMENT BOTTOM RAILSELECT DESIRED POST OPTIONS:5" X 5" - .140 WALLSEE ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS FOR MORE INFORMATION.H(FT)6BINCHES34H(FT)6CINCHES47H(FT)6AINCHES108H(FT)6DINCHES72DFRONT ELEVATION1C8
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE
ZMA2012-003 Out of Bounds
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Rezone a 9.42 acre property from R-1 Residential
(1unit/acre) to NMD Neighborhood Model District
which allows residential (3-34 units/acre) mixed with
commercial, service and industrial uses. Maximum
of 56 residential units with the preservation of an
existing residence on 0.68 acres for a proposed
density of 6 units/gross acre. No commercial is
proposed.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Graham, Benish, Brooks, Roberge,
Yaniglos
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
November 13, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On July 30th, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application for the rezoning of the Out of Bounds
property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this ZMA with the expectation that the following be
provided/addressed prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting:
1. Technical revisions to the proffers.
2. Provide off- site drainage analysis.
3. Clarify affordable housing proffer as to the timing of the building of the units, and ensuring that the units will be
built.
4. Relocate the playground away from the Canterbury Hills neighborhood; possibly swap the gardens and the
playground.
5. Meet with all the neighbors along Smithfield Road and Smithfield Court concerning drainage. Remediate any
drainage issues.
On October 9, 2013, the Board of Supervisors deferred its public hearing on this application to November 13, 2013 at the
applicant’s request.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant has provided the following in response to the Commission’s expectations:
1. The proffers have been revised to the satisfaction of the County Attorney to address technical matters.
2. An off-site drainage analysis was submitted and reviewed by Engineering staff.
3. The affordable housing proffer has been revised to the satisfaction of the Housing Director, meets the
expectations of the affordable housing proffer policy and includes the timing of when the units will be built.
4. The playground has been relocated away from the Canterbury Hills neighborhood and is now located near the
Colonnades property.
5. There are drainage problems downstream from the Out of Bounds (OOB) site that have existed for many
years. The applicant and Engineering staff met with the residents along Smithfield Road and Smithfield Court
on September 4th to discuss these problems. Out of Bounds will be required under County regulations to meet
requirements for on-site stormwater detention, including detention provided by an existing on-site basin, and
no separate proffer is necessary to assure this. Although in complying with County regulations the Out of
Bounds development is not expected to further exacerbate the downstream problems, the applicant again met
with Canterbury Hills representatives, Mr. Rooker and staff on October 7, 2013 and has offered Proffer #5
(Attachment A) intended to address some of the concerns of the residents of Canterbury Hills concerning
drainage above and beyond the requirements of the County. As noted in 1. above, this proffer is technically
acceptable. However, the Deputy Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney have expressed concerns
2
that the proffer may be difficult to administer and enforce due to the lack of specificity in what would be the
level of maintenance expected after development of OOB is complete and turned over to its Homeowner’s
Association (HOA). Also, the County Engineer, Deputy Zoning Administrator, and the County Attorney
express concern that this proffer may put the County in a “no win” position of mediating the relative
contribution by the OOB development to future drainage repairs. Staff believes it would be better to have the
OOB “% share” of run-off contribution to the drainage channel be established up front as its share of
contribution for future maintenance/repairs. It should be noted that there are easements along some of the
downstream areas, but they have not been dedicated to public use and there are no public projects currently
planned that would allow for the maintenance of these easements by the County.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
While staff is concerned about the administration and enforcement of Proffer #5 and unsure of its effectiveness, the
applicant has addressed the expectations of the Planning Commission in making its recommendation and the Board can
approve ZMA2012-003 Out of Bounds inclusive of the proffers dated November 4, 1013 and signed November 5, 2013
(Attachment A) and the Code of Development dated 8/26/2013 (Attachment B).
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Proffers Dated November 4, 2013
B- Application Plan Inclusive of the Code of Development- Revision Date 8/26/2013
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1
JULY 30, 2013 – FINAL MINUTES
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 30, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session and regular meeting on
Tuesday, July 30, 2013, at 4:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second
Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Richard Randolph, Bruce Dotson, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Don
Franco, Calvin Morris, Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent for the 4:00 p.m. work
session and arrived at 7:03 p.m. for the regular meeting.
Other officials present were Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner;
Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; and Andy Herrick, Assistant Deputy County
Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items
ZMA-2012-00003 Out of Bounds
PROPOSAL: Rezone a 9.42 acre property from R-1 Residential (1unit/acre) to NMD
Neighborhood Model District which allows residential (3-34 units/acre) mixed with commercial,
service and industrial uses. Maximum of 56 residential units with the preservation of an existing
residence on 0.68 acres for a proposed density of 6 units/gross acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: YES
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential- residential (3-6 units/acre);
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small-scale non-residential
uses in Neighborhood 7.
LOCATION: Located on Barracks Road (Route 654) across from its intersection with
Georgetown Road (Route 656). 225 Out of Bounds Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06000000006500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
(Megan Yaniglos)
Megan Yaniglos presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential uses: single family, senior living, and multifamily.
Canterbury Hills, Hessian Hills, Huntwood Apartments, the Colonnades, and Barracks West.
Purpose of Hearing
• The applicant is requesting to rezone 9.42 acres from R-1 Residential to Neighborhood
Model District to allow up to 56 single family attached, townhouses, and multifamily
residential units, with the existing single family house to remain. No commercial or
industrial uses are proposed.
• Along with the rezoning request, the applicant is requesting a special exception for
critical slopes, as well as private streets request, sidewalk and planting strip
modification, and a curb and gutter modification.
The proposed plan shows attached units along Barracks Road and throughout the property.
The affordable units are proposed to be close to the Colonnades. Georgetown Road will be
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2
JULY 30, 2013 – FINAL MINUTES
extended into the property as well as connection with an existing public right-of-way for
Bennington Road Extended.
There have been a number of concerns from adjacent owners that were listed in the staff report.
Staff has addressed some of those. The applicant has also addressed some of their concerns.
Factors Favorable:
1. The development of the property is consistent with the land use recommendations in the
Comprehensive Plan, Neighborhood Model, and the goals for development in the
County.
2. Will provide tax revenues to the County.
3. A future interconnection is shown to the adjacent property.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proffers are in need of technical revisions.
2. Off- site drainage analysis has not been provided. Remediate any offsite drainage issues
through proffers
3. Affordable housing proffer to be clarified as to the timing of the building of the units
4. Relocate the playground to be included within
Staff’s Recommendation:
Staff can recommend approval of rezoning ZMA-2012-00003, Out of Bounds with the proffers,
special exception, and modifications provided technical changes are made to the proffers and
offsite drainage analysis is provided to address the unfavorable factors noted.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Dotson said he had a question on the recommendation. In the report there is an issue with
the curb and gutter waiver. He asked has that been resolved.
Ms. Yaniglos replied no, engineering and staff is still recommending denial of that waiver
because of drainage.
Mr. Loach asked if that recommendation is based on drainage and not consistency with the
Neighborhood Model to have curb and gutter.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that was correct.
Mr. Loach noted on page 7 the anticipated impact on public facilities and service in the second
paragraph it says VDOT has stated that this connection must be made as it has been
anticipated to extend to Bennington Road. It says “must” in the report from VDOT. He asked if
it was strongly suggested.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that was correct as stated in the email from VDOT in Attachment I of the
staff report.
Mr. Lafferty asked if staff did not have any problems with putting all the affordable housing in
one clump. The Comprehensive Plan says the affordable housing should be distributed
throughout the development and look as much like the rest of the houses as possible.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that the applicant can talk about it. However, staff’s understanding is the
units are going to be apartment type units below the townhouse or duplex unit. With the
number of units provided on site staff felt that it was a good location and did not necessarily
need to be dispersed on a 9 acre property as opposed to other developments that are larger.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 3
JULY 30, 2013 – FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Loach noted on page 7 it says the current cash proffer amounts is not correct. He asked
has it been corrected.
Ms. Yaniglos replied the applicant submitted the corrections after the writing of the staff report.
Staff has not had time to review the information for the meeting.
Mr. Loach asked if the applicant is comfortable with the Commission moving it forward with what
staff has read.
Ms. Yaniglos replied yes, because the applicant has stated that they are.
Mr. Benish pointed out that he thinks it is their intent. However, since it is late information
submitted staff has not had a chance to review it.
Mr. Smith asked how the Bennington Road connection will be made and if there will be bollards
or be open.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that it is open.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the idea of the roundabout died.
Mr. Benish replied for this review staff feels it is premature. From a VDOT standpoint in the long
term that might be a project they might consider in the future to address needs. However, it was
a new concept and too premature for this proposal.
Mr. Lafferty asked will it preclude putting in a roundabout.
Ms. Yaniglos pointed out the concept has not been explored enough for staff to want them to
dedicate the right-of-way. Without knowing the exact location it might impact the residential
units. Also, there might be other problems with locating a roundabout.
Mr. Smith asked if there is sufficient right-of-way dedicated for the widening and decal lane.
Mr. Yaniglos replied the left turn lane into the development actually has sufficient right -of-way to
add that lane. There is right-of-way for the right turn. However, she did not think a right turn
lane was warranted on the property.
Mr. Smith asked if they are taking more right-of-way than what exists.
Ms. Yaniglos replied no.
Mr. Smith asked in block C if there is enough space or land for a roundabout if they had to build
one.
Mr. Benish noted without a plan it was difficult to figure out how it would fit on this intersection.
Mr. Randolph asked if units 23 and 24 would need to be omitted if in fact the roundabout was to
be constructed.
Ms. Yaniglos replied the roundabout was commented on for the intersection of Georgetown and
Barracks Road, not Bennington and Georgetown Extended.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 4
JULY 30, 2013 – FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Randolph asked if the concern of residents from Canterbury Hills about drainage was still an
unresolved issue.
Mr. Yaniglos replied that the applicant was currently working on a drainage analysis to be
submitted to the County Engineer for review. However, to date they don’t have that. She
deferred the drainage question to Glenn Brooks, the County Engineer.
Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, said there are a number of lots directly downstream which
don’t really have a defined channel. The applicant would have to construct one, which is a
concern anytime it is done. Once you get across the street downstream there is a defined
channel and they are doing an analysis on that part to see if that is adequate. He understands
they have one easement from a property owner directly down the stream. So they have
permission to make improvements, but he did not know whether that is sufficient at this point.
The applicant would not be able to do improvements without that easement. However, they are
working on it and he suggested that the applicant also speak to it.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant
to address the Commission.
Justin Shimp, P.E. of Shimp Engineering, P.C., represented Vito Cetta who is the
owner/developer of this property. He asked to address a few of the items.
- Regarding the cash proffer, they simply submitted their cash proffer with last year’s
amount. They realized it had changed and just had not gotten the latest numbers.
- Regarding the affordable housing, they were using the same concept as Riverside
Village. They were going to handle the affordable housing with a townhome over
townhome type of unit. So the buildings themselves will fit in with the neighborhood, be
a little smaller unit, and address the affordable housing. It is a very specific design that
will be consistent with the neighborhood as far as buildings of scale and quality. It will
look exactly the same, but simply be a different type of unit.
- The drainage study is also required with the site plan. One of the concerns with looking
at it now is that there is a house directly downstream of this property with a dry pond.
When the builder built it they managed to put the house below the street. Instead of
piping the water across they put a drop inlet in the back corner in the forest that got
covered with leaves continuously. The water would come in and could flood somebody’s
house. He reminded them that this was before any development ever occurred. It is just
in its natural state. It is simply a function of a system where somebody tried to fix it, but
just did not go quite all the way through.
- They have acquired an easement from the property owner to run a pipe through the
yard. It will be sized for our entire development runoff. So instead of dumping the water
into the yard where it is supposed to find a drain to go into that is covered with leaves, it
will be piped all the way through. Then they will go down across the street where there
are defined channels. There are easements so if there are any problems they can
address those. They do not think there will be. However, they are essentially
conducting a survey and study of all of those downstream locations. He thinks that
connection can really be addressed at either time because the State law would require
them to address downstream impacts anyway. However, Vito Cetta said he would be
happy to do it now. Therefore, they are doing it now and will have it submitted shortly.
He has walked this area and found there are no houses close to these waterways that
are in any sort of danger of flooding or dealing with an inadequate drain situation other
than the one house that they have already got the drainage easement for and will be
able to fix. That is all the comments he has. However, he would be happy to answer
questions.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 5
JULY 30, 2013 – FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Loach asked why he was requesting a curb and gutter exemption on one section when he
was here with a Neighborhood Model development.
Mr. Shimp replied the road to the back of the site was a street that is somewhat of an alley
configuration where there are a lot of garages. There is not going to be much curb. Their
request for that was based on the concept that they may have some type of alternative drainage
structure there. It might be a little mini-landscaped garden that the water would flow into instead
of into a curb. They have not ironed out that design entirely. Therefore, they could move
forward without that waiver at the moment and then if they come up with a design that is
agreeable with the County Engineer they could waive that during the site plan process, too. It is
not a critical element. The idea is to make that street like an alley. A 20 ’ pavement width is
required by the street standards. However, it is going to have a lot of driveways on it. It will
have a little curbed bump and then a driveway and then a little curb bump. It is not really going
to have curb on the side anyway. The intension of the waiver was simply not to provide little
curb bumps everywhere if the drainage is going into the middle of the alley or middle of the
street.
Mr. Loach asked if the front is towards the green space or the alley.
Mr. Shimp replied architecturally the frontage is towards the green space. However, from a
zoning standpoint the frontage is the private road.
Mr. Loach said if most of the access for the residents is going to be out towards the alleyways
he thinks it is a higher probability it should have curb and gutter.
Ms. Monteith asked where the drainage easement is located.
Mr. Shimp explained that the drainage easement once it goes across that yard goes into the
street in a large concrete pipe, is piped through two more yards, and then comes out into a
ditch. He has walked down there and it is not at all like the house situation where there is
danger of the house flooding. There may be a question whether they need to add a little rip rap
in the ditch. But, the ditch is 10’ below someone’s house and is not really a flooding or impact
issue. It is more of a maintenance issue at this point since it floods downstream.
Mr. Smith asked if it would be an open ditch or piped.
Mr. Shimp replied that it is piped down about two houses on that side of the street. Then it goes
into an open ditch in the back of a gentleman’s house. He spoke to that gentleman a few weeks
ago. Then it runs down into a very large creek that is a floodplain type of area, which flows in
under the subdivision road and under the bypass, and eventually comes out near Barracks
Road.
Mr. Lafferty asked if those houses have flooded in the past.
Mr. Shimp replied the ones directly down from their site where they have the easement have
flooded. They now can understand why because the drains are all clogged.
Mr. Lafferty asked if he could assume they would take full responsibility for correcting the
problem and be willing to put that in writing.
Mr. Shimp replied that he thinks the State Code requires that. He feels confident that they will
not approve a plan that has drainage jumping into someone’s yard flooding. He suggested that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 6
JULY 30, 2013 – FINAL MINUTES
they ask Mr. Brooks since the application plan shows the pipe and the plan is proffered. They
have not put it in writing to date, but he supposed they could. However, it has to be done.
Mr. Lafferty said there is just a lot more surface drainage that has to drain, which will increase
the runoff.
Mr. Shimp said they have to take into account that they can’t increase their peak volume of
runoff as part of the site plan. There is an existing condition or drainage problem for this
particular project. So even if they did not increase the water at all with their changes they would
still have a drainage issue, which they are going to fix. They will release no more water than
currently goes through there and will provide a pipe to get it past that one house. So they don’t
envision any impacts to anybody.
Mr. Lafferty asked if they were taking out the retention pond, and Mr. Shimp replied yes.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out it did not have a chance to have a reservoir and settle out some.
Mr. Shimp said they are going to provide underground detention systems. In fact, oddly it
seems that basin was built by the County about 20 years ago. There is a deed that requires if it
is ever replaced that the equivalent detention be provided back at a minimum.
Mr. Lafferty said he did not want to get the County into that position again that they have to go in
and correct somebody else’s problem.
Mr. Shimp said they feel confident that Mr. Brooks will have them address the issue.
Mr. Lafferty commented that he found the plat a little hard to read in figuring out which road was
which particularly when he had the different cross sections that did not account to the road. For
example, Road B has a cross section of D/D. It took a while to figure out what was going on
since they were talking about different classes of roads.
Mr. Shimp said they would change that section to B. They have tried to be clear that the road is
a public road or a private road and the standards. However, staff can hold them to that when
they get to a site plan.
Mr. Smith asked if the basin on the plan was a farm pond.
Mr. Shimp replied from reading the deeds it appears that the County actually built it on this
property. There was an easement for it 20 years ago.
Mr. Lafferty said it was a retention pond.
Mr. Shimp pointed out the builder who came in built those houses below the street and created
this sort of sunken condition. They believe it was done after that to try to address that problem
for those neighbors.
Mr. Smith asked if there was any kind of outlet structure.
Mr. Shimp replied there was a metal stand pipe that discharges. The problem is the pipe dumps
over land into the adjoining property. Even though it does detention the yard drains get clogged
up and they still have flooding. So it needs to be fixed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7
JULY 30, 2013 – FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Randolph asked what size piping is going to be needed from the retention ponds to move
the volume of water between the two houses. He asked if the pipe goes underneath Smithfield
Road and is currently concrete.
Mr. Shimp replied that he believed the pipe dimension was 30” or 36”.
Mr. Randolph asked in all likelihood if that pipe would need to be expanded.
Mr. Shimp replied they would not think so. However, that will be determined by the study.
Mr. Randolph asked if all the residents on Smithfield Road and Smithfield Court are aware of
the fact that potentially that frontage might need to be redone to include a larger pipe if it was
determined that it was necessary.
Mr. Shimp replied that he had talked to the resident at the corner and at the end of the cul-de-
sac. There was no one home at the house in between when they went out there. As part of the
study they will have to get permission to go on their property. However, there is an actual
recorded drainage easement across the property. His understanding is they could be compelled
essentially to improve that without the property owner’s permission. They would not want to do
that. However, he thinks the easement will allow that if the County insisted upon it.
Mr. Randolph asked what they plan to do with the early 20th century house since there was
nothing about what the use would be within the development.
Mr. Shimp replied that it would be a single-family residence, which will remain on its own
approximately 1 acre lot.
Mr. Randolph asked the variety of housing types they plan to put in and what the mix would be.
Mr. Shimp replied this plan is proffered without variations or it is very minimal because the
owner Vito Cetta has specific plans for this. The plan as proffered has about 15 or 20 of a 30’ to
40’ wide patio home, which would be a one story with a basement. There are a number of
townhomes that are three stories on Road C. Then the multifamily is over in the neighborhood
of the affordable housing. Those look more like townhomes, but are classified as multifamily
because it is two households per unit. Otherwise, it is fairly consistently a single-family
attached townhome type project with two different primary unit types.
Mr. Randolph asked if he could address a concern brought up by residents in Canterbury Hills.
Why are the townhomes being proposed at a height of 45 feet?
Mr. Shimp replied that the townhomes are three stories with the floor system being 10’ to 11’.
Of course, the roof is counted as part of that as well. The number comes up somewhere short
of 45’, which is the height required for a three-story townhome with a roof.
Mr. Randolph applauded their design of Road B. However, he was curious if they had thought
about doing the same thing for Road A.
Mr. Shimp replied in this case the owner has a very specific product in mind, which happens to
be a front loaded, front facing product. They pulled the unit away from the road to provide some
screening to keep the back of the buildings being too visible from the road. However, it is not
designed to be right up facing on Barracks Road. It is so the units are consistent with the other
ones from the public road being front facing with front entry.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 8
JULY 30, 2013 – FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Dotson noted they have a playground in the far corner, which is as far away from people as
it could get. It is also in the backyards and potentially noisy to the neighbors. He asked why the
playground was there and not in the crossroads of the project on land that is also public area.
Mr. Shimp replied that design was done by the owner. He would not imagine it would be too
noisy in that area. There was intent to leave the open space between the units, particularly for
the units towards the back of the townhomes. They wanted to leave as much open space as
they could to make community garden type areas.
Mr. Dotson commented where they have the playground would make a great place for a
community garden.
Mr. Morris noted the Planning Commission would take a break and then take public comment.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:46 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:54
p.m.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Mr. Denny King, resident of Montvue in the Jack Jouett District, said he was not adamantly
opposed to the Out of Bounds project, but wanted to share his concerns. His primary concerns
are about the increased traffic. He has watched traffic build both on Georgetown Road and
Barracks Road especially during the heavy business hours early in the morning and late
afternoon. He liked the idea of the roundabout since it has a positive impact on traffic flow. He
was concerned for the residents of the Canterbury neighborhood and Colonnades and the noise
it might bring to the bordering residents. The added burden to the infrastructure of the Jack
Jouett District is a concern for the schools, first responder, and fire/rescue people. He hoped all
considerations are addressed. Upon arrival tonight he spoke with a dear friend who is a
resident of Canterbury and she said some of the requests from the developer certainly have
been met.
Joe Phillips, resident of Canterbury Hills, said his principle concern was the connection of
Bennington Road. However, he has looked at the files, the VDOT report and the rights of way
and understands the necessity of that connection. However, his difficulty is the density. The
property was R-1, which allowed about 9 units. Now they are talking about 54 units. At a
conservative two cars per unit they are talking about over 100 cars coming to and from during
rush hour. He has lived in the neighborhood for 20 years and would guarantee that people
would come up Barracks Road and wait for a left turn off of that light. They are going to take the
first available left and work their way back in.
Mr. Phillips said he also takes issue with the statement that the applicant has worked with the
residents on the development of this plan. The plan was presented to our neighborhood on the
20th of May at which time this was going to be before the Commission on the 16th of July. This
was over months if not over a year of working with staff to develop this plan. It was presented
as essentially a done deal with full backing and support of the County and VDOT. The
subsequent examples of addressing their concerns amount to basically tweaks to a design that
has not changed in scope whatsoever. He is an architect and understands the importance of
vegetation, setbacks, and that sort of thing. However, the fundamental flaw of this design is the
number of units or the density and not the vegetation and setbacks. He thinks a density of 3 to
4 would address the neighborhood’s concerns including traffic issues. The developer would still
have a 300 to 400 permit increase over the by right development level and the Neighborhood
Development Model is kept. That is a win/win situation. He asked on that basis that the
Commission deny the application as currently configured and send it back for rework at a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 9
JULY 30, 2013 – FINAL MINUTES
density that is more appropriate and addresses the concerns of groups beyond just the
developer.
James Donohue, a member of the Canterbury Hills Association Board, presented their views
regarding this development. As Mr. Phillips pointed out they are opposed to the connection at
Bennington Road because of the increase in traffic. They remain opposed to the rezoning and
would like to keep it R-2, which is the same zoning as Canterbury Hills. Assuming that the
application is approved they have set up a subcommittee and have met with the owner/builder.
They have agreed informally to work with him to satisfy some of their concerns. Those
concerns would include:
- Georgetown Road Extended will follow the topography as closely as possible in order to
avoid disturbing the existing trees.
- The existing living trees and shrubbery adjacent to Canterbury Hills will be retained as
much as possible.
- An attempt to make some alignment changes to Georgetown Road Extended as it gets
closer to Barracks Road to allow up to a 25’ green space as much as possible.
- A preliminary landscaping plan will be available for the Association subcommittee to
review. That plan shall include aerial and street view drawings at various levels of plant
maturity.
- Planting or some type of acceptable barrier/fencing or a combination of both will be
placed on the borders adjacent to Canterbury Hill.
- Particular attention will be paid to shielding the areas that may be affected by cars
exiting the side streets to the right at night.
- Any fencing that is constructed will essentially be on the property line of Out of Bounds
unless otherwise agreed by our subcommittee.
- Our committee will have meaningful input to any proposed landscaping plan and that
plan will become part of the application process.
Peadar Little, a homeowner in Hessian Hills, said his difficulty with the plan relates to traffic.
Currently any of the homeowners in Hessian Hills exiting onto Georgetown Road have a very
difficult time turning left towards the traffic lights. If the new traffic lights increase the number of
access points from three to four, then the traffic will further back up on Georgetown Road and
make it increasingly difficult to exit from Hessian Hills. Georgetown Road is very close to
Albemarle High School and there is a heavy volume of school buses. Even on non-heavy times
of the day it is a difficult exit. He asked that the plan be rejected on the basis of the extra impact
it has on traffic in that area, which is already overly congested.
Paula Roundon, member of Jack Jouett District and a resident of Huntwood neighborhood for
23 years said her parents are homeowners. She was concerned with the increase in traffic.
She just spent the past year volunteering in Ethiopia. She noticed a very marked difference in
the traffic going west on Barracks Road. It has increased tr emendously. It is very hard to make
a turn exiting Huntwood onto Barracks already. She could not image the effects of the increased
traffic if this new development was approved. This area did not lack housing. She rejected the
idea of a roundabout since in Ethiopia that was the place where most accidents happened. She
suggested that the speed limit be changed going west on Barracks Road. It begins at 45 miles
per hour at the intersection of Georgetown and Barracks and it changes to 35 miles per hour to
go back into town. She suggested changing the speed limit to 35 miles per hour at the
Colonnades going both directions if this proposal was approval to make it safer for everyone.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing and invited the
applicant for a five minutes rebuttal.
Justin Shimp asked to go over a couple items. First, is the time of the developer and how long
he has been working on this plan. This proposal was submitted originally by a different
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 10
JULY 30, 2013 – FINAL MINUTES
developer about a year or so ago and then Vitto Cetta picked it up. They have not been sitting
on the proposal for a long time. He has been very active in meeting with County staff to work
out details to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Certainly those are things they feel
have been done.
- There will be some impacts to traffic. They will do a traffic study and it will show that.
They get a benefit of a pedestrian leg or pedestrian movement with some safety across
Barracks Road. There will be about a million dollar change in cash proffers that will be
targeted towards certain improvements in that area. So there is certainly an offset.
They know that folks don’t see that right away. However, that is money that will get paid
and go into the County CIP budget for addressing some of those concerns. This is an
infill development. The Comprehensive Plan talks about even higher densities. While
there are neighborhoods around it is also very close to primary shopping destinations
and points of destinations. So folks have less distance to travel on roads in Albemarle
County if they live in locations like this in an infill project. That covers most of the site
issues.
- He wants to get their Landscape Architect to talk about the process they have had with
the neighborhood. They have had a meeting and sent out some draft designs. There
was some discussion about what the fence should be. He asked the architect to fill the
Commission in on what the design concept is right now. They feel they are at a point
they can get that worked out for the board meeting. The differences he has seen are
things about the size of the picket fence, materials and color. However, they are
committed to providing those elements that they have discussed. They are keeping the
road as far away as possible in the location as close to 25’ as they can. So they are
trying to do those things and feel like they are very close to getting them done.
Mark Keller, Landscape Architect with Terra Concepts, said he had not heard tonight that
landscaping and screening was an issue. However, apparently during the break that was a hot
topic of discussion. He was brought in about ten days ago by Mr. Cetta to attend a meeting on
one day’s notice with the neighbors. The purpose of that meeting was to listen to the concerns
with regard to screening, primarily of car headlights and noise for the three roads. As it turns
out they have 20’ more or less of green space between the right-of-way of the road and their
back property lines and a little bit additional area where they see the street trees. Although
there is a bit of a hump in the road coming off Georgetown in his professional opinion that is
more room than he typically gets on a site plan to do buffering and landscaping. He feels
confident that they can accomplish what the neighbors have expressed that they want in a
meeting just a week ago. He promised within that first week they would have drawings. He
prepared the drawings and he believed they received them. His first reaction from the
neighbors is they feel they are making good progress. He knows that they want the fence a little
higher. Upon Mr. Cetta’s return from vacation they will pick this ball up and move it. They are
looking at almost maintenance free fencing and moving from 6’ to 8’. The fence would be PVC
and not wood. In addition, there would be evergreen plantings and shrubs. The fence will go in
not only to screen during construction, but also to provide the intermediate effect that
landscaping cannot. He would suggest that they would continue working with the neighbors
since this is not an issue he would vote to delay the project on at this point.
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Mr. Smith asked what type of vinyl fence and if it would it vertical.
Mr. Keller replied that it would be a solid green PVC fence and would look like solid panels and
simulated wood construction with independent members.
Mr. Smith asked what size and variety of evergreens would be planted.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 11
JULY 30, 2013 – FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Keeler replied he showed up at the meeting with a list of evergreen trees and types of
shrubs that they would probably want to use. After the meeting and hearing their comments he
actually felt that he missed a step and did not refer as much as he should to the Albemarle
County recommended plant list. He went back to the list and knowing that an effective and most
intermediate screen would probably provide it best by use of something like a Deodar Cedar.
The trees can be planted very close together. The other plants on the list that he would feel free
to use are Magnolia trees and if more natural they could use Cedar trees. He advised the client
that the fence needs to be the first thing to go up. They did a site section to show how the car
lights are screened and will not hit the first floor of those buildings. Most of those homes are
single story.
Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring it back before the Commission for discussion and
action.
Mr. Lafferty said there were drainage problems, but they have assurance that the applicant will
provide in writing that they will be responsible for the drainage. The density is a problem for the
neighbors. However, our Comprehensive Plan says when doing infill they should strive for the
maximum density. He actually sees the interconnection along Bennington as being favorable
because it gives them an opportunity to come to a traffic light if they want to turn left. He knows
Barracks Road does get very busy. Quite often he comes from the other side of the street and
has to turn right, which means he has to go across. Therefore, he knows the traffic is a
problem. He thinks they took care of the buffer. The other comment was about the concept of
the Neighborhood Model. He believes the Neighborhood Model desired complete streets
whereas this Road B is certainly not a complete street. In addition, there is very little about
bicycle access.
Mr. Loach noted that the Commission hears sentiments about traffic from every development
that comes before them. They realize that traffic is an issue. However, the Comprehensive
Plan encourages this type of plan. He suggested if they want to see a development done by
Mr. Cetta they should go to Waylands Grant in Crozet. It may help put it in some context. The
development came out very well and he thinks it works well for the community. He agreed with
Mr. Lafferty about the connectivity. The notes from VDOT are very specific about connectivity
and they have been encouraging connectivity. With regards to the sidewalks he would leave
out the waivers requested by the applicant and let staff handle that within the final design of the
plan along with the drainage and what would be needed. Obviously, his preference is if this is a
Neighborhood Model that this has curb and gutter.
Ms. Yaniglos asked if it was for the curb and gutter and not the sidewalks.
Mr. Loach replied yes. He noted that they want to make sure it is complete and consistent with
the Neighborhood Model recommendations.
Mr. Smith said if he had lived in Canterbury Hills for 30 or 40 years he would not want the
development in his backyard or the connective street. It will be an exit in and an entrance.
However, the previous speaker is correct that people will turn in and come through the
subdivision. Also, maybe some of the people in the subdivision will turn and go out there to use
the light. He liked the buffer that they are going to have. He would assume it will be fine with
the fence and evergreens along the area. Light is something that irritates him since there is
nothing worse than having somebody’s lights shine in the windows. Hopefully, the buffer will
alleviate that problem.
Mr. Randolph commented in terms of the Neighborhood Model that he was happy to see
interconnected streets and the transportation network. It is absolutely essential in order to move
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 12
JULY 30, 2013 – FINAL MINUTES
this request forward that a meeting occur with all the neighbors prior to the Board of Supervisors
hearing. It would include all of those neighbors affected by the drainage pipes, which include
Smithfield Court and Smithfield Road. His concern is there are neighbors that have not yet
been met with. They have an easement, but the neighbors should be advised that potentially
their front yard may be torn up. They need to understand it because not everyone reads their
deed with great attention to detail when they buy a piece of property. It is essential that those
people be advised that potentially that pipe might need to be enlarged and affect their property.
This is consistent with the Neighborhood Model and he liked the effort here overall. Traffic is
our ongoing problem, which is something they have to balance.
Mr. Dotson said he won’t repeat what has already been said. He would ask that the applicant
consider interchanging the community gardens and the playground. Playgrounds are
wonderful; however, they do generate noise. The better the playground the more fun the kids
have and the more noise there is. He thinks that could be an issue to some of the Canterbury
Hill residents. Therefore, he would like the applicant to consider that interchange.
Mr. Franco echoed the comment about the playground. He thinks the open space seems like a
lot of backyard space as opposed to really functional open space. However, a playground that
is organized really needs to be more central to this development. The only other comment he
has not heard is the affordable housing. His question is as a standalone building in there now is
there any requirement that it be built at a certain time. In other words, how do they prevent this
from being the last piece ever built. It may never get built on and could end up being a lot that
sits there. He asked is there any kind of insurance or trigger in the code or the proffers to get
that to happen part way through.
Mr. Benish replied that it was not identified in the proffers as yet. That could be something staff
can work towards with the applicant.
Mr. Franco said that it would be important to ensure that gets built.
Mr. Morris asked if there was a motion.
Ms. Yaniglos noted there would be five separate motions.
Action on Zoning Map Amendment:
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved to recommend approval of ZMA 2012-00003, Out of Bounds with
the changes stated as unfavorable factors as recommended by staff.
Mr. Franco asked if he would accept an amendment to ask that the affordable housing be dealt
with to ensure that the affordable housing is built.
Mr. Randolph noted that he had already addressed that.
Mr. Franco asked what about the playground movement.
Amended Motion: Mr. Randolph amended the motion to add unfavorable factors to ask the
applicant to look into and carefully study reversal to switch the playground and the community
garden.
Mr. Lafferty asked if he would accept an amendment that the developer will be responsible for
the drainage, not just the study, and they will remediate it for the adjoining property owners.
Mr. Randolph accepted the amendment suggested by Mr. Lafferty.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 13
JULY 30, 2013 – FINAL MINUTES
Motion for ZMA-2012-00003
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of ZMA 2012-
00003, Out of Bounds with the changes stated as unfavorable factors as recommended by staff,
as amended.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proffers are in need of technical revisions and clarity as to when the affordable housing
would be built.
2. Off- site drainage analysis has not been provided.
3. Affordable housing proffer to be clarified as to the timing of the building of the units, and
ensuring that the units will be built.
4. Relocate the playground to be located away from the Canterbury Hills neighborhood,
possibly swap the gardens and the playground.
5. Meet with all the neighbors along Smithfield Road and Smithfield Court concerning
drainage. Remediate any drainage issues.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Loach asked how they would handle the sidewalks and curb and gutter. Ms. Yaniglos
replied it would be separate motions.
Mr. Morris noted ZMA-2012-00003 would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a
recommendation for approval. He asked for a motion on the critical slopes modification.
Critical Slopes Modification:
Ms. Yaniglos noted that the critical slopes modification is just a recommendation for a special
exception.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out these were man-made critical slopes.
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of the special
exception for a critical slopes modification for ZMA-2012-00003, Out of Bounds, as
recommended by staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Private Street Requests:
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to approve the private streets as
recommended by staff in the staff report subject to final approval of ZMA-2012-00003 Out of
Bounds.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Sidewalk and Planting Strips:
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to approve the sidewalk and planting
strip modification for ZMA-2012-00003, Out of Bounds as recommended by staff and stated in
the staff report, with the condition recommended by staff related to the planting strip
modification and subject to final approval of ZMA 2012-00003.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 14
JULY 30, 2013 – FINAL MINUTES
1. Street trees shall be provided on both sides of the street in accordance with Chapter 18
Section 32 of the Zoning Ordinance for Bennington Road Extended, Georgetown Road
Extended, and Road ‘A’.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Curb and Gutter Modifications:
Ms. Yaniglos noted staff is recommending denial of the curb and gutter modifications.
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved and Mr. Franco seconded to approve the curb and gutter
modification subject to approval of ZMA-2012-00003 Out of Bounds.
Mr. Loach pointed out staff recommended denial.
Mr. Randolph withdrew his motion and Mr. Franco withdrew his second.
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved and Mr. Loach seconded for denial of the curb and gutter
modification for ZMA-2012-00003 Out of Bounds for the reasons stated by staff.
Mr. Morris invited discussion.
Mr. Franco noted with the design that has been submitted they are supporting the way that is
built since it is only the strips between the driveways that would have curb and gutter on them.
Therefore, the curb and gutter is not that important in this particular instance. The drainage
needs to be dealt with.
Mr. Loach noted the applicant came up and said that they would resolve the curb and gutter.
He was happy to resolve the curb and gutter with staff and engineering as far as the overall
design of drainage. He thinks if it is Neighborhood Model, then it gets curb and gutter. He feels
that the sidewalk is important since he sees that as the main way that people are going to be
getting in and out of that area.
Mr. Franco said from his perspective in looking at the plan it is dealing with just the last block on
the far right. When they have that many driveways there they are also going to be sending
people across driveways as far as the paths go. Because there is an alternative route, which is
on the other side of the houses, he was okay not having sidewalks here. He does not
necessarily want to encourage people to be walking right there where cars are parked and
backing out. They can walk in the streets since there are not that many houses that are here.
He would rather eliminate that concern right there.
Mr. Loach said he would rather not use kids as traffic calming.
Mr. Franco noted the traffic calming comes from the street being only 200’ long.
Mr. Smith asked how much curb and gutter they were talking about.
Mr. Franco replied there was 5’ between each driveway. So there is 10’ plus a little bit in
between the two breaks in the houses. Everything else is going to be sort of a driveway. The
bubble between the driveway is the curb.
Mr. Brooks pointed out there are a couple of ways that can be built. Most places in the County
will do continuous asphalt like Mr. Franco is alluding to from door to door. It will just have those
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 15
JULY 30, 2013 – FINAL MINUTES
little green bump outs in between. So the whole thing would be a continuous field of asphalt,
which they won’t have much control over. For instance, what will control the drainage on that
road is really the elevation of the units. If all the units are higher than the road, it all drains to the
road and down. That is great. If one side is lower, which he anticipates here since the
Canterbury side will be lower, they will have difficulty keeping the drainage in the road because
with the continuous asphalt it tends to go down the driveways. So one of the other ways they
can do this is with a concrete apron so it effectively tries to continue to a gutter pan through the
edges of the roadway with a slight bump before you go down the driveway. Sometimes that is
successful and sometimes it is not. It depends on how good your contractor is at keeping the
grades in a form and the builder is getting the elevations right on the units. He was not the
direct reviewer in their engineering group, but he thinks the reason they were not in favor of the
curb and gutter was simply trying to capture all of the water. This has a concept of putting
everything in an underground tank or detention system where it is detained and held back
before it is released into Canterbury. They wanted that to be as effective as possible. They did
not want one-half of those units to be escaping uncontrolled into the backyards of Canterbury.
So they wanted to try to get everything towards the road and captured. It was not really a
matter of thinking the Neighborhood Model was important or trying to get as much curbing in to
contain the street, grass and things like that. They were just trying to get all of the drainage into
the system, which is hard to do in a situation like this.
Mr. Franco said with that said it sounds like it is something to be dealt with at the site plan. He
was happy to not to recommend approval of the matter.
Mr. Randolph noted that the original motion is still on the table, which was for staff ’s
recommendation of denial of the curb and gutter.
The motion for denial passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted the curb and gutter request was denied. All of this will go before the Board of
Supervisors at a time to be determined recommending denial of the curb and gutter request.
ZMA 201200004
BOS December 11, 2013
Executive Summary Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA201200004, Avon Park II
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to rezone 5.262 acres from R-6
residential zoning district to PRD, planned
residential district zoning district to allow 32
maximum residential units.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Benish, Grant
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
December 11, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On September 11, 2013, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing for the Avon Park II rezoning request.
The Board, by a vote of 6:0, deferred ZMA201200004 with proffers, to December 9th in order to give the
applicant time to address concerns from adjacent residents re garding this rezoning request. Staff and the
Planning Commission had recommended approval of the rezoning request.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant has provided the following revisions to the application plan (Attachment A):
• The townhouses shown as lots 8 – 10 have been relocated from the northeast corner to the southwest
corner of the intersection of Hathaway Street and Stratford Way.
• Lot widths, street parking, and street tree locations have all been adjusted to accommodate the
relocation of the townhouses.
• Additional street lighting is now provided for the streets and path to the tot lot.
• Side setbacks have been increased from 5 feet to 7.5 feet for lots adjacent to the existing Avon Park I
houses.
• A landscape buffer is added to the north side of t he project, adjacent to the existing Avon Park I
residences. Also in reference to maintaining the existing landscape buffer on the north side of the
project adjacent to Avon Park I, a note has been added regarding the saving of existing trees if
possible.
• The cover sheet of the plan has a revised parking schedule and bedroom table to reflect relocated lots
and a revised note now indicates that street lighting is provided.
The following summarize the revisions to the proffers (Attachment B), exclusive of minor technical revisions:
• Proffers 1 and 2, the affordable housing proffers, have been revised to reflect the revised lot numbers.
• Proffer 3, regarding the cash contribution to mitigate fiscal impacts, has been revised to show a credit
for 5 by-right units, which was the number of by-right units that could be developed under the R-1
zoning of the site before it was amended to R -6 when ZMA 2007-00005 was approved on November
14, 2007. The proffers accepted in conjunction with ZMA 2007 -00005 did not provide a credit for the by-
right units allowed under the prior R-1 zoning. Staff has verified that 5 units could have been
constructed on the site under the R-1 zoning.
• Proffer 6 has been added to address overlot grading concerns to requir e that all grading be conducted
pursuant to an overlot grading plan approved by the County Engineer.
As discussed by the Board, the applicant has met with the adjacent neighbors regarding their concerns
about the pending development and has addressed the neighbors’ concerns. It is staff’s understanding that
ZMA 201200004
BOS December 11, 2013
Executive Summary Page 2
the neighbors are satisfied with the revisions proposed by the applicant. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s
revisions and finds them satisfactory with the exception of the credit for cash proffers option that goes back
to a couple prior rezoning requests, proposed by the applicant. The applicant has also provided Attachment
C, the proffers without a credit for the by-right units, as an option. This is an issue the Board will need to
address.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
If the Board is satisfied with the applicant’s revisions, including the by-right development credit for the by-right units
predating the current zoning, staff recommends approval of ZMA2012-00004 with the attached proffers and
application plan. (See Attachments A and B)
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Application plan, dated August 20, 2012, revised October 25, 2013
Attachment B: Proffers, dated December 2, 2013
Attachment C: Proffers, dated November 21, 2013
PC minutes
Return to agenda
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 19, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, March
19, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Bruce Dotson, Don Franco, Richard Randolph,
Thomas Loach, Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chairman, and Calvin Morris, Chairman.
Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Megan Yaniglos, Senior
Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning
Commission; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA-2012-00004 Avon Park II
PROPOSAL: Rezone 5.262 acres from R-6 zoning district for which allows residential
uses at a density of 6 units per acre to PRD zoning district which allows residential uses
with limited commercial uses at a density of 3 - 34 units/acre. 32 maximum units
proposed for a density of 6 units/acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential– residential (3-6
units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small-
scale non-residential uses.
LOCATION: 1960 Avon Street Extended. Approximately 1000 feet north of the
intersection of Avon Street Extended and Route 20, south of existing Avon Court.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09000000003100
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
(Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation to summarize the staff report.
Proposal: The applicant is requesting to rezone 5.262 acres from R -6, residential
zoning district to PRD, Planned Residential Development District. In order to explain
the proposal staff provided the following background.
Background:
Avon Park II was originally rezoned and approved in 2007 for 31 residential units
inclusive of 7 single family detached units and 24 condominiums/ townhouse units. The
applicant is now proposing 32 residential units, which are inclusive of 20 single-family
detached units and 6 condominium/ townhouses that will also have 6 apartments within
them. Without going into too much detail, which is provided in the staff report, the
applicant has had some difficulty completing the currently approved project. They
anticipate a better outcome with the proposed changes.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
2
The proposed application plan, as shown in the presentation, proposes single -family
residential units in a section. The 6 townhouses with the apartments would be in the
middle along with additional single-family detached units. There are a couple more
single-family detached units at the rear. The area close to Avon Street Extended is
described as an open space somewhat like a park area.
Staff reviewed the approved application plan noting some of the differences and
similarities of the two plans. In one plan the townhouse units were more at the rear of
the property with a few in the middle. The single-family detached units were in the area
closer to Avon Street Extended. The park area and open space are still the same. The
plans have not changed significantly.
As described in the staff report, the changes proposed are not very different than what
was approved in 2007. However, one of the major issues for staff with this proposal has
to do with the incomplete Arden Drive, which is proposed to be the only access for this
development. The applicant has provided a proffer that conditions the resolution of
Arden Drive on the f irst Certificate of Occupancy. Staff recommends proffer 5 to be
revised to prohibit the applicant from applying to subdivide the property. In its current
state Arden Drive does not comply with the County Code. Staff notes there are some
additional revisions that are needed to the proffers that were not mentioned in the staff
report, but recently have been found as issues that need to get corrected as well.
Staff has identified the following favorable factors:
1. The rezoning request would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The use is consistent with the uses permitted under the existing PRD zoning
district and the prior zoning approved on this site.
3. This rezoning request would provide additional residential opportunities for
residents in this portion of the County.
Staff has identified the following unfavorable factors:
1. Arden Drive, the only road access for this proposed development, is not
completed, has not been constructed adequately, and cannot be accepted into
the state secondary system at this time.
2. The proffers need to be technically revised.
RECOMMENDATION
If the proffers can be adequately and technically revised as recommended by staff, staff
can recommend approval of ZMA-2012-00004 for Avon Park II with the revised proffers.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Loach noted some confusion on his part. O n page 5 staff’s recommendation is that
no further development be approved on or served by Arden Drive until the matter is
satisfactorily resolved. He assumed that refers to the proffers. However, staff has
stated the proffers need to be technically revised. He asked a re the proffers in the
report and the ones referred to in the motion acceptable or do they still need to be
worked on.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
3
Ms. Grant replied the proffers still need to be worked on.
Mr. Dotson asked in what way is Arden Drive substandard; and, therefore not
acceptable to go into the state system. It seemed like any other street when he drove
on it. He asked in what ways it was substandard.
Ms. Grant pointed out she was not an engineer. Therefore, the engineers could speak
more eloquently to the issues. She noted there are some st orm water issues. Several
of residents who live out there have said when it rains there is a huge puddle of water
the end of the road. Also, staff has had several complaints in conversations with the
property owner across the street because of the deterioration and damage caused by
the water running onto his property. It is her understanding there are several
engineering type items that have not been completed to the road that need to happen.
The county has an outstanding bond on the road.
Mr. Dotson said as a follow up question, which he expects the applicant will answer, is if
this development were to go forward would that worsen the dra inage issue on Arden
Drive itself.
Ms. Grant replied without the road being improved she would assume they would be
bringing more traffic onto the road.
Mr. Dotson said he could see that it would have more traffic. However, he was trying to
figure out if it would make the drainage problem any worse.
Mr. Randolph noted it would be the run off in the road from the i mpervious surface.
Ms. Grant pointed out it would be hard to say whether that would make a difference or
not.
Mr. Dotson said it does not seem that it would. However, he would wait to hear from the
applicant.
Mr. Kamptner asked to add a couple more pieces of information. T here is a road bond
that has been called. If the numbers are correct, he believed it was around $422,000.
Ms. Grant agreed that was the correct amount.
Mr. Kamptner commented the last he knew the inspection and the punch list had not
been developed in order for staff to determine whether or not the bond proceeds will be
sufficient to complete all of the improvements so that the existing part of Arden Drive
can be reconstructed or improved to meet VDOT standards. That is still unknown. The
County has not received the bond proceeds yet. The insurance company is pretty slow
in releasing funds. The bonds were called in May of 2012.
Ms. Grant noted that it was last year.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
4
Mr. Kamptner said the length of time that has passed is not out of the ordinary for the
insurance company. However, that is still an unknown. The condition of Arden Drive in
and of itself is not necessarily a reason for the Commission not to recommend the
rezoning for approval. But, the way the Subdivision Ordinance is written the condition of
Arden Drive may prevent the applicant from getting an approved subdivision plat. One
of the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance requires the principle means of access
be either a public street or a private street. A public street, as defined in the Subdivision
Ordinance, has to be designed and constructed to VDOT standards. If the bond
proceeds are sufficient to address what needs to be done that should not be a
hindrance. But, if the bond proceeds are deficient, then there will be a problem with
satisfying that requirement.
Mr. Cilimberg said if he understands correctly that would be the case even under the
current zoning, which would allow for 31 units. That circumstance is not changed by
the new zoning.
Mr. Kamptner agreed.
Mr. Loach asked how the motion would need to be adjusted since the proffers are not
acceptable.
Mr. Kamptner replied the Commission can make a recommendation that identifies what
the Commission believes need to be revised in the proffers and make the
recommendation conditional upon the proffers being revised to address a, b, and c.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that has been fairly typical in the past for rezonings where the
Commission has made recommendations to the Board with the expectation that certain
things have to be addressed before the Board took its action. However, it is up to the
Commission if they feel comfortable in moving the rezoning request forward.
Mr. Randolph said he liked the paragraph that staff put in under the proffer section in
conclusion because it is very clear. He appreciates staff spelling that out so specifically.
Regarding Mr. Loach’s point in terms of the proffers, it is very clear as to what is
expected out of the developer. Specifically, the applicant has offered a proffer that
states no certificate of occupancy will be issued until the drainage issues related to
Arden Drive have been resolved. So they can build it, but they can’t sell it and people
can’t live in it until they address the drainage issue.
Mr. Loach said if there are additional conditions to be worked out by staff he wanted to
make sure it was part of the final motion.
Mr. Morris said it specifically states that prior to any certificate of occupancy these
changes have to be made and staff recommends prior to the issuance of any building
permit.
Mr. Cilimberg noted actually what Ms. Grant had mentioned in lieu of the certificate of
occupancy was there would be no subdivision plat.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
5
Mr. Franco asked if what he was saying is a requirement now.
Mr. Kamptner replied it is in one of the sections in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Franco asked if they are proffering to follow the ordinance with this condition.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes and that it also solidifies everybody’s expectations. Certainly
the building permit or even the certificate of occupancy creates an expectation that they
can do everything up to there, but if they cannot satisfy this particular section of the
Subdivision Ordinance they cannot even subdivide the property in order to get the units
built.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for the applicant
and public. He invited the applicant to come forward and address the Commission.
Vito Cetta, developer and architect for the project, agreed with the staff report. They
seemed to have gotten stuck in the middle of the issue about the entry road that they
don’t contribute at all to the water problem. There is a ton of money, $430,000, to fix the
problem. They will do whatever is necessary to get the rezoning approved. However, it
seems like a lot of money and he did not know why the road problems are not getting
resolved. He would like the entry road not to be there; however, if it has to be there
then it has to be there. They did meet with the neighbor who lived across the street,
who is the one suffering from the water overflow. However, it seemed that with
$430,000 that problem should be able to be solved. He wrote a letter to the property
manager of Avon Park explaining the project. He can only assume the property
manager forwarded his letter it to all the residents, which said it is not open to a hearing,
but he would answer their questions if they have any. He had not heard from them. So
he certainly does not know their attitude about this. However, the new proposal is very
similar to what has already been approved many years ago.
Mr. Cetta pointed out he had developed about 8 or 10 projects in the County with most
of them being Neighborhood Model. He thinks the County should be very pleased with
what has happened over the last 15 years with the Neighborhood Model. The main
goal was to try to avoid building subdivisions like they had in the past. However, the
Neighborhood Model has certainly worked. If they look at Garth Road starting at
Georgetown Road or look at Route 250 starting at Boar’s Head and drive west on both
of those roads, those streets look the same as they d id 20 years ago. There is no
development along those streets. It is primarily because of the Neighborhood Model.
They are country roads and look wonderful. They are going to be wonderful for a long
time. He pointed out that Route 250 west goes to Crozet, which is a different story
because it is part of the growth area. They should be proud of the communities in
Crozet, such as Old Trail and Wickert Pond, which were built using Neighborhood
Model principles. The affordable housing was provided. They n ow have 104 families
living on land that 30 years ago would have had 5 families, which would have been
eating into our country side. The property across the street from Wickert Pond is not in
the growth area and has big farms. The contrast makes it looks super. He was proud
of it and the Commission should be very proud of what they have done.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
6
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out he had advised Mr. Pohl, who is an employee of the County,
that he has a conflict of interest. Therefore, he is disqualified.
Frank Pohl explained that he prepared the plans for Mr. Cetta before he joined the
County; and, therefore was going to comment on the plans. However, he would not
speak due to the conflict of interest.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Ric Barrick, resident of 1932 Tudor Court in Avon Park, said he appreciates having the
opportunity to speak on the proposed Avon Park II project that directly affects the
community. As they know, the existing entrance to Avon Park I it will serve as the only
entrance to the new development. He is on the Board of Directors of the Homeowner’s
Association and was here on their behalf. The plan for this dense development calls for
an entrance within the original Avon Park community, but by an entirely different
developer, which they certainly understand that.
Their community was built and opened in the 2006 to 2008 time period. As they
can imagine it has been through a great deal of price adjustment. With the
bankruptcy of the developer, Barry Meade, many issues have come up.
However, they are happy to stand here today in 2013 and say they are a
complete community. The last house was built last year. Unfortunately, the
roads are not accepted yet. Therefore, that is a challenge they are dealing with.
They are still battling with the insurance company to receive crucial bond monies
to complete several needed infrastructure projects , which have safety and
environmental implications for our community. He thanked Mark Graham and his
department, as well as Ms. Grant, who have been really forefront and have kept
them in touch with the developer. He met with them earlier this month and they
explained a lot of the process.
They have some serious concerns about the development of a separate
community that is accessed through Avon Park I without the ability for them to
have serious input into the infrastructure implications, the scope , and the makeup
of the new community. The challenges they currently have, and most importantly
if not planned appropriately, will threaten the safety of their community. There
are a significant number of children and pets who have become accustomed to
using our streets and green spaces to play safety.
Mr. Barrick noted the main concerns of the neighborhood as discussed in a community
meeting are, as follows.
The connectivity is a major concern for the County. They do have a concern that
the entrance off of Hathaway will be the only one into Avon Park II. As he
indicated it would affect not only the noise level but also the safety of the
neighborhood with so many families. They would like to ask that the intersection
of Arden and Hathaway be a three-way stop.
They currently have many challenges with erosion caused by the way the
community was built using faulty design and insufficient landscaping. The main
retaining wall coming into the community was not built to County standards and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
7
they believe was not inspected properly during construction. They feel this new
community would contribute to the erosion problems.
Given the evasiveness of this development and the proposed zoning changes
they are considering tonight to increase the density they are respectfully asking
the Commission to carefully consider the application as originally approved in the
community. Lastly, since there are a lot of folks here tonight he would ask
everyone in Avon Park to raise their hands to show their concern. (There were
approximately 20+ persons.) They look forward to working with the county to
make it a site for a nice community.
Linda O’Connor, a homeowner at Avon Park I, said she had a couple of issues about
the proposal, as follows.
The old plan approved in 2007 had fewer single-family homes to be built or
occupied at that time. There certainly were fewer voices to be able to talk about
that particular plan at the time. As Mr. Barrick said, they currently have some
safety issues with the children playing on Arden Drive, which will even get worse
with the traffic to Avon Park II. As a result she would prefer that Stafford W ay
connect directly with Avon Street Extension so there would be two entrances to
avoid the congestion and increase in traffic.
With the new zoning they are allowing churches, schools, and small non-
residential facilities. Although not currently planned it would be a minor planning
change to add a church. She certainly has no problem with a church. She was
concerned that such a facility won’t have direct access to Stratford W ay from
Avon; and, therefore would create extra traffic along with safety and noise issues.
The safety issues would involve all of the children. Also, the new zoning allows
less setbacks for denser single-family homes that are planned. So the homes at
the top of Arden Drive, in particular, will have much less privacy. The new
setbacks on the plan don’t appear to allow for trees. One large Fir tree will not
provide any kind of privacy.
A particular concern is the placement of the single multi -family homes or the
townhouses with the apartments underneath , which is actually on a rise. Behind
1165 would actually be on a hill. This particular structure would tower over most
of Avon I and block the view to Carter Mountain for all the homes on the other
side as proposed today. Therefore, it would be somewhat of an eyesore plus the
fact that it is less of a setback. The other issue is that used to be for apartments.
Now it is 3 townhouses and 3 apartments, which she thinks is fine. However, it is
many more people since 10 houses will allow more families. It is a higher noise
level and will affect all the single-family homes at the top of Arden Drive as well
as some of the townhouses. She would prefer to move it down further on
Stratford Way.
Terra de Cardenas, resident of 1159 Arden Drive, said her house backs up to the
proposed developed. Like many others in her community, she is concerned about Arden
Drive having to sustain more traffic. She is already concerned about the children who
play on Arden Drive and in the alley between the town homes and the single -family
detached homes on the north side of Arden Drive. There is a lot of traffic that comes in
through that one block. The children play in that area and she constantly has to go
outside and ask them to be careful because the cars cannot see them coming up that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
8
curve. To have a lot more residences built off of that road is just going to take away
from her whole day. Adding any more residences off of this road does not make it
comparable to any of the situations she sees in the neighboring subdivisions off of Avon
Extended and south of I-64. Nowhere is there one single block that has an entrance to
so many homes in such close proximity to one another. They feel this added traffic
jeopardizes the safety of the community. W hile an additional road off of Avon Extended
would be expensive our community’s safety is priceless.
Ms. de Cardenas voiced opposition to the rezoning of this area because it would allow
for non residential buildings. While that is not on the table at the moment it certainly
could be considered in the future and would create major traffic issues on Arden Drive.
They already have parking issues and continually have people parking right in front of
their house. In the information received from Ms. Grant there are several references to
the concept that this new plan is in keeping with what is already there. She did not
believe that the development being proposed behind their neighborhood is at all
comparable. The original plan is more comparable to the Avon Park I development and
with some changes would be much more palatable than the development being
proposed at this time. Understanding the developer wants to build more single -family
homes she suggested an optimal plan would be to have single-family detached homes
that are similar in size and lot size to what they are backing up to.
Ms. de Cardenas said the space in which there are now 15 homes in Avon Park is
almost exactly the same as the area in which the new homes will be built. If there were
16 homes built on this proposed area instead of 32 it would be more comparable to the
single-family homes that back up to this development. They purchased their home
under the assumption there would be one house behind them and there would be more
distance between the two houses. In the new plan there will be two houses located
behind them bordering their property line. There will also be the three townhomes and
three separate apartments. That means they will have eight families kind of feeding into
their back yard, which was not the way they envisioned it when they bought the house.
The houses will also be built closer and there will be a lot more congestion. She has
some health issues in her family, which she has explained in a submitted handout.
(Attachment C – on file with the printed minutes in the office of the clerk) When they
moved into this house there were a lot of issues to deal with because the house was
standing for two years. Due to health issues they will have to move out of this home
when the construction starts. Therefore, she was askin g not to have the additional
density so they are able to sell their home and it is comparable to what their home value
would be.
Corinne Lauer agreed with everything Linda O’Connor and Ms. Terra de Cardenas said.
She was really concerned about the children because Arden Drive comes right around
on Hathaway. There is a severe curve where they cannot see the children playing.
They are enjoying the community they are living in. It would be terrible to see extra
traffic going down Arden Drive since it would ruin the community.
Dennis O’Connor, resident of 1165 Arden Drive, asked to reiterate three of the points
his neighbors brought up. First, he thought it was more appropriate to have the multi-
family units at the end of Stratford Way for the new road rat her than in back of single-
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
9
family homes. Given that the new development is intended to be very similar to the
existing development he suggests having the single-family units adjacent and the multi-
family, which the community does not have now, all the way at the end of the road.
Secondly, he would ask the setbacks be no smaller than the original plan. As he sees
the new plan it appears the setbacks are less. Given that he would back up against one
of these homes he would like it to be at least what it was originally planned to be. Third,
for the issue of traffic and safety he would like to at least consider the possibility of
extending the new road down to Avon so there are two entrances and exits into the
community.
Gary Brooks said he was one of the three property owners that own the entire south
side of Avon Park II. They don’t have real discrepancies about the revised plan other
than the old plan had a privacy barn type fence all the way down to provide privacy.
They don’t have traffic using their driveway, which runs right beside this property. They
would like to see the fence go into the revised plan. They had a waterline in case it was
disturbed because they have a very small amount of water in the wells out there. So
anytime they see drainage on a property they have concerns with their well. Therefore,
they wanted to see a waterline extended over to their property. At one time there was
going to be a waterline on Hathaway and one down below there. However, there was a
question about Hathaway. They would like to see that continued. They did not have a
clear view of where the drainage would be. However, they could not stand any more
drainage coming by their driveway. They are already taking water off of that property
and the road, which was contributing just as much. The drainage was washing out
their driveway and sometimes it cuts a path along the state road. He understands from
the sheet he got from the County that the contractor would be willing to put this over on
it. However, it has never been confirmed to move what he just brought up over on the
revised plan. They would surely like to see that stay on this plan.
John Brooks said his house is the old school property that faces Avon. He would like to
go a little farther with the storm water problem because anybody can come out and look
to really see what it has done. It has already ruined the drain going under the driveway.
He has picked up so much debris that it has filled that up , which he cannot clean. He
heard talk about a road going into Avon there, which he would be against. If they are
going to have a park there they cannot have a road going up there. It is going to end up
being a place to drink beer, take your drugs and all of this stuff at night time. There will
be nothing down there to stop it. If they are going to have a park at Avon Street the
road needs to stop there. Nobody needs to come off Avon Street into the park because
it would be a disaster. They are having trouble with people coming on site now with the
lot being empty. The applicant said they would put shrubbery along the fence beside
our property that would reach a height of 10’. It would give them some privacy and a
blocked view. He wanted some privacy from the park just like he had now. He did not
have any problem with what they are doing there, but just wanted to keep some of his
own privacy so they still feel they are living in a little country area.
Candace Besherse, resident of Avon Park I, agreed with the se ntiments previously
expressed by fellow residents this evening to the Commission. Her primary concern
was Arden Drive. The safety concerns have already been expressed. There is a bus
stop at the corner of Avon and Arden. She envisioned construction vehicles coming
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
10
through with the children there. Arden Drive is a steep and curvy road. She has never
been near construction where the road has not been closed down at any portion of the
day to allow for the large construction vehicles to navigate into a construction site. It is
the only road into their community. Earlier this evening it was mentioned that any future
development road conformity would be conditioned upon certificates of occupancy. She
respectfully submits to the Commission that is ineffective in order to enforce conformity
because it transfers the burden from the developer or the builder to that potential buyer.
When buying a house getting of the keys and the signing the documents is the last and
final step. There has already been for most purchasers an extensive process invo lved
before that. The person that is in the best position to ensure conformity is the builder
and the developer. She would respectfully request that if any building should go
forward that the building permit is conditioned upon the conformity of Arden Road.
Robert Spauls, resident of 1940 Avon Street, said that Avon Park 1 is essentially an L
shaped piece of property. Avon Park II forms a U with the L shaped piece of property.
He owns the piece of property in the middle of the U with the bottom of the U being
Avon Street. He made the following points:
According to the current site plan there is a storm retention pond to be built on
the east side of Avon Park II. He would like to think that would be built much
better than the one that exists on the north side of his property on Avon Park I,
which is essentially a hole in the ground that is not maintained in any fashion.
There is a last line of evergreen trees on the south side of his property, which is
on the property line with Avon Park II. He would like to assure that those are not
disturbed.
There is another line of hard wood trees that are to the west of that up on the hill.
The whole piece of property is just a big hill. That is why there are storm
retention problems, drainage problems and mud in addition to just water flowing
down that property. His property has been flooded out three times by mud from
Avon Park I. Barry Meade did an incredible job of trying to solve that problem.
But, he was afraid they might be developing more because h e would like to see
more detailed plans on how this storm retention pond is going to be built on the
east side of the property next to Avon Street.
He would not like to see another entry into Avon Park II as that would create two
entries to the north and south of his property. He would not like to see that
hardwood stand that is on the south side of his property on the north side of Avon
Park II disturbed. It was not going to be disturbed in the f irst site plan. But, the
current site plan has a note that says trees can be taken down at discretion of the
property owner, which in his mind is they can take them all out if they want to .
Those are his concerns. According to the first site plan there was to be a pipe
line of County water built to his property line in case he had a problem with his
well. As Mr. Brooks pointed out the wells they rely on for water are not in the
best of shape and certainly Avon Park I and Avon Park II have not done anything
to improve that and certainly has been very detrimental to it. He would like to
ensure that remains there.
Mr. Smith asked Mr. Spauls if the trees are on his property.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
11
Mr. Spauls replied the trees were right on the property line. He had lived on the
property for 28 years. When Mr. Thomas bought the property he wanted a line of trees.
He planted the trees there and thought they were on his property line. However, he
found out they were right on the property line. It is a matter of dispute. They are not
going to pay the money to have a survey done to de cide if one-half of the trees are on
his property. They just want the trees to stay there.
Avery Cedar, resident of Arden Drive with Mary Lewis, said the speakers tonight have
done a great job of describing what is wrong, particularly the traffic problems on the
road when doubling the number of people living right behind them. There is an element
of this story that has been left out, which is the aesthetics of living there. If they want to
see the mountains in Albemarle County where do you go to see them? It is Free Union.
What does it cost to live out there? Millions. If they want to see pretty landscape one
would go to Keswick. What does it cost? Millions. If you want to see the mountains as
an ordinary person where do you go? It is Tiptop at Pantops. The developers open the
view. Inside all of these areas there is one more area that the developers opened and it
is this little neighborhood. This little neighborhood looks over at Carter’s Mountain,
which is a completely undeveloped little valley. It is the last corner in the whole County
where you can look at a mountain. In Charlottesville one cannot see the mountains
unless you go look for them. In our neighborhood you can see the mountains.
Mr. Cedar noted they can also see the drainage pond incomplete. It is not a pretty little
water place. It is just a hole in the ground filled with mud , which is the first thing you
look at. The next thing is a tip top plateau of land up in the townhouses, which is just a
rough patch of grass. The next development is coming in while the first one is not
finished. The first one has these little eye sores that include rain water rushing down
the road and the drainage ditch behind it. It will soon include heavy trucks riding up the
hillside, clamoring, pounding, bulldozing, knocking everything down, and cutting down
trees. What will they achieve but to thicken up the view and crowd everyone. It will
create noise and traffic. There has to be a way to alleviate that. If one-half a million
dollars is a great deal of money to fix Arden Drive, then why not just build another road.
Biscuit Run is coming in behind them. Perhaps there is a way to bridge these
properties and take advantage of the state building an entrance to Biscuit Run. Certainly
the value of life is the intangible that you can’t put a price on. But, it is what brought
everybody there. He hoped the Commission would help protect the integrity of the last
great view in Charlottesville.
James Stain hill, of 1130 Arden Drive, pointed out the beautiful Mountain View was what
drove him to live here. He loved that view. His two primary issues of concern were
linked to the safety issue. There was some talk earlier with regards to the drainage
issue. It is going to be the same whether Avon Park II continues on as proposed or
whether it does not. That may be true, but if the drainage issue is not taken care of
there is extra vehicle traffic that is still driving through that standing water. Therefore,
they still need to address the additional t raffic from a safety context. There are many
families in the development with young children. He has spent some time telling
children to slow down when there is a car coming around that corner. Children don’t
see what adults do. They need to be concerne d as they look at this planning process to
be diligent and vigilant stewards of the children. He hoped they keep in mind this safety
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
12
issue that the residents of Avon Park I are extremely concerned about. He asked the
Commission to take it under advisement as they consider the request.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris invited the applicant for rebuttal.
Vito Cetta said this land is in the growth area and has been designated for this. The
growth area stops a couple hundred feet south of this property. It is obvious when you
live in Avon Park the last thing they want is more homes being built. It is the same as
when Avon Park was built initially. The people around it did not want to see new
homes. There is very little to be gained by a resident to have more homes built. But
that is the nature of growth. There is really only one way to get to the site, which is
coming through Avon Park because it is quite steep. Avon Park was built with two
interconnected roads and one goes to us. In fact, our property also has a road
continuing to the south in case that gets developed. They can absolutely be assured
the engineering department is not going to solve all the drainage problems. However,
they know what they are and they have to be engineered properly. The pond that was
built as part of Avon Park initially was never completed. The builder went bankrupt, as
they know, and the work needs to be completed, which might be part of the bond.
Mr. Cetta said there is a fence that goes along the south property line that the neighbor
has suggested. They are offering two parks. They offer about a third of the property as
a big park. There is an existing park in Avon Park as well. These are high density
projects. They are going to have children. This is an urban area and not 5 acre or 3
acre sites. They are very small lots. People just have to be careful with their children.
He can appreciate that, of course. The detention will certainly be resolved. They know
that. They have some hardwoods and their note on the plan says they will do the best
they can to preserve them. He thinks they will meet with that neighbor to make sure
those are preserved because they are not grading in that area that he had mentioned.
They are going to extend the water line to the property to the south. The views really
are to the east on that site and they are not blocking the views. They get the same
views that they get. There may be some interference with that, but he thinks very little.
The views are not looking across our property, but are looking out towards Avon. He
thinks the proffer that Ms. Grant was talking about changing is this issue of when they
can pull a building permit or when they can have occupancy. He asked if that was the
only issue she was talking about.
Ms. Grant replied there were some technical issues on some of the other proffers, which
were other type of things.
Mr. Cetta said they were generally willing to do whatever is needed on the access.
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Mr. Dotson said as he was listening he jotted down a few notes. S everal people had
concern over the construction vehicles. He asked if Mr. Cetta had any response to that.
Mr. Cetta replied there is just one road and he was sorry to say they can’t do much
about that. He appreciates their concerns, but there was nothing they could do. There
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
13
are regulations about keeping the road clean and washing the tires, etc. But, there is
going to be traffic unfortunately.
Mr. Dotson asked if it was not feasible during construction to come off Avon.
Mr. Cetta replied no, it was too steep.
Mr. Dotson said somebody else commented about original setbacks. He asked if he
could explain the change in setbacks.
Mr. Cetta replied frankly he did not know. He did not know if th e setbacks were any
different. Mr. Poole may know, but he did not have the answer to that.
Mr. Randolph said he heard him say that he viewed the property as being in an urban
area; and, therefore has urban features.
Mr. Cetta replied yes, that he said that.
Mr. Randolph noted in an urban area usually there is interconnectivity of streets. He did
not see any interconnectivity of streets. He sees a dead end that branches off in two
different directions. If he was preaching that this project is in an urban area and it is an
urban related project shouldn’t it have better interconnectivity than just coming in
through Arden Drive.
Mr. Cetta replied if they see the plan in Avon Park you climb up the hill on Arden Drive.
Then there is a spine that parallels Avon, which is probably 35’ or 40’ above it. It climbs
a hill and runs south to our property, which is the interconnected road. On Avon Park it
also connects to the north if that property ever gets developed. So it is interconnected.
There really are no other possibilities for interconnectivity.
Mr. Randolph said unless the road goes out to Avon Road Extended there would not be
interconnectivity.
Mr. Cetta said that was possible. However, it is just too steep. The grading is much too
steep to get another road in.
Mr. Randolph said currently there is a driveway that goes back and climbs about 80’ to
90’ as shown on attachment 8, page 8. The road would only need to go 30’ more to
cover all the way to the top. So it seems that there is a road there and the only thing
missing is the connection of that road to Avon Street Extended.
Mr. Cetta asked if he was suggesting this road extend down to Avon.
Mr. Randolph replied yes, he was looking at about 20’ of a drop off to connect it to Avon
Extended.
Mr. Cetta said he was not sure what he was looking at, but he would be happy to look at
it with him. They would be happy to extend the road down to Avon. However, the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
14
engineering department won’t allow that for sure. If it can be done they would be ha ppy
to do it. However, he did not think it works because the grade is simply too steep. He
would have to look at it more carefully.
Mr. Franco noted that he would be careful about confusing driveway grades with road
grades. There is a driveway there and driveways are allowed to be up to 20 or 16
percent in the County. Since this was done prior to that Code it might be steeper. A
state road is 10 percent. He said it is not as simple as saying connect the dots.
Mr. Smith said he would be willing to bet that these driveways were built before there
were any restrictions whatsoever.
Mr. Randolph agreed.
Mr. Cilimberg said they don’t have the width of the property to do what was done in
Avon Park, which is to actually bring the road in and curve it up the hill to use the grade.
They just don’t have that width in this property. So he did not think they were going to
get a road that meets any standard acceptable to VDOT between their developed area
and Avon Street. It is just not going to be feasibly available.
Mr. Randolph asked even if the road was to snake.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it does not have enough room to snake because they are
going to run into horizontal curvature issues. If they had more land north and south they
could potentially put something in. However, that is not under their control and restricts
their ability.
Mr. Smith asked if he had already addressed the hardwood tree issue.
Mr. Cetta replied yes. They are going to meet with the neighbor. Our note already says
they are going to be careful on what they selectively prune from that area. The problem
with trees is if they grade around them they will kill the tree. That happens to be an
area they are not grading.
Mr. Smith said that it does not look to be an area where they have to do any grading,
and Mr. Cetta agreed.
Mr. Smith noted on the uphill side it says double sided vertical board fencing. It comes
down from the back of the property to the street, and then it switches to a three board
farm fence according to plan. That does not give the neighbors the protection that they
may want.
Mr. Cetta replied he believed where there was no three board fence there were no
homes. There is a park there. Where there are homes they have a solid fence.
Mr. Smith pointed out when there was noise in the park it comes next door.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
15
Mr. Cetta said he did not think that would be necessary, but they can certainly do that if
it is required.
Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission
for discussion and action. He invited questions.
Mr. Loach said some of the neighbors talked about swapping the multi-family to the
upper part versus the lower part.
Mr. Franco asked staff to put up the original application plan
Mr. Cetta noted the left half of the plan is all attached housing and the right half a few
single-family houses. The view is toward Avon and he did not understand what
someone’s concern is frankly since their view is to the right and not necessarily towards
this development. He thinks the buildings are in the right place.
Mr. Morris commended Mr. Cetta to continue to work with the neighbors and discuss
things if this moves along. However, he has done a lot of that already.
Mr. Cetta noted they would have the community meeting, and Mr. Morris replied that
would be wonderful so the residents can see how it is going to actually be if it goes
ahead.
Mr. Morris invited further questions for the applicant.
Mr. Dotson asked, in summary, what are the reasons he wants to change from the
current zoning to the proposed zoning. It is gaining one unit, which he understands.
However, what are the other motivations?
Mr. Cetta replied it was because there was not a market for townhouses here. Avinity is
a large community up the street that is all townhouses. They certainly hear from
builders there is clearly a need for single-family detached and there are not any in this
area. One other minor thing is if you look at new communities with single -family
detached units with back yards it is surprising how little backyards get used. When they
were kids backyards were a big deal. However, backyards don’t get used now. As a
result the lots are smaller and smaller and perhaps the communities rely more on the
open space for their recreation. So these lots are quite small, but the houses are kind
of cute with big front porches.
Mr. Morris said the rebuttal period has ended as is the public hearing public comment.
The matter was before the Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Franco said he was still puzzled on some things. He asked on this application plan
how many units are shown.
Ms. Grant replied 31 units.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
16
Mr. Franco said on the original application plan he was trying to understand the original
density and the proposed density. The original approval was for 31 units and they were
going to 32 units. He noted he could not count 31 units on the original plan.
Mr. Cilimberg noted there were 16 units on the left side of the road coming through.
There were more townhouses on the right and from there possibly some duplexes and
then single-families. It totals 31 units.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the technical issues are just typographically errors and things like
that, and Ms. Grant replied yes.
Mr. Cilimberg said with the exception of the one suggestion regarding the proffer that it
would be referencing no subdivision plats versus a certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Franco noted that is the one that gives him the most concern. There is a process
that includes the bonding, which he understands they are in that process. But, he was
not sure why they have not resolved this yet. He understands there are some
difficulties. However, if he was a resident in phase one he would be as concerned
about that as the new development coming in. They were promised public roads and
they don’t have them yet and that was what the bond was supposed to do. He was not
sure when the original developer went out of business, but it has been a number of
years and they are still dealing with this. He noted that it has been four or six years.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the bond was called in May of last year. He suggested that
Mr. Kamptner might want to speak to that process.
Mr. Kamptner said that was about all he knows with respect to that. He did not know
what the punch list says and that county engineer has done an estimate of the cost of
the improvements yet. He must have some idea, but he did not know. He asked if staff
checked with Glenn Brooks today.
Ms. Grant replied yes, that she spoke with Mr. Brooks. He has a list that he just
recently submitted that says all the various things that are still waiting to be done. There
is not an estimate in terms of the cost.
Mr. Franco said he was concerned about adding that as a condition in here regardless
of whether it is too expensive or more than the bond amount or anything like that. It has
to get done and the public guarantee of that being done is the bonding process. He
hates to see the adjacent property owner dragged into that situation and held hostage
or to have to contribute to the original issue financially when that is the process that we
guarantee. He did have concerns about that aspect of it.
Mr. Loach asked would that depend on whether the bond was predicated on both or just
the first one parcel.
Mr. Franco said his understanding is that bond would be for the improvement to the one
road, Arden Road, and it does not really matter because it was supposed to be public
road. This development is attaching to a public road. So i t should have covered all the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
17
improvements associated with that as well as the storm water basin and some of the
others things that were brought up. The development can move forward the way the
developer wants to. But, he would be concerned that it is an opportunity to push it off
and sort of get somebody else involved. He really wants to see this resolved quickly
because that is what they promised to the residents.
Mr. Loach said his point was this section was not part of the total development plan in
the beginning. Now it has been separated out because of the bankruptcy.
Mr. Cilimberg commented there was a different developer for Avon Park II than the
original Avon Park.
Mr. Kamptner noted they are not suggesting that this applicant is going to be
responsible for completing Arden Drive. They are just saying that the subdivision
ordinance, if there are insufficient funds and the road cannot be designed and
constructed to VDOT standards, the subdivision plat for this particular project can’t be
approved under the language of the subdivision ordinance. A proffer is not really
required in that case because the ordinance does speak for itself.
Mr. Dotson said a note to the effect that the subdivision ordinance will apply would be
sufficient and it does not have to be a proffer.
Mr. Kamptner said this is not the first project where this issue has come up. So they are
dealing with it. They found a solution with the other one with a different point of access.
The proffer in this case is not essential.
Mr. Smith said what he was saying is if the current developer does everything right he is
not being held hostage by phase I.
Mr. Franco said that is not what he is saying.
Mr. Kamptner commented the subdivision plat for phase II will not likely be approved if
Arden Drive is not meeting the requirements of a public street.
Mr. Cilimberg said that would be with or without this rezoning. They already have zoning
for 31 units and if a plat were to be submitted for that without this rezoning and submit a
plat for the current zoned area, it could not be approved.
Mr. Smith said that he is being held hostage until phase1 is satisfied. He thought that
was a county responsibility in his way of thinking.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out the subdivision ordinance and State law both say the
completion of these improvements is not the obligation of the County. It really is the
obligation of the developer. In this case because the developer is no longer here it is
going to be the bond. If the bond funds are insufficient to cover the cost of whatever
work needs to be done to complete it, then they will have to figure out another solution.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
18
Mr. Smith said they don’t know about the bond funds because they have not gotten the
estimate yet to do the repairs.
Mr. Lafferty noted they just have a punch list. However, the applicant is not being held
hostage because it is a risk that he seems to be willing to take.
Mr. Dotson noted this was a slightly different point. Again, listening to the testimony
from the residents, a couple of people said that they were concerned this would open
the door to non-residential uses. He asked if he was correct that the only uses that
would be allowed are those shown on the plan.
Mr. Cilimberg replied the uses have not been either proffered out or proffered in as to
what they could do under the planned residential development. T he buildings that could
be built are those shown in this plan. The uses that could occur in those bu ildings if
these buildings are not stipulated for a particular use maybe some of the other uses
available. In reality the use of these buildings are going to be somewhat determined by
the type of building built. Whether there needs to be a proffering of uses in this case
depends on whether they feel the units that could be built have the potential of being
used for something other than single-family and townhouse with the extra affordable
units. The affordable units are actually specified and proffered. There is not a building
here that could accommodate what they would normally consider to be a chu rch, as an
example.
Mr. Morris said what he gathered as the concern was the open area and the use of that
recreational area at night and not the residential units itself.
Mr. Franco replied that he heard separate issues. One is that the uses that could go
into the lots that are shown could be non-residential in nature. Secondly, there was a
concern about the control of the park and activities within that park.
Mr. Smith asked if that was any different from what they have in section one right now.
He asked if they could turn one of those into a church.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that they could.
Mr. Franco said realistically any non-residential use would need to have parking and
other things that are shown on this.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that is why he said realistically the possibility for other uses is
pretty much limited by the lot size. The open area shown for recreational purposes
could not turn into another use. That is being specified in the application plan.
Mr. Franco said it would be simpler if there was some kind of proffer to eliminate any
concern for the others, but it is really not necessary because in all practicality it cannot
occur. He asked about the setbacks and if the separation between the units in phase 1
and phase 2 changes between application plans. Was there fencing that was changed
in any way?
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
19
Mr. Cilimberg said he was asking about the relationship of the units under the current
approval to the adjacent units in Avon Park II.
Mr. Franco said he knew the units got arguably smaller and that some of the density got
rearranged. But, did the units get closer.
Mr. Cilimberg replied there was a building setback line now of 20’ for the rear side of the
single-family lots and 15’ for the side of the townhouse lots closest to Avon Park. That is
on the current plan that has been submitted. It is showing a 20’ building setback line for
lots 1 through 4 and 21 through 24 next to Avon Park and a 15’ building setback line
adjacent to lot 9 and 10 where the townhouse is.
Mr. Franco said potentially the townhouses have moved 5’ closer to the existing
residences because it is a side yard.
Ms. Grant replied the setbacks in the approved plan was not really that much different
than what they have currently. She believed the setbacks were 20’.
Mr. Franco said that they were probably the same setbacks, but simply because they
have a side yard now it is potentially moved a little closer. He asked was there any
fencing or anything like that as part of the original plan. He did not see a proffer to that.
Ms. Grant replied there are some notes on the approved plan that refer to fencing on
the south side of the property, but not the north.
Mr. Smith said the fence issue comes back again to bother him because if he was Mr.
Brooks and lived next door to the park and they build a three board fence that does not
stop any children from investigating next door. So it is not a privacy fence. It does not
protect the neighbors.
Mr. Loach pointed out the applicant said he would provide fencing as required.
Mr. Smith noted they have good fencing to the west. The applicant did not totally
commit to the providing the fence towards the park.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested if the Commission was recommending approval, they c ould
recommend that the double-sided vertical board fencing be extended all the way to
Avon Park as part of their recommendation.
Mr. Smith said that he would so recommend.
Mr. Franco said in general he did not think it is appropriate to buffer similar uses. They
are both residential. However, he understands about the privacy. He felt personally if
they are going to try to screen and hide it he would prefer that landscaping be put in
because they don’t really have to maintain trees as much as fencing. However, again
with residential to residential they are buffering the same use.
Mr. Smith pointed out it was small lot residential to large lot residential.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
20
Mr. Cilimberg noted actually in that area it is the recreation area next to residential. He
thinks the lots are bordered by the double-sided vertical board fencing.
Mr. Smith said it was up at the top, but not down at the bottom where the park is
located.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed it was not on the park side.
Mr. Loach asked if it could be proffered to be worked out between the neighb ors and the
applicant before getting to the Board. The applicant said he was going to meet with the
neighbors. He also heard residents say they would rather prefer trees.
Mr. Cilimberg said there are trees shown on the plan, too, as they will see. Th ere is
some planting.
Mr. Smith noted the trees don’t keep the children out.
Ms. Grant pointed out the fence was noted in the approved plan as well.
Mr. Franco asked if the fence was in the same location, and Ms. Grant replied yes.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion.
Mr. Franco said he wanted to make sure he understands the issues they have talked
about that are on the table right now. He asked if the three issues they have really
talked about are as follows.
1) Potentially it is the use and trying to eliminate some of the uses that legally could
be placed in there.
2) There is still the question about the bond and the existing improvements.
3) The fencing and the landscaping is the third question before the Commission.
Mr. Loach said the bond was a no n issue because it would not matter under what
condition at this point.
Mr. Franco said those are the three issues they really talked about.
Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Franco on the bonding. As Mr. Cilimberg pointed out it
would not matter if they were using the old or new plan since the bond condition would
be the same. However, he agreed with Mr. Smith on the fencing. He asked if they want
something specific on the uses.
Mr. Franco pointed out Mr. Cetta indicated he would be willing to continue the fence as
a boarded fence. He would like to ask him to come back up and make sure he
understands what he would proffer at this point.
Mr. Morris invited Mr. Cetta to address that question.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
21
Mr. Cetta said they were prepared to do whatever the neighbors fe el comfortable with.
He agreed with Mr. Franco that a three-board fence along that park is really a nice look.
If the neighbors feel that needs to be adjusted , they are wide open to it.
Mr. Franco said he was just trying to figure out how to commit th at. He asked does that
have to be decided today or is everybody comfortable with that being something that is
left hanging.
Mr. Morris pointed out the request would be taken before the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Franco suggested that it be resolved before the Board of Supervisors meeting. If
the Commission feels strongly about the fencing needing to be a privacy fence, then
now would be the time to express it.
Mr. Loach suggested they could put it in as a recommendation . However, since it is
only a recommendation when he meets with the neighbors he can change it.
Mr. Franco asked if he needs to meet with the neighbors between now and the Board
meeting.
Mr. Morris replied absolutely because the Planning Commission’s action is only a
recommendation to the Board.
Mr. Franco said he understands since it is a proffer to eliminate uses they can make the
recommendation that only residential uses be allowed here.
Mr. Morris said he would be comfortable with that simply because of the size of the lots
and so forth.
Mr. Franco asked if the applicant wants to verify that is his intent.
Mr. Randolph asked if he is talking about only residential uses in the open space.
Mr. Franco replied no, it was in the development.
Mr. Morris said he was assuming the applicant agreed because he was nodding.
Mr. Franco said he thought they could consider that a s a proffer.
Mr. Cilimberg said he would also ask that it would be subject to staff’s work with the
applicant between now and the Board hearing to make sure that unin tentionally there is
no use being proffered out that ends up needing to be there for public purposes.
Mr. Morris said that would be great.
Mr. Franco said at this point he would like to make a recommendation. He asked if
there were conditions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
22
Mr. Cilimberg replied that there are only proffers. He did not know if this is what he
wanted his motion to reflect. However, what he has heard mentioned is that the 5th
proffer regarding Certificate of Occupancy or replacement proffer regarding plats that
they don’t feel is necessary because the platting is already a requirement of our
subdivision ordinance. He was thinking they don’t feel the need for that fifth proffer. That
is what he is hearing. In addition to that they are asking that beyond the technical fixes
to the proffer that the applicant work with the adjacent neighbors regarding the fence
type and that the applicant also provide a proffer restricting uses to those that are
residential plus what staff feels is necessary to continue to have for the PRD district as
part of the work to be done between now and the Board of Supervisors hearing.
Mr. Franco agreed that is the motion. He would also like to stress that the County
needs to accelerate their efforts in getting that road accepted into the state system.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of ZMA-
2012-00004 Avon Park II as recommended by staff with proffers, as revised and
amended.
1. The 5th proffer regarding Certificate of Occupancy or replacement proffer
regarding plats is not necessary because the platting is already a requirement of
the Subdivision Ordinance. Eliminate the 5th proffer.
2. In addition, beyond the technical fixes to the proffer the applicant should work
with the adjacent neighbors regarding the fence type; and
3. The applicant provide a proffer restricting uses to those that are residential plus
what staff feels is necessary to continue to have for the PRD district as part of
the work to be done between now and the Board of Supervisors hearing.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:1. (Mr. Randolph voted nay)
Mr. Morris noted ZMA-2012-00004 Avon Park II would go to the Board of Supervisors
on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval with staff’s
recommended proffers, as amended, to be worked out between the applicant and staff
before the Board of Supervisors hearing.
ZMA 201300001
BOS December 11, 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.
Presenter(s): Claudette Grant
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Benish, Grant
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
December 11, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On July 10, 2013, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing for The Lofts at Meadowcreek rezoning
request. The Board, by a vote of 5:0, deferred indefinitely ZMA201300001 at the request of the applicant. Also,
the Board, by a vote of 5:0, deferred indefinitely the special exception waivers. During the Board of Supervisors
public hearing all outstanding issues were addressed with the exception of the applicant not providing for any
cash proffers under the cash proffer policy for public facilities to address the impacts created by the proposed
development.
The applicant has requested that the Board reconsider this matter with the information provided in the revised
proffers and letter, dated November 18, 2013 (Attachments A and B).
DISCUSSION:
Since the Board public hearing on July 10th, the Owner, Mary Dickens, has authorized and provided revised
proffers that now include a new Proffer 5 which is a contribution of cash on a per “market -rate” dwelling unit
basis for the purposes of addressing the impacts of the development on the County’s public facilities and
infrastructure. The proffer describes a cash contribution of $1,000.00 for each residential dwelling unit other
than an affordable dwelling unit. (See Attachment A for revised proffers) The cash proffers are based on 41
market rate units at $1,000 per unit for a total of up to $41,000. The proposed development is for 65 units.
The applicant is providing 13 affordable units (20%) and requesting credit for 11 by-right units.
Total proposed units (all apartments) 65
Total affordable units provided 13
Assumed by-right developable units 11
Total “market rate units” 41
Staff requested a plan from the applicant that shows the number of units that could be constructed by right
on the site. T he applicant has not provided this information; therefore, staff cannot verify that 11 by right
units can be developed on this site. The eleven (11) by-right unit total is consistent with the theoretical
development potential based on the existing R -4 and total acreage of the site (2.80 acres).
The new per unit cash proffer amount offered by the applicant is not consistent with the per unit amount
established in the County’s cash proffer policy for multi-family units ($14,497.77), which would total
ZMA 201300001
BOS December 11, 2013
Executive Summary Page 2
$594,408.57 for 41 units. See Attachment B for the applicants justification in providing the proposed cash
proffers.
Total contributions offered by the applicant:
Cash proffer toward CIP improvements $41,000
Cash contribution for sidewalk walk construction $20,000
Total cash contribution $61,000 $20,000
Potential contribution for facility/infrastructure impacts based on County cash proffer policy:
Assuming 41 multi-family units $594,409
Assuming 52 multi-family units (no by-right credit) $753,884
The applicant states in Attachment B that the proposed development has several favorable factors such as
being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and p roviding additional residential opportunities for
residents in this portion of the County; however, many of the costs mentioned in Attachment B, such as
water/sewer tap fees, and Rio Road improvements are normal costs associated with providing this type of
development. While staff acknowledges Proffer 4, a cash proffer in the amount of $20,000 , for sidewalk
improvements to Pen Park Lane, as mentioned in a previous staff report, it is unlikely that this proffered
amount will fully fund the cost of construc tion for this section of sidewalk. Staff finds the revised cash
proffers provided by the applicant does not fully address the fiscal impacts of the development on the
County’s public facilities and infrastructure.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The cash proffer amount to address the impacts resulting from this project, as discussed at the July 10th Board
meeting, has not been fully addressed. All other outstanding issues from the Planning Commission
recommendations have been addressed.
However, if the Board is satisfied with the applicant’s revisions, staff recommends approval of ZMA2013 00001
with revised proffers, dated November 11, 2013, 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).
If the Board also is satisfied with the applicant’s revisions, staff recommends approval of the special exceptions
granting waivers from Section 20A.8 (a) and (b), Mixture of Uses and Housing Types; Section 4.12.2 c.1,
Number of parking spaces, and Section 4.2 Critical Slopes of the Zoning Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Proffers, dated November 11, 2013
Attachment B: Letter from William Park, dated November 18, 2013
Attachment C: 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)
PC minutes
Return to agenda
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.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
December 2, 2013
Wendell W Wood or Nena Harrell
P.O. Box 5548
Charlottesville, Va. 22905
RE: ZMA 2012-00005 Hollymead Town Center (A-1)
TAX MAP PARCEL: 032000000042A0, 03200000004400, 03200000004500 (portion),
04600000000500, 046000000005A0
Dear Mr. Wood or Ms. Harrell:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 12, 2013, by a vote of
7:0 recommended approval inclusive of the amended proffers and application plan of the above-
noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
View staff report
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petit ion and
receive public comment at their meeting on December 11, 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,
Sarah Baldwin
Senior Planner
Planning Division
HTC A-1
PC Public Hearing 11/12/2013
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 201200005 Hollymead
Town Center A-1
Staff: Sarah Baldwin
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
November 12, 2013
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
December 11, 2013
Owners: Route 29, LLC Applicant: Route 29, LLC
c/o Wendell Wood
Acreage: Approximately 59 acres
Rezone from: PD-MC which allows large scale
commercial uses; and residential by special
permit (15 units/acre)
TMP: Tax Map Parcel(s) 32000000042A0,
03200000004400, 03200000004500 (portion),
04600000000500, 046000000005A0
By-right use: PD-MC which allows large scale
commercial uses; and residential by special
permit (15 units/acre)
Magisterial District: Rio Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Amend the Application Plan and
Proffers regarding the greenway and transit stop
on property zoned NMD.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: No new
dwellings or change in residential density is
proposed.
DA (Development Area): Hollymead
Community
Comp. Plan Designation: Urban Mixed Use in
Centers and Commercial Mixed use.
Character of Property: The site is a developed
commercial site with the exception of several
outparcels that will be built in the future.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The
surrounding properties include a variety of
commercial buildings located within other
portions of Hollymead Towncenter and vacant
land.
Factors Favorable:
1. The rezoning request proposes to
address an outstanding Notice of
Violation and further clarifies the
proffers.
2. This rezoning request will not
significantly change the site layout or
intent of the original rezoning.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. None.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Staff recommends approval of the Amended Proffers and Application Plan.
HTC A-1
PC Public Hearing 11/12/2013
2
STAFF PERSON: Sarah Baldwin
PLANNING COMMISSION: November 12, 2013
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: December 11, 2013
ZMA 201200005 Hollymead Town Center (A-1)
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA 2012-00005 Hollymead Town Center (A-1)
PROPOSAL: Request to amend the Application Plan and Proffers on property zoned PD-MC which
allows large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre).
PURPOSE OF NOTICE AND HEARING: Intention of the Planning Commission to make
recommendation on the Proposal to the Board of Supervisors
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Mixed Use (in Centers) – retail,
residential, commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space.
LOCATION: Hollymead Town Center Area A-1, the southwest quadrant of Seminole Trail (US 29) and
Towncenter Drive in the Hollymead Development Area
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 032000000042A0, 03200000004400, 03200000004500 (portion),
04600000000500, 046000000005A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The property is part of Hollymead Town Center, which contains a variety of existing and proposed
commercial and residential development. The surrounding properties are zoned RA (TMP46-6), PD-
MC (TMP32-43), and NMD (32-45).
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The Applicant is requesting a modification to the Proffers and Application Plan that will change the
proffered greenway from a multi- use path to a primitive path as well as provide for clarification of the
greenway proffer and transit stop proffers (Attachment A). There is an outstanding Notice of Violation
that exists for these proffers because the improvements have not been installed. Amending the
proffers will remedy those violations and provide an alternative greenway path, which is acceptable to
both the County and the Applicant.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The Applicant is requesting to modify the proffers to 1)construct the greenway trail to a different
standard from what was originally proffered, and 2) to change the location of the required transit stop
on-site. The applicant believes that the greenway cannot be built to a multi-use 10 foot wide path due
to the existing terrain in the area.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
ZMA2005-00015 – On September 11, 2007, the Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning with
Proffers and Application Plan.
ZMA2010-00014 – On January 12, 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved amendments to the
Proffers.
VIO2012-61-On April 2, 2012, the Zoning Department issued a Notice of Official Determination of
Violation for unsatisfied Proffers relating to ZMA2010-00014.
HTC A-1
PC Public Hearing 11/12/2013
3
DISCUSSION
The Applicant is proposing changes to Proffers 3 and 8 in order to address zoning violations. Under
the existing proffers, these improvements were to be constructed at site plan or subdivision approval.
Proffer 3 addresses the installation of a transit stop on-site. The original transit stop location was
approved by the Director of Planning and was to contain a 200 square feet paved surface and two
benches with the design subject to VDOT and the County Engineer approval. The 200 square foot
paved area has been constructed (striped) but the benches have not been installed. Currently, there is
no CAT transit service provided to the Hollymead area or the Town Center. The Applicant does not
believe that benches should be installed until service is provided, thereby avoiding unnecessary
maintenance and possible vandalism issues. Staff is supportive of the proffer change to allow the
benches to be installed when public transit service is provided to the site.
Proffer 8 addresses the construction of a greenway. At the request of the Applicant, Staff, members of
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors attended an onsite meeting to review the trail
location and type of trail that was required by the existing proffers. Planning, Engineering and Parks
and Recreation Department staff determined that a 10’ wide paved trail would be difficult to achieve in
some locations. Given these physical constraints, and given the existing and proposed sidewalk and
bike lane network that is or will be developed within Hollymead Town Center, it was determined that
this greenway would better serve the community constructed as a primitive path. The Applicant has
agreed to construct a 6 foot wide primitive trail as provided on Attachments B & C. Additionally, the trail
head was originally proposed as a switchback connection to the greenway. However, due to the terrain
it was determined that stairs would provide a more practical solution (Attachment B). The existing
proffers and proposed changes are outlined below. Staff is supportive of these changes:
Existing Proffers (ZMA2010-14) Proposed Changes to Proffers
3. Public Transit Stop Construction - The
Owner shall construct one public transit
stop within Hollymead Town Center Area
A-1. The location of the public transit stop
shall be identified on the approved Appl i-
cation Plan and retained in the County
files. The location shall be approved by the
Director of Planning, prior to approval of
the first subdivision plat or site plan for
Hollymead Town Center Area A-1. Con-
struction of the public transit stop shall o c-
cur in conjunction with improvements for
the first site plan or the public street plans
which include the area for the transporta-
tion stop. The design of the public transit
stop shall be subject to approval by VDOT
and the County Engineer, and shall include
no less than 200 square feet of paved sur-
face and two benches.
3. Public Transit Stop Construction - The
Owner has constructed one public transi t stop
within Hollymead Town Center Area A -1 and 2
benches shall be installed within 30 days after
transit service is established to the transit stop.
8. Greenway Dedication - The Owner shall
dedicate in fee simple a minimum 4.5 acre
8. Greenway Dedication - The Owner has
dedicated in fee simple a minimum 4.5 acre
HTC A-1
PC Public Hearing 11/12/2013
4
“Greenway” to Albema rle County. The
land to be dedicated as the Greenway is
identified on the Application Plan as
“Greenway Area dedication to Albemarle
County,” and shall include all flood plain
area along Powell Creek. The Owner shall
complete the improvements shown on the
Application Plan and shall dedicate the
Greenway to the County at the time of the
first site plan or subdivision plat approval.
The Owner shall be responsible for the cost
of a survey and preparing the deed to
convey the Greenway to the County.
“Greenway” to Albemarle County. The
land dedicated as the Greenway is
identified on the Application Plan as
“Greenway Area dedication to Albemarle
County,” and shall include all flood plain
area along Powell Creek. The Owner shall
construct a greenway trail pursuant to the
attached trail standard (Attachment B) and
identified by the yellow dashed line on the
attached map (Attachment C) from the
detention pond to Meeting Street. Such
trail shall be complete prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy for Buildings
B or C. In the event Meeting Street is not
constructed to intersection with greenway
at time Certificate of Occupancy is required
for Building B or C, Parks and Recreation
shall determine the location for an alternate
tie in. The owner shall design and construct
stairs located in between Buildings B and
C. Such stairs shall be subject to easement
and approval of Rivanna Water & Sewer
Authority. Stairs shall be 36” wi de and
constructed of natural material consistent
with the trail standard. Final stair design
shall be approved by Parks and Recreation.
The trail and stairs will be deemed
complete upon approval by Parks and
Recreation. Due to terrain, stairs and trail
shall not be built to ADA accessible
standards.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Places29 Master Plan land use recommendation for this site is Urban Mixed Use in Centers and
Commercial Mixed Use, with a greenway buffer and multi-use path recommended on the Parks and
Green Systems Map along the stream in this area. This request is to alter the trail standard and clarify
proffers. Because of the limited and specific nature of these changes a review of this request’s
consistency with the Neighborhood Model Principles has not been undertaken.
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.
HTC A-1
PC Public Hearing 11/12/2013
5
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district
The purpose and intent of the zoning district is not compromised by this Application. The greenway
and transit stops will still be constructed and there is further clarity of the proffers by providing the
timing for construction.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Streets: The greenway trail and transit stop will enhance transportation options for this area.
Schools: There are no residences proposed as part of this rezoning so there will be no impact on
County Schools.
Fire and Rescue: There are several fire-rescue facilities in the area.
Utilities: Water and sewer are available on the site; there are no issues or impacts from the proposed
changes.
Anticipated impact on cultural and historic resources: The ARB staff reviewed the proposal and does
not feel that there will be any impact with the changes to the proffers.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties
None anticipated with these amendments.
Public need and justification for the change
The proposed amendments do not affect this project’s provision of an Urban Mixed Use (in Centers)
containing retail, residential, commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space attracting
activities of all kinds on a regional scale in Albemarle County
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The rezoning request proposes to address an outstanding Notice of Violation and
further clarifies the proffers.
2. This rezoning request will not significantly change the site layout or intent of the
original rezoning.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. None.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of ZMA201200005 with the attached amended Application Plan and
Proffers.
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT A- Amended Proffers-last revised September 30, 2012
ATTACHMENT B- Amended Application Plan & Trail Standard
ATTACHMENT C-Trail location
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
HTC A-1
PC Public Hearing 11/12/2013
6
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this ZMA:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA201200005 as recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this ZMA:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA201200005. Should a commissioner motion to recommend
denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
Return to PC actions letter
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 12, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
November 12, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 12,
2013, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Richard Randolph, Bruce Dotson, Thomas Loach, Don
Franco, Calvin Morris, Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of
Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner; Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner;
Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
ZMA 2012-00005 Hollymead Town Center (A-1) (Signs # 33 & 35)
PROPOSAL: Request to amend the Application Plan and Proffers on property zoned PD-MC
which allows large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre).
PURPOSE OF NOTICE AND HEARING: Intention of the Planning Commission to make
recommendation on the Proposal to the Board of Supervisors
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center-compact, higher
density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and
public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in Hollymead
Development Area.
LOCATION: Hollymead Town Center Area A-1, the southwest quadrant of Seminole Trail (US
29) and Towncenter Drive in the Hollymead Development Area
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 032000000042A0, 03200000004400, 03200000004500 (portion),
04600000000500, 046000000005A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Sarah Baldwin)
Ms. Baldwin presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This proposal is to amend the application plan and proffers located in Hollymead Town Center
A-1. The applicant is requesting to amend the transit stop and greenway proffers which were to
be constructed at the site plan or subdivision stage. Since it has not been constructed there is
an outstanding Notice of Violation. This amendment would remedy those violations as well as
provide more clarity to the proffers.
This is a portion of the approved rezoning application plan. Proffer 3 provided construction of a
200 square foot paved surface and 2 benches to be installed at site plan stage. The bus stop
area exists, but there are no benches installed and bus service is not available as of yet. The
applicant requests to change the proffer to install the benches within 30 days after bus service is
available.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 12, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
2
Proffer 8 provided construction of a 10’ wide multi-use greenway path. The members of the
Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and staff attended an on-site meeting at the
applicant’s request to view the existing terrain for the greenway path. It was determined that a
10’ wide greenway path would be difficult to achieve in some locations. Due to these
constraints and given the existing and proposed sidewalk and bike lane network for Hollymead
Town Center, it was determined that a primitive path would better serve the community.
The applicant worked with Parks and Recreation and staff and it was agreed that the path could
be constructed as a 6’ wide primitive path in this general location and it will be constructed by
the applicant. The proposed proffers also offer an alternative tie in to the trail should Meeting
Street not be constructed at the time that the trail would be available. Additional changes
include the trail head which was proposed as a switchback connection to the greenway. Again,
due to terrain it was decided that stairs would provide a more practical solution. The applicant
will design the stairs subject to staff approval and construct the stairs and trail prior to a n
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for the buildings adjacent to the trail head. Staff is
supportive of changes to both the transit stop and greenway, which will provide for clear
deadlines and actions for the benches and greenway.
Staff found the following factors favorable:
1. The rezoning request proposes to address an outstanding Notice of Violation and further
clarifies the proffers.
2. This rezoning request will not significantly change the site layout or intent of the original
rezoning.
Staff found no unfavorable factors.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA-2012-00005 and of the Amended Proffers and Application
Plan.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Randolph asked when was the site plan approved, and Ms. Baldwin replied it was originally
approved in 2005 with a minor amendment after that.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for the applicant and public comment. He invited the
applicant to come forward and address the Planning Commission.
Wendell Wood said he would be glad to answer questions. He said they have had several
meetings and invited all the Commissioners and Supervisors. It was well attended. They met
with Parks and Recreation. One of the reasons was this trail, as it was approved originally,
goes through wetlands and virtually could not be built where it was originally proposed without
disturbing wetlands. The bus stop is there and was actually constructed with the development of
the Center. There is a full spot for the bus to park for a loading ramp, which meets all the
standards. However, the bus service is not there. They have agreed to put the benches there
when they get buses. Parks and Recreation staff was not in favor of the greenway in the way
that it was required to be built and suggested the alternate route that they agreed to.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Smith asked how did it get designed in the wetlands in first place, and Mr. Wood replied he
did not know.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 12, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
3
Mr. Randolph said the application seems to suggest some concern about the potential for
vandalism with benches on a bus stop. He asked if he had past experiences where that has in
fact occurred. The application says the applicant does not believe the benches should be
installed until service is provided, thereby avoiding unnecessary maintenance and possible
vandalism issues.
Mr. Wood replied that vandalism was not an unusual feature in the development area. In
particular, where the bus stop is located is away from the stores. They have actually had
benches stolen from properties. These benches are off by themselves today. Eventually, the
benches will be close to a building, which will make it less likely to be stolen. In the Center they
have had decorative flower pots stolen within the past 30 days.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the
matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out in the Long Range Transportation Plans there is bus service going out
to Hollymead Town Center. However, they don’t know if they will get the money.
Mr. Morris asked if he had any idea what time frame, and Mr. Lafferty replied no.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of the Amended
Proffers and Application Plan for ZMA-2012- 00005, Hollymead Town Center (A-1) as
recommended by staff.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion.
Mr. Randolph noted that it seems to be standard operating procedure that they indicate the
benches; and, therefore a public transit stop should be prepared to operate 30 days after transit
services is established. He was just thinking about the fact that for 30 days there may be
people using that facility with some kind of handicap or if it was uncomfortable for them to stand
for a period of time. They all know that the buses do not travel through the County with the kind
of frequency that one would associate with public transit in other locations of the country in a
municipal setting specifically. So it could be very difficult to be standing there for an extended
period of time. He would hope at some point they could revisit that and try to shorten the 30
days. He did not want to victimize Mr. Wood on this application by suggesting that they should
shorten it for his application. However, it seems that 30 days is a long period of time to leave
people for the opening of a transit stop until such time as benches are available for people to sit
down. He hoped somehow in the future they could narrow that time period from a month maybe
down to a week or no more than two weeks.
Mr. Morris asked for a roll call.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted that ZMA-2012- 00005, Hollymead Town Center (A-1) would go to the Board of
Supervisors at a time to be determined with a recommendation for approval.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
October 31, 2013
Valerie W. Long - Williams Mullen PC
321 E. Main St., Suite 400
Charlottesville, Va 22902
RE: ZMA201300007 North Pointe Amendment
Dear Ms. Long:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 22, 2013, by a vote of
6:0 recommended approval of the above -noted petition based on the staff report with the
amended proffers as recommended by staff to 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 December 11, 2013.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Planning Division
CC: North Pointe Charlottesville, LLC
P.O. Box 5526
Charlottesville, Va 22905
1 North Pointe Proffer Amendment
PC Public Hearing 10/22/2013
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 201300007 North Pointe
Proffer Amendment
Staff: Claudette Grant
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
October 22, 2013
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: To Be
Determined
Owners: CWH Properties, LP, Violet Hill
Associates, L.L.C., and Neighborhood
Investments-NP, LLC
Applicant: North Pointe Charlottesville, LLC
C/O Great Eastern Management Company.
Contact: Valerie W. Long with Williams Mullen,
PC
Acreage: Approximately 269 acres
Rezone from: No change of zoning is sought.
This application seeks to amend the current
proffers.
TMP: Tax Map Parcel(s) 03200000002000;
032000000020A0; 032000000020A1;
032000000020A2; 032000000020A3;
032000000029I0; 03200000002300;
032000000023A0; 032000000023B0;
032000000023C0; 032000000023D0;
032000000023E0; 032000000023F0;
032000000023G0; 032000000023H0;
032000000023J0; and 032000000022K0
(See Attachments A and B)
Location: The parcels are located north of
Proffit Road, east of US 29 North, west of
Pritchett Lane and south of the Rivanna River.
By-right use: Mixed use development with
maximum residential units of 893.
Magisterial District: Rivanna Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Request to amend approved proffers
from ZMA200000009 on property zoned
Planned Development – Mixed Commercial
(PD-MC) zoning district which allows large-scale
commercial uses; residential by special use
permit (15 units/acre) uses. A maximum of 893
units on approximately 269 acres is approved by
special use permit at a gross density of 3.31
units/acre. No new dwellings proposed.
(See Attachment C)
Requested # of Dwelling Units: – No change.
893
DA (Development Area): Piney Mountain
Community
Comp. Plan Designation: Urban Mixed Use (in
Destination and Community Centers) – retail,
residential, commercial, employment, office,
institutional, and open space; Urban Density
Residential – residential (6.01 – 34 units/ acre);
supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools, commercial, office and service uses;
Neighborhood Density Residential – residential
(3 – 6 units/acre) supporting uses such as
religious institutions, schools and other small-
2 North Pointe Proffer Amendment
PC Public Hearing 10/22/2013
scale non-residential uses; Privately Owned
Open Space; Environmental Features –
privately owned recreational amenities and open
space; floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, and
other environmental features; and Institutional –
civic uses, parks, recreational facilities, and
similar uses on County-owned property.
Character of Property: The property is
primarily wooded and undeveloped, with sloping
terrain and streams running through it.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The North
Fork Rivanna River is located to the north of the
property. Pritchett Road is the eastern
boundary on which there are houses and
pastureland. A mobile home park, medical
office and lumberyard are to the south of the
property. The University Foundation has a
research park located to the west across Route
29 and an industrial park is located on Northside
Drive. Halls Body Shop and another mobile
home park are also located to the west, across
Rt. 29 from the site.
Factors Favorable:
1. The rezoning request remains consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The use is consistent with the uses
permitted under the existing PD-MC
zoning district.
3. This rezoning request would provide
additional residential and commercial
opportunities for residents in this portion
of the County.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. There are two conflicting rezoning
requests regarding the proffer
amendment for Proffer 5.3.1 (c) needing
resolution.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this rezoning ZMA201300007, North Pointe
Proffer Amendment, with the attached revised proffer, dated August 5, 2013.
STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION: October 22, 2013
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
3 North Pointe Proffer Amendment
PC Public Hearing 10/22/2013
ZMA 201300007 North Pointe Proffer Amendment
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA201300007/North Pointe Amendment
PROPOSAL: Request to amend approved proffers from ZMA200000009 on property zoned Planned
Development – Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) zoning district which allows large-scale commercial uses;
residential by special use permit (15 units/acre) uses. A maximum of 893 units on approximately 269
acres is approved by special use permit at a gross density of 3.31 units/acre. No new dwellings
proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes
FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Mixed Use (in Destination and Community Centers) – retail,
residential, commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space; Urban Density Residential –
residential (6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial,
office and service uses; Neighborhood Density Residential – residential (3 – 6 units/acre) supporting
uses such as religious institutions, schools and other small-scale non-residential uses; Privately Owned
Open Space; Environmental Features – privately owned recreational amenities and open space;
floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, and other environmental features; and Institutional – civic uses,
parks, recreational facilities, and similar uses on County-owned property.
LOCATION: North of Proffit Road, east of Route 29 North, west of Pritchett Lane and south of the
Rivanna River.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03200000002000; 032000000020A0; 032000000020A1; 032000000020A2;
032000000020A3; 032000000029I0; 03200000002300; 032000000023A0; 032000000023B0;
032000000023C0; 032000000023D0; 032000000023E0; 032000000023F0; 032000000023G0;
032000000023H0; 032000000023J0; and 032000000022K0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
This area is developed with single family houses, mobile homes, a University of Virginia research park,
commercial uses, such as an auto body shop, outdoor supply store, and a medical office facility. A
portion of the area is vacant, undeveloped land that is primarily wooded with streams running through
the area. Although the area is wooded with many mature trees and shrubs, the environmental character
of the area is slowly beginning to change as the area becomes developed.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant proposes to amend the approved proffers from ZMA200000009. The proffer amendment
includes the following proposed changes: Parcels 22H and 22K have been combined into a single
Parcel 22K; Reduce length of buffer along the entrance corridor from 50 feet to 40 feet and the buffer
may be located partly on the Owner's property and partly on VDOT property; A minor technical
correction to the road phasing language for phase II is completed; Phase III road improvements
language is now changed to clarify approval of subdivision plat or site plan for any development of the
Neighborhood Investment Property instead of Tax Map 32, Parcel 22k or Tax Map 32, Parcel 22H; and
clarification that all associated permits and bonds required for the construction of the road
improvements are collectively, the “Phase III Road Improvements”. Satisfied proffers are duly noted.
Timing for request for dedication of the land for the Library Lot and Park H has been revised from
December 31, 2010 to December 31, 2016 and may be extended by written mutual agreement of the
owner and the County. Timing for request of dedication for the School Lot has also been revised from
December 31, 2010 to December 31, 2016. The school deadline may also be extended by written
4 North Pointe Proffer Amendment
PC Public Hearing 10/22/2013
mutual agreement of the Owner and the County or three (3) years after the issuance of the first
residential building permit with the Project. The school proffer also extends time the Owner has to no
longer be obligated to dedicate the School Lot to January 30, 2017 or thirty (30) days after such later
date, instead of 2011. There are a couple minor additional technical fixes to the school proffer and the
bus stop turnoffs proffer.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
Due to slow and changing market conditions, developing the subject property has been difficult. The
applicant started to amend these proffers a few years ago and due to a variety of complication did not
complete the rezoning process. Several of the references to deadlines and timing in the proffers are no
longer valid and the applicant proposes to modify the proffers to extend several deadlines within the
proffers, to update ownership and parcel number information, and to clarify certain issues. The proffer
amendment does not propose any changes to the zoning categories, residential or commercial
densities, or permitted land uses.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
ZMA200000009 was approved on August 2, 2006. Prior to this action, no zoning actions had been
approved on the properties since they were zoned RA in 1980. Several subdivision plats have been
recorded. A rezoning was requested for a portion of the land with ZMA 89-11. This project was
withdrawn prior to Planning Commission review. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property
was approved in 1994 which brought the property into the Development Areas.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
With the adoption of Places29, the land use plan now designates the subject property as Urban Mixed
Use (in Destination and Community Centers) with retail, residential, commercial, employment, office,
institutional, and open space uses; Urban Density Residential with residential (6.01-34 units/acre); and
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office, and service uses;
Neighborhood Density Residential, with residential (3-6 units/acre); and supporting uses such as retail,
commercial, and office uses that support the neighborhood, live/work units, open space, and
institutional uses; and Privately Owned Open Space/Environmental Features with open space owned
and managed by private or semi-public entities and supporting related institutional uses.
This request does not propose to change the land uses previously approved for North Pointe. The
proffer amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed proffer amendments will update the proffers and extend deadlines, bringing the proffers
into compliance. There are no proposed changes to the density and the form remains in keeping with
the Comprehensive Plan and the Planned Development Mixed Commercial zoning district.
A full Neighborhood Model Analysis was completed with approved ZMA2000-09. The physical aspects
of this project are unchanged and remain the same as they were when the project was originally
approved; therefore, the original Neighborhood Model Analysis still applies to this project. No Further
neighborhood analysis is provided in this report.
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.
5 North Pointe Proffer Amendment
PC Public Hearing 10/22/2013
The proposed North Pointe rezoning (mixed 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
PDMC districts allow for the development of large-scale commercial areas with a broad range of
commercial uses under a unified planned approach. The PDMC district is intended to be established on
major highways in the urban area and communities in the Comprehensive Plan.
There are no changes proposed to the zoning, density or land uses for this project from the approved
rezoning. The proposed proffer amendments do not violate and are consistent with the intent of the
Planned Development Mixed Commercial District.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Streets:
It is not anticipated that the proposed proffer amendment will have an impact on the approved road
network or the street design within this development. The road construction for the school lot would
remain timed with the school construction.
Schools:
There is a proposed elementary school for this site; however, until the elementary school is built,
students living in this area would attend Baker-Butler Elementary School, Sutherland Middle School,
and Albemarle High School. A requested proffer amendment does affect the timing for the school site
dedication.
Fire and Rescue:
This area is served by the Hollymead Fire Station
Utilities:
The site is serviced by public water and sewer. No immediate or significant issues have been identified
by Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA). (See Attachment D)
Anticipated impact on environmental, cultural and historic resources
There are no anticipated impacts from the proposed proffer amendments on environmental or cultural
and historic resources.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties
There are no anticipated impacts from the proffer amendments on nearby and surrounding properties.
Public need and justification for the change
The proposed proffer amendment will extend several deadlines within the proffers that are no longer
valid, since the dates referenced in the proffers have passed by. The changes to deadlines are for the
dedication of a school lot; for a library, and a park. Also the proffers have been updated to reflect more
accurate information that has changed since the rezoning was approved. The proposed proffer
amendment is cleaning up some of the outdated information currently in the proffers. Changes are not
proposed to the approved zoning, density, or permitted land uses. Once this project is underway to be
built it will provide additional employment and residential opportunities for the local community.
6 North Pointe Proffer Amendment
PC Public Hearing 10/22/2013
PROFFERS
The applicant has provided amended proffers to ZMA2000-00009, which are summarized below. (See
Attachment C for black line of approved and amended proffers)
Page one (1) of the amended and restated proffers updates the proffers to reflect current ownership
information as follows: The proposed amended proffers reflect a separation of ownership regarding the
original proffers. Parcels 22H and 22K have been combined into a single Parcel 22K (also known as
Neighborhood Investment Property). The applicant describes in the proffer that the changes reflected in
this rezoning amendment do not apply to the owners of parcel 22K.
Proffer 2.1: The Zoning Administrator made a determination, dated March 8, 2010, permitting the
landscape buffer to be reduced from 50 feet to 40 feet. This proffer has been changed to be consistent
with the Zoning determination and now creates a 40 foot buffer along the entrance corridor instead of a
50 foot buffer and the buffer may now be located partly on the Owner's property and partly on VDOT
property.
Staff Comment: This proffer change reflects a prior zoning administrator determination. Staff can
support this change.
Proffer 5.3.1(b) (i): Describes a minor technical, typographical fix to the road phasing language for
phase II.
Staff Comment: Staff can support this change.
Proffer 5.3.1 (c): In general, this proffer describes that the Owner shall design and construct all of the
road improvements as described for phase III of the project development. This proffer is basically
unchanged with the exception of clarification that the approval of subdivision plat or site plan for any
development now references Neighborhood Investment Property instead of Tax Map 32, Parcel 22K or
Tax Map 32, Parcel 22H and the proffer now clarifies that all associated permits and bonds required for
the construction of the road improvements are collectively referred to as the “Phase III Road
Improvements”.
The proposed change to this proffer is relatively minor and is requested by the applicant only to clarify
the ownership revisions shown throughout the proffer language. This revision is acceptable to staff.
Staff notes that the owner of Parcel 22K (Neighborhood Investment Property) has submitted a rezoning
application on September 16, 2013 to more substantively amend the language of this proffer.
(ZMA201300014) The purpose for the Neighborhood Investment Property rezoning req uest is to amend
the proffer language in Proffer 5.3.1 (c) for the “Phase III” Road Improvements in order to allow the
development of parcel 22K along with only the construction of a portion of the road that provides Parcel
22K access to U.S. Route 29. The approved proffer would potentially require the property owner to
build a more extensive portion of road, including access to the school site. More substantive changes to
this proffer will be reviewed as part of a future rezoning request.
Staff Comment: Staff finds this proposed proffer amendment acceptable.
Proffer 5.3.4: This proffer revision describes that a cash contribution for a regional transportation study
has been satisfied.
Proffer 8.1: In order to make the timing referenced in this proffer accurate, the timing of request for
dedication of the land for the Library Lot and Park H has been revised from December 31, 2010 to
December 31, 2016 and may be extended by written mutual agreement of the owner and the County.
Staff Comment: All relevant County Departments are agreeable to the new timeline for the dedication.
7 North Pointe Proffer Amendment
PC Public Hearing 10/22/2013
Proffer 8.2 (h): This proffer revision describes that the Owner has contributed $300,000 cash to the
County for the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund. This proffer has been satisfied.
Proffer 9.1: In order to make the timing referenced in this proffer accurate, timing for request of
dedication for the School Lot has now been revised from December 31, 2010 to December 31, 2016.
The school deadline may now also be extended by written mutual agreement of the Owner and the
County or three (3) years after the issuance of the first residential building permit with the Project. The
school proffer now also extends the time the Owner has to no longer be obligated to dedicate the
School Lot to January 30, 2017 or thirty (30) days after such later date, instead of 2011. Lastly, a minor
technical fix for clarification is included in this proffer.
Staff Comment: All relevant County Departments are agreeable to the new timeline for the dedication.
Proffer 9.2 (c): This revision references the Amendment instead of ZMA2000-009. This is a minor
technical fix for clarification purposes.
Staff Comment: Staff can support this change.
In summary, staff can support the proposed proffer amendments. The proposed proffers have been
reviewed by legal staff.
As noted previously, a new request to amend proffer 5.3.1 (c) has been submitted by another property
owner within the Planned Development. This request is currently under review and will be subject to
Planning Commission review at a later date. Staff would encourage all property owners within the
Planned Development to work together to achieve mutually acceptable modifications to these proffers.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The rezoning request remains consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The use is consistent with the uses permitted under the existing PD-MC zoning
district.
3. This rezoning request would provide additional residential and commercial
opportunities for residents in this portion of the County.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The two conflicting rezoning requests regarding the proffer amendment for
Proffer 5.3.1 (c) needs to be resolved.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this rezoning ZMA201300007, North Pointe Proffer
Amendment, with the attached revised proffers, dated August 5, 2013. (Attachment C)
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A – Tax Map
ATTACHMENT B – Vicinity Map
ATTACHMENT C – Blackline Proffers, dated August 5, 2013
ATTACHMENT D – Electronic Mail from Alex Morrison-ACSA, dated July 22, 2013
ATTACHMENT E – Application Plan, dated June 13, 2006
Return to PC actions letter
8 North Pointe Proffer Amendment
PC Public Hearing 10/22/2013
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. If the ZMA is recommended for approval: Move to recommend approval of ZMA201300007 with
amended proffers and resolution as recommended by staff.
B. If the ZMA is recommended for denial: Move to recommend denial of ZMA20130007 with the
reasons for denial.
PRITCHETT LNLEWISANDCLARK
DR
WORTH XINGCAMEL
O
T
DR
PINERIDG E L NTERRYBROOKDR
CYPRE
S
S
DR
COLONIAL DRMOUBRY LNNORTHSIDE DR
AIRPORTACR ESRD
RI V E R S E D G ERDMEADOWFIELDLNTHUJA ST
CREST F I E L D CTDUTCHMAN RDSANDSTONERDSPRINGFIELDRDTIMBERMEADOWSSEQUOIAS TDEWMAWLNWHITECE DARLN32-23
32-20
32-22K
32-29I
3
2-2
0
A
3
32-23J
3
2-2
3
F
3
2-2
3
E
3
2-2
3
C
3
2-2
3
A
3
2-2
3
H
3
2-2
3
G
3
2-2
3
B3
2-2
3
D
32-20A
32-20A1
32-20A2
Prepared by Albemarle CountyDivision of Information ResourcesMap created by Elise Hackett, October 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.
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2012
0 800 1,600400Feet
ZMA 2013-007North Pointe
10' Contours
Roads
Railroads
Buildings
Driveways
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcels of Interest
±
SEMINOLE TRLPROF
F
IT
R
D WA
T
T
S
P
A
S
S
A
GEDICKERSONRDADVANCEMILLSRD
POLOGROU N DSRD¡743
¡747
¡600
¡641
¡664
¡649
¡848¡854
¡660
}ÿ20
£¤29
Prepared by Albemarle CountyDivision of Information ResourcesMap created by Elise Hackett, October 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.
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2012 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
ZMA 2013-007North Pointe
Roads
Railroads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcels of Interest
County Boundary
±
AMENDED AND RESTATED
PROFFER STATEMENT
NORTH POINTE CHARLOTTESVILLE, LLC
ORIGINAL REZONING APPLICATION: #ZMA-2000-009, SP -2002-72
ZMA 2013-00007 North Pointe Proffer Amendment
Tax Map 32 Parcels: 20, 20A, 20A1, 20A2, 20A3, 29I, 23, 23A, 23B, 23C, 23D, 23E, 23F,
23G, 23H, and 23J.
July 20, 2006
Approximately 229 acres zoned Planned Development - Mixed Commercial (“PDMC”)
August 5, 2013
With respect to the property described in rezoning application #ZMA-2000-09
and SP-2002-72 (the “Original ZMA”), CWH Properties Limited Partnership is the fee simple
owner and North Pointe Charlottesville, LLC is the contract purchaser of Tax Map 32, Parcels
20, 20A, 20A1, 20A2, 20A3 and 29I (the “North Pointe Property”), and Violet Hill Associates,
L.L.C. is the fee simple owner of Tax Map 32, Parcels 23, 23A, 23B, 23C, 23D, 23E, 23F, 23G,
23H and 23J (the “Violet Hill Property”), Virginia Land Trust is the fee simple owner of Tax
Map 32, Parcel 22K (the “Virginia Land Trust Property”) and the Edward R. Jackson Trust is the
fee simple owner of Tax Map 32, Parcel 22H (the “Jackson Trust Property”). The respective
parties are collectively referred to herein as the “Owner”, which term shall include any
successors in interest. The North Pointe Property, and the Violet Hill Property, the Virginia
Land Trust Property and the Jackson Trust Property are referred to collectively as the
“Property”., all of which is the subject of zoning map amendment application number ZMA
2013-00007 known as the “ZMA Amendment.”
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Owner
hereby voluntary proffers the conditions listed in this Amended and Restated Proffer Statement,
which shall be applied to the North Pointe Property if the ZMA Amendment is approved by
Albemarle County. These conditions are proffered as part of the ZMA Amendment and it is
agreed that: (1) the ZMA Amendment itself gives rise to the need for the conditions, and (2) such
conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested.
ThisThe Original ZMA, together with its associated proffers dated July 20, 2006
(the “Original Proffer Statement”), was approved by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
on August 2, 2006, and also included Tax Map 32, Parcel 22K (which parcel 22K was at the time
comprised of two separate parcels 22H and 22K, which have since been combined into a single
parcel 22K) which is owned by Neighborhood Properties – NP, LLC (the “Neighborhood
Investment Property”). The changes reflected in this ZMA Amendment shall not appl y to the
Neighborhood Investment Property. In all other respects, this ZMA Amendment amends and
restates said proffers in their entirety and the Amended and Restated Proffer Statement shall
relate to the multi-page application plan entitled “North Pointe Community”, prepared by
Keeney & Co., Architects, as revised through June 13, 2006 and attached hereto as Exhibit A
2
(the “Application Plan”), and the Albemarle County Code in effect as of the date of thisthe
Original Proffer Statement (the “County Code”). The North Pointe Community shall be referred
to as the “Project”.”
I. THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY DELETED
II. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR
2.1 Creation of a 5040-Foot Buffer along the Entrance Corridor. Within six (6)
months after the acceptance by the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) of the
Road Improvements as defined in Section 5.3 that are along the northbound lanes of U.S. Route
29, Owner shall plant and thereafter maintain at all times a landscaped buffer, including
hedgerows, along the Entrance Corridor frontage parcels owned by Owner. The buffer will
consist of a minimum 5040-foot wide continuous visual landscape area that shall be subject to
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (“ARB”) review and approval (the “Buffer”).
The Buffer may be located partly on the Owner’s property and partly on VDOT property. In the
event VDOT at any time in the future reduces any portion of the Buffer located on VDOT
property, the Owner shall compensate for such reduction by extending the Buffer on Ow ner’s
property in order to maintain a minimum 40-foot Buffer, even if such compensation shall require
the removal of parking adjacent to such Buffer.
2.2 Appearance of Storm Water Management (“SWM”) Facilities. The SWM
facilities visible from the Entrance Corridor identified on the Application Plan (stormwater
management facilities 1, 2, and 10) shall be shown on a plan and be subject to ARB review and
approval. SWM 1 shall be designed such that its shape, placement, and land form (grading)
transition between the adjacent conservation area and the adjacent hard edge of the parking lot
and buildings. The plan for SWM 1 shall be submitted to the ARB with the first ARB
submission for Building 14 or 19 identified on Sheet B to the Application Plan (“Sheet B”), or
any such building that is proposed to be located where Building 14 is located on Sheet B
pursuant to the terms of Section 3.2. SWM 2 shall have a more structured appearance than
SWM 10 (see below) and shall be designed such that its shape, placemen t, and land form
(grading) transition between the adjacent conservation area and the adjacent hard edge of the
parking lot and buildings. The plan for SWM 2 shall be submitted to the ARB with the first
ARB submission for any of Buildings 26 through 31. SWM 10 shall be designed such that its
shape, placement, and land form (grading) are integral with the adjacent conservation area. The
plan for SWM 10 shall be submitted to the ARB at the time road plans are submitted to the
County and VDOT for Northwest Passage.
III. DENSITIES
3.1 Total Buildout. The total number of dwelling units within the Project shall not
exceed eight hundred ninety-three (893). Subject to Section 3.2, the building footprints and gross
floor areas of commercial, office, and other uses, and the building footprints of hotels shall not
exceed those set forth in the Land Use Breakdown Table on Sheet A to the Application Plan
(“Sheet A”).
3
3.2 Limited Adjustments to the Elements of the Application Plan . The gross floor
area of the buildings used for commercial, office, other uses, and hotels shown on Sheet A may
be adjusted within a range of up to ten percent (10%), provided that the maximum gross floor
area for each category of uses shown on Sheet A is not exceeded. The footpri nts of Buildings 6,
14 and 36 as shown on Sheet A can be interchanged. Notwithstanding the terms of this Section
3.2 to the contrary, Building 14 shall not initially exceed 88,500 square feet, provided, however,
that after two years following the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for Building 14,
Building 14 may be adjusted within a range of up to ten percent (10%), and if Building 14 is
located in the location shown on Sheet B, any such expansion shall be located to the east so that
the additional space is located along North Pointe Boulevard. Notwithstanding the terms of this
Section 3.2 to the contrary, but subject to the provisions of Section 8.1, the County may
authorize Building 21 as shown on Sheet A to be adjusted by more than ten percent (10%).
IV. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND STREAM BED CONSERVATION
4.1 Flood Plain. The area of the 100-year flood plain within the Project shall remain
undisturbed except for road crossings, public utility facilities and their crossings, and pedestrian
and biking trails, and only to the extent such exceptions are permitted by County ordinances and
regulations. Upon the request of the County, Owner shall provide a survey and prepare the
necessary documentation and dedicate the land within such flood plain to the County.
4.2 Stormwater Management Plan. The stormwater/best management practices
(“BMP”) plan for the Project shall be prepared, and all stormwater management facilities for the
Project shall be designed and constructed, to accommodate all current stormwater discharge from
Tax Map Parcel 032A0-02-00-00400 (Northwoods Mobile Home Park Development) and from
the existing developments on the northeast and northwest corners of Proffit Road and U.S. Route
29, specifically the following parcels shown on the current Albemarle County tax maps: tax map
32, parcels 38, 38A, 39, and 39A; tax map 32A, parcels 2-1, 2-1A, 2-1A1, 2-1B, 2-1C and 2-1D.
The stormwater management facilities shall mitigate the stormwater quality and quantity
impacts, for the stormwater generated both within the Project and for such existing offsite
conditions as described herein, as though the entire preexisting condition of the drainage area is
an undeveloped wooded site and is being developed to the existing off -site conditions and the
proposed on-site conditions. In addition, biofilters shall comprise a minimum of thirty-three and
one-third percent (33 1/3%) of the total required parking lot landscaped areas within the
“Commercial Area” of the Project, as such Commercial Area is delineate d on Sheet G of the
Application Plan (“Sheet G”).
4.3 Erosion and Sediment Control.
(a) The Owner shall, to the “maximum extent practicable”, provide such
additional appropriate erosion and sediment control measures that exceed State and Local
minimum standards. If there is a disagreement regarding whether the standard of “maximum
extent practicable” is satisfied, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation will be
provided an opportunity to review and advise on such question.
4
(b) Post-Construction Stormwater Management: The Owner shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, provide post-construction stormwater BMPs that are designed to
achieve an average annual sediment removal rate of 80% as published by the Center for
Watershed Protection in Article 64 of The Practice of Watershed Protection (2000 edition).
These will include, but are not limited to, bioretention, bioretention filters and wet retention
basins.
4.4 Stream Buffer and Restoration. Upon the commencement of the applicable
comment period, the Owner shall notify the County and provide the County with a copy of any
application(s) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or DEQ for any stream disturbance. In
addition, if necessary, after first looking on-site for mitigation opportunities available to satisfy
the permitting process, the Owner shall contact the County for a list of off-site opportunities
within Albemarle County for such mitigation, and shall look for such mitigation opportunities
off-site.
V. TRANSPORTATION
5.1 Internal Street Construction Standards. Public streets, which in any event
shall include at least Leake Road, North Pointe Boulevard, Northside Drive East and Northwest
Passage, shall be (i) constructed in accord with the illustrative urban design cross sections shown
on Sheet D-1 to the Application Plan (“Sheet D-1”) and also in accordance with VDOT design
standards pursuant to detailed plans agreed to between Owner and VDOT, and (ii) dedicated for
public use and offered for acceptance into the state highway system. Trees (with a maximum
spacing of fifty (50) feet), landscaping and sidewalks as shown on Sheet D-1 shall be installed
and maintained by the Owner in accordance with County or VDOT standards, unless VDOT or
the County agrees in writing to assume this responsibility.
5.2 Timing of Completion for Internal Streets. Before issuance of certificates of
occupancy, Owner shall complete that segment of an internal street as shown on Sheet D-1
within the Project which serves the building or residence for which a certificate of occupancy is
sought with at least the stone base and all but the final layer of plant-mix asphalt. The final layer
of plant-mix asphalt shall be installed within one (1) year following the issuance of the first
certificate of occupancy for a building or residence served by the affected street segment.
5.3 Road Improvements. Owner shall design and construct all of the road
improvements referenced in Sections 5.3.1(a), 5.3.1(b) and 5.3.1(c) below, which are also shown
on Sheet D-1 to the Application Plan and on Sheet E to the Application Plan entitled “External
Road Improvement Plan” (“Sheet E”) (collectively, the “Road Improvements”), unless such
Road Improvements are first constructed or bonded by others. The various phases of the Road
Improvements are also shown for illustrative purposes on a color-coded copy of Sheet B that is
attached hereto as Exhibit B. Owner shall dedicate to public use any required right-of-way that it
now or hereafter owns in fee simple. For purposes of this Section 5.3, the use of the term “road”
as it applies to internal streets shall also have the same meaning as the word “street” in the
Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code) where
applicable.
5
5.3.1 Design and Phasing. All Road Improvements shall be designed and phased as
follows:
Design. The Road Improvements shall be shown on detailed road plans satisfying
VDOT design standards which shall be submitted by the Owner for review and, when
satisfactory, approved by VDOT and the County (except for the Road Improvements to U.S.
Route 29, which shall be subject only to VDOT approval) (hereinafter, the “Approved Road
Plans”). The Approved Road Plans shall show the width and length (except as specified in
Sections 5.3.1(a)(1)(ii) and (v) and Section 5.3.1(b)(1)(i)), location, type of section, and
geometrics of all lane improvements as required by VDOT design standards. All of the Road
Improvements shall be constructed in compliance with the Approved Road Plans. The Road
Improvements to U.S. Route 29 shall be based on the then-current VDOT design speed and
cross-slope requirements. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph to the contrary, in
the event that the internal residential street design s as shown on Sheet D-1 are not accepted by
VDOT, the Owner shall submit detailed road construction plans for such streets to the County for
review and, when satisfactory, approval, subject also to the County’s approval of private streets
under the Subdivision Ordinance (Ch. 14 of the Albemarle County Code).
Phasing. The Road Improvements shall be constructed and completed in three
phases as set forth below:
(a) Phase I Road Improvements. Prior to approval of the first commercial
subdivision plat or site plan within the Project, Owner shall obtain all associated permits and post
all associated bonds required for the construction of the following (collectively, the “Phase I
Road Improvements”):
(1) Southernmost Entrance on U.S. Route 29:
(i) U.S. Route 29 Southbound – correction of the vertical
curvature in the roadway just north of the entrance.
(ii) U.S. Route 29 Southbound – construction of a continuous
12 foot wide through lane (with shoulders or guard rail as required by VDOT) starting at a point
that is 1000 feet north of the southernmost entrance and extending south to Airport Road.
(iii) U.S. Route 29 Southbound – construction of dual left turn
lanes with taper at the crossover.
(iv) U.S. Route 29 Southbound – construction of right turn lane
with taper to serve northernmost entrance to SR 1515.
(v) U.S. Route 29 Northbound – construction of a continuous
12 foot wide through lane (with shoulders or guard rail as may be required by VDOT) extending
from Proffit (Airport) Road (Route 649) to the Northwest Passage entrance.
6
(vi) U.S. Route 29 Northbound – construction of a right hand
turn lane at the Southernmost entrance, the geometrics of which will be subject to VDOT
approval.
(vii) U.S. Route 29 Northbound – construction of left turn lane
with taper into SR 1515.
(viii) SR 1515 Eastbound – construction and/or restriping to
provide left turn lane with taper.
(ix) Installation of a traffic signal with 8 phase timing, video
detection and associated intersection improvements at the intersection with U.S. Route 29.
(x) Close existing crossover at U.S. Route 29 and
Southernmost Entrance to SR 1515.
(xi) Proposed Entrance Road between North Pointe Boulevard
and U.S. Route 29.
7
(2) North Pointe Boulevard, Leake Road and Proffit Road:
(i) Leake Road and North Pointe Boulevard, in accordance
with the design cross-sections shown on Sheet D-1, from Proffit Road to either Northside Drive
East or, if Northside Drive East has not yet been constructed to the roundabout at North Pointe
Boulevard, North Pointe Boulevard shall be extended to Northwest Passage. The Owner shall
provide a fifty (50) foot public right-of-way along Leake Road and shall construct a two-lane
public street to be accepted by VDOT and as much of the other improvements shown on the
cross-sections as possible within the available right-of-way as reasonably determined by the
County Engineer.
(ii) The roundabout, or such other improvements as may be
approved by VDOT and the County, at the intersection of Leake Road and Proffit Road shown
on Sheet B and an additional westbound right turn lane on Proffit Road from Leake Road to U.S.
Route 29 as shown on Sheet E. In addition, for property acquisition that is required for the off -
site public right-of-way for construction of the improvements required by this Section
5.3.1(a)(2)(ii), the Owner shall make a cash contribution or provide a letter of credit in a form
approved by the County Attorney for such purpose in the amount as deemed necessary for the
property acquisition by the County Attorney, provided that such amount shall not exceed one
hundred fifty percent (150%) of the County’s fair market value appraisal prepared for acquisition
and condemnation purposes. The cash contribution or letter of credit described in this Section
5.3.1(a)(2)(ii) shall be used to pay for the total cost of the right of way acquisition. The total cost
of the right of way acquisition for the off-site property necessary to construct the improvements
required by this Section 5.3.1(a)(2)(ii) shall include the normal costs associated with acquiring
land, buildings, structures, easements and other authorized interests by condemnation or by
purchase including, but not limited to, land acquisition, engineering, surveying, and reasonable
attorneys fees. The cash contribution or the letter of credit shall be provided by the Owner
within thirty (30) days upon request by the County. If the property is acquired by purchase, the
contribution for the purchase price shall not exceed one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the
County’s fair market value appraisal prepared for condemnation purposes without the consent of
the Owner. If the cost of the right of way acquisition exceeds the amount previously contributed,
then the Owner shall reimburse the County all such excess costs within thirty (30) days upon
request by the County. The County shall refund to the Owner all excess contributions upon
completion of the land acquisition.
(iii) Intentionally Omitted
(iv) An additional through lane eastbound on Proffit Road from
U.S. Route 29 to the roundabout at the intersection of Leake Road and Proffit Road. In addition,
for property acquisition that is required for the off-site public right-of-way for construction of the
improvements required by this Section 5.3.1(a)(2)(iv), the Owner shall make a cash contribution
or provide a letter of credit in a form approved by the County Attorney for such purpose in the
amount as deemed necessary for the property acquisition by the County A ttorney, provided that
such amount shall not exceed one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the County’s fair market value
8
appraisal prepared for acquisition and condemnation purposes. The cash contribution or letter of
credit described in this Section 5.3.1(a)(2)(iv) shall be used to pay for the total cost of the right of
way acquisition. The total cost of the right of way acquisition for the off -site property necessary
to construct the improvements required by this Section 5.3.1(a)(2)(iv) shall include the normal
costs associated with acquiring land, buildings, structures, easements and other authorized
interests by condemnation or by purchase including, but not limited to, land acquisition,
engineering, surveying, and reasonable attorneys fees. The cash contribution or the letter of
credit shall be provided by the Owner within thirty (30) days upon request by the County. If the
property is acquired by purchase, the contribution for the purchase price shall not exceed one
hundred fifty percent (150%) of the County’s fair market value appraisal prepared for
condemnation purposes without the consent of the Owner. If the cost of the right of way
acquisition exceeds the amount previously contributed, then the Owner shall reimburse the
County all such excess costs within thirty (30) days upon request by the County. The County
shall refund to the Owner all excess contributions upon completion of the land acquisition.
Completion of the Phase I Road Improvements. Within fifteen (15) months
after the issuance of the first building permit for a commercial building within the lands subject
to the first commercial subdivision plat or site plan within the Project, or prior to the issuance of
a certificate of occupancy for such building, whichever is earlier, all of the Phase I Road
Improvements shall be accepted by VDOT for public use or bonded for VDOT’s acceptance if
such Road Improvements are a primary highway, or accepted by VDOT for public use or bonded
to the County for VDOT’s acceptance if such Road Improvements are a secondary highway.
(b) Phase II Road Improvements. Prior to approval of the first site plan that
would authorize the aggregate commercial, office and hotel gross floor area as shown on Sheet A
within the Project to exceed two hundred ninety thousand (290,000) square feet, Owner shall
obtain all associated permits and post all associated bonds required for the construction of the
following (collectively, the “Phase II Road Improvements”):
(1) Middle Entrance on U.S. Route 29 (Northside Drive East/SR
1570):
(i) U.S. Route 29 Southbound – construction of a continuous
12 foot wide through lane (with shoulders or guard rail as may be required by VDOT) starting at
a point that is 1000 feet north of the Middle entranceEntrance and extending to the point where it
connects with the portion of the lane constructed pursuant to Section 5.3.1(a)(1)(ii).
(ii) U.S. Route 29 Southbound - construction of dual left turn
lanes with taper.
(iii) U.S. Route 29 Southbound – construction of a right turn
lane with taper.
(iv) U.S. Route 29 Northbound – construction of a right hand
turn lane at the Middle Entrance, the geometrics of which will be subject to VDOT approval.
9
(v) U.S. Route 29 Northbound – construction of left turn lane
with taper.
(vi) SR 1570 Eastbound – construction of or restriping of lanes
to result in separate left, through and right turn movements.
(vii) Entrance road Westbound – installation of a traffic signal
with 8 phase timing, video detection and associated intersection improvements on U.S. Route 29.
(viii) Existing crossover at Cypress Drive – construction to close
the crossover.
(ix) Frontage road from Cypress Drive to SR 1570 –
construction of a public street to serve properties currently accessing U.S. Route 29 through
Cypress Drive.
(2) Northside Drive East between U.S. Route 29 and North Pointe
Boulevard as shown on Sheet D-1.
Completion of the Phase II Road Improvements. Within fifteen (15) months
after the issuance of the first building permit for a building within the lands subject to the first
subdivision plat or site plan that would authorize the aggregate commercial, office and hotel
gross floor area as shown on Sheet A within the Project to exceed two hundred ninety thousand
(290,000) square feet, or prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building that
causes such gross floor area to exceed two hundred ninety thousand (290,000) square feet,
whichever is earlier, all of the Phase II Road Improvements shall be accepted by VDOT for
public use or bonded for VDOT’s acceptance if such Road Improvements are a primary
highway, or accepted by VDOT for public use or bonded to the County for VDOT’s acceptance
if such Road Improvements are a secondary highway.
(c) Phase III Road Improvements. Prior to the earliest of: (i) the approval
of the first subdivision plat or site plan that would authorize the aggregate number of dwelling
units within the Project to exceed five hundred thirty-three (533); (ii) the approval of a
subdivision plat or site plan for any development of either the Virginia Land Trust Property (Tax
Map 32, Parcel 22K) or the Jackson Trust Property (Tax Map 32, Parcel 22H)Neighborhood
Investment Property or any portion thereof; or (iii) the five (5) year anniversary of the date of
issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a building or premises within the Project, Owner
shall obtain all associated permits and post all associated bonds required for the construction of
the following road improvements (collectively, the “Phase III Road Improvements”) to the extent
any such road improvements have not already been completed:
(1) Northernmost Entrance (opposite Lewis & Clark Drive) on U.S.
Route 29:
(i) U.S. Route 29 Southbound – construction of left turn lane
with taper.
10
(ii) Northwest Passage from U.S. Route 29 to North Pointe
Boulevard.
(iii) U.S. Route 29 Northbound – construction of a right hand
turn lane, the geometrics of which will be subject to VDOT approval.
(iv) If not already constructed, North Pointe Boulevard between
Northside Drive East and Northwest Passage.
(v) If the traffic signal to be constructed by others is in place
prior to Owner commencing work on this Northernmost Entrance, and such traffic signal only
includes three legs, Owner shall add the fourth leg to the signal, which shall include additional
mast arms, signal heads and ancillary equipment necessary to support Northwest Passage’s use
of the intersection, as determined by VDOT. If such traffic signal is not in place and the
vehicular traffic generated by the Project causes the VDOT signal warrants to be met, and VDOT
requires that a traffic signal be installed as a condition of the entrance permit, Owner shall install
such traffic signal.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Proffer
Statement, within one hundred eighty (180) days after written notice from the County that it
intends to build an elementary school on the School Lot (as “School Lot” is defined in Section
9.1), the Owner shall submit road plans for the construction of Northwest Passage from North
Pointe Boulevard to U.S. Route 29 to VDOT and to the County for review, and when
satisfactory, approval. Furthermore, within twelve (12) months after issuance of the building
permit for construction of the elementary school, and if not already completed, Owner will
complete (i) Northwest Passage from North Pointe Boulevard to U.S. Route 29, (ii) the
improvements set forth in Section 5.3.1(c)(1) above, and (iii) North Pointe Boulevard from
Northside Drive East to Northwest Passage. To allow the development of the School Lot, the
Owner shall grant all temporary easements as necessary to allow ingress and egress for vehicles
and construction equipment, grading, the installation and maintenance of erosion and sediment
control structures or measures, and any other associated construction easements, as such
temporary easements are shown on the subdivision plat or site plan for the School Lot and
mutually agreed to by the Owner and the developer of the School Lot.
Completion of the Phase III Road Improvements. Within twelve (12) months
after the occurrence of the applicable event in Section 5.3.1(c) which required the Owner to
obtain all associated permits and post all associated bonds requir ed for the construction of the
Phase III Road Improvements, all of the Phase III road improvements shall be accepted by
VDOT for public use or bonded for VDOT’s acceptance if such Road Improvements are a
primary highway, or accepted by VDOT for public use or bonded to the County for VDOT’s
acceptance if such Road Improvements are a secondary highway.
5.3.2 Upon request by the County, Owner shall make a cash contribution to the County
or VDOT for the cost of a cable or wireless radio system that will link one or more of the signals
11
between Lewis and Clark Drive and Airport Road; provided, however, that the total cash
contribution shall not exceed thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000). Subject to matters of force
majeure, if the County does not request the funds, or does request the funds but the construction
of the system does not begin by the later of December 31, 2010 or three (3) years after
completion of all of the Road Improvements, said funds shall be refunded to the Owner.
5.3.3 Prior to the approval of plans for improvements at any U.S. Route 29 intersection,
Owner shall provide VDOT traffic signal network timing plans that VDOT finds acceptably
address the impacts of the proposed traffic signals for peak traffic periods.
5.3.4 Regional Transportation Study; Cash Contribution. THIS PROFFER HAS
BEEN SATISFIED. Upon request by the County, Owner shall make a cash contribution of one
hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to the County for the purposes of funding a regional
transportation study for the Route 29 corridor, which includes the South Fork and North Fork of
the Rivanna River and the Hollymead Growth Area of which North Pointe is a part. The
contribution shall be made within thirty (30) days after requested by the County anytime after the
rezoning is approved. If the request is not made within one (1) year after the date of approval of
the first final site plan for the first commercial building within the Project, this proffer shall
become null and void. If such cash contribution is not expended for the stated purpose within
three (3) years from the date the funds were contributed to the County, all unexpended funds
shall be refunded to the Owner.
VI. OPEN SPACE AREAS AND GREENWAY
6.1 Pedestrian Pathways. All pedestrian pathways shall be classified as shown on
the Pedestrian Pathway Key on Sheet G and, except for the pathways to be constructed by the
County, shall be shown on the subdivision plat or site plan for the underlying or adjacent lands
within the Project. The pathways shall be constructed by Owner as Class A or Class B trails as
identified on Sheet G, and in accordance with the applicable design and construction standards
in the County’s Design Standards Manual. Such construction shall be in conjunction with the
improvements for the subdivision plat or site plan, as the case may be, and bonded with the
streets if the pathways are a subdivision improvement, or with a performance bond if the
pathways are a site plan improvement. The pathway shown on Sheet G along Fl at Branch north
and south of Northside Drive East shall not continue through a culvert if a culvert is used for the
stream crossing. The pathway intended for the culvert between Park E and Park F under North
Pointe Boulevard shall conform to the applicable standards in VDOT’s “Subdivision Street
Guidance” and Owner shall maintain the pathway if it is not accepted by VDOT for
maintenance.
6.2 Lake. Upon request by the County, Owner shall dedicate to the County the lake
shown on the Application Plan for public use, provided that such lake will be available for use by
Owner for stormwater management as described in Sheet C to the Application Plan entitled
“Stormwater Management and Stream Conservation Plan” (“Sheet C”).
VII. THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY DELETED
12
VIII. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES PROFFERS
8.1 Branch Library.
(a) Upon request by the County, Owner shall dedicate to the County the fee
simple interest in the land shown on Sheet B as a library, consisting of a 15,000 square f oot fully
graded pad site, with utilities, to accommodate a 12,500 square foot building footprint, a five
foot perimeter strip and up to a 25,000 square foot building, together with a nonexclusive
easement to the adjacent common area for ingress, egress, c onstruction staging and sufficient
County Code required parking, stormwater detention and water quality facilities for the
location of a freestanding Jefferson-Madison Regional Library and such other uses that are
compatible with the proposed surrounding uses, as determined by the County (the “Library
Lot”). Notwithstanding the terms of the prior sentence to the contrary, if the requirements for
the library building require a larger building footprint, the County may authorize the library
building footprint to be larger than as stated in the prior sentence, provided, however, that the
size of the area shown as “Park H” on Sheet B (“Park H”) and/or the size of the adjacent parking
area immediately north of the Library Lot on Sheet B (the “Library Parking L ot”) shall be
adjusted accordingly to accommodate such larger building footprint. The Owner shall not be
responsible for any utility tap fees, but Owner shall complete construction of the Library
Parking Lot and other parking areas serving the Library Lot. The Owner shall permit the County
to use the Library Parking Lot and/or, if not already constructed, Park H, for purposes of
construction staging. Within twelve (12) months after written notice from the County that it
intends to begin construction of the library, the Owner shall make the access roads and the
area of the Library Parking Lot available with at least a four inch compacted stone base for use
as access and construction staging. Such street access serving the Library Lot and the Library
Parking Lot shall be completed and available for use no later than ten (10) months after
issuance of the building permit for the library, provided, however, that asphalt pavement in
areas used for construction staging by the County shall not be required to be i nstalled until
thirty (30) days (or such longer reasonable time as may be necessary due to weather
conditions) after the County has removed its construction -related materials and equipment.
Upon the request of the County, Park H shall also be dedicated to public use, but the Owner
shall not be responsible for maintaining such park. Owner shall be responsible for maintenance
of the Library Parking Lot and other parking spaces serving the Library Lot and the County shall
have no obligation to be a member of any owner’s association. The County’s request for
dedication of the land for the Library Lot and Park H shall be made within three (3) years
following the latterlater to occur of (i) issuance of the first residential building permit within the
Project, (ii) Owner’s completion of the infrastructure (including but not limited to streets,
water, sewer, electric, gas) required for the use of the Library Lot, or (iii) December 31,
2010.2016 (which December 31, 2016 deadline may be extended by written mutual agreement
of the Owner and the County). If a request for such dedication is not made within three (3)
years following the later of these dates, this proffer will be null and void.
(b) Green Roof. In the event that the requirements for the library build ing
require a larger building footprint, and the County elects to authorize the library building
13
footprint to be larger than 12,500 square feet pursuant to section 8.1(a) above, and in the
further event that the building is developed as a condominium and the County requests the
Owner to assume ownership for a portion of the larger building, Owner shall accept such
ownership at a reasonable price upon which the parties may mutually agree, and shall
contribute to the County, on a pro rata basis based on the p roportional size of the portion of
the library building owned by the Owner relative to the size of the library building as a whole,
the cost of designing and constructing such building. These costs may include, if desired by the
County, installation of a “green roof,” and any additional expenses associated with structurally
reinforcing the roof as necessary to support the green roof. Within ten (10) days after receipt
of a request for payment by the County that is accompanied by documentation to support t he
progress payment amount as provided in the construction contract, the Owner shall submit
such payments to the County. Alternatively, in the event the County elects to design the library
building as a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) building, the Owner shall
contribute to the County, on a pro rata basis based on the proportional size of the portion of
the library building owned by the Owner relative to the size of the library building as a whole,
the additional costs of constructin g the library building to obtain LEED certification for the
building. Within ten (10) days after receipt of a request for payment by the County that is
accompanied by documentation to support the progress payment amount as provided in the
construction contract, the Owner shall submit such payments to the County. The design of the
green roof, or the criteria utilized to obtain the LEED certification, as applicable, shall be in the
County’s discretion.
8.2 Affordable Housing. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Section
8.2, the Owner shall provide a minimum of forty (40) “for-sale” residential dwelling units as
affordable dwelling units, a minimum of sixty-six (66) “for-rent” residential dwelling units as
affordable dwelling units, and a minimum of four (4) Carriage House Units (as Carriage House
Units are defined in Section 8.2(d)). The forty (40) “for-sale” residential dwelling units shall be
comprised of the following types of dwelling units: twelve (12) from multi -family; twelve (12)
from “other” (consisting of townhouses, duplexes, attached housing, condominiums in the
commercial areas and other unidentified housing types); and sixteen (16) from single family
detached, each at the sale prices and under the terms and conditions set forth in t his Section 8.2.
The Owner shall convey the responsibility of constructing the affordable units to the subsequent
owners of lots within the Property.
(a) Multi-Family and “Other” For-Sale Affordable Units. For multi-family
and “other” for-sale affordable dwelling units within the Property, such affordable units shall be
affordable to households with incomes less than eighty percent (80%) of the area median family
income (the “Affordable Unit Qualifying Income”), such that the housing costs consist ing of
principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowners insurance (PITI) do not exceed thirty
percent (30%) of the Affordable Unit Qualifying Income, provided, however, that in no event
shall the selling price of such affordable units be less than the greater of One Hundred Ninety
Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($190,400) or sixty-five percent (65%) of the applicable
Virginia Housing Development Authority (“VHDA”) maximum mortgage for first-time home
buyers at the beginning of the 90-day identification and qualification period referenced in
Section 8.2(f).
14
(b) Single Family Detached For-Sale Affordable Units (“Moderately-Priced
Units”). For single family detached for-sale affordable units within the Property (“Moderately-
Priced Units”), such Moderately-Priced Units shall be affordable to households with incomes
less than one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the area median family income (the
“Moderately-Priced Unit Qualifying Income”), such that the housing costs consisting of PITI do
not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the Moderately-Priced Unit Qualifying Income, provided,
however, that in no event shall the selling price of such Moderately-Priced Units be required to
be less than the greater of Two Hundred Thirty Eight Thousand Dollars ($238,000) or eighty
percent (80%) of the applicable VHDA maximum mortgage for first-time home buyers at the
beginning of the 90-day identification and qualification period referenced in Section 8.2(f).
(c) For-Rent Affordable Units. For a period of five (5) 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 low or moderate cost units qualifying as such under either the Virginia Housing
Development Authority, Farmers Home Administration, or Housing and Urban Development,
Section 8, whichever comes first (the “Affordable Term”), such units shall be rented to
households with incomes less than the Affordable Unit Qualifying Income. No for-rent
affordable unit may be counted more than once towards the number of for-rent affordable
dwelling units required by this Section 8.2.
(i) Conveyance of Interest. All deeds 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 Section 8.2(c). 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 Section 8.2(c).
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 Section 8.2(c)(i) have been satisfied.
(ii). Annual Reporting. During the Affordable Term and within ninety
(90) days following the end of each calendar year, the then-current owner shall provide to the
Albemarle County Housing Office a certified annual report of all for-rent affordable units for the
immediately preceding year in a form and substance reasonably acceptable to the County
Housing Office. Subject to all federal, state and local housing laws, and upon reasonable notice
during the Affordable Term, the then-current Owner shall make available to the County at the
then-current Owner’s premises, if requested, any reports, copies of rental or lease agreements, or
other data pertaining to rental rates as the County may reasonably require.
(d) Carriage House Units. Carriage House Units shall meet the requirements
for a single family dwelling as defined in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, shall
be on the same parcel as the primary dwelling unit to which it is accessory, and shall not be
subdivided from the primary residence (“Carriage House Units”). The subdivision restriction
shall be included on the plat creating such parcels and be incorporated into each deed conveying
title to such parcels.
15
(e) Each subdivision plat and site plan for land within the Property which
includes affordable units (which, for this Section 8.2(e) shall include Moderately-Priced Units)
shall designate the lots or units, as applicable, that will, subject to the terms and conditions of
this proffer, incorporate affordable units as described herein. The first such subdivision plat or
site plan shall include a minimum of three (3) such affordable units. Thereafter, and until the
total number of affordable dwelling units proffered hereunder shall have been fulfilled, the
Owner shall provide a minimum of three (3) such affordable dwelling units per year. Each final
subdivision plat and final site plan also shall include a running total of the number and
percentage of affordable units previously provided and proposed to be provided by the
subdivision plat or site plan. For purposes of this Section 8.2(e), such units shall be deemed to
have been provided when the subsequent owner/builder provides written notice to the County
Housing Office or its designee that the unit(s) will be available for sale, as required by Section
8.2(f) below. In the event that the Owner provides more than three (3) affordable dwelling units
in a single year, the Owner may “carry over” or “bank” credits for such affordable units, such
that the additional affordable units which exceed the minimum annual requirement may be
allocated toward the minimum number of affordable units required to be provided for any future
year. The maximum number of affordable units that may be carried over or banked shall not
exceed twelve (12) per year. Notwithstanding the terms of this Section 8.2(e) to the contrary,
upon the written request of the Owner, the County may authorize an alternative process and/or
schedule for the provision and/or delivery of such affordable units upon a determination that the
request is in general accord with the purpose and intent of Section 8.2 and/or otherwise furthers
the goals of providing affordable housing in the County.
(f) All purchasers of the for-sale affordable units shall be approved by the
Albemarle County Housing Office or its designee. The subsequent owner/builder shall provide
the County or its designee a period of ninety (90) days to identify and prequalify an eligible
purchaser for the affordable unit. The ninety (90)-day period shall commence upon written notice
from the then-current owner/builder that the unit(s) will be available for sale. If the County or its
designee does not provide a qualified purchaser who executes a contract of purchase during this
ninety (90)-day period, the then-current owner/builder shall have the right to sell the unit(s)
without any restriction on sales price or income o f the purchaser(s), provided, however, that any
unit(s) sold without such restriction shall nevertheless be counted toward the number of
affordable units required to be provided pursuant to this terms of this Section 8.2. The
requirements of this Section 8.2 shall apply only to the first sale of each of the affordable units.
(g) The County shall have the right, from time to time, on reasonable notice
and subject to all applicable privacy laws, to inspect the records of Owner or any successors in
interest for the purposes of assuring compliance with this proffer.
(h) Cash Proffer. THIS PROFFER HAS BEEN SATISFIED.
Within sixty (60) days after the Board of Supervisors approval of ZMA 2000 -009, the Owner
shall cause to be contributed three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) cash to the County of
Albemarle for the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund or such other similar fund as may be
established or authorized by the County. The contribution shall be to fund affordable home
ownership loan programs within the Project and other areas of Albemarle County, including
those provided by non-profit housing agencies such as the Piedmont Housing Alliance, Habitat
16
for Humanity, and the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program. If such cash contribution is
not expended for the stated purpose within five (5) years from the date the funds were
contributed to the County, all unexpended funds shall be refunded to the Owner.
IX. EDUCATIONAL AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES
9.1 Elementary School Site. Within two hundred seventy (270) days following
request by the County, Owner shall dedicate to the County the land shown on the Application
Plan as “Elementary School 12.85 Acres Schematic Layout”, consisting of approximately 12.85
acres (or a smaller portion of such land in the County’s sole discretion) (the “School Lot”). Prior
to dedication, the School Lot shall be graded and compacted by Owner to a minimum of 95%
compaction as measured by a standard Proctor test with suitable material for buildin g
construction as certified by a professional engineer or as otherwise approved by the County
Engineer to establish a fully graded pad site to accommodate an elementary school. The
recreational field improvements shown on the Application Plan shall be fine graded and have top
soil and soil amendments added, and the mains for an underground irrigation system serving the
recreational fields shall be installed. Such improvements shall be reasonably equivalent to those
existing at the recreational fields at Baker-Butler Elementary School, exclusive of any above
ground improvements. The pedestrian pathways as shown on the perimeter of the School Lot on
the Application Plan shall be reflected on the subdivision plat prepared by Owner creating the
School Lot and the pathways shall be installed when the site is graded for the recreation fields.
The Owner shall provide all utilities to the School Lot. The dedication shall include easements
across Owner’s land for access to and use of Storm Water Basins 5 and 10 shown on the
Application Plan, together with all temporary construction easements to allow Stormwater Basin
10 to be redesigned and enlarged, if necessary, to accommodate the School Lot stormwater. The
School Lot shall be used as an elementary school site, but if the County determines that the
School Lot will not be used as an elementary school site, it shall be used by the County for park
and recreational purposes serving both the North Pointe community and the region. If the
County does not request by December 31, 2010 that the School Lot be dedicated by the later of
December 31, 2016 (which December 31, 2016 deadline may be extended by written mutual
agreement of the Owner and the County), or three (3) years after the issuance of the first
residential building permit within the Project, the Owner shall be under no further obligation to
dedicate the School Lot for the purpose described herein, but shall, by January 30, 2011,2017, or
thirty (30) days after such later date, contribute five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) cash to
the County to be used by the County for projects identified in the County’s CIP reasonably
related to the needs of the North Pointe community, and in such event the School Lot may be
used for other residential purposes as approved by the County after request by Owner for an
amendment to the Application Plan. After dedication and before the County uses the School Lot
for a school or for park and recreational purposes, and if requested by the County, Owner shall
maintain the School Lot until requested by the County to no longer do so, subject to the Owner’s
right to exclusive use of the School Lot for park and recreational purposes. Such park and
recreational purposes shall be only those uses shown on an approved final site plan or
subdivision plat for the area that includes the School Lot. Upon being requested by the County,
Owner shall cease all use and maintenance of the School Lot and remove all improvements
established by Owner that the County requests be removed. The County shall not be obligated to
17
pay Owner for any improvements established by Owner that the County retains. The deed of
dedication for the School Lot shall provide that if the County accepts title to the School Lot and
then does not construct either a park or a school within twenty (20) years following the date the
Board of Supervisors approves the ZMA 2000-009,Amendment, then upon Owner’s request title
to the School Lot shall be transferred to Owner at no expense to Owner.
18
9.2 Bus Stop Turnoffs, Bus Stop Improvements, and Bus Service.
(a) Owner shall construct ten (10) public bus stop turnoffs as shown on the
Application Plan, or otherwise two (2) in the southernmost residential area, four (4) in the
commercial areas and four (4) in the other residential areas, each in a location mutually
acceptable to Owner and the County. The bus stop turnoffs shall be approved with street
construction plans for the Project and bonded and constructed with the streets.
(b) Upon the request by the County, Owner shall contribute the total sum of
twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) cash towards the design and construction of the above
ground bus stop improvements such as benches and shelters meeting standards established by the
County at each bus stop. If the County does not request the funds, or requests the funds but does
not construct the bus stop improvements by the later of December 31, 2015 or three (3) years
after completion of the road network that includes the bus stop turnoffs, then subject to matters
of force majeure, the unexpended funds shall, in the discretion of the County, either be returned
to Owner or applied to a project identified in the County’s capital improvements program within
or adjacent to the Project that benefits the Project.
(c) Within thirty (30) days after the introduction of public transportation to
the Project, Owner shall contribute twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) cash to the County to
be used for operating expenses related to such service, and shall thereafter annually co ntribute
Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) cash to the County to be used for operating expenses
related to such service for a period of nine (9) additional years, such that the total funds
contributed to the County pursuant to this Section 9.2(c) shall not exceed Two Hundred Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($250,000). If the introduction of public transportation to the Project does not
commence by the later of ten (10) years after the Board of Supervisors approves the ZMA 2000-
009,Amendment, or seven (7) years after the date of the issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy for the first commercial building within the Project, this Section 9.2(c) shall become
null and void.
X. ACCESS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES
10.1 Dedication of Right-of-Way-Extension to Parcel 22E. Unless the dedication
of public right-of-way and the construction of such street are required in conjunction with the
approval of a subdivision plat under Albemarle County Code § 14-409 and related sections, or
their successors:
Owner shall reserve the fifty (50) foot wide right-of-way located within the area shown
on Sheet B and identified as a “50’ R.O.W. Reserved for Future Dedication” connecting a right-
of-way from the proposed middle entrance road into North Pointe to the southern property line of
Tax Map 32, Parcel 22E (“TMP 32-22E”). Prior to the issuance of a building permit for
Building 32 as shown on the Application Plan, Owner shall record in the Clerk’s Office of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County, a current, irrevocable deed of dedication dedicating to public
use for road purposes, the area labeled “50’ R.O.W. Reserved for Future Dedication.” Owner
acknowledges that if it is not part of a subdivision plat approved by the County, such offer of
dedication must be first reviewed and approved by the Board of Supervisors and accepted by the
19
Board. Such deed of dedication shall include the following conditions: (i) that TMP 32-22E
shall have been upzoned; and (ii) that prior to its use for road purposes, there shall have been
constructed on the land so dedicated a road approved by the County and accepted by VDOT for
public use or bonded for VDOT’s acceptance. At the time of the construction of the access road
serving Building 32, the Owner shall construct the intersection curb radii or the road serving
TMP 32-22E and extend construction of such road for at least a minimum of one hundred (100)
feet from Northside Drive East. The Owner shall also place at the end of such extended road, a
sign, approved by the County, advising and notifying the public that such right-of-way is the
location of a future road extension. Owner shall grant temporary construction easements as
determined necessary by the County Engineer to allow for the road to be extended to TMP 32 -
22E, which construction easements shall be on Owner’s property and outside of the dedicated
right-of-way, and shall be established by the applicable site plan. No improvements shall be
located within the temporary construction easements until construction of such road has been
completed.
10.2 Access to Tax Map 32A, Section 2, Parcel 4 (current Northwoods Mobile Home
Park Property). Unless the dedication of public right-of-way and the construction of such street
are required in conjunction with the approval of a subdivision plat und er Albemarle County
Code § 14-409 and related sections, or their successors:
Owner shall reserve an area in the location labeled “50’ R.O.W. Reserved for Future
Dedication” at the eastern end of the main commercial access road from U.S. Route 29 on Sheet
B for access to Tax Map 32A, Section 2, Parcel 4 (“TMP 32A-2-4”). Prior to the issuance of a
building permit for Building 6 or Buildings V1 through V6, each as shown on the Application
Plan, whichever is earlier, Owner shall record in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, a current, irrevocable deed of dedication dedicating to public use for road
purposes, the area labeled “50’ R.O.W. Reserved for Future Dedication.” Owner acknowledges
that if it is not part of a subdivision plat approved by the County, such offer of dedication must
be first reviewed and approved by the Board of Supervisors and accepted by the Board. Such
deed of dedication shall include the following conditions: (i) that TMP 32A-2-4 shall have been
upzoned; and (ii) that prior to its use for road purposes, there shall have been constructed on the
land so dedicated a road approved by the County and accepted by VDOT for public use or
bonded for VDOT’s acceptance. At the time of the construction of the roundabout serving
Building 6 and Buildings V1 through V6 the Owner shall construct the intersection curb radii
and extend construction of the road for a distance of at least thirty feet beyond the roundabout.
The Owner shall also place at the end of such extended road, a sign, approved by the County,
advising and notifying the public that such right-of-way is the location of a future road extension.
After dedication and before the conditions of the dedication have been satisfied, and if requested
by the County, Owner shall maintain the dedicated land until requested by the County to no
longer do so, subject to the Owner’s right to exclusive use of the dedicated land for park,
recreational, and/or greenspace purposes. Upon being requested by the County, Owner shall
cease all use and maintenance of the dedicated land and remove all improvements established by
Owner (if any) that the County requests be removed. Owner shall grant temporary construction
easements as determined necessary by the County Engineer to allow for the road to be extended
to TMP 32A-2-4, which construction easements shall be on Owner’s property and outside of the
dedicated right-of-way, and shall be established by the applicable site plan. No improvements
20
shall be located within the temporary construction easements until construction of such road has
been completed.
XI. SIGNATORY
12.1 Certificate. The undersigned certify that they are the only owners of the Property,
which is the subject of ZMA-2000-09 and SP 2002-72.the ZMA Amendment.
12.2 The Owner. These proffers shall run with the Property and each reference to
Owner within these proffers shall include within its meaning, and shall be binding upon,
Owner’s successor(s) in interest and/or the developer(s) of the Property or any portion of the
Property.
(Signature Pages Immediately Follow)
21
This Proffer Statement may be signed in counterparts and/or via facsimile with the same
full force and effect as if all signatures were original and on one document.
Signatures of Contract Purchaser and All Owners
Contract Purchaser:
NORTH POINTE CHARLOTTESVILLE, LLC
By: Great Eastern Management Company,
Manager
By: ______________________________
Date: __________________ its: ___________________________
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
The undersigned Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid hereby certifies that
Charles Rotgin, Jr.______________, whose name as President ____________of Great Eastern
Management Company, Manager of North Pointe Charlottesville, LLC, a Virginia limited
liability company, is signed to the foregoing Amended and Restated Proffer Statement bearing
the date as of __________, 2006,2013, acknowledged the same before me in my jurisdiction
aforesaid on behalf of said limited liability company.
Given under my hand this _____ day of ____________, 2006.2013.
My commission expires: _______________________
___________________________________
[SEAL] Notary Public
22
23
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST
By: ______________________________
Date: ___________________ its: Trustee
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
The undersigned Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid hereby certifies that
Charles William Hurt, whose name as Trustee of Virginia Land Trust, a Virginia land trust, is
signed to the foregoing Proffer Statement bearing the date as of ___________, 2006,
acknowledged the same before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid on behalf of said Trust.
Given under my hand this _____ day of ____________, 2006.
My commission expires: _______________________
___________________________________
[SEAL] Notary Public
24
VIOLET HILL ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.
By: _____________________________Great
Eastern
Management
Company,
Manager
By: __________________________
Date: ____________________ ____________________ its: Manager
______________________
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
The undersigned Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid hereby certifies that
Charles William Hurt___________________ whose name as ___________ of Great Eastern
Management Company, Manager of Violet Hill Associates, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability
company, is signed to the Amended and Restated Proffer Statement bearing the date as of
___________, 2006,2013, acknowledged the same before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid on
behalf of said limited liability company.
Given under my hand this _____ day of ____________, 2006.2013.
My commission expires: _______________________
25
___________________________________
[SEAL] Notary Public
26
CWH PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By: Towers Limited Partnership, General Partner
By: Great Eastern Management Company,
General Partner
By:
______________________________
Date: ___________________ its: General Partner
_________________________
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
The undersigned Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid hereby certifies that
Charles William Hurt_________________, whose name as _____________ of Great Eastern
Management Company, General Partner of Towers Limited Partnership, General Partner of
CWH Properties Limited Partnership, a Virginia limited partnership, is signed to the foregoing
Amended and Restated Proffer Statement bearing the date as of ___________, 2006,2013,
acknowledged the same before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid on behalf of said partnership.
Given under my hand this _____ day of ____________, 2006.2013.
My commission expires: _______________________
___________________________________
[SEAL] Notary Public
27
28
EDWARD R. JACKSON TRUST
By: Bank of America, NA, Trustee
By: __________________________
Date: __________________ its: __________
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
The undersigned Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid hereby certifies that
_______________________________, whose name as _______________________________of
Bank of America, NA, Trustee of the Edward R. Jackson Trust, is signed to the foregoing Proffer
Statement bearing the date as of _________, 2006, acknowledged the same before me in my
jurisdiction aforesaid on behalf of said Trust.
Given under my hand this _____ day of ____________, 2006.
My commission expires: _______________________
___________________________________
[SEAL] Notary Public
\\REA\275754.17
1252007v3
1262446v12
21513782_2.docx
g:\docs\wp\northpointe\rezoning\profferssupconditions\may.2013.applicationforzoningmapamendment\school.library.buffer.swm.docx
Document comparison by Workshare Compare on Monday, August 05, 2013
2:38:48 PM
Input:
Document 1 ID interwovenSite://WM-IW-APP/IWOVRIC/8224014/1
Description #8224014v1<IWOVRIC> - North Pointe Proffers as
approved (dated July 20, 2006)
Document 2 ID interwovenSite://wm-iw-app/IWOVRIC/21513782/2
Description #21513782v2<IWOVRIC> - NP Proffer Amendmentment
School Library Buffer SWM Submitted 5.20.13
Rendering set Standard
Legend:
Insertion
Deletion
Moved from
Moved to
Style change
Format change
Moved deletion
Inserted cell
Deleted cell
Moved cell
Split/Merged cell
Padding cell
Statistics:
Count
Insertions 60
Deletions 65
Moved from 1
Moved to 1
Style change 0
Format changed 0
Total changes 127
file:////Cob-dts01/CityViewLnk/Docs/2013/ZMA/ZMA201300007%20No...20October%2022%202013/ZMA201300007_Northpoint_Attachment_D.htm
From: Alex Morrison [amorrison@serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 2:02 PM
To: Claudette Grant
Subject: ZMA201300007: Northpoint Amendment
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Dear Claudette :
The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has received and reviewed the plan/document/project
described above. All ACSA comments have been addressed by the applicant. The ACSA hereby approves
the plan/document/project described above.
Please feel free to contact me at the number below with any comments or questions you may have.
Thank you.
Alexander J. Morrison, EIT
Civil Engineer
Description:
Description:
Description: C:\Users
\lbreeden\Documents
\Logo\ACSA logos\24
bit Logo.BMP
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Office: (434) 977 - 4511 EXT: 116
This email may contain confidential information that should not be shared with anyone other than
its intended recipient(s).
file:////Cob-dts01/CityViewLnk/Docs/2013/ZMA/ZMA20130...%2022%202013/ZMA201300007_Northpoint_Attachment_D.htm10/28/2013 1:02:35 PM
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 22, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 22, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 22, 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, Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, and
Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Calvin Morris, Chair was absent. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land
Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Amanda
Burbage, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County
Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Lafferty, Vice Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Lafferty invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being no
comments, the meeting moved to the next item.
Item Requesting Deferral
ZMA-2013-00007 North Pointe Amendment (Signs 61, & 62)
PROPOSAL: Request to amend approved proffers from ZMA200000009 on property zoned Planned
Development – Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) zoning district which allows large-scale commercial uses;
residential by special use permit (15 units/acre) uses. A maximum of 893 units o n approximately 269
acres is approved by special use permit at a gross density of 3.31 units/acre. No new dwellings proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes
FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Mixed Use (in Destination and Community Centers) – retail, residential,
commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space; Urban Density Residential – residential
(6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and
service uses; Neighborhood Density Residential – residential (3 – 6 units/acre) supporting uses such as
religious institutions, schools and other small-scale non-residential uses; Privately Owned Open Space;
Environmental Features – privately owned recreational amenities and open space; floodplains, steep
slopes, wetlands, and other environmental features; and Institutional – civic uses, parks, recreational
facilities, and similar uses on County-owned property.
LOCATION: North of Proffit Road, east of Route 29 North, west of Pritchett Lane and south of the
Rivanna River.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03200000002000; 032000000020A0; 032000000020A1; 032000000020A2;
032000000020A3; 032000000029I0; 03200000002300; 032000000023A0; 032000000023B0;
032000000023C0; 032000000023D0; 032000000023E0; 032000000023F0; 032000000023G0;
032000000023H0; 032000000023J0; and 032000000022K0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
The purpose of this request is to amend approved proffers from ZMA-2000-00009. This property is zoned
Planned Development – Mixed Commercial zoning district. There were no changes proposed to the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 22, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
2
zoning, density and number of approved residential units or land uses from the approved rezoning. In
general, the proposed proffer amendments will update the proffers and extend deadlines bringing the
proffers into compliance.
Staff can support the proposed proffer amendments. However, as stated in the staff report staff is
concerned that a new request to amend proffer 5.3.1.c, which is improvements to phase III, has been
submitted by another property owner within the Planned Development. This request is now under staff
review and will come before the Planning Commiss ion at a later date. Staff would encourage all property
owners with the Planned Development to work together to achieve mutually acceptable modifications to
these proffers.
Mr. Kamptner asked the Commissioners to review the proffers. Since his hard copy had just the odd
numbered pages he asked the Commissioners to check to make sure their proffer statement has all the
pages.
Ms. Grant asked if everyone had all the pages.
Mr. Morris replied that some Commissioners did not have all of the pages.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out one of the proffers being amended deals with the library site. It looks like that
is on an even numbered page. He suggested the Planning Commission take a brief recess so the copies
can be made for everyone.
Mr. Franco suggested the Commission take a five minutes recess or move on to the next item.
Mr. Lafferty noted the Commission would take a five minute recess.
The Planning Commission took a break at 6:20 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 6:29 p.m.
taking up ZTA-2013-00005 and then coming back to ZMA-2013-00007.
ZMA-2013-00007 North Pointe Amendment (Signs 61, & 62)
PROPOSAL: Request to amend approved proffers from ZMA200000009 on property zoned Planned
Development – Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) zoning district which allows large-scale commercial uses;
residential by special use permit (15 units/acre) uses. A maximum of 893 units on approximately 269
acres is approved by special use permit at a gross density of 3.31 units/acre. No new dwellings proposed.
Mr. Lafferty noted the Commission would return to the review of ZMA-2013-00007 North Pointe
Amendment upon distribution of the necessary paperwork.
Mr. Cilimberg apologized for the copies excluding even page numbers on the proffers.
Ms. Grant continued the PowerPoint presentation where she previously left off summarizing the proposal.
Staff can support the proposed proffer amendments. However, as stated in the staff report staff is
concerned that a new request to amend Proffer 5.3.1 (c) has been submitted by another property o wner
with a Planned Development. This request is now under staff review and will come before the
Commission at a later date. Staff would encourage all property owners with the Planned Development to
work together to achieve mutually acceptable modifications to these proffers.
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The rezoning request remains consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The use is consistent with the uses permitted under the existing PD -MC zoning district.
3. This rezoning request would provide additional residential and commercial opportunities for residents
in this portion of the County.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 22, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
3
1. The two conflicting rezoning requests regarding the proffer amendment for Proffer 5.3.1 (c) needs to
be resolved.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this rezoning ZMA-2013-00007, North Pointe Proffer Amendment,
with the attached revised proffers, dated August 5, 2013 as shown in Attachment C of the staff
report.
Mr. Lafferty invited questions for staff.
Mr. Dotson said he was curious about the branch library since they recently have been dealing with the
Northside Library that was not the reality at the time this proffer was cr afted. Therefore, he was
wondering how those two sort of align. He asked if this branch library would be a far north library or a
very small library compared to the Northside Library.
Ms. Grant replied she was not sure what the intent of the library was. However, given the fact that
Northside Library has always been at the location where it is even when this was approved that there
must have been some expectation that there would be a need for a library at the more northern area of
the county. She did not know about the size or the expectations of the size of that library. She assumed
there was a need for it.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out during the original rezoning there was identified the potential need for a second
library site, but maybe not of the same size as the more southern site. That circumstance has not
necessarily changed. What is m oving forward is the library on Rio Road. However, he believed there is
still identified in Places29 the potential for a more northern library as well that could happen depending on
need functioning for other public purposes.
Mr. Dotson asked if this would allow for other public purposes since the library use is very specifically
stated.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that he would have to go back and look at the proffer, which is specifically for a
library. The proffer says and other such uses that are compatible with the proposed surrounding uses. It
is called the “library lot”.
Mr. Dotson said it sounds like something they don’t have a clear answer to. He suggested by the time
this gets to the Board that some more thought could go into that and perhaps the applicant has something
to say about it, too.
Mr. Cilimberg noted this was also under the plan to be located in their town center area rather than as a
separate out lot type of setting. He thought part of this was to make sure there was an area within that
town center where this kind of use could be provided for. It identified the site in terms of it somewhat
implies it is freestanding, but in fact it could be among a number of buildings.
Mr. Dotson pointed out he was curious about flexibility because there may be a need for some sort of a
public use facility in the north, such as with the geo-policing.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out it says for a f reestanding use meaning a building dedicated to the library and
such other uses that are compatible with the proposed surrounding uses. That is something staff
certainly can look at a little bit more after tonight and the applicant may want to speak to it as well.
Mr. Lafferty opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Valerie Long, representing the applicant North Pointe Charlottesville, said joining her was David Mitchell
who was also with the applicant’s entity. In reference to Mr. Dotson’s question, she noted the language of
the proffers state very specifically that the library block land is to be dedicated for a library as well as any
other uses that are not incompatible. In fact, the use mentioned is an example of one that the owner has
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 22, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
4
thought about as a potential use and perhaps compatible. That language and interpretations would be up
to the County in terms of what is compatible. However, she thinks it would be.
Mr. Dotson suggested some wordsmithing to make it clearer that it would be the library or other
compatible uses.
Ms. Long said they had not proposed to change anything. They were working hard to keep the proposed
changes to the proffers extremely limited so they could move through it to get the amendments extended.
They would be happy to talk to staff about it. However, certainly the intent was that it would be a library
and other uses that would be compatible with that use to the extent that was relevant. That was part of
the plans. It was envisioned that it would be somewhat like the Crozet Library ended up being a multiple
story building with multiple uses and the library on one floor at least. Otherwise, they were present to
answer questions to address the one comment from staff about the other applicat ion. They think it is
perfectly compatible and are happy to continue working with all the folks who own land that are part of
North Pointe.
Mr. Lafferty invited questions for Ms. Long.
Mr. Randolph said assuming everything is authorized what is their anticipated start date.
Ms. Long replied they don’t have one at this time. Obviously, they need to get through this process,
which hopefully will be fairly soon within the next few months. There is a lot of permitting and designing
to be done. There are engineers that have been working on the project for many years. There are a
number of permits that are still necessary from State agencies. There are a lot of challenges. It is a big
project and a lot of site work to be done, which they are working th rough. Therefore, they don’t have a
date for completion at this time.
Mr. Lafferty invited public comment.
William Shewmake, attorney with McClair Ryan, said he represented the adjacent property owner
Neighborhood Investments who was also part of the master zoning in this case. Neighborhood
Investments, as staff noted, has an independent application in to do a small tweak of the proffers. They
have been working with staff in consultation with Mr. Kamptner. The way the proffers work they think this
is compatible. Essentially proffer 5.3.c (1) deals with certain road improvements that need to be done.
Also, there are proffers that require the adjacent property owner to donate a school site and a library. In
talking with staff those proffers of donation only apply to the owner of the property where the donations
are to occur. So the delay of the school does not impact our client , which is his understanding from the
interpretation. If that is the case, then they think this is completely compatible because Neighborhood
Investments would not be required to donate the site that it does not control. The amendment is simply
trying to eliminate a problem to provide access to the larger development because Neighborhood
Investments is on the perimeter of the property adjacent to 29. However, it can be developed
independently. As a matter of fact all the plans are basically done at this point. However, the way proffer
5.1.c(1) is worded they technically can’t go forward until the road related to the school is done, which is
going to get bumped. It does not really affect our property because they don’t control it. So they put in an
amendment to clarify that what they need to do in order to go forward is do the necessary 29 road
improvements that they are required to build and then build that road all the way to our property line so it
will be ready when the school comes. They think it is consistent with this request.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed to bring the matter back to the
Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Dotson seconded to recommend approval of ZMA-2013-00007,
North Pointe Proffer Amendment based on the staff report with the amended proffers as recommended
by staff in Attachment C dated August 5, 2013.
The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0. (Morris absent)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 22, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
5
Mr. Lafferty noted a recommendation for approval for ZMA-2013-00007, North Pointe Amendment would
be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined. He apologized for the delay.
ZMA 201300002
BOS December 11, 2013
Executive Summary Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA201300002, Pantops Corner
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Rezone approximately 2.246 acres
from R-1 residential zoning district to HC
Highway Commercial zoning district. No
dwellings proposed.
STAFF:
Cilimberg, Benish, Grant
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
December 11, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On September 10, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Pantops Corner rezoning
request (ZMA201300002) (See Attachment A for executive summary). The Planning Commission by a vote of
5:2 recommended denial of ZMA201300002 with proffers based on the unfavorable factors lis ted in the
executive summary and clarified by the Planning Commission as follows:
Factors Unfavorable
1. The proffers need to be substantively and technically revised.
2. Traffic study information is incomplete and the adequate information as requested by VDOT and
the County Engineer needs to be submitted to determine impacts of the rezoning and road
interconnection to Routes 20, 250 and adjacent properties.
3. To clarify, Road B needs to be a local public road serving not only development traffic but also
some amount of through traffic.
DISCUSSION:
Since the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant has met with County staff and VDOT several
times in order to address the outstanding issues discussed during the Planning Commission public hearing.
The applicant has provided the following revisions to the proffers:
• Proffer 1: Interconnectivity has been revised to more clearly describe Road “A ” as a private road that
will be constructed from Stony Point Road across the subject property to and across tax map parcel 78-
5A to U.S. Route 250. The specific location, alignment and design of Road “A” may be adjusted with
approval by the County Engineer. The owner will grant and record an easement for public passage over
Road “A”. An access easement to tax map parcel 78-6 will also be provided. This revised proffer
ensures that a road design will be used to provide access through the site from Route 20 to Route 250
(as opposed to a parking lot travelway design). Staff believes this meets the intent of the Plannin g
Commission recommendation.
• Proffer 2: This proffer has been revised to state that no certificate of occupancy (CO) will be requested
for any building on the property until Road “A” is completed along with entrance improvements as
required by VDOT. The previous proffer specified no CO for any building on the north side of Road “A”.
Staff believes the revised proffer is appropriate because Attachment C shows a very small area north of
Road “A” that will also be restricted by flood plain and setbacks and as a result will be difficult to
develop. This revised proffer ensures that development will not take place on the property until it has
access to both Routes 20 and 250.
ZMA 201300002
BOS December 11, 2013
Executive Summary Page 2
• Proffer 3: Route 20 Widening is new as a result of discussions with VDOT. This i mprovement is
intended to help alleviate some of the traffic impacts occurring at the intersection of Routes 20 and 250.
This proffer is satisfactory to VDOT and staff.
• Staff and the applicant determined that previous proffers (old proffers, dated August 5, 2013) relating
to green space, neighborhood scale footprint and permitted uses were no longer necessary because
the size of the parcel, the revisions made to the proffers, and existing zoning regulations will limit the
scale and location of developme nt on the property.
In summary, the revised proffers address the outstanding concerns that VDOT and the County Engineer
had regarding the traffic study and Road “B” (now Road “A”) which were discussed during the Planning
Commission public hearing. Staff and VDOT’s concern for the incomplete nature of the traffic study was
that impacts to Route 20 and Route 250 were not fully known. With the applicant’s commitment to construct
an internal private road connecting from Route 250 to Route 20, and the com mitment to widen Route 20 at
the entrance to the site, the County Engineer and VDOT believe that potential traffic impacts have been
addressed, and additional transportation analysis is no longer needed.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of ZMA201300002, Pantops Corner with revised proffers.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 10, 2013
Attachment B: Proffers, dated November 26, 2013
Attachment C: Map (Exhibit C-1 from July 16, 2013 Planning Commissio n Staff Report)
PC minutes of July 16 and September 9, 2013
Return to agenda
ZMA 201300002
PC September 10, 2013
Executive Summary Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA201300002, Pantops Corner
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Rezone approximately 2.246 acres
from R-1 residential zoning district to HC
Highway Commercial zoning district. No
dwellings proposed. (See Attachment C in staff
report dated, July 16, 2013 (Attachment I) for
Exhibits C-1 and C-2)
STAFF:
Claudette Grant
AGENDA DATE:
September 10, 2013
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On July 16, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Pantops Corner rezoning
request (ZMA201300002) (See Attachment I for staff report). As requested by the applicant and by a
vote of 6:0, the Planning Commission agreed to defer the rezoning request to September 10, 2013 to
allow the applicant time to submit additional information on traffic impacts for review by VDOT and
County staff and consideration by the Planning Commission.
The applicant responded to the Planning Commission by submitting a Volume Comparison Study
and revised proffers on August 5, 2013.
DISCUSSION:
The following is a status of the revised information submitted by the applicant:
New traffic Information:
The applicant submitted a Volume Comparison Study which summarized potential increases in
traffic volumes at the Routes 250/20 int ersection for various types and sizes of developments.
The applicant’s goal was to demonstrate that likely development proposals for this site would
result in trip generation scenarios that only create a small increase in overall traffic volumes at the
subject intersection (250/20). (See Attachment II)
VDOT Comment – Troy Austin with VDOT commented that the submitted information is not
sufficient for VDOT to complete its review. No data was provided for the connection onto Route
250. The applicant needs to provide the following: an entrance analysis for each of the
connections to a State road, information regarding whether they are proposing to have turn lanes
and determine the impact of the turn lanes, determine whether the entrances will be full access,
determine sight distance, etc.
The County Engineer Comment – The County Engineer stated that this traffic study does not
provide the following: an analysis of levels of service, entrance turn lane warrants, physical
geometry for possible future improvements, or any other impact information. It contains a
comparison of ITE trip generation rates. It appears the applicant wants to develop this site in
ZMA 201300002
PC September 10, 2013
Executive Summary Page 2
small increments. The percentages provided in the study are based on an unknown total from the
250/20 intersection. Staff is not able to draw any conclusions based on the information submitted.
Other Outstanding Issues - Proffers:
The applicant has submitted revised proffers; however, the proffers remain in need of substantive
and technical revisions. (See Attachment III for revised proffers)
Proffer 1: This proffer is intended to establish the commitment for road interconnectivity to
adjacent parcels and, as drafted, addresses interconnection to TMP 78 -06. This proffer should
also address the interconnection to TMP 78-5A (Road B or an equivalent continuous roadway)
shown on Exhibit C-1 and C-2. Also, the proposed proffer language related to the timing for
installing the improvements (ex., “contemporaneously with…), and expected design of the
improvements, is ambiguous and should be revised to provide a clearer understanding of when
the improvements (specifically Road A) needs to be installed, and what standards for design for
the road/travelway is expected. In addition, the last sentence should be removed b ecause it sets
up the interconnection to tax map 78, parcel 6 only if the respective owners agree to share in the
road costs.
Proffer 2: This proffer is new and is intended to limit development on part of the rezoned parcel to
the connection of this parcel to US route 250. The concept of this proffer is acceptable; however,
the language is vague. It does not establish any standard for design or alignment for the
connection to US Route 250. The connection to US Route 250 should be through a continuous
roadway/travelway (Road B or equivalent) from Road A through TMP 78 -5A to US Route 250. It is
also recommended that the first clause of the proffer be revised from “No Certificate of
Occupancy . . . shall be issued” (which puts a prohibition on the County) to “The Owner shall not
request that the County issue a certificate of occupancy for any building on the north side of Road
A until . . . “which would place the responsibility on the applicant to comply.
Proffer 3: The applicant provided a proffer to addres s protection of the greenspace area identified
in the Pantops Master Plan which is located on the northeast portion of the site. After further
analysis, staff is of the opinion the existing regulations regarding floodplain and stream buffers will
adequately protect this area. This proffer could potentially create conflicts with current zoning
regulations, and accomplishes very little beyond what the zoning ordinance will require. Staff
recommends this proffer be eliminated.
Proffer 4: No comment on this proffer.
Proffer 5: This proffer needs to be revised to use the standard format for this type of proffer.
Proffer Form: The proffers need to be submitted on the correct proffer form.
Staff has discussed these comments briefly with the applicant, pro viding the applicant an opportunity
to address the comments prior to meeting with the Planning Commission again. The applicant has
requested to return to the Planning Commission without addressing the VDOT and engineering
comments related to the Volume Com parison Study.
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The proposed HC zoning can provide a more cohesive development for this property
and the adjacent existing HC zoning districts.
2. The proposed interconnections could be a benefit to the surrounding properties.
ZMA 201300002
PC September 10, 2013
Executive Summary Page 3
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The proffers need to be substantively and technically revised.
2. Traffic study information is incomplete and the adequate information as
requested by VDOT and the County Engineer needs to be submitted to
determine impacts of the rezoning and road interconnection to Routes 20, 250
and adjacent properties.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff does not recommend approval of ZMA201300002, Pantops Corner because of the
unfavorable factors listed above.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION – Zoning Map Amendment:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map
amendment with proffers:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2013-00002, Pantops Corner with proffers revised
substantively and technically to staff’s satisfaction prior to the Board of Supervisor
public hearing submittal and any other reason(s) for approval.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map
amendment and proffers:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA2013-00002, Pantops Corner with proffers based on
the unfavorable factors listed by staff in this Executive Summary.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment I: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 16, 2013
Attachment II: Volume Comparison Study, dated August, 2013
Attachment III: Proffers, dated August 5, 2013
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 16, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular hearing on Tuesday, July 16, 2013, at 6:00
p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virgin ia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Don Franco, Richard Randolph, Thomas Loach, Russell (Mac)
Lafferty, Vice Chair, and Calvin Morris, Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the
University of Virginia was present. Bruce Dotson was absent.
Other officials present were Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Chris Perez,
Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning
Administrator; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; and
Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Regular Items:
ZMA-2013-00002 Pantops Corner
PROPOSAL: Rezone 2.246 acres from R-1 zoning district which allows residential uses at a density of 1
unit per acre to HC zoning district which allows commercial and service uses; residential by special use
permit at a density of 15 units per acre. No dwellings proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential (6.01-34 units/acre); supporting uses such as
religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses and Greenspace – undeveloped areas
in Neighborhood 3 - Pantops.
LOCATION: Approximately 575 feet north from the intersection of Route 250 and Stony Point Road
(Route 20) on the east side of Route 20. Back portion of 1248 Richmond Road, fronting Route 20.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 078000000058G1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
The purpose of this request is to rezone 2.246 acres from R -1, Residential to HC, Highway Commercial.
The plan for the site focuses on the proposed interconnected road. Important factors such as proposed
uses, buildings and parking locations have not been provided because the applicant is unsure of these
details at this time. While staff understands this situation it is difficult for staff to review a rezoning
application that has limited information. One of the unique aspects regarding this particular request is the
property to the north is zoned R-1 and properties to the south and the east are zoned HC, Highway
Commercial. As stated in the staff report, this property can be suited for either zoning district that it is
adjacent to. The adjacent residential property to the north has expressed support of this rezoning
request. Rezoning to the Highway Commercial zoning district as proposed can provide an opportunity for
a more cohesive development of this property with the adjacent Highway Commercial zoned properties.
The proposed interconnection can also be a benefit for this property and the surrounding propertie s.
Staff received an email earlier today from the applicant that was emailed and distributed to the
Commission this evening. The email describes some areas of clarification that the applicant and staff had
from a productive meeting this morning regarding the outstanding issues described in the staff report.
Regarding proffers, the proffers need to be substantially and technically revised. The applicant has
agreed to further revise the proffers. The applicant plans on revising the proffer related to allowed uses in
the Highway Commercial District. The applicant has also agreed to limit the square footage of proposed
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
2
buildings located north of road A, shown on the Exhibit C -1. The proffers will also be revised to describe
that no development of the subject parcel shall occur without an interconnection to Route 250.
Regarding the protection of the designated green space, the applicant has agreed to provide a proffer to
maintain the area within the floodplain or the 50’ zoning buffer, whichever is greater, as a green space
within the development. Disturbance to that area would be limited to only that necessary for road
improvements required by VDOT.
In reference to the Neighborhood Model principles, staff understands the applicant’s view regarding the
location of this property in the Entrance Corridor with the ARB review over development in the Entrance
Corridor. However, without a detailed plan commitment to the Neighborhood Model principles might be
limited. They know that many Neighborhood Model aspects can be covered during the site plan review.
However, the unknown remains a concern for staff.
The one remaining issue has to do with traffic. Staff agrees that the proposed interconnection has many
positive aspects for this area. The traffic engineer is concerned with the already failing intersection of
Routes 250 and 20. Not knowing what would go on the site leaves many unknowns. The primary
concern is that no one knows how additional Highway Commercial uses will impact the intersection. It is
possible they will see little effects from a potential use on this site or they could see effects that were not
anticipated related to cueing issues as parcels try to access this site from Route 20 perhaps adding to the
already failing intersection. Again, it is the unknown information that causes staff to be concerned.
In addition, there is a typo on page 6 of the staff report in the second paragraph, third sentence that
should say with development of the adjacent Highway Commercial property VDO T would prohibit left
turns into the property from Route 250. It says Route 20, but was meant to be Route 250.
The recommendation has been revised slightly from the staff report. The staff report acknowledges that
the applicant agrees to address most of the outstanding issues. The unknowns are the Neighborhood
Model and the traffic study. However, staff can recommend approval of ZMA-2013-2, Pantops Corner
with revised proffers provided the unfavorable factors are addressed prior to the Board meeting.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. There being no questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public
hearing for applicant and public comment. He invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Michael McGowan, Albemarle County resident and managing member of the owners of the subject
property, noted this application is somewhat unusual in that the staff does not have information on the
proposed buildings. This is something they have talked about in considerable detail with staff. There is a
reason why this is a condition of things as they exist right now. This property and the adjacent properties
really started to develop over 15 years ago. In order to redevelop this site and to see a concerted
integrated interrelated development take place over time on the 10 acres on the corner of Routes 20 and
250 it is best that there is an interconnection that goes from Stony Point’s intersection up to the
intersection on 250, which would allow a penetrating roadway. That would allow for developmen t interior
to the site in order not to have everything be separate parcels sitting along the two roadways.
Mr. McGowan noted there were five different acquisitions to get to this point. There are various property
owners and tenants. Redeveloping a site like this is not a simple process. This particular piece is the
only one zoned R-1. Everything else is zoned HC, Highway Commercial. It is a triangular site with about
40’ of slope between the front and the back. When they put the roadway through the site there is not
much land left. There is about a ½ an acre that the Highway Department owns that fronts the property on
Route 20, which is about 50’ deep. The Highway Department says they are likely to have that available
when they finish all of their other plans on how they are going to deal with Route 20. However, they don’t
know at this time. So to develop a plan with specific buildings with an unknown VDOT decision about that
½ acre along with the roadway coming through, the topography changes an d given that this is probably
the last part of a redevelopment that would occur it would be fictitious to come in with a specific set of
buildings and say this is what is going to be built there. It is better to have generic decisions that nothing
is going to be above 12,000 square feet on the north side of Passage Road. The topography in putting
that road in is going to dictate that they work with the topography. He thinks after talking with staff this
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
3
morning in more detail that staff can understand they are not trying to pull a fast one here. They really
are working slowly to get a redevelopment going in that part of Pantops.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Randolph asked if he knew what the reaction was of the Pantops Regional A dvisory Council to the
proposal.
Mr. McGowan replied that he did not.
Mr. Morris pointed out it was brought up at the Pantops Advisory Council, but not in detail because they
did not have the staff’s study. He asked with the road that is going in if he and his engineering staff have
seen any particular problems with the crossing of the creek and the severe slopes in the area.
Mr. McGowan replied no, that the road actually creates some advantages out of the slope. As it slopes
from the high ground at 250 down to 20 they start to have opportunities for putting in multi -story buildings
that can orient on the upper level to 250 and on the lower level to 20. There are some issues to be
addressed, which will be addressed in terms of having a roadway come th rough there. They have been
told as they see in the plan to align the entrances with the roads across from them. Those are the two
givens in terms of what they understand is going to be required by VDOT. The rest of it will work.
However, they will need to have that long roadway coming up through this redevelopment parcel to climb
the 30’ some feet that you have to climb from Route 20 to get up to Route 250. So his answer is yes
since it will work from a grading and topographic standpoint to make this a site that can work for
interconnected development.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public
hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action
Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Morris to tell them about the Advisory Committee.
Mr. Morris replied that the Pantops Advisory Committee had nothing more than just a guess as to what
the staff report was going to say. They took a look at what the master plan said. Although as the staff
report very clearly says, it is not exact and could be fit in quite nicely. If they drive past that area most of
the buildings that are there now are pretty run down once they get past the car dealership and the
electrical shop. He noted it looked like those buildings are unoccupied. It is a section of an Entrance
Corridor that is ripe for redevelopment, which is what they were discussing. He said their comment was
contingent upon what the staff report actually said.
Mr. Lafferty said he did not understand what the proffers are.
Ms. Grant asked if it was the existing proffers or what the applicant was proposing to revise it to.
Mr. Lafferty replied that he did not understand either.
Ms. Grant noted the applicant was proposing to proffer out certain by right uses, but to allow them with a
special use permit. Staff does not believe that can be done and suggested that the applicant revise the
proffers to just proffer out the by right uses that don’t make sense for this particular site. Therefore, that is
what the applicant plans to do in terms of the uses. The existing proffer that talks about interconnection
describes Road A in the proffer as being an interconnection for this particular site. Staff’s concern with the
proffer is that there is an interconnection with Road A and Road B. There was no mention in the proffer
to Road B. Therefore, staff has asked the applicant to make some revisions that really talk about
providing an interconnection from Route 20 to Route 250. The applicant plans to make those revisions.
She hoped that clarified that issue.
Mr. Lafferty suggested this might be the start of the Eastern Connector. He noted some concern that they
have gotten this information so late that they have not had a chance to study it. In looking at the maps it
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
4
certainly makes sense to incorporate this piece of land. However, he was bothered that there are still lots
and lots of questions.
Mr. Franco said at the beginning of the staff report it talked about the two big issues being th e
Neighborhood Model principles and traffic. He asked how they plan to address traffic before the Board
meeting.
Ms. Grant replied that is a difficult question because the County Engineer really wants a traffic study,
which would be difficult for the applicant to provide before a Board meeting.
Mr. Benish asked if the Commission thinks the traffic information is important to verify what impacts there
might be in that section of the Corridor because they have a new intersection being created so near a
failing intersection. He thinks there is a suspicion that the impact may not be significant or that it is not
any more significant to an already failing system. However, they don’t have the information to be assured
of that. Therefore, he thinks it is up to the Planning Commission whether they feel it is important to see
this information. The County Engineer and staff still feel that is important at least before it gets to the
Board of Supervisors if not before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Randolph said he was really concerned about this application. The first point is in the first page. He
commended staff for spelling out all of the aspects of the Neighborhood Model and indicating where there
is conformity, commitment and the lack thereof. On the appli cant’s justification for the request he reads it
that the rationale for the zoning change is to be in harmony with neighboring properties that are Highway
Commercial. So it is a consistency argument. He noted there may be a basis for that. However, ther e is
also a counter argument that this application should be looked at from the standpoint of its compatibility
with the Comprehensive Plan and with the natural resources that would be adversely affected because of
the slopes and streams on the north end of the property. Secondly, he was struck that in the grid on
pages 4 and 5 of the Neighborhood Model how many cases where there was no commitment to following
the Neighborhood Model in this region. It was absence. He did not see a good faith bona fide e ffort to
provide consistency with the Neighborhood Model. Thirdly, he was struck by the lack of traffic studies on
as critical an intersection as this at Routes 20 and 250, which is an Entrance Corridor and two significant
highways. It is a major gap in this application and creates a problem. Finally, in the communication they
received this afternoon via email in the third criteria it basically reads that under the Neighborhood Model
consideration where they are saying grant the zoning change and then lea ve it to them to then go to the
ARB in the future and resolve this. They are being asked to trust in this application when there is no clear
language that provides a verifiable commitment at this point that the traffic study is going to be done or
that the Neighborhood Model criteria are going to be followed. He did not see how this application can
proceed without there being greater clarity. In the past they have deferred to allow the applicant to have
time to work out the needs where the Commission sees weaknesses within the application because a
need for additional information. He did not see passing this off to the Board of Supervisors when there
are just so many pieces in here that are absent.
Mr. Loach asked if there was another application the Commission heard in the recent past on Route 20
that they turned down because of the traffic.
Mr. Morris noted that was Riverside, which was right across Route 20 from this site.
Ms. Grant pointed out the Commission did not turn down the request, but it was deferred.
Mr. Franco asked to respond to a couple of points that had been made. He was concerned about the
traffic study. The only way he can think of that the County has in the past moved something like this
forward would be to limit the traffic to the existing condition. It sounds like there is a big plan for change
in that area. So there may be roads or interconnections that will make it very complicated. However, if
the parcel were limited to no more than 15 by-right residential units there would be 150 trips and he could
see that move forward. However, without knowing what the generation is, it is really difficult to know how
to move that forward. He was less concerned about the Neighborhood Model principles because not
every project has to follow every principle of the Neighborhood Model. He thinks the important principles
have been made requirements at the site plan level. Therefore, he feels more comfortable trusting in the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
5
Neighborhood Model and allowing that to go forward without a plan because as he understands zoning it
to Highway Commercial does not require a master plan or a concept plan. He was comfortable allowing
that to move forward, but remains concerned about the traffic study not being done.
Mr. Morris invited Joel DeNunzio to provide an overview as to what the plans are for this part of Route 20
and what he sees as the possible impact.
Joe DeNunzio, VDOT representative, said that section of Route 20 is a 5 lane section and then it tapers
down to 2 lanes just north of the site. The County plan has identified the remainder north of this area to
be a 4 lane divided section. That is the only plan that he knows of for Route 20 in this section up to
Fontana Drive. They have seen some applications farther north on the other side of the road including
Riverside. Those did identify some widening to Route 20. But, he did not know what the status of that is
right now. The road connections here they have talked about with the applicant before and it has always
been assumed that there will need to be a traffic signal at the Route 20 connection. The Route 250
connections would actually be limited to a right in and a right out. However, they do see that they
intentionally lined it up directly from People’s Place with the hope that someday there might be some
improvements to the existing Route 250 and 20 intersections that would allow traffic to flow better through
that intersection. They would not get the cueing backup as far as past the Goodwill and up where this
location would be. At that time they might be able to consider full access. However, it is much too close
to the existing intersection to consider a traffic signal at this time. Route 250 through this location is on
the adaptive control system, which is a signal techn ology that definitely allows the side streets a little bit
better access. However, that intersection still has problems because there is so much through flow on
Route 250. In that case any signal on Route 20 would have to also be integrated into that sys tem.
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Lafferty asked the present level of service at the intersection of Routes 250 and 20.
Mr. DeNunzio replied that he did not know. However, at times he was sure it was “F”. The heaviest
approaches are westbound 250. During the middle of the day they quite often cue up. They do clear
fairly quickly with the new signal system. However, it could take a couple cycles. The Riverside Drive
connection has a very heavy flow of dual left turns there. Those two approaches make it a very high
volume intersection. He thinks it is one of the three highest volume intersections in the County.
Ms. Monteith asked if Road A would also be right in and right out only onto Route 20.
Mr. DeNunzio replied that they don’t know all these details. However, the assumption would be the use
would generate the warrant for a traffic signal at that location since it is fairly close to 250 and 20.
However, with the adaptive control system out there it is very likely it could work fairly wel l. The impacts
to Routes 250 and 20 would still be there. So that would be full access. The Route 250 connection
would be right in and right out. They have a wide median on Route 250. So they might be able to
consider a left in at 250 West at People Place if they channelized it properly.
Mr. Morris asked if there were any other questions. There being none, he thanked Mr. DeNunzio. He
pointed out this was a big concern for the Pantops Advisory Council since there were too many questions
about traffic that they did not know. He invited further discussion.
Mr. Lafferty agreed with Mr. Franco. This intersection is classed as a level “F” service. Any traffic study
may make it go to a level “F minus”. It is going to remain that way until 2040 at least .
Mr. Franco said he thinks the improvement of the through road could help that intersection. There is a lot
of good with this. However, without knowing what the parcel will generate and add to that system makes
it hard to move the rezoning request forward. Again, he has seen it done in the past if it were limited to
the by-right level so it can develop by right now and then add that on to it. But, anything more intense is
going to need the traffic study to demonstrate that it does not overwhelm things.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
6
Mr. Benish clarified that the property was zoned R-1. Therefore, the property has very limited by right
development. Staff’s position is very similar to the Commission’s position. Staff’s point was with all the
other issues they would be moving those forward. The major outstanding issue is traffic, which could be
addressed at the next level. However, without knowing what the impacts are that has caused some
concern with the review of the proposal.
Mr. Smith asked that Justin Shimp come forward to answer some questions.
Mr. Morris invited Justin Shimp to come forward.
Mr. Smith asked do they have a design for the interior roads, such as width, curb and gutter, sidewalks,
etc.
Mr. Shimp replied no, they don’t have a final engineer design. They have a grading concept to get from
the level of Route 20 up to the level of the inter-parcel connection behind Brady Bushy and then up to the
front as far as a grading configuration. All the things such as curb and gutter will be in conformance with
the site plan regulations when they get that far. They have done enough engineering to know that it
works. They can get up to that level to make the parcels more cohesive. However, as far as the curb,
gutter and drainage design they have not finished that yet.
Mr. Franco asked how he would respond to their concern about the traffic generation. He was trying to
figure out if there was a way to move this forward to the Board. He was not sure because there was no
information about the traffic or any limitations that are on it. Therefore, he could end up proposing
something that would have impacts to that area. He thinks it is the Commission’s responsibility to know
what those are.
Mr. Shimp said it is tricky on this particular instance because they have no pl an. They know they need to
get a connection through to improve the access and the traffic in that area. They would ideally have
access to the by-right parcels in the front off Route 20 rather than having to go down and make left turns
onto Route 250. They think it is certainly an element of improvement to this area by making a connection
through. As to what the trip generation will be that is sort of the question. It is a complicated deal because
commercial properties are sort of hard to pin down. They can pick a number or make up some use that
could be there and model the traffic. They do know from doing other traffic studies, such as the one at
Riverside Village, the level of service at the intersection is failing at peak hours. He did not think that is
going to change whether they put two houses on this site or a little retail type of operation. They could
certainly conduct a study, which he thinks would show that they have a failing condition now and then.
They might increase the traffic by 1 percent or 2 percent depending on the assumptions. The engineer
on the traffic study will have to make an assumption on how people are going to cut through the site.
What would the change in impact be from potentially closing entrances on Route 250 to other parce ls that
access this. There are so many assumptions to make that it will be a wild guess. However, it is
something that could be done.
Mr. Shimp noted they could talk about some sort of restriction on the use. They have proffered out, for
example, convenient stores and things that they know are a high traffic generator. Their intention is to
leave some room for a small building, which may not even fit unless that VDOT right -of-way was
acquired. That could be five or ten years down the road. So they just don’t know. A study could be
produced, but what it would say is what he just described. The intersection is failing during peak hours
and it will continue to do so depending on what sort of decision they want to make about how to route
traffic to the site. It may or may not make any impact whatsoever in delay. They could probably build a
scenario that caused an improvement in the traffic signal at Routes 250 and 20 if they route enough trips
through the pass through site. He would say that there is really not a great way to predict this. If they
add 60 new residential units, then they have 60 additional trips because people are there and coming in
and out. The commercial would be for people coming up and down Route 250. If someone was going to
get coffee instead of going perhaps up to Starbucks they go to a new coffee shop here. It would still be a
trip on Route 250, but it is just a different end location than perhaps it is now. That is their answer to it at
the moment. He had no way to predict really what the impacts will be as it stands right now.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
7
Mr. Franco asked regarding the uses that remain not proffered what is the most intense use by traffic
generation standards. With the two acre site what is the highest generation it could create.
Mr. Shimp suggested they could ask Mr. DeNunzio to come up again. However, it is probably a retail
type of use, such as the coffee shop scenario that would be a high generator. They don’t have two acres
because they have proffered a road through here. The re is a lot of grading to be done. They may have a
buildable acre. They also are going to proffer a 50’ buffer on the side in the buildable area. It is getting
down to a very small spot. He was not convinced they can put any building there at all witho ut the land
from VDOT, which they don’t know about. In response to the question, he noted it would be a 3,000 or
4,000 square foot retail type coffee shop type of use that would probably be the most intensive.
Mr. Morris asked if there are other questions.
Mr. McGowan asked the Commission to consider one more point. He noted one of the goals here is the
interconnection of these parcels. Without this being pulled into the same zoning and same characteristics
they have a residential site that does not really fit. If they try to enter from Route 20 due to the topography
the more reasonable thing to do is to start to grade the site down and terrace it off of Route 20. If they do
that then the possibility for interconnections to the north to the Brady Bush y property and Route 250
disappears and that is a missed opportunity. Without the ability to do this and have the pieces fit together
they lose that opportunity to interconnect and redevelop in the way that they would like to do it. He hears
the Commission’s concerns. However, there is limited additional development that goes on back there.
What happens is it enables redevelopment and enables interconnection of parcels.
Mr. Franco pointed out they could they do that without rezoning. If it was all ac cumulated in a
comprehensive plan and submitted for that corner it could still provide the interconnections. The question
is there any remaining area on that parcel that is developable.
Mr. McGowan agreed and noted it was also what value is added in doin g that. It is problematic at least in
what he has seen in trying to do that and having it make sense as a residential site. It is an isolated piece
sitting up there and it does not have much value as a back side of a commercial area with a couple of
houses.
Mr. Franco said he just did not know how to protect the County for the potential of a 4,000 square foot
Starbucks coming in there and generating a lot more traffic and that they did not have the opportunity via
the rezoning now to address those impacts.
Mr. Morris said as a resident of that particular area in Key West and going by the site day after day, that
having worked on the Pantops Master Plan what they see in front of them is literally almost the line that
Mr. Benish drew about 5 ½ years ago. He understands everything that has been said about the traffic
and he agrees with it. The traffic is just simply getting worse on Route 20 especially where it intersects
with Route 250. However, he sees good coming out of the schematic because it adds a nother possible
interconnection. Right now it seems to him they are not going to get much built on the property if they
don’t have the road. He was just saying as a resident of that area and as a Planning Commissioner he
supports this rezoning request.
Mr. Franco said that is why he is torn. He thinks the interconnections will provide a lot more benefit to
that area. He knows when residential projects in that area come forward they have a proffer system that
is supposed to address those impacts. However, he was just not sure how to deal with the commercial.
Mr. Morris agreed that was a good point. He wished they had more information.
Mr. Franco agreed that the traffic study is just going to show that it continues to fail. Therefore, he was
not sure how to put a reasonable limit on that.
Mr. Morris agreed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
8
Ms. Monteith commented from a context point of view that there is some information in this application
that is incomplete. Therefore, they should take that into consideration.
Mr. Morris agreed.
Mr. Benish said he would answer some of Mr. Franco’s questions about some of the higher volume uses.
Financial institutions, food and grocery stores, hardware, hotels, and eating establishments are still
permitted uses. Some of those can be higher traffic volume generators.
Mr. Kamptner asked what kind of number of vehicle trips per day are they talking about. The traffic
impacts statement threshold is 5,000 vehicle trips per day under State regulations.
Mr. Franco asked if any of those uses generate 5,000 trips.
Mr. Benish replied that grocery stores probably could. However, there are site constraints here. Again,
this is sort of the struggle with this site. They wind up with some pretty small pads. Therefore, they get
smaller activities or buildings. While grocery stores are permitted they are probably going to get a
convenience store. He was not sure what the thresholds are for traffic specifically from any of those uses
individually. He thinks part of the engineer’s concern really is what happ ens with the net result of that
additional intersection and whether the traffic impact should be minimized such as they minimize the
impacts at that new intersection. It could have an impact to the adjacent intersection along that roadway.
Mr. Franco said that is where he gets torn, again. He liked the idea of not having a concept plan
submitted and values what they are showing at this point. He liked the interconnections. However, the
traffic study is going to have to include all the adjacent properties. It is a much bigger project. He thinks it
is more appropriate to be done when the parcels come in for redevelopment. He is just trying to figure
out how to limit if possible the new generation from this particular site. He would be more comfortable if
they came back with some kind of limitation on it to address that concern.
Mr. Loach asked if that was something the ARB would take into consideration.
Mr. Benish replied the ARB did not take traffic into consideration.
Mr. Loach noted that normall y, as he did last time, would have voted no. On the other side of the coin the
Community Advisory Committee came out in support of it. If the committee feels that the additional
connectivity is the positive offset to the traffic, knowing that they know what the traffic is, then if there is a
motion he would support it.
Ms. Monteith asked did they really say the committee came out in support of it if they did not have the
information.
Mr. Morris replied no, that she brings up an excellent point. They di d not have all of the information and
he cannot speak for the other 13 members. In addition, they don’t have the information now. Personally
he would like to see the request deferred to get a little more information. However, that is totally up to the
applicant.
Mr. Franco said it was fair to say at this point that the rezoning to Highway Commercial is something that
they are in favor of. The interconnections are something that they are in favor of. However, they need to
be able to understand the benefit of the interconnections versus the new traffic generation.
Mr. Morris agreed that was where he was.
Mr. Randolph agreed that deferral is appropriate since he could not vote for this application under these
circumstances.
Mr. Morris asked the applicant if he wanted to request deferral.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
9
Mr. McGowan said hearing the sense of the group he would ask to defer and work on getting the best
information about traffic effects from what could be built on this particular site and recognizing that not
much traffic is likely to be generated by this. They will let the experts come to their conclusions and report
them back.
Mr. Morris asked if there was a timeframe he was looking for as far as deferral.
Mr. Benish said it depends on the applicant’s timing to get the information in. However, he thinks this
really does boil down in getting with VDOT to figure out the best way to assess what the realistic traffic
generation is. He thinks it is a matter of figuring out what the practical square footage is that can be built
on the site and then using the IT Model to figure out what types of impact from that total square footage
you get. He thinks they could get a picture for how much the threshold of additional development will
occur. He thinks that is really the issue with this rezoning and staff is supportive of most of what is going
on here.
Mr. Morris agreed. He would like to give as much time as the applicant and the staff needs to really get
the answers to a lot of these things.
Mr. Franco said he was less worried about how the interconnection works and all of that because it is
unknown. He would just like to understand what percentage of traffic this new use might contribute to
Route 20 or to an interconnected road.
Mr. Benish said he would defer to the applicant about what time it would take them to do that.
Mr. McGowan said what they would like to try to do is get back to the Commission at the next meeting. If
they find out that is not possible, then they could push it a little further back. However, the traffic study
will be done, as he understands.
Mr. Benish pointed out staff needs time to assess it. He thinks VDOT, the County Engineer, and staff
needs at least a couple of weeks. Then staff needs time to get the Commission a report. All of that t akes
at least a month.
Mr. Morris noted they could not get on the agenda at the next two meetings due to Comprehensive Plan
work. That would move it into August, which is doable and would give a few weeks. Staff is going to need
time to look at it, too.
Mr. Benish suggested an indefinite deferral to give the applicant at least a month, which may require
another deferral at that point if the information is not available. Staff’s work begins after the applicant
provides the information, which is the part they can’t predict.
Mr. Morris suggested deferring to the earliest point possible.
Mr. McGowan replied that would be great.
Mr. Morris said that is depending upon the applicant being able to do the work and staff getting together
with VDOT so they have a full package.
Mr. Franco asked if all the Commissioners are in agreement about the Neighborhood Model principles
and are comfortable with the request moving forward. He heard at least two opinions on this and it would
help to give staff a majority vote.
Mr. Loach noted that the ARB is going to take care of some of the design concerns.
Mr. Morris agreed since meeting all the Neighborhood Model elements is not that important as long as it
meets as many as possible.
Mr. Franco said they are comfortable without knowing, and Mr. Morris agreed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
10
Mr. Randolph said he would like to see a bona fide good faith effort to try to meet more of the
Neighborhood Model principles.
Mr. Loach said even if there was some language that led in that direction that ther e should be as much
compliance as possible.
Mr. Benish said that August 20 is the next practical available date and then September 10. So an option
could be to defer to August 20. However, that is a fairly tight turnaround from today. It may require more
discussion or a deferral at that point in time. They could defer to that date, but suggested the safer date
is September 10.
Mr. Randolph agreed that September 10 makes great sense.
Mr. Franco said if they were to pursue the obvious August 20 date when would they need to have their
traffic study turned into staff.
Mr. Benish said they usually give reviewers at least two weeks to review.
Mr. Morris said he was more comfortable with the September 10 date if they want a date or they could
say at the earliest date possible.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out they have to defer to a date certain or indefinitely.
Mr. McGowan agreed to a deferral to September 10.
MOTION: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded to defer ZMA-2013-00002, Pantops Corner, to
September 10 as requested by the applicant.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Dotson absent)
Mr. Morris noted that ZMA-2013-00002, Pantops Center was deferred to the September 10 Planning
Commission meeting per the applicant’s request to allow the applica nt time to submit additional
information on traffic impacts for review by VDOT and County staff and consideration by the Planning
Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT TO PC FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 10, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, September
10, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Bruce Dotson, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don
Franco, Calvin Morris, Chairman and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner;
Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chairman, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
Deferred Item
ZMA-2013-00002 Pantops Corner
PROPOSAL: Rezone 2.246 acres from R-1 zoning district which allows residential uses at a
density of 1 unit per acre to HC zoning district which allows commercial and service uses;
residential by special use permit at a density of 15 units per acre. No dwellings proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: 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 and
Greenspace – undeveloped areas in Neighborhood 3 - Pantops.
LOCATION: Approximately 575 feet north from the intersection of Route 250 and Stony Point
Road (Route 20) on the east side of Route 20. Back portion of 1248 Richmond Road, fronting
Route 20.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 078000000058G1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Claudette Grant)
DEFERRED FROM JULY 16, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
The request was deferred at the July 16, 2013 public hearing. The applicant is requesting to
rezone 2.246 acres from R-1, Residential District to HC, Highway Commercial District. The
applicant requested a deferral in order to get some traffic impact information for the
Commission. The applicant did complete a volume comparison study and revised proffers were
submitted.
As described in the executive summary VDOT and the County Engineer request additional
information before they feel comfortable with this rezoning request. The County Engineer does
not feel the applicant has provided enough information to address possible impacts from this
proposed rezoning. VDOT and the County Engineer are concerned because the Routes 250
and 20 intersections are very delicate and they are concerned about adding more traffic onto
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT TO PC FOR APPROVAL
2
this intersection without mitigating possible impacts. Additional concerns include the possibility
that more than one of the proposed uses described in the volume comparison study could be
placed on the site at one time and what happens if a new owner comes in and decides to
maximize the allowed use on the site. The County Engineer feels the applicant should look at
the worst case scenario or possible use that could fit adequately on this site and provide traffic
information for this use.
Another approach the County Engineer suggested is having the applicant proffer some possible
mitigation factors, such as extending a median on Route 250 making it difficult to access the
Route 250 access to the site with left turn movements. In a conversation this afternoon with the
traffic engineer said he was not sure what could happen on Route 20. VDOT would have to be
okay with his suggestion about increasing the median on Route 250.
The applicant has explained that this site is relatively small and can only develop within a
certain parameter. The County Engineer and VDOT need to feel comfortable adding more uses
in this corridor, and at this time they do not feel they have enough information to make such a
decision. Road A has a potential to connect to Road B going over to Route 250.
Other Outstanding Issues - Proffers:
The applicant has submitted revised proffers; however, the proffers remain in need of
substantive and technical revisions. The following additional clarification was provided. In
addition to the information described in the executive summary, staff noted the following:
Proffer 1: This proffer is intended to establish the commitment for road interconnectivity to
adjacent parcels and, as drafted, addresses interconnection to TMP 78-06, which is the
Battlefield Ford property. The applicant is asking for an access easement to this parcel.
This is not something that staff has purview over unless there is a subdivision request
related to this interconnection or unless the adjacent parcel redevelops. A site plan does
not necessarily require this easement that involves an interconnection. However, it is
something that could be discussed at a site plan stage, but is not necessarily required.
Proffer 2: An ideal situation would be that Road B or an equivalent road, as shown on
Exhibits C1 and C2, includes a continuous roadway or travel way from Road A. The proffer
as written could provide a travel way from Road A to Route 250. However, they have some
concerns regarding the possible efficiency of this travel way. Staff would prefer to see that
there are very little interruptions on this roadway. Staff cannot necessarily guarantee that
unless it is actually proffered as such with more detail
Proffer 5: This proffer needs to be revised per the County Attorney’s suggestion to use the
standard format for this type of proffer.
Staff has identified the following favorable factors:
1. The proposed HC zoning can provide a more cohesive development for this property
and the adjacent existing HC zoning districts.
2. The proposed interconnections could be a benefit to the surrounding properties.
Staff has identified the following unfavorable factors:
1. The proffers need to be substantively and technically revised.
2. Traffic study information is incomplete and the adequate information as requested by
VDOT and the County Engineer needs to be submitted to determine impacts of the
rezoning and road interconnection to Routes 20, 250 and adjacent properties.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT TO PC FOR APPROVAL
3
RECOMMENDATIONS:
While the concept proposed is acceptable to staff and staff believes that the outstanding
issues with the proffers are items that can be resolved. The outstanding traffic issues
described in the summary are the primary reasons that staff cannot recommend approval of
ZMA-2013-00002, Pantops Corner because of the unfavorable factors listed in the executive
summary.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the level of service at 250 was at level “F” right now, and Ms. Grant replied
yes that was her understanding.
Mr. Lafferty said also in the Long Range Transportation Plan one of the scenarios is the
widening of Route 250. He asked if staff knew how this would affect this.
Ms. Grant replied that she did not know how the proposal would affect it.
Mr. Randolph noted in the materials the Commission received for the July 16, 2013 public
hearing on page 4 it said that staff opinion is that the proposed proffers do not adequately limit
the uses permitted on the property to a scale consistent with the Master Plan Land Use
recommendation. He asked to be updated on that statement and if that statement still applies at
the present time.
Ms. Grant replied the applicant did make some revisions to the allowed uses, which staff is okay
with.
Mr. Lafferty asked with staff’s reservations on the proffers how much time the applicant has to
respond to try to fix them.
Mr. Grant noted the request was deferred on July 16 and the information was submitted to staff
on August 5.
Mr. Cilimberg noted the procedure was that once the information was submitted, reviewed and
staff provides comments back to the applicant the applicant can chose to further address or ask
that it come back for the Commission’s hearing. Tonight was the deferral date and the applicant
chose to keep the deferral date. With regards to Mr. Lafferty’s question about the potential
widening, staff would not be able to advise the applicant as to additional right-of-way that might
be necessary for a widening because no plans have been developed. They have frontage, but it
is somewhat difficult right now to be trying to do much with how they can provide for a road
widening that has not been planned.
Mr. Lafferty said he expected it will be 20 years before they even get around to doing anything.
Mr. Randolph noted one of his expressed concerns on July 16, 2013 was significant inadequacy
on a number of the principles of the Neighborhood Model for this application to meet them. He
asked for an update on where things stand from July 16, 2013 for the record. One of the areas
not addressed is pedestrian orientation. He asked is that now addressed.
Ms. Grant replied no, it was not addressed. The plan as they see it is the same plan that was
submitted back on July 16, 2013. The applicant does not have any definitive information in
terms of what will be proposed on the site. Therefore, it is difficult to know how this would meet
many of the Neighborhood Model principles.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT TO PC FOR APPROVAL
4
Mr. Randolph said for the record pedestrian orientation still is not met. Neighborhood friendly
streets and paths are still not addressed. Relegated parking is still not addressed. Buildings
and spaces of human scale is still not addressed. Also, site planning that respects terrain is still
not addressed. He asked if that is correct.
Ms. Grant replied that is correct.
Mr. Franco said he would like to follow up on that. For clarity he asked what pedestrian
orientation means. He pointed out sidewalks could be required as part of the site plan process.
He asked if that is how they would judge pedestrian friendly streets or access.
Mr. Grant replied that was correct for pedestrian orientation.
Mr. Franco noted last time they had this discussion they talked about how it was maybe too
early in the process and that many of those requirements were going to be required as part of
the site plan process. He just wanted to be fair to the record to say yes a number of those
things remain unanswered, but our ordinance requires a number of those things in the future.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for the applicant and public comment.
Justin Shimp, engineer representing the owner, noted the owner was present. He would start
where they left off the conversation and go back to the things that he wanted to bring up.
The Neighborhood Model principles that building orientation will be in for the site plan and
the ARB issue. Sidewalks and street trees are part of the zoning ordinance. He thinks
many of those are things that are required by the Code that evolved over these principles of
the Neighborhood Model. He thinks they will address all those things, but not until they
actually have a plan for a building, sidewalks, or anything like that.
VDOT’s comments about traffic are a little confusing. He has the original email from VDOT.
What they said was show us a design for the Route 250 intersection and Route 20
intersection. They certainly do not have anything on Route 250 or know anything about
Route 20. That really is a site plan issue.
The other comment was that all our entrances have to meet Appendix F for the Road
Design Standards, which they certainly do. So they have had discussions with VDOT about
this project unaware that they may require things like a right turn lane dedication on Route
250 if that parcel is developed. They will note the Flow site that was done recently has a
new right turn lane. They may require those things at site plan. It will depend on what the
site plan is and what their engineering goals are at the time. They don’t know that right now.
So he thinks the VDOT issues are really items that are more applicable to a site plan as
well.
Some of the traffic issues he wanted to explain a little more in detail. He wanted to start with
the buildable area, which is in front of the Commission. They had a discussion on this last
time on what can they really do with this parcel. That is a good question as to what the
impact could be. He wrote up a sketch showing the detail of the road, the g rading has to go
up the hill and sort of curves to get up to an elevation of 250 reasonably so they can connect
to 250. So they are really constrained on that. They have a funny little t riangular piece on
one side that is a little over one-half acre and a couple of 4,000 or 5,000 square foot spots
left on the other side. So that is their developable acreage. The area at the end is the
critical slopes and floodplain area. As discussed by staff that proffer was really unnecessary
because it is all protected anyway. Therefore, they will remove that proffer.
They have another issue at this site regarding the conflict between the R-1, which really
does not make sense, for the property and then the adjoining property. There is a little
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT TO PC FOR APPROVAL
5
parcel with a little building on it that has been there since the 60’s that can’t actually
redevelop now because it has a 50’ building setback and it is vacant R-1 land. So they have
to just keep that building there. If they tear the building down they have to build it 50’ over,
which really makes that parcel sort of not re-developable. So this would fix that issue if they
change the zoning to HC, Highway Commercial upon allowing the connections in a
reasonable manner.
The traffic summary concern they heard last time was how much can they really build on the
site, how many trips, what sort of use, and what is the real impact. What he tried to do was
be pretty simple and factual and say okay here are a few uses they can envision on here.
They used a base line for our comparison of how many trips are in the 250 intersection now.
In the traffic report on page 3 it has diagrams, which came from the Riverside Village Study
from several months ago. They did a full traffic study there with a projected build out of
around 5.000 to 6,000 trips per hour in the a.m. So they knew what the deal is now, and
then they compared and said they could put specialty retail. They thought they could put a
drug store. However, the truth is they could not fit a drug store on this site due to the size.
They were trying to pull things that they thought were high traffic generators. They proffered
out the convenience store because that was also a high traffic generator. So they exc luded
that. The highest one they found left was the coffee shop, which they looked for a way to
proffer out. However, because it is tied into restaurants it would prohibit any and all
restaurants on the site. It is not very likely there, but is probably the worse case scenario.
Most of the typical uses are office and retail and would amount to a trip generation of about
one percent of what is in 250 and 20 right now. He thinks Mr. Brooks was wondering if that
amounts to a 5 second delay or what was the change in the signal. It is kind of hard to say
because they don’t know how those trips break out going 20 and they go through the site.
This is the raw trip number since they don’t take into account the bypass trips because this
is all commercial. For example, at Stonefield he thinks the County reduced it by 25 percent
because not everybody is going there to go there but sometimes just driving past. These
uses are much the same. It is probably more like a 40 percent of a 2 percent increase.
Their goal is to simply take up an acre at the most of developable land and what could
reasonably be placed on the site and show what that percentage was. Then County staff
could weigh in as to how significant that is.
They are largely in agreement with the staff on the proffer with one clarification. With the
first proffer there is some doubt that they even need that because the site plan requirements
require interparcel connectivity anyway. On the site plan they would have to stub out the
road to the connection to the property line. So they will work with staff on that and if they
need to get rid of the proffer or clarify it, that is fine. They are fine with providing an
interparcel connection. He did not know that it actually needs to be proffered. If the proffer
confuses things, then it may be best just to remove it.
The second proffer relates to the connection to 250 and how that happens. The trouble they
have with that is they don’t know. The parcels on the corner could be redeveloped at some
point, but they were just a little hesitant to put a language on of a straight through road or
something that could be interpreted in five years to be a straight through road. They
certainly know they have an ordinance to comply with as far as slopes, site distance with the
travel way, and all these things including the parking ordinance. The wording of our proffer
was just to reaffirm that is the way they want to get through here without proffering a specific
location. They feel that is a reasonable way to approach this with so many unknowns. He
knows the ordinance has many protections in it for how those things have to work. They
give the county engineer some discretion as well as to safe access through a site. So they
think that the site plan issue once they know what they are actually going to do. They just
don’t have that right now. He would be happy to answer questions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT TO PC FOR APPROVAL
6
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant. There being none, he invited public comment.
There being none, he opened the public hearing to bring it back to the Commission for
discussion and action.
Mr. Morris noted yesterday the Pantops Community Council looked over what was submitted
and on the internet dealing with this proposal. Unfortunately, a lot of the concerns he was not
able to answer them. There were more questions than answers. This was the case on July 16,
2013 and from what he sees it continues to be there. Therefore, he has a hard time at this
particular point although he loves what he sees on the screen here, and he has to agree with
staff. He was speaking for the Pantops Community Advisory Council.
Mr. Franco asked what questions were they not able to answer.
Mr. Morris replied the questions were such as where would the road go; need to know more
about the traffic situation; will there be an actual connector out onto 250; more information on
Road B; and just a lot of things like that primarily dealing with traffic. One questions was raised
was what is going to go in there. He pointed out that is up to the applicant. No one was
concerned that he could not answer that because it was too early in the game to say that.
Mr. Dotson asked to review the issues with staff. There are still some proffers that staff feels
need to be perfected before this would go to the Board. However, staff feels that they could be
perfected.
Ms. Grant replied that was correct.
Mr. Dotson said in terms of the proffers dealing with the intensity of use he thinks staff said they
were satisfied with the current proffers that they would limit the limit the uses that would be of
concern to staff.
Ms. Grant replied that was correct.
Mr. Dotson asked if it is true that the kinds of traffic mitigation, traffic design issues can be dealt
with either now through proffers or at the site plan stage through site plan requirements. In
other words, they will be addressed.
Ms. Grant replied she could not say they could be addressed at the site plan stage because
now would be the ideal time to address the traffic concerns.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out once they are at the site plan stage the ability for the County to
require any off-site improvements would be gone. It would need a proffer. VDOT may have the
ability to require some off-site improvements independent of the County site plan process. He
was not sure if they are often willing to do that.
Mr. Franco said the off-site improvements to the right-of-way that he has heard so far have been
potentially some turn lanes into the site or off of 250 into Road B as well as potentially a median.
Those are off-site now. However, if a connection is made over there it would require a site plan
or some sort of process for that off-site parcel at some future point. He asked would that be
considered frontage for them at that point or would they be able to do that without a site plan.
He asked how Road B would get built in the future. He would assume it could be built by right,
but it would have to come through a planning process. At that point in time that is now frontage
for those parcels and not off-site to this piece. He thought at that point the site plan process
would allow the County and VDOT to deal with that connection.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT TO PC FOR APPROVAL
7
Ms. Grant agreed that is true.
Mr. Franco asked are there other improvements that have been discussed or thought about that
can’t be addressed the same way. That is what he understands the question is. He was not
seeing improvement that can’t be addressed during the site plan process. He asked if staff has
an example of one.
Ms. Grant replied she was not sure that the median improvement could be addressed at the site
plan stage.
Mr. Franco said not for Road A or for this parcel, but definitely for 76 or whatever that is when
that connection to 250 is made that could be addressed at that point in time with the entrance
permit design. Or, does that road already exist.
Ms. Grant replied that Road B does not exist.
Mr. Franco said at that point in time he believed if a road plan or site plan comes into VDOT
then they would have the ability to say this intersection connection is conditioned upon a median
being put in.
Mr. Cilimberg said they could be assured that the frontage improvements can be addressed as
necessary. He thinks when they start getting into median improvements they may have to go
down to 250 some length and that is a little more questionable. That is why that is one that staff
cannot answer for sure in terms of the site plan measure.
Mr. Franco said it was a Catch-22 because as he understands it this road connection is
something that they are encouraging to be in the Comp Plan. So he wants to see it happen. It is
off-site to this development and there is no promise that Road B is going to be built via this
rezoning. He thinks they have to find a different way of getting that improvement if it is required
in the future. He has a hard time unless they are going to say right now say build the median as
part of this whether Road B is built or not. He did not think that is what they are prepared to
say.
Mr. Randolph noted that does not mean that VDOT will listen to whatever they say.
There being no further comments, Mr. Morris invited the applicant to make a rebuttal. .
Mr. Shimp said he would like to clarify a couple of things. One is our proffer says the subject
property being rezoned cannot be developed. He would say the north side, which was 27,000
square, could not be developed until Road B is connected to 250 in some fashion. So they are
saying that road or connection has to be made to 250 before they can get a building permit on
the parcel being rezoned. There is an off-site improvement in a way proffered with this plan
restricting the development of this plan until that connection is made. He wanted to make sure
that is clear to folks. He thinks the difference they discussed with the County is not whether the
road exists or not. It is very clear that the road must exist. It is what the alignment is, which is
not pinned down exactly in our plan. The fact that it must connect is clear and that will be
required. He has spoken to the Highway Department and one of the things they have mentioned
is to get an entrance in they may require a median to be built up along 250. They can do that
because 250 is a safety issue on that corridor. So they have given us a warning already that
may be coming. He thinks the question becomes what they can do on this parcel and what off-
site improvements other than the required connection of Road B to 250, the inter-parcel
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT TO PC FOR APPROVAL
8
connection, are reasonable or could not be done. They think the by right development of those
parcels in the front would create some kind of an impact, but they can be medians or turn lanes
or whatever is appropriate from an engineering standpoint. But, they are just talking about the 2
acres and ¾ of an acre they might be able to build on and saying that is tied to an improvement
which is an inner parcel connection. He just wanted to make sure it was clear that there is a
requirement for some improvements as part of this rezoning and it is not just that they might do
it because it is required.
Mr. Morris said the public hearing was closed to bring the matter before the Planning
Commission. He said he heard what Mr. Dotson was mentioning. He would hate to not move
this forward because he liked what he sees. However, there are too many questions that staff
cannot answer at this particular time.
Mr. Franco said the last time they had a discussion about some of those questions and he
thinks the scale of the development was the biggest concern. What he heard from staff tonight
is the scale seems to be under control now. They have some trip generation numbers that
show its relative impact to what load is on Routes 250 and 20. It is relatively small scaled
compared to the build out traffic for 2018. He thinks getting the connection that they are looking
for probably outweighs any of those unknowns as long as they are comfortable with that scale of
development, which again he is hearing that they are. He thinks the rest of the details can be
addressed at the site plan level for the location of the road, turn lanes for the road, and things
like that. Therefore, he would be inclined to support the request.
Mr. Loach asked what mitigation Road B would have on the traffic at the intersection. He
asked what the measureable benefit would be to the level “F” that would have.
Ms. Grant replied that staff does not have that information.
Mr. Cilimberg said he might mention that he did not know which way they might be going with
any kind of recommendation. One thing that could be important to Roads A and B would be to
understand that while the location is not pinned down the site plan process can deal with a lot of
the aspects of how the road is provided. It would be good if this were to be approved to have a
commitment, which would be through proffers, that Road A and B in whatever form they are
provided can function as a true through road and not a parking lot aisle. That makes a big
difference in terms of the functionality of Roads A and B and the ability for them to handle
diverted traffic that might benefit the Routes 20 and 250 intersections. He thinks it is not so
much about even pinning down design of Roads A and B as it is to k now there could be some
commitment to making sure Roads A and B could function in a way that serves through traf fic
movements as well as what is generated by the development on those sites. They don’t have
that kind of assurance right now through the proffers. There is a lot of that they can address
through the design aspects of the site plan. However, if they start getting a bunch of parking
isles that are accessing every 40 feet at Roads A and B, then they are losing functionality. That
is creating a fair amount of friction.
Mr. Franco asked how the judgment would be made. In other words, if it were a private or
public road what spacing would they allow.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that public roads have certain spacing requirements based on the
classification of the road. He did not think they can necessarily pin that down now. He thinks it
is more about making sure where there would be some assurances in the proffers that those
roads would be built in order to provide that function and to not function essentially serving
parking lot isles. That is something they could work with the applicant on if they were willing to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT TO PC FOR APPROVAL
9
do that between now and the Board meeting. However, he just mentioned that as one internal
matter that would be good to have clarified if there were to be an approval.
Mr. Morris asked the applicant to please come forward. He asked if Mr. Shimp understands
what Mr. Cilimberg was saying and if this is something that would be acceptable to the
applicant.
Mr. Franco noted while they were talking he just wanted to clarify a concern. W hen they had
this discussion in the past for Hollymead Town Center by the theater the design they came back
with allowed parking lot bays to come off the road so it might be every 60’ but did not have the
perpendicular parking on that travel way itself. He asked if that is acceptable.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it started out with that kind of arrangement. What staff had
recommended was a reduction in the points of access. He did not remember how many, but it
was a lesser number than every 60’. He thinks they also incorporated some parallel parking on
that road, which was not necessarily a problem.
Mr. Franco asked if they were to craft a proffer at some point how they would describe it.
Mr. Cilimberg said that is part of what they would need to work with the applicant on between
now and the Board meeting. He was thinking more about if the Commission was going to
recommend approval, then that is something they might include. The applicant might want to
speak to this.
Mr. Shimp said they understand the concern of staff. However, he thinks the primary issue is
whether the travel way has parking stalls 90 degrees off it or not, which would be different sorts
of roads to drive through. In the case of Road A they certainly would not have an issue with that
being a travel way without parking on it directly. Road B is something they could work with staff
to try to limit it as much as possible. He suggested that they work out a percentage where there
would be no more than a certain percent or minimize the amount of parking on that road. He
was certainly open to that. They know it needs to be a reasonable through road. He could just
image some scenario where they need to have six parking spaces on the main road for
handicap access or something like that on the site plan and then they have some proffer that
makes it impossible to comply with. Certainly they would be in agreement with something that
would restrict no parking on Road A and on Road B they could establish with staff perhaps
some kind of percentage that the road should be clear all but some percent.
Michael McGowan, managing member of the ownership, said this is a relatively small site and
because of the topography they know how that would work on Road A. However, on Road B he
did not think they can build a highway through a very small site to solve all the problems on
Pantops. The fact of the matter is that they have made a commitment that they are not going to
get a building permit for anything on this parcel being rezoned unless that roadway is built
connecting this parcel this to 250. So the questions people have is there going to be an
interconnection. He noted they are not guaranteed. However, they will not be able to build
anything on this site until it is. He thinks there is a very practical solution to that. In terms of
doing anything further on Road B he pointed out that people want traffic to come in. They will
want to come from 250 and 20 and have a system that works. He has been involved in owning
Shopper’s World and other places where they had terrible shopping with traffic coming through
and everything else. They certainly don’t want that here. However, they cannot agree to say
that they are going to put a high speed travel way through the middle of a small parcel. The
language of the current proffer is that they will build it safe and efficient in compliance with the
County’s guidelines. He asked if that is what they have in there now.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT TO PC FOR APPROVAL
10
Ms. Grant replied yes that is basically what they have.
Mr. McGowan said they can do that and they can do the through way language for Road A.
Mr. Cilimberg noted Road B would be less certain.
Mr. Randolph said the only point he would bring up is that they are now focusing on Roads A
and B and not talking about what happens at either end in terms of entrance analysis, levels of
service, and those issues that are clearly spelled out on page 1. The traffic information they still
don’t have. They are looking at trying to get a clarification of the status of Road B versus Road
A. However, at the end of the day it still does not address those significant concerns.
Mr. Franco said if it was a significant concern that it should not be there, then they should have
addressed it before adding it to the Comp Plan.
Mr. Randolph said he was not saying it should or should not be there. He thinks what is spelled
out in the staff report is very clear that both VDOT as well as the county engineer feel that
additional information should have been provided. However, it is not provided. He did not have
a bias against the road one way or the other or whether it is in the Comp Plan or new today.
However, at the end of the day roads begin and end at a terminus. What is lacking here is
information about the impacts as a result of those termini. That was a concern that two
members of this Commission expressed when they looked up through 20 at additional traffic
and what the traffic impact was going to be. At the end of the day he has not heard those two
issues addressed either from a VDOT or county engineer perspective. He thinks that is the
applicant’s responsibility.
Mr. Franco said he sees the solution is to give the design of those intersections since the impact
is not the debate. The design is the debate. If the impact comes through and says there is no
problem, then there is no problem. If it comes back and says yes the connection is a problem,
then there is either a design solution or the road should not have been built. They have the
ability as the County because of the proffers to come back and say okay the road won’t be built
at which point the largest of the three tracts that are created on this plan or the majority of this
acreage would not be buildable because Road B, the connection of the road, would never be
built. He thinks the applicant has at least addressed that aspect of it. It is really not the impacts
but the design and that can be dealt with at the site plan level.
Mr. Randolph pointed out perhaps they will find instead of Road B terminating to 250 that it
would be a cul-de-sac and not come into 250.
Mr. Franco agreed and noted if that were to be the case then roughly one-half of this
development could not be built upon. Therefore, the problem is solved.
Mr. Cilimberg said for clarification he pointed out the Commission did address this during their
review of the Comp Plan. There were a couple of changes in Pantops that were requested
during the Comp Plan review. At one time there was a more general through road angling from
250 to 20 in the Pantops plan for this area. It did follow this alignment as more of a general line.
However, that road was requested to be removed. In the recommended plan it would no longer
be a road in our Comprehensive Plan. This has been viewed more as a local connection rather
than a major through connection that would be taking significant amounts of traffic off 250 and
20 to avoid the intersection. As this proposal has come forward it has been viewed more as a
local connection that could serve primarily the localized trips of the uses being developed and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT TO PC FOR APPROVAL
11
some level of through movement for people who knew it was there and decided to use it. That is
where the functionality becomes important as to the ability for that to happen. Road B was
being viewed as a local public road serving not only development traffic but some amount of
through traffic.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion.
Mr. Dotson asked if the Commission recommends denial does the request go to the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Cilimberg replied yes, the request would go to the Board of Supervisors unless the applicant
decides not to have it go.
Mr. Morris said that it would gain time either way.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out they would have the time between now and the Board meeting to
determine what they wanted to address or not address, provide it to staff, and then ask to be
scheduled for public hearing.
Mr. Morris noted since this was in his area he would make a motion.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend denial of ZMA-2013-
00002, Pantops Corner with proffers based on the unfavorable factors listed by staff in the
Executive Summary.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion.
Mr. Dotson said he was not sure that the factors listed by the staff are as explicit as the
concerns that Mr. Cilimberg just raised essentially concerning Road B as a local public road
serving not only development traffic but some amount of through traffic. He asked if that is a
reservation that is stated in the report or do they need to add that.
Ms. Grant reiterated what she thought he was asking is what specific traffic study issues would
they like to see addressed.
Mr. Dotson said his sense is the concern Mr. Cilimberg expressed a few minutes ago, which is a
more concrete and specific statement than the second bullet. Since it is a specific concern he
was wondering if the motion should add that to the unfavorable factors listed in the executive
summary.
Amended Motion: Mr. Morris agreed to add that as an amendment to the motion since it would
give clear guidance to the staff and the applicant if the applicant chooses to follow through and
take it to the Board.
Mr. Loach said he had no objection to the amendment to the motion.
Mr. Cilimberg asked the Commission to be mindful that the issues raised in the second bullet
are more general to what the potential impacts would be at the access points as mentioned by
the applicant actually at both Routes 20 and Route 250. It would potentially be any effects on
the intersection of Routes 20 and 250, which have not been easy to determine based on the
traffic information. That is a more general concern that was raised by VDOT and the County
Engineer. He was speaking more specifically to if the Commission felt they wanted to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT TO PC FOR APPROVAL
12
recommend approval, then that would be one thing to make sure that was addressed, which
they might not be able to fully address at the site plan level like they could at the intersections at
20 and 250.
Mr. Franco said for clarification at this point he thinks what they were just talking about is about
the design of the road itself. The traffic study is still something that is being requested to look at
the contact points with the public streets. He thinks the applicant has shown what could be
done with Road B. If they were to take Road B off of their map and just show an
interconnection to the adjacent parcels what would their traffic study need to focus on? Would it
be just their entrance on Route 20 or would they still want something that looks at the greater
system like the potential connection in the future through some off site parcel onto 250.
Mr. Loach said it seems they would just be looking at the one road and then it would be the
intersection where it connects to Route 20 and the intersection of Routes 250 and 20.
Mr. Franco noted it would just be those two intersections.
Mr. Loach pointed out that it was already a level “F” and would be a level “F” minus.
Mr. Franco agreed and that it goes back to the scale of the thing.
Mr. Randolph asked if the motion was now clarified.
Mr. Morris agreed that the motion was clarified and asked for a roll call.
Mr. Franco voted no because he thinks the impacts can be addressed at the site plan level.
Mr. Dotson voted yes with the addition of Road B made.
Mr. Smith voted no.
The motion for denial was approved by a vote of 5:2. (Franco and Smith voted nay)
Mr. Morris noted that the following recommendation for denial for ZMA-2013-00002, Pantops
Center, would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
RECOMMEND DENIAL OF ZMA-2013-00002, by a vote of 5:2, (Franco, Smith voted nay) with
proffers based upon the unfavorable factors listed in the executive summary, as amended below
in the factors unfavorable to include clarifying that Road B is to serve local through traffic as well
as vehicles associated with the development. Mr. Franco voted no because he thinks the
impacts can be addressed at the site plan level.
Factors Unfavorable
1. The proffers need to be substantively and technically revised.
2. Traffic study information is incomplete and the adequate information as
requested by VDOT and the County Engineer needs to be submitted to
determine impacts of the rezoning and road interconnection to Routes 20, 250
and adjacent properties.
3. To clarify, Road B needs to be a local public road serving not only
development traffic but some amount of through traffic.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT TO PC FOR APPROVAL
13
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176
December 2, 2013
Mahone, William O or Irma H
1688 Dudley Mountain Rd.
Charlottesville, VA. 22903
RE: SP201300015 – Mahone Family
TAX MAP PARCEL: 089000000062B0
Dear Mr. or Ms. Mahone:
On November 12, 2013, the Albemarle County Planning Commission, by a vote of 4:3 approved
a motion to recommend denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. This
recommendation of denial was based on the inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on December 11, 2013. It is the Board of Supervisor’s
preference that a public hearing not be advertised until all of the final materials for a zoning
application have been received by the County and are available for public review.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Andrew Sorrell
Senior Planner
Planning Division
SP201300015 – Mahone
Planning Commission: November 12, 2013
Page 1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP2013-00015 Mahone Additional
Development Rights Request
Staff: Andy Sorrell, AICP, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing: November
12, 2013
Board of Supervisors Hearing: TBA
TBD
Owner(s): William & Irma Mahone Applicant(s): William & Irma Mahone
Acreage: 21.03 acres Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: Section 10.2.2.28,
Divisions of land, as provided in section 10.5.2.
TMP: Tax Map 89 Parcel 62B
Location: 1688 Dudley Mountain Road (Rt. 706),
approximately 1.3 miles south of the intersection with
Old Lynchburg Road (Rt. 631).
By-right use: RA, Rural Areas
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers/Conditions: No
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: 1 additional lot
and 1 additional dwelling unit
DA - RA - X
Proposal: Request for two additional
development rights to permit a family
subdivision.
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas - preserve
and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5
unit/ acre in development lots)
Character of Property: The property is largely
wooded with an open pasture at the center of the
parcel. A dwelling and an adjacent outbuilding are
located in the wooded area to the rear (western)
portion of the parcel.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The area is
characterized by a mix of rural residential
development and larger farm and forest parcels.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposal can be accommodated without
significant health or safety impacts on the
area.
2. The limited scale of the use would avoid
impacts on adjacent properties and critical
resources.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The request would increase development in the
Rural Area, which is contrary to the County’s
land use goals as expressed in the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Approval of the request would not be consistent
with previous actions on requests for additional
development rights in the Rural Areas.
3. Approval of this request would not be
consistent with previous actions on requests for
additional development rights in the Rural Area.
4. The applicant did not submit additional
information necessary to complete staff’s
technical review of the application.
Recommendation: Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends denial of
SP201300015.
SP201300015 – Mahone
Planning Commission: November 12, 2013
Page 2
STAFF CONTACT: Andy Sorrell, AICP, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: November 12, 2013
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
PETITION:
PROJECT: Two additional development rights on 21 acres for 1 new unit with a density of up to 0.5
dwelling units per acre on the new lot.
ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of land as provided in Section 10.5.2.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
LOCATION: 1688 Dudley Mountain Road
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 08900-00-00-062B0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The area is located to the east of Dudley’s Mountain and is characterized by a mix of rural residential
development and large areas of forest and pasture. The property is adjacent to property in an open
space easement.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
The applicant purchased the subject property in October 1985 from the previous property owner
who had divided a 54.096 acre parcel into five parcels in February 1984. With this subdivision, the
parent parcel (89-62) was subdivided using all but one of its allotted development rights and 21 acre
lots (the last development right from the parent parcel was used to create parcel 89-62F in 1986).
The applicant’s parcel, 89-62B, was a 21 acre lot created when the previous owner subdivided the
property in 1984. The subject parcel has not had development rights since the applicant has owned
the parcel. A Minor Home Occupation clearance (HO 2013-25) for an online retail business was
approved for the parcel in early 2013.
Since 1981, 25 applications for additional development rights on various RA parcels have been
considered, of which 14 were approved (9 of which for family divisions), and 11 denied. The Board
of Supervisors has typically based its past approvals on finding that the applications adequately met
the criteria of Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, such as for an immediate family member, or
some unique circumstance. The last two applications approved by the Board were to permit family
subdivisions in 2011 (SP 2010-34) and 2013 (SP 2012-28).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as RA, Rural Area, where land use policies focus
on the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources. The Plan states that:
To be consistent with the Guiding Principles, the County's land development policies must be
changed to stop the ongoing trend toward fragmentation and loss of rural character. New
policies should focus on protecting existing large parcels from fragmentation, preserving a
general pattern characterized by farms, forests, and habitat corridors, and reducing the
potential overall level of residential development and loss of rural character.
This proposal is not directly supportive of the Rural Area policies.
SP201300015 – Mahone
Planning Commission: November 12, 2013
Page 3
Past decisions by the Board of Supervisors on similar requests for additional development rights in
the Rural Area have followed a consistent pattern. The requests have generally been approved in
cased where all the development rights on a parcel have been used to provide parcels for family
members and there are more family members to be accommodated. Requests for any other type
have generally been denied. In this case, the land was subdivided by a previous landowner before
purchase of the lot by the applicant. Approval of additional development rights in this case would
therefore be inconsistent with past decisions. The applicant purchased this 21 acres parcel without a
development right. This applicant/ family was not involved in the prior subdivision of the parent
parcel creating this 21 acre lot.
APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL AND JUSTIFICATION
The applicant is requesting the right to build an additional dwelling upon their parcel by way of a
family subdivision. Since the existing parcel is 21 acres two development rights are needed since
the resulting two lots would be less than 21 acres, if permitted.
The applicant has lived on the property since 1985. The applicant desires to provide for a building
lot from the existing parcel for their daughter who would live on the property and assist in running a
small family farm. The applicants have contacted adjacent property owners to determine the
suitability and availability of land with development rights that could be added to their existing parcel
via a boundary line adjustment. Discussions with adjoining property owners were not successful in
obtaining additional land with development rights. The applicant notes that adjacent lots on Dudley
Mountain Road mostly range in size from 2-6 acres each though there is also a mix of larger parcels
adjacent too. The applicant feels the addition of a new lot and dwelling is consistent with the density
and character of the neighborhood. See Attachment C for the applicant’s written justification.
See Attachment D for a sketch plan showing the proposed building site area. (Please note that, if
this special use permit is approved, a more detailed subdivision plat meeting the County’s
subdivision requirements would be required before the lot could be created.)
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.
Residential uses are permitted by-right in the Rural Areas zoning district. However additional
lots/dwellings when parcels have no additional development rights require approval of a special
use permit. The addition of a lot/dwelling could lead to a small increase in impacts generated by
increased population density (water demand, septic capacity, and traffic).
Character of district unchanged. The character of the district will not be changed by the
proposed special use.
Uses not related to agriculture or forestry tends to change the character of the Rural Areas. Due
to the limited scale and visibility of this application, the proposed use would minimize such
impacts. The addition of one parcel and dwelling will not significantly change the pattern of land
use in the area; however, staff has concern that this application does have the ability to affect the
character of the Rural Area Zoning District because such request set precedents for future ones.
Each new approval would contribute to the incremental fragmentation of land and loss of rural
character referred to in the Comprehensive Plan.
SP201300015 – Mahone
Planning Commission: November 12, 2013
Page 4
Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
chapter,
The purposes of the RA zoning district are:
o Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
o Water supply protection;
o Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
o Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources.
The proposed use does not directly support the goals of the RA zoning district. However, the limited
scale of the use does not create significant disharmonies with those goals.
Section 10.1 (“Intent”) makes it clear that residential development is not a preferred use in the
Rural Areas zoning district, this proposal is intended to provide an additional lot for a family
member on land for which there are no remaining development rights. No development rights
have existed on the parcel since the applicant’s have owned it. Because the parcel is 21 acres in
area and any division of it would result in two parcels less than 21 acres each. Therefore, two (2)
development rights would be required.
While staff cannot provide a favorable recommendation for this application, if the Planning
Commission desires to recommend approval, staff recommends two conditions: 1) requiring that
the subdivision only occur through the “family subdivision” provisions of the subdivision
ordinance; and 2) Extend the four (4) year holding period found in Section 14-212(B) of the
Subdivision Ordinance to require that the land remain in family ownership for at least fifteen (15)
years after the recordation of the subdivision plat.
The applicants have stated that their intention is for the new parcel to be used long-term as a
residence for their child. The fifteen (15) year holding period is the maximum allowed by State
law and was also a condition in previously approved applications for additional development
rights that permitted family subdivision.
…with the uses permitted by right in the district
As proposed, the use would not conflict with residential or agricultural uses. Residential uses are
permitted by-right in the district.
…with the regulations provided in section 5 as applicable,
There are no supplemental regulations in section 5 for this use. However, section 10.5.2 requires
an analysis for special use permits requesting additional development rights in the Rural Areas
zoning district. This analysis is found later in this report under the subheading Additional Special
Use Permit Criteria.
…and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Staff completed a review of the submitted application on October 3, 2013. Rather than respond to
staff review comment, the applicant’s preference was to go directly to the Planning Commission
without a resubmittal. Currently the applicant has not submitted the necessary information to
confirm the proposed site could meet subdivision ordinance requirements. The 21 acre size of the
existing parcel makes it more likely that the location of the proposed lot could meet family
subdivision standards. Specifically staff requested the following additional information that has not
SP201300015 – Mahone
Planning Commission: November 12, 2013
Page 5
been provided:
1. Please revise the submitted sketch plan showing the approximate location of the proposed parcel.
The sketch provided with the application shows a proposed building area, but not where parcel lines
may be. This is important to show so staff can ensure setbacks would be met (minimum 25 feet from
existing dwellings). Also, per VDOT comments, please provide a note on the intended access.
2. The new lot would require a building site outside of the stream buffer that contains a drain field, a
reserve drainfield and a well. The building site was shown on the sketch plan (Attachment D)
submitted with the application, however as noted by the Health Department in their comment,
confirmation in needed that the proposed building site area is suitable for the necessary primary and
reserve drainfields and water supply well.
Traffic impacts are expected to be low (typical assumption is 10 vehicle trips per day for a single
family detached dwelling). The Virginia Department of Transportation did not have concerns over the
ability of the property or of Dudley Mountain Road to support the use.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The use will be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
The use is not directly supportive of any Comprehensive Plan goals, as it is not related to
agriculture, forestry or conservation. The location of the application is outside of the
Development Areas of the Comprehensive Plan and the area is designated as Rural Area by
the Comprehensive Plan.
In the Rural Area Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, eight guiding principles are identified:
agriculture, forestry resources, land preservation, land conservation, water supply resources, natural
resources, scenic resources, historical, archeological and cultural resources. These components are
also affirmed in the Growth Management section of the Plan which states that these resources are to
be protected and efficiently utilized.
Principle four of the RA Guiding Principles states that the County should address the needs of
existing rural residents without fostering growth and further suburbanization of the Rural Area.
Principle five also supports the protection of rural land by directing the County to develop tools that
would direct residential development into designated Development Areas where services and utilities
are available and where such development will have minimum impact on rural resources and
agricultural/forestal activities. The Growth Management and Facilities Planning Goals section of the
Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan corroborates the significance for the preservation of
agricultural resources as they provide “an opportunity to conserve and efficiently use other resources
such as: (1) water resources (with use of proper conservation techniques); (2) natural, scenic, and
historic resources with the maintenance of pasture land, farmland, and forested areas; and (3) fiscal
resources by limiting development and lessening the need to provide public services to wide areas of
the County. In the interest of this growth management strategy, residential development is
considered a secondary use in the Rural Areas."
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA
Section 10.5.2 requires the following analysis for special use permits requesting additional
development rights in the Rural Areas zoning district:
10.5.2 WHERE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
The Board of Supervisors may issue a special use permit for more lots than the total number permitted
under sections 10.3.1 and 10.3.2; provided that no such permit shall be issued for property within the
SP201300015 – Mahone
Planning Commission: November 12, 2013
Page 6
boundaries for the watershed of any public water supply reservoir, and further provided that no such
permit shall be issued to allow more development lots within a proposed rural preservation development
than that permitted by right under section 10.3.3.3(b).
The board of supervisors shall determine that such division is compatible with the neighborhood as set
forth in section 33.8 of this chapter, with consideration of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive
plan relating to rural areas including the type of division proposed and, specifically, with consideration of
the following:
1. The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its
suitability for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States
Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service or the Virginia
Department of Forestry.
The portion of the property proposed for additional development (see Attachment D) is along the
eastern property line which is adjacent to agricultural property. The existing property is 21 acres
in area and has a dwelling and outbuilding. A 21 acre lot is not conducive to large-scale
commercial agricultural operations; however, it can be conducive for small-scale, farm-to-table
type agricultural activities, the parcel size can support agricultural activities common to the area
and community. The proposal requests to create an additional lot from the existing 21 acre
parcel for an additional dwelling unit. However, subdividing the 21 acre parcel makes it smaller
and less conducive to agricultural activities. As a family division, the additional parcel and home
could support small-scale additional agricultural uses because more help (family members) would
be living on the property. Overall, while the proposed subdivision would make the 21 acre parcel
smaller and remove additional land from possible rural production, it is not likely to make the
property significantly less suitable for small-scale agricultural uses. In addition, the existing
parcel is not within a watershed for a public water supply reservoir.
2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same is
shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability
by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
The soils on the parcel are listed as “Prime” in the Open Space & Critical Resources Plan.
This soil list was developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Prime
farmland soils support cultivation for crops and hay.
3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the
extent that is reasonably available.
Aerial and topographic photos and maps show that through the 1960s the general area
(and subject parcel) immediately adjacent to Dudley Mountain Road was in agricultural
use (pasture) except for higher elevations of Dudley Mountain. By the 1980s, much of the
area formerly in pasture was wooded. The existing dwelling on the parcel was built in
1985. The applicant notes the property has not been used for commercial agriculture or
forestal purposes in the last five years however the parcel is currently with the land use
tax program.
4. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed
development on the character of the area. For the purposes of this section, a property
shall be deemed to be in an agricultural or forestal area if fifty (50) percent or more of the
land within one (1) mile of the border of such property has been in commercial agricultural
SP201300015 – Mahone
Planning Commission: November 12, 2013
Page 7
or forestal use within five (5) years of the date of the application for special use permit. In
making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers
which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered.
The parcels with boundaries within one mile of the applicant’s property include a total
3,754 acres. Of those, 2,037 acres (54%) are enrolled in the land-use tax program, which
is the standard indicator of current agricultural or forestal use. Therefore this is an
“agricultural or forestal area” as defined in this section of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purposes of
this section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if fifty (50)
percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the boundary of such property was in
parcels of record of five (5) acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In making
this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which
detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered.
Currently 54% of the 194 parcels of land within one mile of the subject parcel boundary
are 5 acres or less in area which means the property is located in a developed rural area.
A comparison of the 1979 tax map to 2012 tax map shows that many five (5) acre or less
sized parcels have been created in this area since the ordinance was adopted in 1980.
6. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers,
services and employment centers. A property within areas described below shall be deemed in
proximity to the area or use described:
a. Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary as described in the
comprehensive plan;
b. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a community boundary as described in the
comprehensive plan;
c. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a village as described in the
comprehensive plan.
The property is not within one mile of an existing Development Area boundary (urban area
4). It is 1.8 miles from the Development Area. The property is 1.7 miles from the
proposed boundary of the Development Areas that if ultimately approved would add the
Whittington project to the DA. The property is not within a ½ mile of a community or
village.
7. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements
programming in regard to increased provision of services.
The addition of one lot to this area is not expected to require any significant increase in
service provision.
8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the Virginia
Department of Transportation:
a. Occasion the need for road improvement;
b. Cause a tolerable road to become a non-tolerable road;
c. Increase traffic on an existing non-tolerable road.
Traffic impacts are expected to be low, given the proposed hours of operation and scale of
use. The Virginia Department of Transportation did not have concerns over the ability of the
property or of Dudley Mountain Road to support the use.
SP201300015 – Mahone
Planning Commission: November 12, 2013
Page 8
VDOT has noted that the existing private entrance onto Dudley Mountain Road is adequate for
the proposed additional lot and dwelling and both would be required to use the existing entrance
onto Dudley Mountain Road. VDOT does not expect that the addition of one new lot will create
the need for any road improvements.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
3. The proposal can be accommodated without significant health or safety impacts on the area.
4. The limited scale of the use would avoid impacts on adjacent properties and critical resources.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. The request would increase development in the Rural Area, which is contrary to the County’s land
use goals as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Approval of the request would not be consistent with previous actions on requests for additional
development rights in the Rural Areas.
3. Approval of this request would not be consistent with previous actions on requests for additional
development rights in the Rural Area.
4. The applicant did not submit additional information necessary to complete staff’s technical review of
the application.
In summary, this request is not consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. There are no unique
family circumstances consistent with the basis for prior Board approvals. The cumulative impact
numerous similar approvals could lead to more significant impacts to the Rural Area.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends denial of SP 2013-15 Mahone
Additional Development Rights.
However, if the Planning Commission desires to recommend approval of this application, staff
recommends the following conditions:
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 89 Parcel 62B shall only be permitted as a “family
subdivision” as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code; and
2. The family division period to retain the property, as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle
County Code, shall be extended to fifteen (15) years.
Motions:
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
I move to recommend approval of SP 20130015 Mahone Additional Development Rights
with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
I move to recommend denial of SP 20130015 Mahone Additional Development Rights
(Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial).
SP201300015 – Mahone
Planning Commission: November 12, 2013
Page 9
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Area Map
Attachment B – Detail Location Map
Attachment C – applicant Justification
Attachment D – applicant Sketch Plan
Return to PC actions letter
Parcel Info
Parcels
Comp Plan Land Use Info
Urban Development Area
Comprehensive Plan Area
Comp Plan Roadway Impr
Crozet Master Plan Land
Greenspace *
Neighborhood Density (Lo
Neighborhood Density
Urban Density
Mixed-Use
Downtown
Institutional
Light Industrial
See Crozet Masterplan Te
Pantops Master Plan Land
Neighborhood Density
Urban Density
Urban Mixed Use
Institutional
Employment District
Employment Mixed Use
Commercial Mixed Use
Parks
Greenspace
River Corridor
Rural Area
Places29 Master Plan Mix
C - Community Center
D - Destination Center
NS - Neighborhood Servic
Up - Uptown
Places29 Master Plan Lan
Airport District
Urban Mixed Use (in Cent
Urban Mixed Use (in area
Commercial Mixed Use
Urban Density
Neighborhood Density
Office / R & D / Flex / Light
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Institutional
Public Open Space
Privately Owned Open Sp
Village of Rivanna Master
Comp Plan Land Use
Community Service
Industrial Service
Institutional
Neighborhood Density
Neighborhood Service
Office Service
Office/Regional Service
Parks and Greenways
Regional Service
Town/Village Center
Transitional
Urban Density
Rural Area
See Development Area Te
Master Plan Areas
Attachment A - Area Map SP 2013-15
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources October 29, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
3752 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Overlays
Water Protection Ordinanc
Parcel Info
Parcels
Elevation
Y2007 Elevation Contours
Y2007 Critical Slopes (> 2
Attachment B - Detailed Location Map SP 2013-15
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources October 29, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
938 ft
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 12, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
November 12, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 12,
2013, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Richard Randolph, Bruce Dotson, Thomas Loach, Don
Franco, Calvin Morris, Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of
Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner; Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner;
Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
SP-2013-000015 Mahone Family (Sign #12)
PROPOSAL: Additional development right on 21 acres for 1 new unit with a density of up to 0.5
dwelling units per acre on the new lot.
ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
LOCATION: 1688 Dudley Mountain Road
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 08900-00-00-062B0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller (Andy Sorrell)
Mr. Sorrell presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a special use permit request for SP-2013-000015 Mahone Family. It is a proposal for
additional development rights to complete a family division for a new building lot for a daughter
of the property owner at 1688 Dudley Mountain Road. It is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The
property is about 1.8 miles from the edge of the Development Area in the Southern
Development Area near Biscuit Run.
In an overview map of the property staff pointed out the front and rear are wooded. There is a
pasture in the middle. There is a drive that extends from Dudley Mountain Road through to the
rear of the property. The applicant’s existing dwelling is 1688 Dudley Mountain Road. He noted
the proposed location of the house, which is shown on Attachment D of the staff report. That
locates a potential area of 30,000 square foot to accommodate a dwelling area.
This is a 21-acre lot that was created when the prior owner subdivided the property in 1984.
The parcel has not had development rights since the applicants have owned the property. Two
development rights are needed since the resulting lots would be less than 21 acres in area.
Staff understands that the applicant has spoken to adjoining property owners and they were not
successful in obtaining additional rights through boundary line adjustments or things of that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 12, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
2
nature. In general since 1981 there have been 25 applications for additional development rights
with 14 being approved and 11 denied. Most of the requests that have been approved were for
family divisions and things of that nature where they used all of the additional development
rights and had none left. One-half of the approvals have typically been based upon applications
that have adequately met the criteria listed in the Rural Area zoning district, such as for an
intermediate family member or some other unique circumstance.
This property is in the Rural Area of the Comprehensive Plan. There would be a small increase
in the impacts generated by the increased population density in minimal traffic, additional septic,
and things like that. The Rural Area policies call for the reduction in the rate of residential
development in these parts of the County. There is concern of setting precedent for additional
types of requests if this approval was granted. In the past the Board has considered approval
for additional development rights in certain cases for family members when all prior
development rights may have been used for family division. In this instance it is a little bit
different because no development rights have existed on this property since the applicants have
owned it.
Staff also notes that prior to setting the public hearing the applicant felt it would be best to speak
with the Commission before going to the detail of addressing staff’s review comments that are
mentioned in the staff report. That was mostly related to showing where potential division lines
may be to determine where setbacks could be and that there was adequate area. Staff has not
reviewed this particular application against the subdivision standards since they did not have
that information. However, at 21 acres a possibility exists that is available.
Summary:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The proposal can be accommodated without significant health or safety impacts on the
area.
2. The limited scale of the use would avoid impacts on adjacent properties and critical
resources.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. The request would increase development in the Rural Area, which is contrary to the
County’s land use goals as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Approval of the request would not be consistent with previous actions on requests for
additional development rights in the Rural Areas.
3. Approval of this request would not be consistent with previous actions on requests for
additional development rights in the Rural Area.
4. The applicant did not submit additional information necessary to complete staff’s technical
review of the application.
Staff noted in the factors unfavorable that #2 and #3 are mentioned twice. The second one
should actually mention that additional development rights are not consistent with the Rural
Area zoning district standards.
In summary, this request is not consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies or the Rural
Areas zoning district. There are no unique family circumstances consistent with the basis
for prior Board approvals. There is a cumulative impact since numerous similar approvals
could lead to more significant impacts to the Rural Area.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 12, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
3
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends denial of SP-2013-15
Mahone Additional Development Rights.
However, if the Planning Commission desires to recommend approval of this application,
staff recommends the following conditions:
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 89 Parcel 62B shall only be permitted as a
“family subdivision” as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code; and
2. The family division period to retain the property, as provided by Chapter 14 of the
Albemarle County Code, shall be extended to fifteen (15) years.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Loach asked after making the two lots what acreage is left on the 21 acres.
Mr. Sorrell replied it would 19 acres for the residual and 2 acres for the family division.
Mr. Loach asked if it would affect the land use status if it is less than 20 acres.
Mr. Sorrell replied that it could affect the land use taxation.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that he was not sure if they were in Land Use now. It would depend
because there are certain minimums that are less.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that it required 20 acres for forestry or open space and 5 acres for
agricultural and horticultural.
Mr. Cilimberg added that it would also depend on the activities.
Mr. Loach noted he just did not want to create problems.
Mr. Randolph said he would like to ask a question about circumstances of subdivision. Staff
has provided good information about how many times the Board of Supervisors has approved
these types of situations. Under those circumstances if one did a case analysis were those
situations where there was a necessity of some kind related to a family illness, disability of a
family member or some kind of compelling social medical reason why the subdivision was
permitted. Whereas, in this case it appears to be a request for a subdivision based on
convenience.
Mr. Sorrell replied in past approvals of this nature that has been a case of consideration when
there is an applicant where it allows them to be close by to family who may be disabled or
something of that nature. A recent request for Hall, probably in 2011/2012, was a similar one to
that where the applicant requested the family division in order to care for a relative who was
disabled. So the answer is yes, in prior approvals that was something that has been
considered, but not all the time.
Mr. Randolph noted there was no hard and fast rule, but that seems to be a situation or
circumstance that would lead the Board to feel a degree of compassion to waive the Comp Plan
and the Rural Area restrictions that are identified in the staff report. If this were permitted what
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 12, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
4
happens if a future property owner is not interested in farming since there are no requirements
once the subdivision occurs that the piece of property actually be farmed.
Mr. Sorrell replied there is no requirement for that other than if it was to be permitted and they
would agree to the 15-year time period being held by a family member. That would be the only
conditions they would have.
Mr. Randolph noted on page 4 it identifies that under the Subdivision Ordinance it requires that
the land remain in family ownership for at least 15 years after the recordation of the subdivision
plat. What happens if in this case the subdivision occurs and because of some compelling
medical circumstance the family that owns the land finds themselves having to sell to pay a
medical bill, to cover a nursing home, or whatever? W hat happens if that occurs in less than 15
years?
Mr. Sorrell replied there would be the deed restriction. However, if it was to be something
where there was a compelling need he asked if that was something that had been considered in
the past.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the condition is 15 years, which is the period that it has to be held.
That has been the standard in these types of approvals in the recent years. Although it would
be a circumstance where he assumed they would need to ask for a special use permit
amendment.
Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Randolph was talking about the sale of the 2 acre lot or the balance.
Mr. Randolph replied it was the balance.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that family subdivision is a subdivision type and it applies to all of the area
covered by the subdivision and not just one lot.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for the applicant and public comment. He invited the
applicant to come forward and address the Planning Commission.
Justin Shimp, representative for the owner, Irma Mahone, said he had given the owners a little
guidance about the special use permit process in Albemarle. It is quite a big thing to go through
as an individual landowner with the fees and everything. The owners are here because they
have a specific need, which Ms. Irma Mahone would talk about. He wanted to comment about
one item in the staff report particularly about the soil’s item about the studies that have been
done on that plat and layout. They felt those were things that really on a 21-acre lot could be
required, of course, with the Subdivision Ordinance for a family subdivision. However, it was an
item that could be addressed later. The issue really is should an additional lot be allowed. It will
certainly be around a 2 acre lot in the general location that they have shown. It may move 20’,
30’ or 50’ here or there. They don’t have a survey of that right now. That is something they
would not envision doing without approval of the Board. They would like to have a
recommendation for approval from the Commission for that additional lot first.
Mr. Shimp noted as it relates to the past examples he found it interesting to think about other
lots where there were development rights that were exhausted. It seems logical to say 10 years
ago if one had a child that was 25 years old that lived their whole life on the farm that property
would have had development rights. That person would have been born before the ordinance
changed in 1980 to create development rights. So they have a situation here where there are
no development rights because it is 31 or 32 years later. So that may be the reason that this
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 12, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
5
has not been seen commonly before.
Mr. Shimp said their intention with this property is to use it for agricultural purposes for a family
farm. The owner will talk about that in more detail. That is a use clearly supportive of the
Comprehensive Plan if the subdivision can enable that to be a better use of the land without any
detrimental impacts to anything else around and it is consistent with the form of the surrounding
lots. The surrounding property is mostly developed into 2 to 5 acre lots in the intermediate
vicinity going from this lot up towards the growth area. So it is fairly consistent with the form of
development. It is simply a request to help them with the function of the farm and their
agricultural operations a little more efficiently. With that said he would ask Ms. Mahone to take
over and talk about those things in more detail.
Irma Mahone said she wanted to tell the Commission a little bit about her family. Her family has
lived at 1688 Dudley Mountain Road for 28 years. About 24 years ago her daughter was born
and she has lived there all her life. Her family was faced with two big questions this year. First,
last September her husband retired. Of course, he has been poking around at a lot of different
options trying to decide what he wants to do in his retirement. Her daughter is in college trying
to narrow down what she wants to major in. This spring it came together for her daughter when
she suddenly realized that she really had an intense interest in farming. She knew right away
that this was more than just sort of putting her toe in the water on another possible career. She
really was interested in farming and talked her dad into considering building a family farm. They
do own the 21 acres and as long as they have lived there they have talked about lots of different
things that they could do with the 21 acres. However, working full time nothing really got off the
ground. Now with her daughter’s interest she was really happy to see that her daughter had
narrowed down what she wanted to major in and her husband has narrowed down what he
wants to do in his retirement, which is to build a family farm.
Ms. Mahone noted they named their property Mountain Dream when they moved there 28 years
ago. Now they want to call it the Mountain Dream Farm. They had a large garden this summer
and started selling produce at produce stands. In the fall they started planting mushrooms that
will grow this winter. There are a lot of wonderful ideas that are floating around the family.
They felt honored when their daughter came home and said she would like to build a home on
the property. The long term plan is to build this family farm, which they feel is consistent with
keeping it rural if that is the goal of the overall plan. They definitely want to plant some berries
and fruit trees as well as expand the garden to grow vegetables. That is what they hope to be
able to do with this. To facilitate our daughter to move back to our farm will really allow us to
create a family farm
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Smith asked if they are in land use.
Ms. Mahone replied yes, they grow hay on 10 acres of open field.
Mr. Smith asked if her daughter lives on the property.
Ms. Mahone replied actually her daughter lives about 6 miles up the road. She is renting a little
house and living independently, but close to home.
Mr. Randolph asked where the proposed house and septic field would be on the property.
Mr. Shimp replied the septic field would be where the star is located within the rectangular area
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 12, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
6
on the slide. The rectangular area is an area identified as slopes and soils that are reasonable.
They anticipate the drainfield to be within the rectangular area.
Mr. Randolph asked how many square feet were in that area.
Mr. Shimp replied it should be 30,000 square feet.
Mr. Smith asked if the property will attach to the side line, and Mr. Shimp replied yes, it would
attach from the road over and the road would go past in some sort of easement.
Mr. Smith asked what the frontage was.
Mr. Shimp replied that he did not know. He could tell that was a 100’ X 300’ rectangle, which
would scale to 200 feet of road frontage.
Mr. Randolph asked if she was aware when they bought this property in 1985 that there was no
development rights associated with the property. He asked if they were well aware of it from
the deed.
Ms. Mahone replied yes, they knew that. However, they did not know if they were going to
have a family or what the future held.
Mr. Dotson noted the staff report indicates that they had talked to the neighbors since they were
willing to buy additional land. He asked Ms. Mahone to tell him about that set of conversations.
Ms. Mahone replied intermediately contiguous to their property there is a meadow that went up
for sale, which is what actually started this conversation. They thought maybe the sellers would
be willing to sell 2 acres, which would increase the lot size to 23 acres with a division right.
They explored the option by asking if they would be willing to sell 2 acres and they were not.
Then they explored buying 2 acres across the road only to find out that was not an option
because the state owns the road. Since their property does not go to the middle of the road
they were not able to extend the border across the road. Therefore, the 2 acres across the road
was not an option either.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Mary Ann Rodheaver, the intermediate neighbor, said the proposal for building this home would
be right at the corner of her property. She noted Jacquelyn has been her neighbor ever since
she had been born and she was a wonderful young lady. She has no qualm whatsoever. She
has a concern, which she has spoken to Mr. Sorrell about, which is about the drain field and
well. She understands it would have to be 100 feet away. She is sure the Health Department
would look into that before it would be approved. She has spoken to other neighbors and they
all think it would be a wonderful idea to have Jacquelyn stay in the neighborhood. She thinks
keeping our families together is important in today’s world. She asked that they consider that.
As she understands they are proposing to put the house between the fence line and the
driveway. That area is not being used for anything. By putting a home there and then being
able to develop the pasture area with farming and perhaps trees or berries as suggested, it
would actually increase the use of the land and not really be deterring anything. Right now it is
just grass and probably weeds up to the fence line. Therefore, she was in support of the
request.
There being no further public comments, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 12, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
7
before the Commission for discussion and action.
Motion: Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of SP-2013-00015,
Mahone Family Additional Development Rights with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion.
Mr. Randolph said he appreciates the concern about keeping family together. However, he also
thinks it is important to keep the rural area together, which is our responsibility. The Planning
Commission is not into family planning or family preservation. They have to look out for the
welfare of the County and its future needs. He would like to propose to the family an alternative
approach. He would suggest that they visit Montpelier. James Madison lived on one side of a
house quite successfully with his parents on the other side of the house until such time as the
Madison family grew and that arrangement was no longer viable. He would see the addition
onto the existing Mahone house as being an option that would allow 21 acres to be preserved
for the daughter to, in fact, farm the land. It would also allow for the Rural Area and the
Comprehensive Plan to be protected as it is meant to be. He thinks both sides could live very
well. He has a proposal to split the difference here and propose that they just expand the house
to accommodate their daughter and not build an additional structure on the 21 acres and not
subdivide it.
Mr. Smith said he loves his in laws, but he did not live with them. That is not always an option.
They have to look out for the County, but the County is the people and they have to look out for
the people in the County.
Mr. Morris said personally he was in sympathy with the family and their proposal. However, he
was also concerned about the Comprehensive Plan. But, as with our guest speaker he does
think it is a wonderful thing when families want to stick together.
Mr. Loach said he appreciates Mr. Randolph’s approach. However, he was going to be
consistent with what he voted before. If it is a family subdivision and they have agreed to the 15
years, he thinks that is more than adequate protection. Therefore, he would support the
request.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out the Commission has just spent two years revising the Comprehensive
Plan. He was sympathetic with the family, but it is creeping into the Development Area.
Mr. Franco said he would like to echo those comments. Versus some of the past things that
have come before the Commission he was not sure if the use they were trying to establish, the
family farm, is dependent upon everybody living on that location. Six miles away having a
residence there works. If it were a dairy farm where they have to take care of the cows 24/7, it
may be something different. However, he did not know if the use they were trying to establish is
dependent upon everyone living on that location. It starts to be more of a matter of convenience.
Again, he thinks it is important to keep families together, but he thinks that our role is less about
taking care of the residents of the County. He thinks the Board can make those kinds of
decisions. The Planning Commission’s role is to apply the Comprehensive Plan. The
fundamental basis of the Comprehensive Plan has been to limit development in the Rural
Areas.
Mr. Dotson agreed with many of the comments. It is certainly beneficial to the County to
establish farming. However, he was afraid of the precedent. This is only one house and so they
could say they would have a minimal in significant impact. But, if they say yes here how do we
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 12, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
8
say no to the next one. So it is kind of a slippery slope problem. He is impressed that the family
has made an effort to talk to the neighbors. Obviously, they think this is important enough to
spend some money to buy some additional land. He suggested that possibly working through
an attorney there would be some way where they could offset the additional development right
by buying a development right someplace else. What the neighbors told them was that they did
not want to sell them any land. They wanted to keep their land intact. However, if there was
some creative legal way to buy a development right and retire that permanently, then the
County would be able to say there is no net gain in the Rural Area of development. Then this
might look different with that circumstance. Absent of that he would not be able to support the
motion.
There being no further comments, Mr. Morris asked for a roll call.
Mr. Franco voted no because he finds it inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Dotson voted no.
Mr. Randolph voted no because he finds it inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Smith voted aye because he thinks it is the thing to do.
Mr. Morris voted aye.
Mr. Loach voted aye.
Mr. Lafferty voted no because of the Comprehensive Plan.
The motion failed by a vote of 3:4. (Loach, Morris and Smith voted aye) (Franco, Dotson,
Randolph and Lafferty voted nay.)
Mr. Kamptner noted under the Commission’s rules they now need a motion to recommend
disapproval of the special use permit.
Mr. Franco said before they make that recommendation he would like to throw out some other
options to the applicant. One of the other options they have explored in the past has been
accessory units. He asked if an option is to have a stand-alone accessory unit on the property.
Mr. Cilimberg replied no, that it would only be through a special use permit.
Mr. Franco asked if they could do it through a special use permit or not at all.
Mr. Cilimberg said it was essentially adding another development right and not any different
from what was requested here. The accessory apartment has to be within the structure of the
house and there are some limitations on the size. It could not even be a duplex because there is
not a development right for a duplex either. However, there could be an accessory apartment
as long as it meets the definition under the ordinance. In terms of the creative approach he
would have to defer to Mr. Kamptner because it would become somewhat of a transfer of
development rights process and he did not know it is something they are able to do in Albemarle
County.
Mr. Kamptner said they don’t have a TDR ordinance yet because the enabling authority is so
incomprehensible. The only other thing he can think of is if the applicants wanted to participate
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 12, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
9
with an open space easement that some land owner was interested in participating in to put the
open space easement on the property and contribute to the cost of retiring a development right.
That would be a way to do it. They would need to work with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation
or the Public Recreational Facilities Authority in Albemarle County, which is one of the tools or
entities that deal with that.
Mr. Morris asked if someone would like to make a motion to deny.
Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend denial of SP-2013-00015,
Mahone Family Addition to Development Rights.
Mr. Kamptner assumed that would be for the reasons stated by the Commissioners on the prior
vote for inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Lafferty agreed that it was due to the inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
The motion to recommend denial passed by a vote of 4:3. (Loach, Morris and Smith voted nay)
(Franco, Dotson, Randolph and Lafferty voted aye)
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2013-00015, Mahone Family - Request for Additional development
right was recommended for denial and can go to the Board of Supervisors if the applicant
desires at a time to be determined.
PC Public Hearing – ZTA 201300006 Residential and Industrial Uses in DCD Page 1 of 3
November 12, 2013
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 201300006 Residential and
Industrial Uses in Downtown Crozet Zoning District (DCD)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Amendments to
DCD Sec.20B.2 to: allow by special use permit residential
uses of any authorized dwelling type in the DCD without
requiring first-floor non-residential uses; allow
Laboratories/Research and Development/Experimental
Testing by right; and allow
Storage/Warehousing/Distribution/Transportation and
Manufacturing/ Processing/Assem bly/Fabrication/
Recycling by special use permit. Amendment to add
factors when considering special use permits (Sec.
20B.8).
STAFF CONTACT(S): Wayne Cilimberg, Amelia
McCulley and Greg Kamptner
AGENDA DATE: November 12, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
On October 22, 2013, the Planning Commission passed a resolution of intent (Attachment A) to consider amending the
DCD to permit a broader range of light industrial uses either by-right or by special use permit and to allow first floor
residential uses by special use permit.
ORIGIN: On September 16, 2013, an application was made requesting that the County amend the uses permitted by
special use permit in the DCD to add residential uses on the first floor of attached single family dwellings . Currently,
residential uses are allowed by special use permit only on the first floor of detached single family dwellings and by-right on
floors above the first floor provided that the first floor is occupied by a non-residential use.
PROPOSAL: The proposed zoning ordinance amendments (Attachment B), consistent with the October 22nd
Commission resolution of intent, build off of the changes requested in the above-noted September 16th application, but
would allow first floor residential uses by special use permit in all residential structure types, not just detached single
family as currently provided for in the DCD or attached single family as requested in the application. In addition, the
amendments propose a change that was missed earlier this year when provision was made for industrial uses in
commercial zoning districts with ZTA201200013. That ZTA introduced by-right industrial uses in commercial districts by-
right, by special exception or by special use permit, depending on the use type and the commercial district the uses would
be located in, but did not also include the DCD. The DCD, within which commercial uses are intended to be a primary
use, closely parallels the lower intensity conventional commercial districts and, therefore, the potential to similarly treat the
DCD is also covered by the resolution of intent. Finally, the proposed amendments include additional factors to be
considered when evaluating residential and non-residential special use permits in the DCD. No such factors currently
exist in the DCD.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: As regards the Downtown Area, the Crozet Master Plan recognizes and the DCD
provides for a mix of retail, service, office/R&D/flex/light industrial and civic uses as primary uses with other light indus trial
and residential uses as secondary uses. Furthermore, one of the short-term priorities of the County’s Economic
Development Policy is to initiate zoning text amendments that further enable business and industrial uses in appropriate
zoning districts. The proposed zoning ordinance amendments are consistent with the DCD’s intent to allow flexibility and
variety of development in the DCD and also allow for additional opportunities for business development and job creation
consistent with the County’s Economic Development Policy.
PC Public Hearing – ZTA 201300006 Residential and Industrial Uses in DCD Page 2 of 3
November 12, 2013
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CRITERIA:
Based on prior Board direction, staff reviews ordinance amendment impacts under the following additional criteria:
Administration / Review Process: Amending the industrial allowances in the DCD to be more uniform with
those permitted in similar commercial districts allows for more consistent administration. Creating a common
allowance for first floor residential uses in all structure types simplifies interpretation and administration. Inclusion
of factors to be considered when reviewing non-residential and first floor residential special use permits will
provide greater clarity for staff’s reviews as well as more guidance and predictability for applicants.
Housing Affordability: The amendments create the potential for increased and varied housing availability in a
mixed use setting potentially close to services and jobs . Together, this creates the potential for more affordable
living opportunities due to greater housing choices and reduced transportation costs.
Implications to Staffing / Staffing Costs: Nothing significant anticipated. There is the potential for a limited
number of additional special use permit applications with the broadened allowance for first floor residential and
certain industrial uses. These special use permits are fee-based.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy.
Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
The draft ordinance (Attachment B) provides the following:
CURRENT DCD PROVISIONS PROPOSED DCD PROVISIONS
By-Right: By-Right:
1) Upper floor residential as
apartments in SF/MF dwellings;
upper floor residential in attached
SF (ex. TH)
1) No change.
2) Laboratories and R&D 2) Lab/R&D/Experimental Testing
By SP: By SP:
1) 1st floor residential in detached SF 1) 1st floor residential in all residential use types
2) Manufacturing, processing,
fabricating, assembling and
distributing products
2) Manufacturing/Processing/Assembly/Fabrication/Recycling;
Storage/Warehousing/Distribution/Transportation
Additional Factors When Considering SP: Additional Factors When Considering SP (non-res./1st floor res.):
1) None 1) Consistency with Crozet MP Downtown Area and DCD purpose
and intent; complements adjacent uses and contributes to mix of
uses; convertibility of structure for by-right uses
The DCD’s intent in not allowing first floor residential by-right is to promote opportunities for vertical mixed use typical
of a downtown setting. Expanding the special use permit allowances on first floors to include all residential types
responds to the applicant’s September 16th request while providing broader opportunities to consider first floor
residential development in horizontal mixed use settings where appropriate on a case by case basis.
The amendments also generally equalize industrial terminology and allowances in the DCD with those in the
Commercial Office (CO) district, the conventional commercial district of lowest intensity. The only distinction is that
the CO only permits Lab/R&D/Experimental Testing up to 4,000 square feet by-right (above 4,000 square feet by
special exception) while the proposed DCD change has no square footage limitation. This is in recognition of the fact
that Laboratories and R&D are already permitted by-right without such limitation in the DCD.
On October 17, 2013, these potential amendments were discussed with the Crozet Community Advisory Council who
generally supported the changes with the proviso that any proposal requiring a special use permit that would be
provided for by the ZTA will need to be assessed for its consistency with the purpose and intent of the DCD. They
particularly did not want the DCD to become a de-facto residential district through special use permit approvals. Sec.
20B.8, which lists additional factors to be considered for special use permits, is intended to address this concern.
PC Public Hearing – ZTA 201300006 Residential and Industrial Uses in DCD Page 3 of 3
November 12, 2013
BUDGET IMPACT:
No increase in expenditures for staff anticipated. Some additional revenue through fees anticipated. Additional
development that might result from these amendments would increase the County tax base.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance language found in Attachment B.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this Zoning Text Amendment:
Move to recommend approval of the draft ordinance in Attachment B.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this Zoning Text Amendment:
Move to recommend denial of the draft ordinance in Attachment B. Should a commissioner motion to
recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
Attachments:
Attachment A: October 22, 2013 Resolution of Intent
Attachment B: Proposed Zoning Text Amendments
Attachment C: Crozet Master Plan Downtown Map
Attachment D: Crozet Downtown Zoning Map
View PC actions letter
View PC minutes of October 22 and November 12, 2013
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Downtown Crozet District (the “DCD”) is to establish a district in
which traditional downtown development will occur; and
WHEREAS, the DCD provides for flexibility and a variety of development, with retail, service and
civic uses being the primary uses within the district and light industrial and residential uses being secondary
uses; and
WHEREAS, one of the short-term priorities of the County’s Economic Development Policy is to
initiate zoning text amendments that further enable business and industrial uses in appropriate zoning districts
and, based on current industrial technologies and their reduced impacts, the board of supervisors adopted a
zoning text amendment on April 3, 2013 that amended the use regulations in several commercial districts other
than the DCD to allow new classes of light industrial uses by right, by special use permit or by special
exception, subject to suitable conditions; and
WHEREAS, apartments and attached single-family dwellings are permitted by right in the DCD,
provided that the first floor of the building in which the dwellings exist is designed for and occupied by a non-
residential use allowed in the DCD (the “first floor use requirement”), but there may be individual cases where
residential uses without the first floor requirement may be appropriate; and
WHEREAS, detached single family dwellings without the first floor requirement currently are
permitted by special use permit in the DCD; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the DCD’s principal to allow flexibility and variety of development in the
DCD, it is now desired to consider amending the regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to allow a broader range
of light industrial use classifications in the DCD consistent with the similar use classifications allowed in other
commercial districts and, in particular, the Commercial Office district, and to allow residential uses in the DCD
without the first floor use requirement by special use permit, which would allow each proposal to be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance, including sections 3.1, 20B and any other
sections deemed appropriate, as described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and return its recommendations to the
Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
ATTACHMENT B
Draft: 10/30/13
1
ORDINANCE NO. 13-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 20B.2 Permitted Uses
By Adding:
Sec. 20B.8 Residential uses allowed by special use permit; additional factors when considering
special use permits
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Section 20B
Downtown Crozet District – DCD
Sec. 20B.2 Permitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted in the DCD, subject to the regulations in this section:
A. By right uses; retail and service. The following retail and service uses are permitted by right:
1. Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops.
2. Automobile, truck repair shops excluding body shops.
3. Barber, beauty shops.
4. Clothing, apparel and shoe shops.
5. Commercial recreation establishments including, but not limited to, amusement centers,
bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls.
6. Convalescent homes (reference 5.1.13).
7. Convenience stores.
8. Department stores.
9. Drug stores, pharmacies.
10. Factory outlet stores, clothing and fabric.
ATTACHMENT B
Draft: 10/30/13
2
11. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). (Amended 5-5-10)
12. Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22).
13. Financial institutions.
14. Fire extinguisher and security products sales and service.
15. Florists.
16. Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary
and wine and cheese shops.
17. Funeral homes.
18. Furniture and home appliances sales and service.
19. Hardware stores.
20. Health spas.
21. Hotels, motels and inns.
22. Indoor athletic facilities.
23. Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical.
24. Laundries, dry cleaners.
25. Musical instrument sales and repair.
26. New automotive parts sales.
27. Newspaper publishing.
28. Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops.
29. Nursing homes (reference 5.1.13).
30. Office and business machines sales and service.
31. Optical goods sales and service.
32. Photographic goods sales and service.
33. Research and development activities, including experimental testing, subject to the
performance standards stated in section 4.14 of this chapter.
34. Restaurants.
ATTACHMENT B
Draft: 10/30/13
3
35. Retail nurseries and greenhouses.
36. Service stations.
37. Sporting goods sales.
38. Tailors and seamstresses.
39. Temporary construction headquarters and temporary construction storage yards
(reference 5.1.18).
40. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40).
41. Tourist lodging.
42. Visual and audio appliances.
43. Laboratories/Research and Development/Experimental Testing.
B. By right uses; office. The following office uses are permitted by right:
1. Offices.
2. Temporary construction headquarters and temporary construction storage yards
(reference 5.1.18).
C. By right uses; public and civic. The following public and civic uses are permitted by right:
1. Churches.
2. Clubs, lodges (reference 5.1.02).
3. Conference centers, outdoor auditoriums, public art or kiosks.
4. Cultural arts centers.
5. Day care centers (reference 5.1.06).
6. Water, sewer, energy and communications distribution facilities.
7. Fire, ambulance and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09).
8 Libraries.
9. Outdoor performance areas.
10. Parking structures and stand alone parking structures (reference 4.12 and 5.1.41).
11. Private schools.
12. Public uses (reference 5.1.12).
ATTACHMENT B
Draft: 10/30/13
4
13. Temporary construction headquarters and temporary construction storage yards
(reference 5.1.18).
14. Theaters, live and movie, including multi-screen movie theaters.
D. By right uses; residential. The following residential uses are permitted by right, provided
that the first floor of the building in which the residential use exists is designed for and
occupied only by a use permitted by subsections 20B.2(A), (B), (C) or (E):
1. Apartments, either as a single-family dwelling or as a multiple-family dwelling.
2. Attached single-family dwellings such as townhouses.
3. Boarding houses.
4. Condominiums.
5. Group homes (reference 5.1.07).
6. Tourist lodging within detached single-family dwellings existing on June 4, 2008.
7. Dwellings occupied by the owner or employees of a permitted commercial use, and their
families (reference 5.1.21).
8. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56). (Added 9-11-13)
E. By special use permit; non-residential uses. The following non-residential uses are permitted
by special use permit:
1. Body shops (reference 5.1.31).
2. Buildings more than fifty (50) feet or four stories in height, up to seventy (70) feet or six
(6) stories in height, provided the increased height allows the provision of a demonstrated
public benefit, such as providing affordable housing or parking.
3. Buildings one story in height.
4. Car washes.
5. Compounding of drugs, including biological products, medical and chemical as well as
pharmaceutical.
6. Detached single-family dwellings, provided that there is no other use permitted by
subsections 20B.2(A), (B), (C) or (E) on the same lot.
7. Drive-through windows.
8. Energy and communications transmission facilities (reference 5.1.12).
9. Hospitals.
ATTACHMENT B
Draft: 10/30/13
5
10. Manufacturing, processing, fabricating, assembling, and distributing products including,
but not limited to:
-Artists’ supplies and equipment.
-Business, office machines and equipment.
-Cosmetics, including perfumes, perfumed toiletries and perfumed toilet soap.
-Drafting supplies and equipment.
-Electrical lighting and wiring equipment.
-Electrical and electronic equipment and components including radio, telephone,
computer, communication equipment, TV receiving sets, phonographs.
-Food products, such as bakery goods, dairy products, candy, beverages, including
bottling plants.
-Gifts, novelties including pottery, figurines and similar ceramic products.
-Glass products made of purchased glass.
-Industrial controls.
-Jewelry, silverware.
-Light machinery and machine parts, including electrical household appliances but not
including such things as clothes washers, dryers and refrigerators.
-Musical instruments.
-Paper products such as die-cut paperboard and cardboard, sanitary paper products, bags
and containers.
-Photographic equipment and supplies including processing and developing plant.
-Rubber, metal stamps.
-Small electrical parts such as coils, condensers, transformers, crystal holders.
-Surgical, medical and dental instruments and supplies.
-Toys, sporting and athletic equipment, except firearms, ammunition or fireworks.
-Watches, clocks and similar timing devices.
-Wood cabinets and furniture, upholstery.
ATTACHMENT B
Draft: 10/30/13
6
11. Publishing, printing, lithography and engraving, including but not limited to
newspapers, periodicals and books.
12. Preparation of printing plates including typesetting, etching and engraving.
13. Stand-alone parking (reference 4.12).
14. Storage yards.
15. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40).
16. Towing and storage of motor vehicles (reference 5.1.32).
17. Veterinary offices and animal hospitals.
18. Storage/Warehousing/Distribution/Transportation.
19. Manufacturing/Processing/Assembly/Fabrication and Recycling.
F. By special use permit; residential uses. The following residential uses are permitted by special
use permit without the restriction on first floor uses required by subsection 20B.2(D), provided
that there is no other use permitted by subsections 20B.2(A), (B), (C) or (E) on the same lot:
1. Apartments, either as a single-family dwelling or as a multiple-family dwelling.
2. Attached single-family dwellings such as townhouses.
3. Boarding houses.
4. Condominiums.
5. Detached single-family dwellings
6. Group homes (reference 5.1.07).
7. Tourist lodging within detached single-family dwellings existing on June 4, 2008.
8. Dwellings occupied by the owner or employees of a permitted commercial use, and their
families (reference 5.1.21).
9. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56). (Added 9-11-13)
Sec. 20B.8 Residential uses allowed by special use permit; additional factors when considering special
use permits
In evaluating a request for a special use permit for a non-residential use under section 20B.2(E) or a
residential use under section 20B.2(F), the board shall consider the following factors in addition to those
delineated in section 33.8:
A. The proposed use should be consistent with the recommendations for the Downtown area in the
Crozet Master Plan.
ATTACHMENT B
Draft: 10/30/13
7
B. The proposed use and its proposed size should be consistent with the purpose and intent of the
Downtown Crozet District as stated in section 20B.1.
C. The proposed use in its location should complement adjacent uses and contribute to a mix of uses
in the Downtown Crozet District.
D. Whether the part of the structure in which the proposed use will be located can be converted to
accommodate by right uses in the Downtown Crozet District.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Craddock ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Snow ____ ____
Mr. Thomas ____ ____
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Comp Plan Land Use Info
Crozet Master Plan Land
Greenspace *
Neighborhood Density (Lo
Neighborhood Density
Urban Density
Mixed-Use
Downtown
Institutional
Light Industrial
See Crozet Masterplan Te
Crozet Master Plan Downtown
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources November 13, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
401 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
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
Crozet Downtown Zoning
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources November 13, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
401 ft
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
FROM: Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
DATE: November 26, 2013
RE: ZTA2013000006 Residential and Industrial Uses in Downtown Crozet Zoning District
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 12, 2013, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above noted Zoning Text Amendment to the Board of Supervisors.
This matter will go before the Board of Supervisors on December 11, 2013.
ZTA-2013-00006 - Attachment B of the executive summary
ORDINANCE NO. 13-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 20B.2 Permitted Uses
By Adding:
Sec. 20B.8 Residential uses allowed by special use permit; additional factors when considering
special use permits
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Section 20B
Downtown Crozet District – DCD
Sec. 20B.2 Permitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted in the DCD, subject to the regulations in this
section:
A. By right uses; retail and service. The following retail and service uses are permitted
by right:
1. Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops.
2. Automobile, truck repair shops excluding body shops.
3. Barber, beauty shops.
4. Clothing, apparel and shoe shops.
5. Commercial recreation establishments including, but not limited to, amusement centers,
bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls.
6. Convalescent homes (reference 5.1.13).
7. Convenience stores.
8. Department stores.
9. Drug stores, pharmacies.
10. Factory outlet stores, clothing and fabric.
11. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). (Amended 5-5-10)
12. Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22).
13. Financial institutions.
14. Fire extinguisher and security products sales and service.
15. Florists.
16. Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary
and wine and cheese shops.
17. Funeral homes.
18. Furniture and home appliances sales and service.
19. Hardware stores.
20. Health spas.
21. Hotels, motels and inns.
22. Indoor athletic facilities.
23. Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical.
24. Laundries, dry cleaners.
25. Musical instrument sales and repair.
26. New automotive parts sales.
27. Newspaper publishing.
28. Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops.
29. Nursing homes (reference 5.1.13).
30. Office and business machines sales and service.
31. Optical goods sales and service.
32. Photographic goods sales and service.
33. Research and development activities, including experimental testing, subject to the
performance standards stated in section 4.14 of this chapter.
34. Restaurants.
35. Retail nurseries and greenhouses.
36. Service stations.
37. Sporting goods sales.
38. Tailors and seamstresses.
39. Temporary construction headquarters and temporary construction storage yards
(reference 5.1.18).
40. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40).
41. Tourist lodging.
42. Visual and audio appliances.
43. Laboratories/Research and Development/Experimental Testing.
B. By right uses; office. The following office uses are permitted by right:
1. Offices.
2. Temporary construction headquarters and temporary construction storage yards
(reference 5.1.18).
C. By right uses; public and civic. The following public and civic uses are permitted by
right:
1. Churches.
2. Clubs, lodges (reference 5.1.02).
3. Conference centers, outdoor auditoriums, public art or kiosks.
4. Cultural arts centers.
5. Day care centers (reference 5.1.06).
6. Water, sewer, energy and communications distribution facilities.
7. Fire, ambulance and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09).
8 Libraries.
9. Outdoor performance areas.
10. Parking structures and stand alone parking structures (reference 4.12 and 5.1.41).
11. Private schools.
12. Public uses (reference 5.1.12).
13. Temporary construction headquarters and temporary construction storage yards
(reference 5.1.18).
14. Theaters, live and movie, including multi-screen movie theaters.
D. By right uses; residential. The following residential uses are permitted by right,
provided that the first floor of the building in which the residential use exists is
designed for and occupied only by a use permitted by subsections 20B.2(A), (B), (C)
or (E):
1. Apartments, either as a single-family dwelling or as a multiple-family dwelling.
2. Attached single-family dwellings such as townhouses.
3. Boarding houses.
4. Condominiums.
5. Group homes (reference 5.1.07).
6. Tourist lodging within detached single-family dwellings existing on June 4, 2008.
7. Dwellings occupied by the owner or employees of a permitted commercial use, and their
families (reference 5.1.21).
8. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56). (Added 9-11-13)
E. By special use permit; non-residential uses. The following non-residential uses are
permitted by special use permit:
1. Body shops (reference 5.1.31).
2. Buildings more than fifty (50) feet or four stories in height, up to seventy (70) feet
or six (6) stories in height, provided the increased height allows the provision of a
demonstrated public benefit, such as providing affordable housing or parking.
3. Buildings one story in height.
4. Car washes.
5. Compounding of drugs, including biological products, medical and chemical as well as
pharmaceutical.
6. Detached single-family dwellings, provided that there is no other use permitted
by subsections 20B.2(A), (B), (C) or (E) on the same lot.
7. Drive-through windows.
8. Energy and communications transmission facilities (reference 5.1.12).
9. Hospitals.
10. Manufacturing, processing, fabricating, assembling, and distributing products including,
but not limited to:
-Artists’ supplies and equipment.
-Business, office machines and equipment.
-Cosmetics, including perfumes, perfumed toiletries and perfumed toilet soap.
-Drafting supplies and equipment.
-Electrical lighting and wiring equipment.
-Electrical and electronic equipment and components including radio, telephone,
computer, communication equipment, TV receiving sets, phonographs.
-Food products, such as bakery goods, dairy products, candy, beverages, including
bottling plants.
-Gifts, novelties including pottery, figurines and similar ceramic products.
-Glass products made of purchased glass.
-Industrial controls.
-Jewelry, silverware.
-Light machinery and machine parts, including electrical household appliances but not
including such things as clothes washers, dryers and refrigerators.
-Musical instruments.
-Paper products such as die-cut paperboard and cardboard, sanitary paper products, bags
and containers.
-Photographic equipment and supplies including processing and developing plant.
-Rubber, metal stamps.
-Small electrical parts such as coils, condensers, transformers, crystal holders.
-Surgical, medical and dental instruments and supplies.
-Toys, sporting and athletic equipment, except firearms, ammunition or fireworks.
-Watches, clocks and similar timing devices.
-Wood cabinets and furniture, upholstery.
11. Publishing, printing, lithography and engraving, including but not limited to
newspapers, periodicals and books.
12. Preparation of printing plates including typesetting, etching and engraving.
13. Stand-alone parking (reference 4.12).
14. Storage yards.
15. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40).
16. Towing and storage of motor vehicles (reference 5.1.32).
17. Veterinary offices and animal hospitals.
18. Storage/Warehousing/Distribution/Transportation.
19. Manufacturing/Processing/Assembly/Fabrication and Recycling.
F. By special use permit; residential uses. The following residential uses are permitted by special
use permit without the restriction on first floor uses required by subsection 20B.2(D), provided
that there is no other use permitted by subsections 20B.2(A), (B), (C) or (E) on the same lot:
1. Apartments, either as a single-family dwelling or as a multiple-family dwelling.
2. Attached single-family dwellings such as townhouses.
3. Boarding houses.
4. Condominiums.
5. Detached single-family dwellings
6. Group homes (reference 5.1.07).
7. Tourist lodging within detached single-family dwellings existing on June 4, 2008.
8. Dwellings occupied by the owner or employees of a permitted commercial use, and their
families (reference 5.1.21).
9. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56). (Added 9-11-13)
Sec. 20B.8 Residential uses allowed by special use permit; additional factors when considering special
use permits
In evaluating a request for a special use permit for a non-residential use under section 20B.2(E) or a
residential use under section 20B.2(F), the board shall consider the following factors in addition to those
delineated in section 33.8:
A. The proposed use should be consistent with the recommendations for the Downtown area in the
Crozet Master Plan.
B. The proposed use and its proposed size should be consistent with the purpose and intent of the
Downtown Crozet District as stated in section 20B.1.
C. The proposed use in its location should complement adjacent uses and contribute to a mix of uses
in the Downtown Crozet District.
D. Whether the part of the structure in which the proposed use will be located can be converted to
accommodate by right uses in the Downtown Crozet District.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Craddock ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____
____
Mr. Rooker ____
____
Mr. Snow ____
____
Mr. Thomas ____
____
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 22, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 22, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 22, 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, Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, and
Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Calvin Morris, Chair was absent. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land
Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Amanda
Burbage, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County
Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Lafferty, Vice Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
ZTA-2013-00006 Residential and Industrial Uses in Downtown Crozet Zoning District – Resolution
of Intent (Wayne Cilimberg)
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the resolution of intent was associated with an application received to amend
allowances in the Downtown Crozet District regarding residential use. Curr ently residential uses are only
allowed by right on upper floors and only by special use permit if it is a single -family detached house on
the first floor. The request is to actually allow residential uses by special use permit on the first floor of
any kind of residential building or unit. That is the application that spurred the need for this resolution of
intent. Staff also found this as an opportunity to address a bit of an inconsistency between the DCD and
the Commercial Districts, which otherwise were changed to permit industrial uses in various manners
several months ago. Therefore, in actuality they can take this as the opportunity to amend the DCD to be
consistent with the Commercial Office District in terms of how it allows for industrial use. Of course, all
the Resolution of Intent does is says that they will be considering this. It will have to come to the Planning
Commission for public hearing along with the amendment language in the staff report. Staff will be doing
that later. Tonight staff would like to have the resolution of intent action so they can begin that process.
Mr. Cilimberg noted last week he had a chance to go to the Crozet Community Advisory Council . He
mentioned in his email that the Council was generally supportive. They particularly support the idea of
getting industrial use parity for the DCD with other commercial districts. The Council said they did not
oppose the possibility of more residential on first floors in the DCD, but very much would want that special
use permit consideration to consider factors that are consistent with the intent of the district, which is that
it not just be a residential district.
Mr. Loach agreed. They talked about this before at the Advisory Council and think it is consistent as long
as it does not change the overall character of the original intent of the district. He thinks the special use
permit gives us enough protection under the resolution.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Franco seconded to accept the Resolution of Intent for ZT A-2013-
00006 Downtown Crozet District.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Morris absent)
Mr. Lafferty noted the Commission adopted the resolution of intent for ZTA-2013-00006 Downtown Crozet
District as shown in Attachment 1.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 22, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
2
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Downtown Crozet District (the “DCD”) is to establish a district in
which traditional downtown development will occur; and
WHEREAS, the DCD provides for flexibility and a variety of development, with retail , service and
civic uses being the primary uses within the district and light industrial and residential uses being
secondary uses; and
WHEREAS, one of the short-term priorities of the County’s Economic Development Policy is to
initiate zoning text amendments that further enable business and industrial uses in appropriate zoning
districts and, based on current industrial technologies and their reduced impacts, the board of supervisors
adopted a zoning text amendment on April 3, 2013 that amended the use regulations in several
commercial districts other than the DCD to allow new classes of light industrial uses by right, by special
use permit or by special exception, subject to suitable conditions; and
WHEREAS, apartments and attached single-family dwellings are permitted by right in the DCD,
provided that the first floor of the building in which the dwellings exist is designed for and occupied by a
non-residential use allowed in the DCD (the “first floor use requirement”), but there may be individual
cases where residential uses without the first floor requirement may be appropriate; and
WHEREAS, detached single family dwellings without the first floor requirement currently are
permitted by special use permit in the DCD; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the DCD’s principal to allow flexibility and variety of development in
the DCD, it is now desired to consider amending the regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to allow a
broader range of light industrial use classifications in the DCD consistent with the simi lar use
classifications allowed in other commercial districts and, in particular, the Commercial Office district, and
to allow residential uses in the DCD without the first floor use requirement by special use permit, which
would allow each proposal to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance, including sections 3.1, 20B and any other
sections deemed appropriate, as described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and return its recommendations to
the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 12, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
November 12, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 12,
2013, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Richard Randolph, Bruce Dotson, Thomas Loach, Don
Franco, Calvin Morris, Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of
Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner; Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner;
Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
ZTA- 2013-00006 Residential and Industrial Uses in Downtown Crozet Zoning District
(“DCD”)
Ordinance to amend 20B.2 to allow by special use permit residential uses of any authorized
dwelling type in the DCD without requiring first-floor non-residential uses and to allow
Laboratories/Research and Development/Experimental Testing by right, and to allow
Storage/Warehousing/Distribution\Transportation and Manufacturing/Processing
Assembly/Fabrication/ Recycling by special use permit, and add Sec. 20B.8 to add factors
when considering special use permits. (Wayne Cilimberg)
Mr. Cilimberg presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the executive summary.
The Planning Commission passed a Resolution of Intent on October 22, 2013. That was in
response to an application that was made requesting residential uses be added on first
floors of attached single-family dwellings by special use permit in the DCD district.
A discussion was held with the Crozet Community Advisory Council at staff level on that
potential amendment plus the possibility of introducing the more standardized industrial
category of uses in this district as they had done in other commercial districts. The CCAC
generally supported that, which was noted when the Commission passed the Resolution of
Intent on 10/17/13.
Staff provided a table that compared current and proposed provisions. There will not be any
changes in the by right residential allowances. Staff would propose the latest category
identifying laboratory, research and development and experimental testing as a by right use
be included in this district. Right now laboratory and research and development are
included by right in the district. Therefore, it is not a significant change.
The special use permit allowance would be for first floor residential in all residential use
types. Also, they would propose adding the two other categories of industrial use:
Manufacturing/Processing/Assembly/Fabrication/Recycling; and
Storage/Warehousing/Distribution/Transportation as special use permit uses. Currently,
there are similar uses by special use permit in that district.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 12, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
2
They also have added what does not exist in the district now, which is additional factors that
would considered with a special use permit whether it be for the first floor residential uses or
for the non-residential uses that would be allowed by special use permit. That would be to
consider in the special use permit their consistency with the Crozet Master Plan’s Downtown
Area Descriptions and Purpose. It would also include the purpose and intent of the
Downtown Crozet Zoning District. They also want to look into how the proposal
compliments adjacent uses and contributes to mix of uses and the convertibility of structures
for by right uses that might be proposed by special use permit. It was also to respond to
some of the comments provided by the Crozet Advisory Council that they just wanted to
make sure any of the special use permits had some parameters for their consideration.
Staff recommends approval of ZTA- 2013-00006 Residential and Industrial Uses in Downtown
Crozet Zoning District (“DCD”).
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Randolph said he was trying to find out what the definition is of experimental testing. He
saw under the current DCD provisions laboratories and RMD and then in here experimental
testing. He asked would that include businesses involving animals that could have testing done.
Mr. Cilimberg replied when the Commission looked at the amendments back earlier in the year
the Board ultimately adopted the Lab/R&D/Experimental Testing definition. He did not have the
definition in front of him, but could pull it up and tell him what it is. Now it is a category
definition.
Mr. Loach noted he remembered there were some restrictions on that.
Ms. McCulley explained they kind of broadened that category Lab/R&D/Experimental Testing,
Scientific Research, Testing and Investigation or Experimentation, the development of prototype
products under the assembly or manufacturing of prototype products and including but not
limited to bio science and medical devices research, development and manufacturing and
information technology and defense security research development and manufacturing,
scientific or technical instruction. It is very broad.
Mr. Smith asked what the worst case scenario is of what they can have side by side. He asked
if it would be a rat lab and an apartment
Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks the worse case scenarios are going to be the potential uses that
they would look at under a special use permit. He can’t define that for him, but that is why they
did not propose introducing all of these uses by right, but instead by special use permit so they
could be considered on a case by case basis. So if they had that worse case scenario that
might in fact be a reason not to approve a special use permit because it would not be
complimentary uses.
Mr. Loach noted in the discussions with the community that was one of the reasons they
supported it because it continues to be a special use permit. They felt that would be enough
protection for the community should there be a worse case scenario. He thinks Mr. Cilimberg
stated the objectives well. From the community’s perspective they see this as a matter of
increasing the flexibility of the plan, but not a change to the goal of a mixed use plan for
Downtown. They are looking forward to seeing the new plan come forward and see how this
works out.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 12, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
3
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the application was made by the current applicant for the Barnes
Lumber property.
Mr. Dotson asked if staff has the zoning maps so they can see where they are talking about.
One of his thoughts is that residential on the ground floor maybe is not something they want to
open the door to when it is along Crozet Avenue or Three Notched Road. However, it might be
fine on some interior or minor streets. He would like to see which streets are involved in the
district.
Mr. Cilimberg apologized that he did not have that map, but could pull it up on line. He pointed
out that Crozet Avenue and Three Notched Road are in the Downtown Crozet District along with
side streets. It is essentially what they would visualize that is in the center of Crozet including
where the old and new library is. The Barnes Lumber property is not actually zoned Downtown
Crozet District. It is designated that, but not zoned. For the reasons he mentioned they were
proposing that these first floor opportunities only be by special use permit because it may not be
appropriate as he mentioned on certain streets.
Mr. Dotson said he had concern about that.
Mr. Randolph asked if they have cases where they would revisit a policy in two years.
Mr. Cilimberg replied they have a five-year review of the master plans. The most recent review
was approved two years ago. Each of those master plan reviews are policy reviews for the
areas covered by the plans.
Mr. Randolph said he was just wondering about that since he was thinking they were going into
a situation proposed where there would be attached units on the first floor that could be used for
residential purposes in the CDC and they don’t know what is going to happen with market
conditions. They don’t know if they will see a number of special use permits for that conversion
over on the first floor of those attached units. He would think there may be some value in doing
a check after a certain number of years to see actually what is happening. In other words, are
they seeing so much residential pressure in that area that they need to revisit this, or if there is
so little residential that perhaps it really was not a concern all along.
Mr. Loach pointed out that was part of the discussion of the community. He would say to Mr.
Dotson that they are not abandoning the commercial on the first floor with the residential above
it. They are just trying to get more flexibility. There are areas where they see this may have
more applicability that is to say those areas of Barnes Lumber where the borders are contiguous
with the residential units now where it may be more appropriate. He thinks they are willing to
give the flexibility, but are waiting to see the plan. They have to react to the plan.
Mr. Dotson commented that when this was originally proposed by the consultant it was too
complex. There were two Downtown Districts and two Transitional Districts, but they decided to
go with just a single district. He thinks what they are doing is finding out there is a need for
some transition. He thinks not for the major streets, but the interior streets and those edges that
he was looking for a possible way where they could make that clearer that this is for those
transition areas and it is not for the main streets with sidewalks and pedestrian activity and
visibility from the street, etc. It is not for those, but for those more minor or interior streets and
the transition. That is what he was trying to get at.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 12, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submit to PC for approval
4
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out he thinks they were trying to capture that in the criteria of looking at
how it compliments adjacent uses and contributes to the mix of uses as one of the factors to be
considered. Mr. Dotson was right that there was discussion of even having a transition area
that did not end up getting into the Crozet Master Plan. By the time it got to Downtown Crozet
District zoning it was very specific. It had been in the first master plan identified as level P-6.
That DCD geography was to more or less reflect that. There are some of the neighborhood
areas that are residential right now in the DCD. So they have first floor residential in the DEC
that exists because of that zoning. It does give the opportunity for some of that residential to
convert if it wanted to. They had a conversion for the coffee shop just on the north side of the
intersection near the Dairy Queen. He thinks in terms of opportunities to revisit one is in the
consideration of each special use permit they might get. As they heard earlier tonight when they
were talking about the family division extra development right that there is the question always
that it will be setting some precedence or creating through individual approvals a change to the
district. There is also at the time of each master plan the opportunity to look at trends and
decide whether there are things in policy that actually need to be changed because of
circumstances, market conditions, or whatever.
Mr. Randolph commented that he thinks Mr. Dotson’s point about a map will be valuable . Then
as they look at these special use permits they are going to see where the previous special use
permits have occurred or where there is already that kind of first floor residenti al going on so
they have an understanding of the dynamic. That is what he was trying to get at. He was back
to a point that Mr. Franco frequently makes about a way that they can measure this and see
what is happening on the ground as a result of this policy change. He asked if that would meet
his objective as well.
Mr. Franco agreed it would meet the objective.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that is obviously something they would want to do on each application they
see.
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. Loach moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approval of the draft
ordinance in Attachment B for ZMA-2013-00006, Residential and Industrial Uses in Downtown
Crozet Zoning District (“DCD”).
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted that the draft ordinance for ZMA-2013-00006, Residential and Industrial Uses
in Downtown Crozet Zoning District (“DCD”) would go to the Board of Supervisors on December
11, 2013 with a recommendation for approval.