HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-07Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
OCTOBER 7, 2014
5:00 P.M. - LANE AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. 5:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. - Work Session: CPA-2013-01. Comprehensive Plan Update/
Amendment, to begin with public comments and possible Board direction. Elaine Echols, Principal
Planner.
· Development Areas
Recess: 6:30 – 7:00 p.m.
3. 7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. – Continuation of Work Session to include public comments and
possible Board direction.
4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
5. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
6. Adjourn to October 8, 2014, 4:00 p.m., Room 241.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/1007/0.0_Agenda.htm [10/6/2020 4:56:23 PM]
BOS – CPA 2013-01
October 7, 2014
Page 1 of 5
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Chapter 12 Chapter 8 Development Areas, including
Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan and
Pantops, Places 29, and Village of Rivanna Master Plan
Changes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Echols
PRESENTER (S): Elaine Echols
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE:
October 7, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission’s recommended Comprehensive Plan has been provided in the draft dated January 23, 2014
and previously provided to the Board of Supervisors. The Comprehensive Plan may be found online here:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/Comp_Plan_2013/
Comp_Plan_Round_3/Table_of_Contents_Final_1-23-14.pdf.
Recommendations regarding focused topics and information since the Commission’s actions have also been identified for
the Board’s consideration. This work session is the eighth in the series of detailed Comprehensive Plan chapter reviews
based on the Board’s agreed upon review schedule which can be found here:
http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=17151
The Board’s direction to date has been recorded in Action Memos from Board meetings at which the topic was discussed.
STRATEGIC PLAN ASPIRATIONS:
Development Area: Attract quality employment, commercial, and high density residential uses into development
areas by providing services and infrastructure that encourage redevelopment and private investment while protecting
the quality of neighborhoods.
Economic Development: Foster an environment that stimulates diversified job creation, capital investments, and tax
revenues that support community goals.
Critical Infrastructure: Prioritize, plan and invest in critical infrastructure that responds to past and future changes and
improves the capacity to serve community needs.
Natural Resources: Thoughtfully protect and manage Albemarle County’s ecosystems and natural resources in both
the rural and development areas to safeguard the quality of life of current and future generations
DISCUSSION:
At this meeting, the Board will begin review of Chapter 8: The Development Areas. A link to staff reports and the
Planning Commission’s discussions on the Development Areas may be found in Attachment A. A link to the
Development Areas chapter can be found here:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/Comp_Plan_2
013/Comp_Plan_Round_3/08_Chapter_Development_Areas_final%201-23-14.pdf
A link to the associated Appendices:
Neighborhood Model Design Guidance
AGENDA TITLE: CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment
October 7, 2014
BOS – CPA 2013-01
October 7, 2014
Page 2 of 5
Recommended Guidelines for Setbacks, Sidewalks, and Urban Streets
Land Use Design Guidelines
Crozet Master Plan (unchanged)
Places 29 Master Plan (one land use change)
Pantops Master Plan (two road changes)
Village of Rivanna Master Plan (map clarification provided)
can be found here:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/Comp_Plan_2
013/Comp_Plan_Round_3/A.8_Appendix_Development_Area_Final_1-23-14.pdf
In addition, the Appendix includes a new master plan, the Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan, which
can be found here:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/Comp_Plan_2
013/Comp_Plan_Round_3/Southern_and_Western_Neighborhoods_Draft_Master_Plan.pdf
The Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Implementation Priorities, Measures of Success, and list of Reference Documents
for the Development Areas are found in Attachment B. Attachment C is the same as Reference 8: Capacity Analysis
which has been edited for clarity and corrected for a minor error. (A red-line version of the Capacity Analysis may be
is found on-line; staff will provide the link to the BOS via email.) A table comparing the existing and recommended
Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the Development Areas is provided as Attachment D.
The Development Areas Chapter in the Comprehensive Plan draft has garnered considerable comment from the
public. The input mostly has been about the Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan, though not
exclusively. In the weeks leading to the development of the staff report, new comments have been provided by the
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council, the Places 29 Advisory Community Advisory Council, and residents
of the Southern and Western Neighborhoods.
The focus of the October 7th work session will be on the following:
promoting density at the higher end of the density range recommended in the Master Plans (pages 8.10 –
8.12)
keeping the DA boundaries intact until additional area is needed for future populations (pages 8.31 – 8.32)
having master plans, updating them, and using advisory councils to assist in implementatio n and updates
(pages 8.9 – 8.10) along with the new Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan and minor changes
for all of the neighborhoods except for the Community of Crozet.
promoting development of commercial, industrial, and other non-residential uses within the DA (pages 8.12 –
8.13)
Specific information for the October 7 meeting is provided below:
Capacity Analysis for Future Growth (pages 8.10 – 8.11 and Attachment C)
The capacity analysis for residential development is important in order to understand the land capacity of the
designated Development Areas to support future growth. Typically this type of analysis is done every ten
years.
Staff comment: The Commission initially reviewed the residential capacity analysis in 2011 based on the
Land Use Plan components of the Comprehensive Plan that existed at the time, including the 1996 Land Use
Plan and the Crozet, Places 29, Pantops and Village of Rivanna Master Plans. In 2013, the Commission
looked at revised numbers after finalizing its land use recommendations for the updated Comprehensive Plan,
particularly incorporating the proposed Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan. The Commission
concluded in both 2011 and 2013 that land use designations within the existing Development Area
boundaries provided sufficient land area to accommodate the County’s projected residential growth through
2020. For 2030, if all projected residential development took place on currently undeveloped land in the
Development Areas, the Development Areas could accommodate new growth at all but the lowest end of the
density range. An overview of the Commission’s review and findings is provided as Attachment E.
AGENDA TITLE: CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment
October 7, 2014
BOS – CPA 2013-01
October 7, 2014
Page 3 of 5
The Commission also reviewed the capacity of the Development Areas to supp ort needs for future
employment. They concluded that sufficient land area exists in the Development Areas for future target
industries, but land consolidation and infrastructure are needed in some areas. Attachment E includes a
review of the Commission’s analysis on meeting needs for non-residential growth.
Expansion Area Requests (See staff report dated October 11, 2011, linked in Attachment A)
The Planning Commission considered 13 public requests for expansion of the Development Area boundaries
during its review of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission also acted on the Board’s directive for a
recommendation to add the Whittington subdivision to the Development Areas. Locations of properties
requested for inclusion in the Development Areas are shown on Attachment F.
Staff comment: The Planning Commission reviewed all of the requests, but based on its conclusion that land
use designations within the existing Development Area boundaries provided sufficient land area to
accommodate projected growth, did not recommend any expansion of the Development Areas with the
exception of the Whittington subdivision. More details regarding specific expansion area requests is provided
in the following Master Plan discussion.
Places 29 Master Plan(pages A.8.33 – A.8.34)
The Planning Commission reviewed expansion area requests for areas near Polo Grounds Road (see F.A.
Iacetta, S, Fork Land Trust, and Hurt Investment on Attachment F) and west of the Development Area on Barracks
Road (see Ingleridge, Montvue, and Morris on Attachment F). Commissioners also studied a request by staff to
designate additional area for employment uses near the National Ground Intelligence (NGIC) site on Boulders
Road (see Wendell Wood on Attachment F). Several potential alternatives were discussed between staff and
Wendell Wood, the owner. Some of these proposals were reviewed and endorsed by the Places 29
Community Advisory Council. However, the final proposal was not supported by the Planning Commission
due to the extent of the changes requested by the owner. The Commission said that these changes should
be studied during the Places 29 Master Plan update, rather than at this time.
The Planning Commission recommended two changes to the Places 29 Plan. The first change would re -
designate land zoned for a mobile home park to urban density residential from the current light industrial
designation. The second change is to add the locations for new water storage tanks along Airport Road to the
Plan. These changes are shown on Attachment G.
Staff comment: Although the Planning Commission did not support his request, at the Board’s March 12,
2014 public hearing, Wendell Wood asked the Board for their approval of his request. His proposal is
provided on Attachment H.
Also included with Attachment H is an application from Peter Borches for a Comprehensive Plan amendment
(CPA) for property located on Berkmar Drive behind Colonial Auto dealership. Mr. Borches made this request
to the Planning Commission in April 2014 and the Commission, though supportive, advised Mr. Borches that
he should make a formal application for the change, expecting that the new Comprehensive Plan would be
adopted within a few months. Due to the Board’s extended Comprehensive Plan review, Mr. Borches has
chosen to make formal application now. Attachment H contains a staff recommendation to send the
application for Commission review at this time.
In addition, the Places 29 Community Advisory Council met on September 22, 2014 and provided comments
on the Comprehensive Plan, which are included as Attachment I.
Pantops Master Plan (page A.8.35)
The Commission reviewed requests from two property owners for expansion of the Development Area
boundaries (see Wheeler and Vermillion on Attachment F). Although, the Commission did not support these
requests, they did endorse removal of two streets shown on the Pantops Master Plan Transportation Plan.
One of the streets was an extension of an Eastern Connector Route, which is no longer recommended. The
other street lined up with State Farm Blvd. on the north side of Route 250 East. The Pantops Community
AGENDA TITLE: CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment
October 7, 2014
BOS – CPA 2013-01
October 7, 2014
Page 4 of 5
Advisory Council reviewed the requests for changes to the Transportation Plan and recommended that they
be approved. Attachment J shows the proposed changes.
Recommendations for City-Co. work on Rivanna River in Pantops and Woolen Mills (page 8.9)
As part of the City and County’s Livability Project, the City and County Planning Commissions recommended
joint work on a plan for the Rivanna River Corridor in Pantops and in Woolen Mills. The Commission’s
recommendations are noted in Chapter 1, Background, in this Chapter for the Development Areas, and more
fully described on page 11.18 in the Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways, and Green Systems
Chapter. The Board of Supervisors has already said it has an interest in pursuing this project jointly with the
City.
Staff comment: The Rivanna River is designated as a State Scenic River from the South Fork Reservoir to
the Fluvanna County line. It acts as a border between the City and County in Pantops and also in the Woolen
Mills area. Opportunities for improving water quality for this resource were identified by the Rivanna River
Basin Commission in 2013 (see Natural Resources Reference Documents); however, the City and County
Planning Commissions also identified recreational, economic, and land use bene fits for this shared resource.
Together the Commissions recommended that developing a plan for the Rivanna River should be a top
priority. Page 11.18 of the Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways, and Green Systems Chapter is
included as Attachment K. Members of the Commission suggested that this plan be developed with the
Pantops Master Plan update. Cross-referencing among Chapters is needed and a description of this project is
also needed in the Southern and Western Neighborhood Master Plan. These revisions will be done with the
final draft of the Comprehensive Plan.
Village of Rivanna including Land Use Plan for Master Plan and water tank addition (pages 8.4 – 8.5,
8.10 – 8.12, page A.8.37, and pages 25 and 32 of the Village of Rivanna Master Plan)
In 2011, staff identified a need to add a clarifying Land Use Plan map to the Master Plan for consistency with
the other Development Area plans. The Village of Rivanna Advisory Council endorsed the addition of this map
in 2012. The Planning Commission recommended addition of the Land Use Plan map addition. Also in 2012,
the Albemarle County Service Authority began talking to the Advisory Council about the need for a new tank
in the Village for water storage.
Staff comment: The additional Land Use Plan map is provided as Attachment L and staff is recommending
inclusion of a proposed water tank in the Master Plan. As a result of concerns expressed by the public during
the Rivanna Village rezoning, staff also recommends that a history of the Village of Rivanna Development
Area be added to the Master Plan narrative. Clarifications of how density calculations relate to the colors on
the land use map are also recommended.
The Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council met on September 15, 2014 and provided comments
that are included as Attachment M.
Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan and Implementation Table (pages A.8.41 – A.8.93)
Staff conducted three community meetings to help develop the draft Master Plan between March 8, 2012 and
November 29, 2012. The Commission discussed the Master Plan at four different meetings before making
their recommendation on July 30, 2013. It reviewed expansion area requests for three areas near the
Southern Neighborhoods. They are shown on Attachment F as: Montague, et. al. – Redfields addition, Wendell Wood--
Somerset Farm, and Whittington. Only the Whittington subdivision was recommended for approval due to the
Board’s directive to include it as part of the Development Area. The Planning Commission has recommended
the Master Plan provided in the Appendix of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff comment: With the high level of public interest in this master plan as well as the interest of new
members of the Board of Supervisors to get further public input, an additional community meeting for the
Southern neighborhoods was held on July 24, 2014. Over 100 residents attended that meeting and comments
provided by those residents may be found here:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/South
ern_Urban_Area/2014_07_24_SouthernNhd_PublicComments.pdf.
AGENDA TITLE: CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment
October 7, 2014
BOS – CPA 2013-01
October 7, 2014
Page 5 of 5
The most significant area of input at that meeting related to the County-owned land near the Monticello
Fire/Rescue station and Monticello High School. Attachment N provides an additional recommendation for
this area.
On September 2, 2014, the owner of the historic mill buildings in the Woolen Mills area requested a CPA to
change the (current) designation from Industrial to a different category that allows for a mixture of residential
and commercial uses. This request is provided as Attachment O. Although the Board has traditionally not
entertained CPA applications within 6 months of the expected adoption of a Comprehensive Plan update, as
with the Borches CPA noted earlier, the historic mills owner has chosen to make application now due to the
extended Board review of the Comprehensive Plan.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan Draft include recommendations for future capital improvements and
operations.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Board is asked to identify any substantive changes to the recommendations herein presented and concur on
those changes, focusing on content rather than wordsmithing. Staff will then make any necessary changes and bring
them back to the Board for its approval prior to its public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Links to Planning Commission Staff Reports and Associated PC Minutes
Attachment B: Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Priorities, and Indicators of Progress for the Development Areas
Attachment C: Reference 8: Development Area (Capacity Analysis)
Attachment D: Comparison of Goals, Objectives and Strategies, and other Key Information for Chapter 8
Attachment E: Planning Commission Review and Findings for Land Capacity Analysis for Growth in the DA
Attachment F: Map showing Expansion Requests from Owners and the Board of Supervisors
Attachment G: Recommended Changes from the Planning Commission for Places29
Attachment H: Wood and Borches’ Land Use Change Requests
Attachment I: Places 29 Advisory Council Comments from September 22, 2014
Attachment J: Recommended Changes from the Planning Commission for Pantops Master Plan
Attachment K: Recommendations from Planning Commission for Rivanna River in Pantops and Woolen Mills
Attachment L: Recommended Changes from Planning Commission and Staff for Village of Rivanna Master Plan
Attachment M: Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Comments and Recommended Changes
Attachment N: Southern and Western Neighborhoods and Additional Staff Recommendations
Attachment O: Woolen Mills Land Use Change Request (CPA) CPA Request from Woolen Mills Owner
Return to agenda
1 of 3
Attachment A
BOS 10-7-14
ATTACHMENT A
Links to Planning Commission Staff Reports and Associated PC Minutes
Development Areas
October 11, 2011: Capacity Analysis and Expansion Area Requests
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/community_development/forms/PC_
Reports/CPA-13-1_Comp_Plan_Update_10-11-11.pdf
Minutes
____________________
March 20, 2012: Industrial Land Inventory and Locations for Industrial Uses
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/community_development/forms/PC_
Reports/CPA-13-1_Comp_Plan_Review_March_20_Worksession.pdf
Minutes
____________________
April 24, 2012: Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan Framework
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/community_development/forms/PC_
Reports/SR_4-24-12_Staff_Report.pdf
Minutes
____________________
May 22, 2012: Design Expectations for the Development Area
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/community_development/forms/PC_
Reports/CPA-13-1_Comprehensive_Plan_Revision_Staff_Reports_May_22_2012.pdf
Minutes
____________________
July 24, 2012: Urban Agriculture
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/community_development/forms/PC_
Reports/CPA-13-1_Attachment_C_Staff_Report_PC_Worksession.pdf
Minutes
____________________
December 18, 2012: Framework Plan for Southern and Western Neighborhoods
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/community_development/forms/PC_
Reports/SR_SW_DAS_12-18-12_Staff%20Report_FINAL.pdf
Minutes
____________________
2 of 3
Attachment A
BOS 10-7-14
January 29, 2013: Land Use - Development Areas
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/community_development/forms/Com
prehensive_Plan_Update/Land_Use_1-22-2013.pdf
Minutes
_____________________
February 12: Neighborhood Model Design Guidelines and Priority Areas for Southern and
Western Neighborhoods
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/community_development/forms/Com
prehensive_Plan_Update/Neighborhood_Model_Guideline_FINAL.pdf
Minutes
____________________
April 2, 2013: Public Hearing on Draft of Comprehensive Plan
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/C
omp_Plan_2013/ATable_of_Contents.pdf
Minutes
____________________
April 16, 2013: Updated Capacity Analysis
Minutes
_____________________
May 14, 2013: Land Use for the Development Area and Neighborhood Model Principles
Minutes
_____________________
May 28, 2013: Master Plans
Minutes
_____________________
July 23, 2013: Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan and Places 29
Hyperlink to working link – July 18, 2013 PC email with Attachments
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/C
omprehensive_Plan_Update/July_19_PC_memo_with_Attachments.pdf
Minutes
____________________
3 of 3
Attachment A
BOS 10-7-14
July 30, 2013: Development Areas and Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/C
omprehensive_Plan_Update/July_25_PC_memo.pdf
Minutes
____________________
August 27, 2013: Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/C
omprehensive_Plan_Update/August_20_Memo_to_PC_With_Attachments.pdf
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/C
omp_Plan_Round_2/2_Southern_Western_8-27-13.pdf
Minutes
Return to exec summary
1 of 4
Attachment B
BOS 10-7-14
ATTACHMENT B
Development Areas
Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Priorities, and Indicators of Progress
GOAL: Albemarle’s Development Areas will be made up of high quality, mixed-use urban
neighborhoods and employment centers that are walkable and adequately supported by services
and facilities.
Objective 1: Use Master Plans to guide development and investment in each Development Area.
Strategy 1a: Update Master Plans every five years to keep them current.
Strategy 1b: Continue to use Advisory Councils to help develop Master Plan updates, provide
guidance on conformity of proposed projects with the Master Plan, assist in implementation of the
Master Plan, and to act as a clearinghouse for information that is important to the Development
Area.
Strategy 1c: To the extent possible, create uniformity in format and land use categories in Master
Plans.
Objective 2: Encourage and support development at the higher end of the density range as
recommended on the Master Plans.
*Strategy 2a: Provide ongoing education to the public on the relationship of density in the
Development Areas and efforts to prevent sprawl.
Strategy 2b: Work with developers to build at the higher end of the density range, provided that
development will be in keeping with design recommendations from the Neighborhood Model.
*Strategy 2c: Review the cash proffer policy to assess its effects on density.
Objective 3: Promote commercial, industrial, and other non-residential development within the
Development Areas.
Strategy 3a: Continue to designate and zone sufficient land area for future commercial and
industrial development needs.
Objective 4: Achieve high quality development through application of the Neighborhood Model
Principles.
*Strategy 4a: Continue to require and provide sidewalks and pedestrian paths in the
Development Areas.
Strategy 4b: Promote block development rather than long cul-de-sacs and provide guidance to
developers on ways to create blocks and streetscape with Albemarle County’s topography.
*Strategy 4c: Continue to designate and fund construction of crosswalks for sidewalks.
2 of 4
Attachment B
BOS 10-7-14
Strategy 4d: Conduct a study on ways in which streetlights can enhance pedestrian safety in the
Development Areas.
Strategy 4e: Continue to approve mixed-use developments that are in keeping with the
Neighborhood Model and Master Plans.
Strategy 4f: Continue to promote centers as focal points for neighborhoods and places for civic
engagement.
Strategy 4g: Through Master Plans and rezoning approvals, ensure that all Development Areas
provide for variety of housing types and levels of affordability.
Strategy 4h: Encourage builders to make affordable housing units visually indistinguishable on the
exterior from other units.
Strategy 4i: Through rezoning and special use permit decisions, ensure that affordable housing
units are dispersed throughout the Development Areas rather than built in enclaves.
Strategy 4j: Continue to require that streets are interconnected in the Development Areas; ensure
that exceptions occur rarely and not routinely.
*Strategy 4k: Provide for multi-modal transportation opportunities in new development and
encourage the building of complete streets.
Strategy 4l: Continue to develop and maintain public parkland shown on Master Plans. Continue
to require recreational amenities in residential developments.
Strategy 4m: Continue to promote appropriate scale, massing, and enclosure with new
development proposals.
Strategy 4n: Continue to work with developers to design and build projects which relegate
parking to the side or rear of sites and which results in the fronts of building facing the street.
Strategy 4o: Promote redevelopment as a way to improve, and not expand the Development
Areas.
Strategy 4p: Encourage developers to design buildings which fit into the terrain rather than
flattening the land for trademark buildings.
*Strategy 4q: Require that re-graded slopes result in smooth rather than abrupt or steep grades
that are difficult to vegetate and maintain.
Strategy 4r: Continue to approve new development through rezoning and special use permit
which can achieve all of the principles of the Neighborhood Model, to the greatest extent possible.
Objective 5: Facilitate infill development, including redevelopment of existing structures or new
development of vacant and underutilized land. In doing so, respect the cohesiveness of existing
neighborhoods and minimize impacts from new uses.
*Strategy 5a: Plan and provide for necessary infrastructure improvements that are currently
impediments to developing vacant sites.
3 of 4
Attachment B
BOS 10-7-14
Strategy 5b: Encourage infill development within designated Development Areas to help avoid
rural development pressure.
Strategy 5c: Encourage developers of by-right projects to meet with neighborhoods to find ways
to minimize impacts of infill. Use neighborhood meetings to help find solutions to potential
compatibility issues.
Strategy 5d: Continue to require screening, buffering, and, where necessary because of impacts
such as noise, odor, and vibrations, require physical separation of incompatible residential and
non-residential uses.
Objective 6: Preserve natural systems which are shown for preservation on Master Plan Land Use
Plans.
Strategy 6a: Continue to provide detailed information on elevation, steep slopes, streams, stream
buffers, floodplain, and wooded areas through the County’s Geographic Information System (GIS)
on-line database and share this information with property owners and developers.
*Strategy 6b: Review County Code requirements for preserving environmental features and,
where needed, tighten restrictions so that these features can be preserved in the Development
Areas.
Objective 7: Match infrastructure availability and capacity with new development, especially in
Priority Areas.
Strategy 7a: Continue to establish Priority Areas in all Master Plans, which will be the places
where the County will be investing in infrastructure, services, and facilities.
Strategy 7b: Make decisions to approve new development with an understanding of where public
investments are being focused. Give priority to approving rezonings and special use permits that
are consistent with priority areas established in the Development Area Master Plans.
Strategy 7c: Do not approve proposed rezonings and special use permits outside of Priority
Areas when planned facilities are not in place to support the project and existing neighborhoods,
unless the proposed project will provide significant improvements to ensure adequate
infrastructure and services are available to the area.
Objective 8: Keep the Development Area boundaries intact until it can be demonstrated that
additional land area is needed to accommodate future populations.
Strategy 8a: Continue to monitor building activity in both the Development Areas and the Rural
Area to gain information on the rate of residential and non-residential development in the County.
*Strategy 8b: Update the capacity analysis every two years to ensure adequate residential land
exists for new housing needs.
Objective 9: Consider allowing for urban agriculture practices to increase access to healthy, local,
and affordable foods and encourage the productive use of vacant land.
4 of 4
Attachment B
BOS 10-7-14
*Strategy 9a: Study ways to allow chickens, goats, bees, and other forms of agriculture in the
Development Areas without harming the safety, welfare, and enjoyment of adjoining property
owners. These animals are not intended as pets. The study should address animal waste disposal,
setbacks, permits, enforcement, and education.
*Strategy 9b: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow gardening as a standalone use in zoning
districts in the Development Areas.
Priorities are indicated with *
Indicators of Progress:
1. Increase in population density as measured in residents per acre.
2. Increase in linear feet of public sidewalk constructed.
3. Increase number of walk to school programs in place.
4. Increase in number and acreage of mixed-use developments with three or more different uses.
5. Increase in residential proximity to public transit, schools, parks, libraries, and grocery stores.
6. Increase in acreage of public and private parkland.
7. Increase in number of newly developed sites with relegated parking.
Appendices
Neighborhood Model Guidance
Recommended Guidelines for Setbacks, Sidewalks, and Urban Streets
Land Use Design Guidelines
Places 29 Master Plan
http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=3735
Pantops Master Plan
http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=3734
Village of Rivanna Master Plan
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/Riv
anna_Master_Plan/Village_of_Rivanna_Title_Page2.pdf
Crozet Master Plan
http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=4358
Southern and Western Neighborhoods
http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=13744
Reference Documents
Residential Capacity Analysis
1 of 12
Attachment C
BOS 10-7-14
Reference 8: Development Area
Corrected 10/7/14
(see website for redline version)
This information is intended to provide greater detail and background information on items described in
the Development Area Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Items in the reference documents are not an
adopted part of the Comprehensive Plan and are subject to change.
Table of Contents
Page Number Title and Description
R.8.3 Capacity Analysis
Provides an analysis to determine the capacity of existing designated and
zoned land for future growth.
2 of 12
Attachment C
BOS 10-7-14
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT AREAS CAPACITY ANALYSIS1
Begun in 2011 and finalized in 2013, staff conducted a capacity analysis of the County’s Development
Areas to determine if sufficient land exists in the Development Areas to accommodate expected
population and employment growth for the next 10 – 20 years. The analysis provided several possible
scenarios for development in the County based on land that may be available for future development. It
examined the capacity of land in the County under both current zoning (2013) and the Future Land Use
Plan and Map.
Figure 1: Components of a Residential Capacity Analysis
Number of New Units Needed by Year
Land Capacity for Residential Growth
Future Housing Need
(additional dwellings)
Unbuilt
Pipeline Units
# of Units Possible on
Vacant Buildable Land
Future Housing Capacity
(potential additional
dwellings)
Can Future Capacity
Meet Demand?
Buildable Vacant
Residential Acreage
Low-High Density Range
from Existing Zoning
Projected
Population
People
per Unit
Multiplier
Yes/No
With any qualifiers
Land Use Plan
CAPACITY VS. DEMAND
Source: Albemarle County 2013, adapted from City of Nanaimo, CA, Land Inventory and Residential Capacity Analysis 2007
When the desired residential densities shown on the future land use plan of the Comprehensive Plan are
compared to the permitted residential densities of existing zoning districts, one can see where an area
can accommodate greater residential density than existing zoning allows.
Analyzing Development Area Land Supply
1 NOTE: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED FOR PLANNING ANALYSIS PURPOSES ONLY.
THE ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE LAND IS INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE POSSIBLE OR THEORETICAL AREAS FOR FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT. IT DOES NOT IMPLY THAT DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED BY THE COUNTY OR ANY PRIVATE AGENCY IN
THESE AREAS, NOR DOES IT PROPOSE A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT. GENERALLY, IT IS A BROAD ESTIMATE OF POSSIBLE
GROWTH OVER THE COMING DECADES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
Can Future Capacity
Meet Future Need?
3 of 12
Attachment C
BOS 10-7-14
To determine the capacity of existing designated and zoned land for future growth, staff analyzed all
tax map parcels in the County’s eleven Development Areas. The first step was to separate developed
land from undeveloped or underdeveloped land, which was done using the County’s GIS system. After
that, land and building constraints had to be removed. This was done by removing areas in steep slopes
and floodplain, conservation easements, government owned parcels, parcels for which a rezoning was
approved since 2001, and all but 36 acres of Biscuit Run. The parcels for which a rezoning was
approved since 1995 were considered to be “units in the pipeline.” These units were accounted for
differently because better information was available on the maximum number of units to be built on the
properties that had been rezoned.
By separating out “vacant” or “undeveloped” land from the “developed” land, then removing
constrained land from the total, staff was able to calculate the total acres of buildable land.
The buildable land in each Development Area was then segregated by residential and non-residential
land area as designated on the Development Area master plans. Staff then multiplied the residential
density of the land use type by the acres of buildable land to determine how many additional dwelling
units could be accommodated on that buildable land. This same exercise was done for zoned land.
Out of a total of 23,411 acres located within Development Areas (5% of the total County land area),
staff ascertained that, in addition to the land rezoned in the last twelve years, approximately 11% or
about 2,500 acres of the Development Area is available for future residential and non-residential
development.
4 of 12
Attachment C
BOS 10-7-14
Figure 2: Definitions Used in Land Supply Capacity Analysis*
1. “Total Land” means the total land area in the Development Area.
2. “Non-parceled Land” means land that is not within the bounds of a tax parcel and therefore not available for
development. Includes right-of-way for roads, railroads and etc and certain environmental features like rivers.
This was subtracted from the total land area for each development area.
3. “Vacant Land” means: 1. Parcels with $0.00 assessed improvement value, or 2. Parcels of 1 acre or less with
<$20,000.00 assessed improvement value, or 3. Parcels more than 1 acre in area with <$20,000.00 assessed
improvement value on the parcel or 4. Parcels within a named subdivision (i.e. a platted subdivision), where the
sum of the subdivision’s assessed improvement values = $0.00
4. “Developed Land” means land not deemed vacant or partially vacant. This was subtracted from the total land
area in each development area.
5. “Constrained Land” means land constrained by:
a. steep slope (25% or greater),
b. within the Water Protection Ordinance (stream buffers),
c. floodplain,
d. owned by governmental entities (county and state),
e. University owned property (all property owned by the Rectors & Visitors of UVA and land owned by the
UVA Foundation within the institutional land use designation),
f. Approved rezonings and special use permits with residential units since 2001; and
g. Staff corrections such a land owned by a developments community association, conservation easements,
utility substations and cemeteries.
Once the developed and vacant land area was determined, staff deducted the above constrained land areas
from the vacant land to determine the buildable vacant land area.
6. “Unbuildable Land” is the addition of developed land, non-parceled land and constrained land.
7. “Buildable Land” means vacant land with constrained land removed.
*Parcel boundaries as of January 1, 2013. Source: Albemarle County 2013
Some categories from the future land use plan did not lend themselves to comparison (such as the
institutional and greenspace land use designations). For the three categories that can be compared, staff
focused on the commercial and industrial non-residential categories. These comparisons can be seen in
Figures 3 and 4 below:
Figure 3: Remaining Buildable Land by Comprehensive Plan
By Future Land Use Plan
Residential
(ac.)
Commercial
(ac.)
Industrial
(ac.)
Institutional
(ac.) Total
Buildable Land 1,796.3 221.2 377.7 9.2 2,404.4
% of Remaining Total 74.7% 9.2% 15.7% 0.4% 100%
Source: Albemarle County 2013.
Figure 4: Remaining Buildable Land by Zoning*
By Zoning
Residential
(ac.)
Commercial
(ac.)
Industrial
(ac.) Total**
Buildable Land 2,147.1 336.8 123.5 2,607.4
% of Remaining Total 82.3% 12.9% 4.7% 100%
* There is no institutional zoning district – there is an institutional land use category.
** Buildable land includes land in right-of-way which could not be separated out from the total acreage.
Source: Albemarle County 2013.
5 of 12
Attachment C
BOS 10-7-14
Of the 2,404 acres of buildable land designated for development in the Development Areas, 75% is
designated residential, 9% commercial and 16% industrial (Figure 3). Note this does not include land
that is already part of a development that has been approved by a rezoning (or special use permit for
residential units) but not yet developed (i.e. “pipeline units”).
Of the 2,607 acres of buildable zoned land, 82% is zoned residential, 13% commercial, and 5%
industrial (Figure 4). Note this does not include land that is already part of a zoned development that
has been approved by a rezoning (or special use permit for residential units) but not yet developed (i.e.
“pipeline units”).
These tables show that, percentage wise for the residential category, there is a greater amount of
residentially zoned land than land area shown for residential use on the master plans. However, the
quantity of acreage does not mean that the existing zoning provides for higher densities. For the
commercial category, there is also a greater supply of zoned land available than land designated for
commercial use on the master plans. For the industrial category, the supply of industrially designated
land is greater than the supply of existing zoned land. This indicates that while there is a large supply of
residential and commercial zoned land, there is less of a supply of zoned industrial land.
Available acreages can be compared but do not provide the whole story about potential land available
for different uses. As a rule, true industrial uses require more floor area per person than office, retail,
and service uses. In addition, industrial uses generally are one story buildings while retail and office
activities can be conducted on multiple floors. When looking to reserve land for future employment uses,
one can designate much less commercial land than industrial land.
Since 2001, staff has tracked approved rezonings and potential build-out of these developments. The
most recent information on these units and non-residential square footage “in the pipeline” can be found
in Figures 5 and 6.
Residential Units and Non-residential Square Footage in the Pipeline
From 2001 to 2013 approved rezonings in the DA provided for over 10,000 new dwelling units. To date
over 8,000 dwelling units could be built in accordance with rezoning and special use permits approved
(Figure 5).
Since 1995, the County has rezoned approximately 6.8 million square feet of non-residential space in
the Development Areas, which includes retail and service, office, institutional, and industrial and
employment uses. As shown in Figure 6, as of October 2013, there is just less than 5.0 million square feet
still available.
6 of 12
Attachment C
BOS 10-7-14
Figure 5: Residential Units Approved by Rezonings and Special Use Permits, Site Plans,
and Subdivision Plats* between 6/20/01 and 10/30/13 in the Development Areas
Project Information* Dwelling Units
Project Project Name Approved Built Unbuilt
ZMA 00-10 Avemore 406 300 40
ZMA 01-07 Stonefield (Albemarle Place) 800 246 554
ZMA 01-20 Hollymead Town Center Area C 120 42 78
ZMA 02-04 Cascadia 330 0 330
ZMA 04-24 Old Trail 2,200 465 1,735
ZMA 04-07 Belvedere 775 427 348
ZMA 04-17 Wickham Pond I 107 82 25
ZMA 04-18 Fontana Phase 4C 34 0 34
ZMA 05-07 Under Development 34 3 31
ZMA 05-09 Briarwood 661 374 287
ZMA 05-18 Wickham Pond II 106 0 106
ZMA 06-15 Glenmore - Livengood 43 4 39
ZMA 06-16 Glenmore Addition: Leake 110 2 108
SP 02-23 White Gables 76 30 46
SP 04-52 Kenridge 65 26 39
ZMA 06-19 Willow Glen 234 14 220
ZMA 10-11 Estes Park 68 0 68
ZMA 05-18 Wickham Pond II 106 0 106
By-right Foothill Crossing 84 4 80
By-right Stonewater 48 1 47
By-right Pavillions at Pantops 210 42 168
By-right Westlake Hills 145 0 145
By-right Ashcroft 28 9 19
By-right Dunlora Forest 99 1 98
By-right Dunlora Gates 18 0 18
By-right Hyland Ridge (Lake Ridge) 97 7 90
By-right Lochlyn Hills 26 0 26
By-right Creekside Village- Old Trail 24 0 24
ZMA 05-17 Biscuit Run 100 0 100
SP 07-31 NGIC 120 0 120
ZMA 07-01 Hollymead Town Center Area A-2 1,222 0 1,222
SP 03-06 Cedar Hill MHP 32 0 32
ZMA 05-18 Wickham Pond II 106 0 106
ZMA 07-04 Oakleigh Farm 109 0 109
SP 02-72 North Pointe 893 0 893
ZMA 04-18 Fontana Phase 4C 34 0 34
ZMA 06-11 Whittington 96 0 96
ZMA 02-04 Cascadia 330 0 330
ZMA 07-12 Blue Ridge Co-housing 26 0 26
By-right Lochlyn Hills 26 0 26
By-right Crozet Station 30 0 30
Totals 10,178 2,079 8,033
* List does not include projects that have been built out, but, does include projects that did not achieve
maximum density.
Source: Albemarle County 2013
7 of 12
Attachment C
BOS 10-7-14
Figure 6: Non-Residential Sq. Footage Approved by Rezonings & Special Use Permits between
6/20/01 and 10/30/13 in the Development Areas
Project Information Square Footage
Project # Project Name Approved Built Unbuilt
ZMA 00-04 Fontaine Research Park 106,000 106,000 0
SP 00-22 Albemarle SPCA 9,305 9,305 0
ZMA 00-06 Greenbrier Office Park 3,040 3,040 0
ZMA 00-09 North Pointe 849,548 0 849,548
SP 00-70 Avemore 8,550 8,550 0
ZMA 01-03 Rio Square 17,500 7,800 9,700
ZMA 01-04 SNB Car Wash 1,600 1,600 0
ZMA 01-07 Alb. Pl. (Stonefield) 1,265,000 243,424 1,021,576
ZMA 01-08 Rivanna Village 125,000 23,000 102,000
ZMA 01-15 Peter Jefferson Place 840,000 729,407 110,593
ZMA 01-19 Hollymead Town Center B 187,000 187,000 0
ZMA 01-20 Hollymead Town Center C 275,400 80,800 194,600
ZMA 02-02 Hollymead Town Center D 50,000 50,000 0
ZMA 02-04 Cascadia 20,900 0 20,900
ZMA 03-08 Woodbrook Station 9,600 0 9,600
ZMA 04-07 Belvedere 60,000 0 60,000
ZMA 04-12 Luxor Commercial 95,000 14,000 81,000
ZMA 04-24 Old Trail 191,999 90,461 101,538
ZMA 05-03 UVAF Research Park addition 700,000 0 700,000
ZMA 05-05 Liberty Hall 8,500 0 8,500
ZMA 05-08 Pantops Park 87,000 42,000 45,000
ZMA 05-10 Wachovia Shops 14,473 14,473 0
ZMA 05-15 Hollymead Town Center A-1 278,000 114,183 163,817
ZMA 05-18 Wickham Pond II 16,000 0 16,000
ZMA 06-12 Fontaine Research Park 30,000 23,000 7,000
ZMA 06-09 5th St./Avon St. Complex 470,000 0 470,000
ZMA 07-03 NGIC 178,000 131,115 46,885
ZMA 07-01 Hollymead Town Center A-2 368,000 0 368,000
ZMA 07-04 Oakleigh 14,400 0 14,400
ZMA 07-13 Fontaine Research Park 310,000 0 310,000
ZMA 07-06 Three Notch'd Center 40,500 0 40,500
ZMA 09-04 National College 20,000 0 20,000
ZMA10-13 Morey Creek Prof. Office 100,000 0 100,000
ZMA 10-10 Peter Jefferson Overlook 33,366 0 33,366
ZMA 11-06 Albemarle Health & Rehab Center 57,655 0 57,655
Totals 6,841,336 1,879,158 4,962,178
Source: Albemarle County 2013
8 of 12
Attachment C
BOS 10-7-14
Ability to Accommodate Growth within Development Areas
Residential Capacity based on Land Use Plans for Development Areas
In 2013 Albemarle County staff studied whether sufficient capacity exists for future populations.
Using population projections from the Weldon Cooper Center, accounting for dwelling units in the
pipeline and the dwelling unit possible on vacant buildable land not in the pipeline, staff analyzed how
the capacity that the remaining vacant buildable zoned land and designated land could provide for
future residential needs. Figures 7 and 8 shows additional capacity based on land designated for
residential use.
Figure 7: Additional Units and Population based on allowable density from Land Use Plans
Capacity 2020 (low) 2020 (high) 2030 (low) 2030 (high)
Projected Population1 115,642 134,196
Current Population2 101,575 101,575
Population Growth3 14,067 32,621
Residential Units Needed4 6,423 14,895
Units approved via ZMA and SP, but
currently undeveloped -- in the
pipeline 5
8,033 8,033
Units possible via undeveloped
properties that are not in the
pipeline, but designated for
residential use on the comprehensive
plan6
6,009 21,214 6,009 21,214
Sum of units in the pipeline plus units
available from undeveloped
properties designated for residential
use on the comprehensive plan 7
14,042 29,247 14,042 29,247
Units in excess of, or needed to
accommodate Population Growth if
all growth is in the Development
Areas on currently undeveloped land8
7,619 22,824 (853) 14,352
1 Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service 2013.Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service
2013. 2
3 Population Growth is determined by subtracting Current Population number from Projected Population number.
4
Number of Residential Units needed is determined by dividing the Population Growth number by 2.19. The
multiplier 2.19 assumes no change in persons-per-unit over time and also a vacancy rate of 9%. Because the
trend in persons-per-unit is going downward and because vacancy rates are typically not this high, the
resulting projections will be somewhat conservative.
5 The number of units that have been approved through Zoning Map Amendments (ZMA) and Special Use Permits
(SP) to-date but have yet to be constructed.
6 The number of units possible with existing comprehensive plan designations (i.e. Neighborhood Density, Urban
Density, etc), but have yet to be planned for, or constructed.
7 The total number of units that may be constructed sometime in the future either due to being previously
approved via ZMA or SP, or allowed by existing comprehensive plan designation.
8 The number of possible units that are either in excess, or are needed in relation to Residential Units Needed.
Units needed are shown in (red).
Source: Albemarle County 2013
9 of 12
Attachment C
BOS 10-7-14
Figure 8: Land Use Plan: 2030 Capacity vs. Demand
Number of New Units Needed by 2030
Land Capacity for Residential Growth
Future Housing Need:
14,895
additional dwellings
Unbuilt
Pipeline Units:
8,033
# of Units Possible on
Vacant Buildable land:
5,544 –12,013
Future Housing
Capacity:
13,577-20,046
additional dwellings
Can Future Capacity
Meet Future Need?
Needed units if
developed at
lowest density
Excess units if
developed at
highest density
Buildable Vacant
Residential Acreage:
2,161 acres
Low-High Density Range
from Existing Zoning:
Varies ~0.5-34 DU/ acre
2030 Estimate:
32,621
more people in
Albemarle
(853) to 14,352
People
per Unit
Multiplier:
2.19
Yes…if developed at the
higher end of permitted
densities; not if developed at
low density.
Source: Albemarle County 2013
Including dwelling units in the pipeline and possible on vacant buildable land according to the
designations shown on the future Land Use Plan for residential use, there is excess capacity for between
approximately 7,600 to 22, 800 new dwelling units for the expected population in 2020. In the year
2030, there is a range of capacity from -850 to 14,350 new dwelling units. If all development takes
place on the low end of density, there will not be enough land to accommodate dwelling units needed in
2030.
Therefore, strictly from the standpoint of accommodating residential capacity, there is sufficient
residential capacity to accommodate anticipated population growth through at least 2030 without
adding any new land area to the Development Areas.
Land designated for residential development in the Comprehensive Plan is not always the same as land
with existing zoning. Therefore, staff did a second analysis on the capacity of land zoned to meet the
residential needs through 2030. Following the same methodology and using density allowed by the
zoning on vacant buildable land, staff calculated the land available for residential development at this
time. Figures 9 and 10 shows additional capacity based on land zoned for residential use.
10 of 12
Attachment C
BOS 10-7-14
Figure 8: Additional Units and Population based on Zoning Densities
Capacity 2020 (low) 2020 (high) 2030 (low) 2030 (high)
Projected Population 115,642 134,196
Current Population 101,575 101,575
Population Growth 14,067 32,621
Residential Units Needed 6,423 14,895
Units approved via ZMA and SP, but
currently undeveloped 8,033 8,033
Units possible via undeveloped, zoned
property 5,544 12,013 5,544 12,013
Units supplied by zoned property 13,577 20,046 13,577 20,046
Units in excess, or needed, to
accommodate Population Growth if all
growth is in the Development Areas on
currently undeveloped land
7,154 13,623 (1,318) 5,151
1 Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service 2013
2 Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service 2013
3 Population Growth = Projected population minus Current Population
4
Number of Residential Units needed is determined by dividing the Population Growth number by 2.19. The
multiplier 2.19 assumes no change in persons-per-unit over time and also a vacancy rate of 9%. Because the
trend in persons-per-unit is going downward and because vacancy rates are typically not this high, the
resulting projections will be somewhat conservative.
5
The total number of units that may be constructed sometime in t he future either due to being previously
approved via ZMA or SP, or allowed by existing zoning designation on undeveloped but developable
property.
6 Figure equals the number of units allowable by zoning minus the number of units needed. This number
represents either an excess or shortage of units available in the future based on current zoning.
Source: Albemarle County 2013
11 of 12
Attachment C
BOS 10-7-14
Figure 10: Zoning: 2030 Capacity vs. Demand
Number of New Units Needed by 2030
Land Capacity for Residential Growth
Future Housing Need:
6,423
additional dwellings
Unbuilt
Pipeline Units:
8,033
# of Units Possible on
Vacant Buildable land:
5,544 –12,013
Future Housing
Capacity:
13,577-20,046
additional dwellings
Can Future Capacity
Meet Future Need?
Excess units if
developed at
lowest density
Excess units if
developed at
highest density
Buildable Vacant
Residential Acreage:
2,161 acres
Low-High Density Range
from Existing Zoning:
Varies ~0.5-34 DU/ acre
2020 Estimate:
14,067
more people in
Albemarle
7,154 to 13,628
People
per Unit
Multiplier:
2.19
Yes…if developed at higher end
of permitted densities; at lower
end of zoning densities capacity
exceeds demand.
Source: Albemarle County 2013
Including dwelling units in the pipeline and possible on vacant buildable land according to the zoning
designations shown on the current Zoning Map, there is excess capacity of between approximately 7,150
to 13,600 new dwelling units for the expected population in 2020. In the year 2030, there is a range of
capacity from -1,300 to 5,150 new dwelling units. If all development takes place on the low end of
permitted zoning density, there will not be enough land to accommodate dwelling units needed in 2030.
Non-residential Capacity – Industrial Growth
Predicting non-residential needs is more difficult than predicting residential needs. Unlike population
predictions, employment predictions are based on industry type and a common method for determining
the space needed for future employment is to determine the growth rate of each industry sector in a
locality and then using prescribed square footage needed per employee in each sector to determine the
amount of square footage needed for future employment needs. The Target Industry Study (see
Reference Documents) provides a table that shows the acreage needs for targeted industries. Figures 3
and 4 show the industrial acreage available by Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning district.
However, an analysis of non-residential square footage approved but not yet constructed (the pipeline)
found that over 5 million square feet of non-residential space has been approved but not yet built in the
Development Areas (see Figure 6).
Studies over the last several years have indicated that the County has enough commercial square
footage in the development pipeline to last through 2030. Therefore, it is viewed that at present there is
sufficient land area to accommodate future commercial needs. There are approximately 600 acres of
12 of 12
Attachment C
BOS 10-7-14
industrial zoned and designated land or land designated but not yet zoned (Figure 11). Approximately
40% of vacant industrially designated land is not zoned industrial.
Figure 11: Acreage Available by Parcel Size of Vacant Industrially Zoned and/or Designated Land
Parcel Size
(ac.)
Parcel Acreage Designated &
Zoned Industrially (ac.)
Parcel Acreage
Designated & Not
Zoned Industrially
(ac.)
Total
(ac.)
1-2.99 24 32 56
3-4.99 3 11 18
5-9.99 31 74 97
10+ 281 148 429
Total 339 242 604
Source: Albemarle County CDD 2013
Non-residential Capacity – Commercial Growth
Future needs for commercial and service growth are difficult to predict because this sector is closely tied
to industrial or basic sector job growth. Basic sector jobs are those that rely on external factors to fuel
demand and primarily serve markets outside of Albemarle County’s economy. Examples include
manufacturing companies, data centers, and distribution centers. In 2003 it was estimated that the County
had retail capacity to last at least 20 years at its then current absorption rate. The recession that began
in 2008 further increased land and building availability. For these reasons a separate analysis of the
need for additional commercially zoned land was not done. It was viewed that just under 5 million square
feet of new space in addition to existing vacant space exists and would last for a number of years in the
future.
Conclusion
At this time and through 2020, there exists sufficient remaining land area to accommodate anticipated
future population growth. By 2030, if residential development occurs at the low-end of the densities
permitted by both current zoning and the future land use plan, there will not be enough land area within
the existing Development Area boundaries to accommodate future population growth. However, if
residential densities approach the middle or upper end of permitted densities, there will be enough land
area within existing Development Area boundaries to accommodate anticipated population growth.
Through 2030, there should also be enough commercial square footage in the development pipeline to
accommodate commercial square footage needs. Industrially, there is likely enough land designated and
zoned to accommodate industrial land needs through 2030. However, a significant amount (over 40%) of
vacant industrially designated land is not yet zoned for industrial use. Rezoning land designated for
industrial use will help increase that inventory.
ATTACHMENT D
G-O-S for Dev. Areas
Page 1 of 16
Attachment D
BOS 10-7-14
Comparison of Goals, Objectives and Strategies, and other Key Information
Chapter 8 Development Areas
January 23, 2014 Draft
The goal, objectives, and strategies for the Proposed 2013 Plan are shown on the right in this table. Goals,
objectives, and strategies shown on the left are taken from different sections of the existing Comprehensive
Plan. The source of information from the existing Plan is shown by existing goal, objective, or strategy
number or by page number in the existing Plan. LUP = Land Use Plan NM = Neighborhood Model
Existing Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Plan Adopted June 5th 1996, as
amended. Neighborhood Model adopted May
16, 2001)
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Update
Recommended by the Planning Commission
7/30/2013
For the County’s growth management goals to
be achieved, the Development Areas must be
attractive places to live and work. (Page 11,
LUP)
Goal: Albemarle’s Development Areas will be
made up of high quality, mixed-use urban
neighborhoods and employment centers that
are walkable and adequately supported by
services and facilities. (Page 8.1)
Objective: Establish functional descriptions of
the Urban Area, Communities, and Villages
(Page 12 LUP)
Urban Area (Neighborhoods 1 - 7)
1. A full array of residential types and
densities with an urban character of
development.
2. All service levels of retail, professional
business, and industrial activities (See
service-level descriptions in the Land Use
Designations" section below).
3. Regional employment centers.
4. Regional water and sewer services.
5. Extensive urban and regional public
facilities and services.
6. Access from. inter-county and major intra-
county roadways and transportation
services.
7. Geographically defined neighborhoods
that:
Contain well-defined residential areas,
which are well integrated with non-
residential areas and may include any of
the land use designations defined in the
"Land Use Designations" section: open
space, transitional, neighborhood service,
The Urban Neighborhoods: Places 29, Pantops,
and the Southern and Western Neighborhoods
The urban neighborhoods surround
Charlottesville and relate most closely to the
City. They are sometimes referred to as the
“urban area” because, in many ways, the
boundary between the City and the County is
not discernible. Downtown Charlottesville is the
geographic “center” of the entire area. Major
employers, including the University of Virginia,
are located in the urban neighborhoods.
These urban areas are expected to provide a
full array of residential types and densities
with an urban character of development. All
service levels of retail, professional business,
and industrial activities, regional employment
centers, public facilities, and services are
expected. In addition, extensive urban and
regional public facilities and services and
infrastructure are to be provided.
Geographically defined neighborhoods that
contain well-defined residential areas are to
be well integrated with non-residential areas.
They are to be supported by transportation
systems that include interconnected streets,
pedestrian paths, bicycle circulation systems,
ATTACHMENT D
G-O-S for Dev. Areas
Page 2 of 16
Attachment D
BOS 10-7-14
community service, regional service,
office/regional service, or industrial service;
Are supported by transportation systems
that include interconnected streets,
pedestrian paths, bicycle circulation
systems, and mass transit. (Page 13, LUP)
and mass transit. (Page 8.4)
Communities
1. Urban centers geographically removed
from the Urban Area.
2. Full range of residential uses and densities
and the full range of non-residential uses
described in the Land Use Designations
section.
3. Community core of mixed service and
residential use, including community and/or
regional services.
4. Regional employment centers.
5. Well-defined residential areas.
6. Major intra-County roadways linked to the
Urban Area.
7. Residential areas supported by an
integrated and interconnected system of
streets; pedestrian and bicycle circulation
systems; neighborhood commercial,
professional, business, and public service
uses; and public water and sewer.
8. Public facilities supporting the Communities
and surrounding County areas. (Page 14,
LUP)
Communities: Crozet, Hollymead and Piney
Mountain
The satellite communities are Hollymead, Piney
Mountain and Crozet. These areas are more
distant from the City and the urban
neighborhoods and are expected to be able to
operate independently. Similar to the urban
neighborhoods, communities are to provide for
geographically defined neighborhoods that
contain well defined residential areas which
are to be well integrated with non-residential
areas. They also are to be supported by
transportation systems that include
interconnected streets, pedestrian paths, bicycle
circulation systems, and mass transit. (Page 8.4)
Villages
1. A variety of housing types including
single-family, two-family and townhouse
units, with a gross density not to exceed
6 dwellings per acre.
2. A village center of mixed service and
residential uses. Such uses shall be
limited to neighborhood scale services,
including convenience shopping, other
general retail and service uses, medical
and professional offices, and accessory
apartments and attached housing.
3. Public sewer and water systems. This
reflects a concern that, without public
utilities, it is not possible to achieve
village density or land use patterns
Villages: Village of Rivanna
Similar to the satellite communities, villages are
located away from the City; however, due to
their large residential component, villages are
not able to operate independently. Residential
density is expected to be lower than in the
urban neighborhoods and communities. The
range of uses, as well as provision of a variety
of goods and services, is much less than what is
expected in the urban neighborhoods or
communities. Employment centers are not
anticipated and industrial uses are not
recommended. The Village of Rivanna Master
Plan describes the expectations for this Village.
Villages are expected to have a variety of
ATTACHMENT D
G-O-S for Dev. Areas
Page 3 of 16
Attachment D
BOS 10-7-14
which, in turn, serve to protect farmland
and rural open space. It also reflects
concern for protecting the environment,
and for the economical and reliable
provision of sewer and water services.
4. Public facilities which support the Village
and the immediate surrounding Rural
Area.
5. A linkage to the Urban Area and City of
Charlottesville by roads with adequate
capacity (traffic-carrying ability, safety
considerations, physical condition) in
order to move residents conveniently
between the Village and the urban core.
This guideline reflects a concern for using,
but not overloading, the County s main
roads (arterial and major collector), and
a concern that minor roads (minor
collector and local) not become subjected
to traffic loads which they cannot
tolerate, or which alters their character
over time. This also reflects a concept of
a Village as including some local
services, but not major community or
regional services, which are better,
provided in the Urban Area.
6. Designated Village Development Areas
that are located at places where
historically a settlement has existed. The
proposed design should be a logical and
harmonious outgrowth of what currently
remains of that settlement. Most often,
such locations will be at a crossroads,
which provides a central focus for village
activities. A proposal for an entirely new
village location should demonstrate that
it maintains this principle of a central
village area at the logical confluence of
streets and movement patterns.
7. Development around a focal point, such
as a public building, main street, park,
greenway, or other open space or
common area. Preferably, this focal point
would incorporate an existing natural or
cultural amenity. Within a proposed
Village, development shall emulate
historic regional patterns of village
housing types, including single-family, two-
family and townhouse units, and garden
apartments. Overall density of the areas
designated for development should not exceed
six (6) dwellings per acre; however, higher
density in some areas can be provided if lower
density is provided in other areas to average
no more than six (6) units per acre. The village
center is expected to have neighborhood scale
services, including convenience shopping, other
general retail and service uses, medical and
professional offices, and senior living. In
addition, restaurants and small lodging
facilities, such as inns, are anticipated.
Villages are to be linked to the urban
neighborhoods and the City of Charlottesville
by multimodal roads with adequate capacity
to safely and efficiently move residents
conveniently between the village and the urban
core. This guideline reflects a concern for using,
but not overloading, the County s main roads
(arterial and major collector), and a concern
that minor roads (minor collector and local) not
become subjected to traffic loads which they
cannot tolerate, or which alters their character
over time. In addition, villages should be
served by more than one major road to
provide for better access to and from the
urban neighborhoods.
At present, there is only one designated
village; however, if a Development Area
expansion were ever needed, a future village
might be designated. Future villages should be
located at places where, historically, a
settlement has existed and public water and
sewer is available. The proposed design should
be a logical and harmonious outgrowth of what
currently remains of that settlement. Within a
proposed village, new development should
emulate historic regional patterns of village
density and design, such that the feel of a
traditional village is created. The
Neighborhood Model principles should be
applied to new development in a village.
ATTACHMENT D
G-O-S for Dev. Areas
Page 4 of 16
Attachment D
BOS 10-7-14
density and design, such that the feel of
a traditional village is created. Elements,
which can contribute to such a quality,
could include:
A rectilinear or interconnecting street
pattern without cul-de-sacs;
Connections to existing streets;
Compact lots;
Shallow front/sideyard setbacks;
A village center of mixed uses and
public facilities and spaces;
Walkways and paths which encourage
pedestrians to be the dominant mode of
travel within the village center; and
Preservation and reuse of existing
structures.
8. “Edge treatments” in keeping with the
Neighborhood Model. Where the
boundaries of the Village meet the Rural
Areas, new development should be sensitive
to existing character in the rural areas.
9. A unified Village plan developed in
accordance with the requirements for a
planned development. In particular, the
impact of the plan on existing development
should be emphasized. It is expected that
consideration will be given to the needs and
wishes of those already living and owning
property in the area. (Pages 14 – 15 LUP)
10.
When new villages are designated or existing
villages expanded, the decision should take
into consideration ways to protect surrounding
properties. In particular, the impact of the plan
on existing development should be
emphasized. It is expected that consideration
will be given to the needs and wishes of those
persons already living and owning property in
the area. Any development near the
boundaries of a village should be sensitive to
the existing character of the surrounding Rural
Area. (Page 8.4 & 8.7)
Section 4: Building the Master Plan
A Master Plan should be developed for each
of the Development Areas. Provide
implementation strategies. (Page 33, NM)
Objective 1: Use Master Plans to guide
development and investment in each
Development Area. (Page 8.9)
Strategy 1a: Update Master Plans every five
years to keep them current. (Page 8.9)
Section 4 Step 8: Provide Implementation
Strategies….The Development Area Master
Plan should play a significant role in
developing the list of possible projects and
prioritizing the most urgent. (Page 38 NM)
Strategy 1b: Continue to use Advisory Councils
to help develop Master Plan updates, provide
guidance on conformity of proposed projects
with the Master Plan, assist in implementation of
the Master Plan, and to act as a clearinghouse
for information that is important to the
Development Area. (Page 8.9)
ATTACHMENT D
G-O-S for Dev. Areas
Page 5 of 16
Attachment D
BOS 10-7-14
Strategy 1c: To the extent possible, create
uniformity in format and land use categories in
Master Plans. (Page 8.9)
Accommodate new growth in the County within
Development Areas. (Page 11, LUP)
Objective: Direct growth into designated
Development Areas. (Page 12 LUP)
Provide for greater flexibility in gross
development densities within the Land Use Plan
residential categories, with a focus on
increasing gross densities. (Page 18, LUP)
Encourage greater utilization of land in
designated Development Areas by achieving
higher gross densities for residential and non-
residential development than in the past. (Page
11 LUP)
Consider rezoning vacant properties
designated for residential use to reflect the
recommended densities of the Land Use Plan.
(Page 18, LUP)
The use of bonus provisions to increase density
and provide for affordable housing is
encouraged. (Page 22, LUP)
Objective 2: Encourage and support
development at the higher end of the density
range as recommended on the Master Plans.
Strategy 2a: Provide ongoing education to the
public on the relationship of density in the
Development Areas and efforts to prevent
sprawl. (Page 8.11)
Support innovative development and design
concepts, particularly those that maximize gross
density of development. (Page 19, LUP)
Strategy 2b: Work with developers to build at
the higher end of the density range, provided
that development will be in keeping with
design recommendations from the
Neighborhood Model. (Page 8.12)
Fiscal Impact Analyses – The County should
continue to consider fiscal impact models and
studies when evaluating future land use chan-
ges prior to rezoning approvals. Appropriate
planning/phasing of development to match
service/infrastructure availability and capacity
should be established. (Page 21, LUP)
Strategy 2c: Review the cash proffer policy to
assess its effects on density. (Page 8.13)
ATTACHMENT D
G-O-S for Dev. Areas
Page 6 of 16
Attachment D
BOS 10-7-14
See Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities in
Appendix.
Commercial uses should locate in areas where
public utilities and facilities are adequate to
support such uses. Upgrading and extension of
roads, water, sewer, electrical, telephone,
natural gas systems, and community facilities
should be considered in review of a commercial
rezoning request. (Page 23, LUP)
Objective 3: Promote commercial, industrial,
and other non-residential development within
the Development Areas. (Page 8.12)
Strategy 3a: Continue to designate and zone
sufficient land area for future commercial and
industrial development needs. (Page 8.13)
The Neighborhood Model seeks to change the
form of development from a pattern of
sprawling, isolated buildings to a more
compact and interconnected design. (Page 9,
LUP)
The goals for the Development Areas are as
follows: centers, open space, network, mixed
uses, building placement and scale, alleys,
relegated parking, variety of housing types,
appealing streetscapes, and transportation
options. (Page 4, NM)
Objective 4: Achieve high quality
development through application of the
Neighborhood Model Principles. (Page 8.15)
Pedestrian Orientation – A pedestrian
orientation should be reflected throughout the
Development Areas. Sidewalks and pedestrian
paths should be provided in new developments,
redevelopment projects and in County projects
funded through the Capital Improvements
Program. (Page 19, LUP)
Strategy 4a: Continue to require and provide
sidewalks and pedestrian paths in the
Development Areas. (Page 8.15)
Discourage extensive linear style development
along major roads. (Page 11, LUP)
Network – A network of streets, bikeways,
pedestrian paths, and bus routes will connect
new neighborhoods as well as existing
residential areas and nonresidential districts.
(Page 10, LUP)
Strategy 4b: Promote block development
rather than long cul-de-sacs and provide
guidance to developers on ways to create
blocks and streetscape with Albemarle County’s
topography. (Page 8.16)
ATTACHMENT D
G-O-S for Dev. Areas
Page 7 of 16
Attachment D
BOS 10-7-14
Strategy 4c: Continue to designate and fund
construction of crosswalks for sidewalks. (Page
8.17)
Strategy 4d: Conduct a study on ways in which
streetlights can enhance pedestrian safety in
the Development Areas. (Page 8.17)
Mixed Uses – Neighborhoods will contain a
true mix of uses, including residences, shops,
and places of employment, as well as civic,
religious, and cultural institutions. (Page 10,
LUP)
Promote a mixture of uses for new development
and redevelopment. (Page 17, LUP)
Mixture of Uses --Where appropriate,
residences can exist side-by-side or within close
proximity to shops and places of employment,
as well as civic, religious, and cultural
institutions. (Page 19, LUP)
Mixed commercial and residential areas as
well as mixed uses within buildings should be
encouraged as land and energy-efficient
developments, along with infill of existing
commercial areas. Mixtures of residential and
commercial uses should address issues of
compatibility between and among uses.
Objectionable aspects should be addressed
through a combination of design methods,
screening, and buffering. This approach should
be flexible so as to accomplish the objective
without creating burdensome and arbitrary
regulations. (Page 22, LUP)
Strategy 4e: Continue to approve mixed-use
developments that are in keeping with the
Neighborhood Model and Master Plans. (Page
8.18)
Centers – Neighborhoods within the Deve-
lopment Areas will have centers or focal points
for congregating. These may include schools,
parks, places of worship, civic centers, or small
commercial and social areas. Such features will
be an easy walk for most residents in the
neighborhood. (Page 9, LUP)
Neighborhood Centers – A neighborhood
center provides a focal point for residents and
pedestrians. Centers may be employment hubs,
Strategy 4f: Continue to promote centers as
focal points for neighborhoods and places for
civic engagement. (Page 8.19)
ATTACHMENT D
G-O-S for Dev. Areas
Page 8 of 16
Attachment D
BOS 10-7-14
areas of mixed uses, parks, places of worship,
or other activity areas. Centers should be
recognized and enhanced within neighbor-
hoods. New centers should be built with
pedestrian access in mind. (Page 20 LUP)
Variety of Housing Types – Each
neighborhood will possess a variety of housing
types accommodating a range of incomes.
Affordable units will be dispersed throughout
the Neighborhood and will be visually
indistinguishable from other units. (Page 9, LUP)
Mixture of Housing Types and
Affordability—The Development Areas should
reflect a variety of housing types and costs.
Unless a mixture of housing types can be found
in close proximity to an infill site, new develop-
ment proposals should offer a variety of
housing types for different income levels. The
Development Areas also offer opportunities for
housing to be in close proximity to jobs, shop-
ping, parks, and public schools. (Page 20, LUP)
Strategy 4g: Through Master Plans and
rezoning approvals, ensure that all
Development Areas provide for variety of
housing types and levels of affordability.
(Page 8.20)
…and [affordable] units should have a similar
exterior appearance to other units in the
neighborhood. (Page 21, LUP)
Strategy 4h: Encourage builders to make
affordable housing units visually
indistinguishable on the exterior from other
units. (Page 8.20)
Affordable housing should not be built in
“enclaves” rather, it should be incorporated
into new housing developments. (Page 21, LUP)
Strategy 4i: Through rezoning and special use
permit decisions, ensure that affordable
housing units are dispersed throughout the
Development Areas rather than built in
enclaves. (Page 8.20)
Plan for a system of transportation and
community facilities and services that support
and enhance the Development Areas. (Page
11, LUP)
Strategy 4j: Continue to require that streets
are interconnected in the Development Areas;
ensure that exceptions occur rarely and not
routinely. (Page 8.21)
Transportation Options – Convenient routes
for pedestrians, bicyclists, and buses and other
transit including light rail will augment the
street network. Public transit stops will be
located within each Development Area.
Strategy 4k: Provide for multi-modal
transportation opportunities in new
development and encourage the building of
complete streets. (Page 8.22)
ATTACHMENT D
G-O-S for Dev. Areas
Page 9 of 16
Attachment D
BOS 10-7-14
Walking to them will be safe and convenient.
Waiting for transit will be comfortable and a
normal part of activity in the Neighborhood
Center. (Page 10, LUP)
Open Space – Each Development Area will
offer opportunities for public and private
outdoor recreational areas for active and
passive recreation. (Page 10, LUP)
Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open
Space – Parks and recreational amenities
should become centralized features in the
Development Areas and in individual
developments. Important environmental
features, such as floodplains, critical slopes,
and forested areas shown on the County’s
Open Space Plan, should be protected and
preserved as open space. Development should
be concentrated and clustered around these
features to the maximum extent possible and
provide vistas for public enjoyment. Existing
forested areas acting as buffers between
subdivisions should be maintained. (Page 20,
LUP)
Strategy 4l: Continue to develop and maintain
public parkland shown on Master Plans.
Continue to require recreational amenities in
residential developments. (Page 8.23)
Building Placement and Scale – Consideration
will be given to massing, height, setbacks, and
orientation of buildings so that these
characteristics enhance the public realm. In
particular, garages will be less dominant at
street view than houses. (Page 10, LUP)
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale – New
and redeveloped buildings should be sited and
arranged to emphasize a positive relationship
between pedestrians and buildings and to
provide appropriate spatial enclosure. As a
rule, building orientation should be to public
streets and to private streets when the private
street is in located in front of the building.
Yards should be shallow in order to allow for
good spatial enclosure. Massing and scale
should be appropriate to the area in which
buildings are proposed. Attention should be
paid to architectural details. (Page 20, LUP)
Strategy 4m: Continue to promote
appropriate scale, massing, and enclosure with
new development proposals. (Page 8.24)
ATTACHMENT D
G-O-S for Dev. Areas
Page 10 of 16
Attachment D
BOS 10-7-14
Appealing Streetscapes – As the fundamental
element of public space within the
neighborhood, the street will make the
neighborhood inviting with street trees and
landscaping. Sidewalks or paths that connect
houses to each other and to centers and
common areas will be the norm. Walks will
connect sidewalks to front doors and main
entrances. (Page 10, LUP)
Neighborhood-Friendly Streets and Paths --
Streets should be recognized for their function
within neighborhoods rather than merely
transportation routes for cars. Curb and gutter,
sidewalks and street-trees help to give streets
a more human scale. (Page 19, LUP)
Relegated Parking – Parking for the
automobile will not result in an excessive
amount of paved area; parking on the street
will be the norm, and the preference will be for
parking lots to be located to the rear and/or
sides of buildings. (Page 10, LUP)
Relegated Parking – Parking should be
located to the side and rear of structures and
generally should not be the dominant feature
seen from the public road or other adjacent
areas. New development or major
redevelopment design plans should include
features to prevent impact from impervious
surfaces on water quality. Parking areas,
roads, and other impervious areas should meet
only the reasonable needs of the proposed use
and possible future uses. Avoid parking areas
which exceed that which is necessary for the
anticipated development. For large retail
developments, parking capacity needed only
on a few peak shopping days of the year is
amenable to design alternatives to flat
blacktop. (Page 20, LUP)
Alleys – Where topography permits, alleys
will provide rear access to parcels, allowing for
and facilitating the provision of garages and
utilities to the rear of houses. (Page 10, LUP)
Strategy 4n: Continue to work with developers
to design and build projects which relegate
parking to the side or rear of sites and which
results in the fronts of building facing the street.
(Page 8.25)
Redevelopment –The County and developers Strategy 4o: Promote redevelopment as a
ATTACHMENT D
G-O-S for Dev. Areas
Page 11 of 16
Attachment D
BOS 10-7-14
alike should concentrate on redeveloping
existing sites where the capacity of
development has not been met. Adding second
stories to buildings and mixing residential uses
with commercial uses make for better urban
/rural relationships and can reduce pressure to
expand the Development Area boundaries.
Adaptive re-use of historic buildings to uses
which preserve the building’s architecture and
site character should be encouraged as a
method of historic preservation. (Page 21, LUP)
way to improve, and not expand the
Development Areas. (Page 8.26)
Strategy: Provide for greater flexibility in
type of use and density of development. (Page
18, LUP)
Site Planning that Respects Terrain – New
development and redevelopment should reflect
sensitivity to existing grades to the greatest
extent possible and promote architectural
design that fits into grades. Emphasis should
be placed on preserving areas of
environmental sensitivity shown on the Open
Space Plan. Where extensive grading is
necessary, site grading should result in slopes
that are attractive, functional, easy to maintain,
and which promote interconnectivity of parcels.
(Page 8.21, LUP)
Strategy 4p: Encourage developers to design
buildings which fit into the terrain rather than
flattening the land for trademark buildings.
(Page 8.26)
Strategy 4q: Require that re-graded slopes
result in smooth rather than abrupt or steep
grades that are difficult to vegetate and
maintain. (Page 8.26)
The twelve principles contain the characteristics
which the Development Areas are to reflect at
buildout. However, it is recognized that as in-
dividual proposals are considered, all of the
principles of the Neighborhood Model, listed as
the General Land Use Standards, below, may
not be equally applicable to any specific pro-
posal. All proposals will need to be considered
in a more global context, particularly as they
relate to the mix of uses. It is recognized that
there are multiple applications of the principles
of the Neighborhood Model and balanced,
rational and reasonable application of those
principles is expected. (Page 19, LUP)
Strategy 4r: Continue to approve new
development through rezoning and special use
permit which can achieve all of the principles of
the Neighborhood Model, to the greatest
extent possible. (Page 8.27)
Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas –
Distinctive boundaries should be made
between the Development Areas and the Rural
(See Objective 7 and Strategy 7a in the Rural
Area Chapter, as well as Page A.8.27 of
Neighborhood Model Guidance.)
ATTACHMENT D
G-O-S for Dev. Areas
Page 12 of 16
Attachment D
BOS 10-7-14
Areas. In most cases, development should abut
the rural boundary rather than transition down
to it. (Page 21, LUP)
OBJECTIVE: Facilitate infill development,
including redevelopment of existing structures
or new development of vacant and under-
utilized areas, within existing Development
Areas. (Page 17, LUP)
Strategy: Consider greater flexibility in
development regulations which may limit
development opportunities (without com-
promising issues of general health or safety).
(Page 18 LUP)
Objective 5: Facilitate infill development,
including redevelopment of existing structures
or new development of vacant and
underutilized land. In doing so, respect the
cohesiveness of existing neighborhoods and
minimize impacts from new uses. (Page 8.28)
Strategy: Plan/provide for necessary
infrastructure improvements that are currently
impediments to development of vacant sites.
Encourage infill development of vacant lands
and development of under-used areas within
the designated Development Areas. (Page 18
LUP)
Schedule public improvements needed to
support/encourage infill development within
undeveloped portions of the Development
Areas; (Page 18, LUP)
Develop plans for proposed public projects in
a timely fashion so that they may be
incorporated into new developments, as
necessary. (Page 19m LUP)
Strategy 5a: Plan and provide for necessary
infrastructure improvements that are currently
impediments to developing vacant sites. (Page
8.28)
In rezoning deliberations, the County should be
mindful of the intent to encourage infill
development, contain most future growth within
designated Development Areas, and avoid
rural development pressure. Unless contrary to
matters of public health and safety, residential
rezoning to the upper end of the Comprehen-
sive Plan recommended land use density-
ranges (i.e. Neighborhood or Urban scale)
should be favored even if the density exceeds
that of surrounding developments. (Page 22,
LUP)
Strategy 5b: Encourage infill development
within designated Development Areas to help
avoid rural development pressure. (Page 8.28)
Strategy 5c: Encourage developers of by-right
ATTACHMENT D
G-O-S for Dev. Areas
Page 13 of 16
Attachment D
BOS 10-7-14
projects to meet with neighborhoods to find
ways to minimize impacts of infill. Use
neighborhood meetings to help find solutions to
potential compatibility issues. (Page 8.28)
Maintenance of the integrity of residential
areas can be accomplished with standards for
the relationship of residential use to adjacent
non-residential uses. Buffering, screening and
physical separation of non-residential uses can
alleviate such relational problems. The current
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance addressing
the screening of objectionable features and
dissimilar uses provide for appropriate
protection. These features should be retained.
In addition to these regulatory requirements,
care should be taken in residential design to
provide for buffering, orientation, and other
measures to avoid conflicts with surrounding
uses. Identification of appropriate land use
relationships is important in applying land use
designations as well as in considering
development proposals. (Page 22, LUP)
Mixtures of residential, commercial, and
industrial uses may be appropriate where
objectionable aspects can be addressed
through a combination of realistic performance
standards, buffering, and special setback
regulations. This approach should be flexible
so as to accomplish the objective without
creating burdensome and arbitrary regulations.
Methods to mitigate objectionable aspects
should be addressed at the time of rezoning.
Industrial traffic should avoid residential areas
and roadways not designed for such traffic.
(Page 23, LUP)
Strategy 5d: Continue to require screening,
buffering, and, where necessary because of
impacts such as noise, odor, and vibrations,
require physical separation of incompatible
residential and non-residential uses. (Page
8.29)
Avoid development of "Significant Areas"
as designated in the Open Space Plan.
(Page 11)
Utilize the Open Space Plan Development Area
Composite Maps as a guide for waiver
requests from the critical slopes regulations.
(Page 19)
Objective 6: Preserve natural systems which
are shown for preservation on Master Plan
Land Use Plans. (Page 8.29)
Strategy 6a: Continue to provide detailed
ATTACHMENT D
G-O-S for Dev. Areas
Page 14 of 16
Attachment D
BOS 10-7-14
information on elevation, steep slopes, streams,
stream buffers, floodplain, and wooded areas
through the County’s Geographic Information
System (GIS) on-line database and share this
information with property owners and
developers.(Page 8.29)
Strategy 6b: Review County Code
requirements for preserving environmental
features and, where needed, tighten restrictions
so that these features can be preserved in the
Development Areas. (Page 8.30)
Steps for Implementing the Neighborhood
Model: 3. Create plans to build infrastructure.
Regulatory changes, while essential, are not the
only step required to achieve implementation of
the Neighborhood Model. Equally important
will be the County’s strategy for building the
infrastructure needed for build out of the
Master Plans conceived under this model. Both
physical and fiscal planning challenges abound.
The County will have to arrive at a policy to
address the expectations of many of its citizens
for concurrency, or the provision of infra-
structure simultaneous with new development.
(Page 114, NM)
Objective 7: Match infrastructure availability
and capacity with new development, especially
in Priority Areas. (Page 8.30)
Priority Areas for Land Use and Facility/
Resource Investment
The Pantops Development Area has received
steady and consistent growth over the past 10
years, to the point that most of this urban area
has received an initial level of development
and construction, or is planned for new deve-
lopment, that will essentially build out most of
the area in the next 10 years. Public investment
and infrastructure improvements have not kept
pace with this growth. This is particularly true
with road improvements, but also includes other
types of community facilities and services (fire/
rescue service, incomplete sidewalk system, lack
of crosswalks, limited playground facilities). The
private sector/”market” also has not yet
provided some of the services expected
/desired by the community, and in the form
desired (availability of community to neigh-
Strategy 7a: Continue to establish Priority
Areas in all Master Plans, which will be the
places where the County will be investing in
infrastructure, services, and facilities. (Page
8.30)
ATTACHMENT D
G-O-S for Dev. Areas
Page 15 of 16
Attachment D
BOS 10-7-14
borhood level services, such as small non-
franchise restaurant, hardware stores) in
convenient and more accessible locations to
residential neighborhoods. (Page 57, Pantops
Master Plan) [similar language also provided in
other Master Plans]
While decisions regarding private develop-
ment proposals/investments should not be
based solely on these priority areas, decisions
on development proposals should be made
with an understanding of where public
investments are being focused. Land use
decisions should be consistent with the priority
areas established in the Plan. (Page 57,
Pantops Master Plan)
Strategy 7b: Make decisions to approve new
development with an understanding of where
public investments are being focused. Give
priority to approving rezonings and special use
permits that are consistent with priority areas
established in the Development Area Master
Plans. (Page 8.30)
New proposals outside of the priority areas
may not be approved if planned facilities are
not in place to support the project and the
existing neighborhood. These projects will need
to provide more significant level of
improvements to ensure adequate infrastructure
and services are available to the area. (Pages
57-58, Pantops Master Plan)
Strategy 7c: Do not approve proposed
rezonings and special use permits outside of
Priority Areas when planned facilities are not in
place to support the project and existing
neighborhoods, unless the proposed project will
provide significant improvements to ensure
adequate infrastructure and services are
available to the area. (Page 8.31)
Objective 8: Keep the Development Area
boundaries intact until it can be demonstrated
that additional land area is needed to
accommodate future populations. (Page 8.31)
[also see Objective 3: Ensure sufficient land
area exists in the Development Areas to
accommodate future populations. (Page 9.7 –
Housing)]
Strategy 8a: Continue to monitor building
activity in both the Development Areas and the
Rural Area to gain information on the rate of
residential and non-residential development in
the County. (Page 8.32)
[also see Strategy 3a: Continue to monitor
supply of land designated and zoned for
residential use in the Development Areas to
ensure adequate capacity for future
populations. (Page 9.7 – Housing)]
ATTACHMENT D
G-O-S for Dev. Areas
Page 16 of 16
Attachment D
BOS 10-7-14
Strategy 8b: Update the capacity analysis
every two years to ensure adequate residential
land exists for new housing needs. (Page 8.32)
Objective 9: Consider allowing for urban
agriculture practices to increase access to
healthy, local, and affordable foods and
encourage the productive use of vacant land.
(Page 8.32)
Strategy 9a: Study ways to allow chickens,
goats, bees, and other forms of agriculture in
the Development Areas without harming the
safety, welfare, and enjoyment of adjoining
property owners. These animals are not
intended as pets. The study should address
animal waste disposal, setbacks, permits,
enforcement, and education. (Page 8.32)
Strategy 9b: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to
allow gardening as a standalone use in zoning
districts in the Development Areas. (Page 8.33)
Specific Standards for Residential, Commercial,
and Industrial Uses (Pages 22 – 31, LUP)
See Land Use Categories and Guidelines,
page A.8.31 of the Development Areas
Appendix.
The Development Areas are recognized as the
most appropriate places in the County for
affordable housing. (Page 20, LUP)
Strategy 6g: Continue to direct affordable
housing activities to the designated
Development Areas. (Page 9.13, Housing)
Provision of services to the Development Areas
as well as a more compact area for develop-
ment increases opportunities for use of transit.
(Page 21) LUP
Strategy 5b: Continue to require and provide
sidewalks and pedestrian paths in the
Development Areas and support expanded
transit services. (Page 9.10. Housing)
Text page 9.13: The Development Areas are
locations of employment centers, transit
networks, community facilities, and day-to-day
services.
1 of 5
Attachment E
BOS 10-7-14
ATTACHMENT E
Planning Commission Review and Findings for
Land Capacity Analysis for Growth in the Development Areas
Residential Growth
Before the Planning Commission could begin its discussion on whether to recommend an expansion of
the Development Area boundaries, it first needed to understand the capacity of the Development Areas to
accommodate anticipated residential growth for the next twenty years. The analysis was first done in
2011 based on the existing future Land Use Plan and current zoning. It was updated in the April 16, 2013
staff report for the Planning Commission, based on the recommended future Land Use Plan and current
zoning.
The table below (found on page 8.11) used the Weldon Cooper Center’s population projects to establish
the expected additional residents. We divided that number by 2.19 which is a figure that represents an
average number of persons per unit combined with expected vacancy of units.
Potential New Dwelling Units Needed by 2020 and 2030
2020 2030
Projected Population 115,642 134,196
Current Population 101,575 101,575
Population Growth 14,067 32,621
Residential Units Needed 6,423 14,895
Source of projection and current population: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service 2013
Source of persons/unit and vacancy rate: U.S. Census Bureau 2010
To know whether land designated for residential use was sufficient for residential growth, staff had to
make several additional calculations. The first calculation was to find out how many units were “in the
pipeline,” meaning approved by rezoning but not yet built. In October 2013, that number was
approximately 8,000. After finding out how many units were in the pipeline, staff set out to calculate the
buildable land area designated for residential growth on undeveloped and underdeveloped parcels in the
Development Areas. This buildable area designated on the Master Plans was estimated to yield a range
of units, based on the low end and high end of the density range. This calculation was done both for land
designated residentially on the Master Plans and for land zoned for residential development.
Total Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units in Development Areas
These figures were all put together in the table on the following page that shows that, for 2020, a need
will exist for approximately 6,400 units, but capacity exists for somewhere between 14,000 and 29,000
units. In 2030, a need will exist for approximately 15,000 new units and the same capacity of 14,000 –
29,000 exists. If development occurs at the lowest end of the density scale, and no redevelopment
occurs to absorb new needed units, then, in 2030, the demand will exceed supply.
The table on the following page shows how the calculations took place for land designated residentially
Possible Dwelling Units
on Buildable Land
Approved
Unbuilt
Units
Total Capacity for
Additional Dwelling
Units
Low High Low High
Comprehensive Plan 6,009 21,214 8,033 14,042 29,247
Zoning 5,544 12,013 8,033 13,577 20,046
Source: Albemarle County Community Development 2013
2 of 5
Attachment E
BOS 10-7-14
on the Comprehensive Plan.
Additional Units and Population based on allowable density from Land Use Plans
Capacity 2020 (low) 2020 (high) 2030 (low) 2030 (high)
Projected Population1 115,642 134,196
Current Population2 101,575 101,575
Population Growth3 14,067 32,621
Residential Units Needed4 6,423 14,895
Units approved via ZMA and SP, but
currently undeveloped -- in the
pipeline 5
8,033 8,033
Units possible via undeveloped
properties that are not in the
pipeline, but designated for
residential use on the comprehensive
plan6
6,009 21,214 6,009 21,214
Sum of units in the pipeline plus units
available from undeveloped
properties designated for residential
use on the comprehensive plan 7
14,042 29,247 14,042 29,247
Units in excess of, or needed to
accommodate Population Growth if
all growth is in the Development
Areas on currently undeveloped land
8
7,619 22,824 (853) 14,352
1 From Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service 2013.Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service
2013.
2 Population Growth is determined by subtracting Current Population number from Projected Population
number.
3 Number of Residential Units needed is determined by dividing the Population Growth number by 2.19. The
multiplier 2.19 assumes no change in persons-per-unit over time and also a vacancy rate of 9%. Because the
trend in persons-per-unit is going downward and because vacancy rates are typically not this high, the
resulting projections will be somewhat conservative.
4 The number of units that have been approved through Zoning Map Amendments (ZMA) an d Special Use
Permits (SP) to-date but have yet to be constructed.
5 The number of units possible with existing comprehensive plan designations (i.e. Neighborhood Density,
Urban Density, etc), but have yet to be planned for, or constructed.
6 The total number of units that may be constructed sometime in the future either due to being previously
approved via ZMA or SP, or allowed by existing comprehensive plan designation.
7 The number of possible units that are either in excess, or are needed in relation to Residential Units Needed.
8 Units needed are shown in (parentheses).
Staff took the same steps for zoned land to see whether enough land was zoned residentially to
accommodate future residential population need. The table on the following page shows the calculations
for the zoned land. The results of the zoning calculations were similar to those for the Master Plans. For
2020 sufficient zoned land area exists to accommodate expected growth; but, in 2030, if land is not
developed at the high end of the density range, there will be a shortfall of approximately 1300 units.
The Planning Commission noted that future populations may wish to reside in Scottsville or the Rural
Area and that redevelopment was also a possibility for helping to address future residential needs. For
these reasons, the Commission concluded that, for 2020 there was no need to expand the Development
3 of 5
Attachment E
BOS 10-7-14
Areas. They said that the capacity analysis should be performed every two years to see what changes to
the Comprehensive Plan, policies, or Development Area boundaries were needed to accommodate
expected future growth.
Additional Units and Population based on Zoning Densities
Capacity 2020 (low) 2020 (high) 2030 (low) 2030 (high)
Projected Population1 115,642 134,196
Current Population2 101,575 101,575
Population Growth3 14,067 32,621
Residential Units Needed4 6,423 14,895
Units approved via ZMA and SP, but
currently undeveloped (in the pipeline) 8,033 8,033
Units possible from other undeveloped,
zoned property 5,544 12,013 5,544 12,013
Potential units under existing zoning5 13,577 20,046 13,577 20,046
Units in excess, or needed, to
accommodate Population Growth if all
growth is in the Development Areas on
currently undeveloped land6
7,154 13,623 (1,318) 5,151
1 Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service 2013
2 Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service 2013
3 Population Growth = Projected population minus Current Population
4 Number of Residential Units needed is determined by dividing the Population Growth number by 2.19.
The multiplier 2.19 assumes no change in persons-per-unit over time and also a vacancy rate of 9%. Because
the trend in persons-per-unit is going downward and because vacancy rates are typically not this high, the
resulting projections will be somewhat conservative.
5 The total number of units that may be constructed sometime in the future either due to being prev iously
approved via ZMA or SP, or allowed by existing zoning designation on undeveloped but developable
property.
6 Figure equals the number of units allowable by zoning minus the number of units needed. This number
represents either an excess or shortage of units available in the future based on current zoning. (Parentheses
represent a shortage of units.)
Source: Albemarle County 2013
Non-residential Growth
Methodology for predicting future employment needs is not as clear cut as for predicting residential
needs. Commercial and industrial uses have varying requirements for size of buildings, parking, shipping,
and locations. Home-based businesses and telecommuting are expected to grow. It is unknown to what
degree outsourced jobs such as call centers and true manufacturing will come back to the U.S. One
cannot speculate how the rising cost of fuel and shipping will affect manufacturing or whether Albemarle
County is a desirable location a large quantity of production jobs.
Using the employment projections from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, extrapolated through 2040,
Albemarle will have an estimated 18,000 new jobs in the year 2030. Selected target industries and
complementary targets:
4 of 5
Attachment E
BOS 10-7-14
Bioscience and Medical Devices
Business & Financial Services
Information Technology and Defense & Security
Agribusiness
Health Services
Arts, Design and Sports & media
have different acreage and building needs. Business & Financial Services and complementary targets
Health Services and Arts, Design and Sports & media can use commercial and office spaces and typically
do not need industrially designated land. Bioscience and medical device development and production
have acreage needs of 3 – 5 acres. Information technology businesses can have needs as small as 3
acres, but a server farm might need up to 25 acres. Defense and security businesses can use
commercial or industrial zoning, depending on the particular use. Their needs range from 3 – 25 acres.
Agribusiness, depending on the type, may need acreage of up to 25 acres if food processing is involved.
The Planning Commission looked at the existing supply of non-residential land and concluded that there
is a large supply of commercially zoned land, but only about 80 parcels with buildable land for industrial
use as seen in the table below:
Developable Industrially Designated Parcels and Industrially Zoned Parcels
Parcel size
Developable Designated &
Zoned Industrially
(# of parcels)
Developable Designated &
Not Zoned Industrially
(# of parcels) Total
1 to 2.99 ac. 12 17 29
3 to 4.99 ac. 1 3 4
5 to 9.99 ac. 5 10 33
10+ acres 3 9 12
Total 21 39 78
From this table, one can see that there are very few parcels available for larger land users. Most of the
parcels are less than 10 acres in size. This table does not show that several of the smaller parcels are
owned by the same property owner and could be combined to provide for larger parcels of contiguous
land. The Planning Commission said in the Economic Development Chapter that, “…overall acreage is
sufficient for future needs, but, much of the land itself is in small parcels and lacking roads and utilities to
be marketable to new and expanding target industries.” The Commission also said that additional work is
needed to ensure that these locations are adequate and consideration be given to investing in
infrastructure to serve industrially zoned vacant parcels.
Staff analyzed industrially designated and zoned land and concluded that, in total, there are about 600
developable acres designated or zoned industrially. The single largest owner is the University of Virginia
Foundation, which has over 500 undeveloped acres in the UVA Research Park (formerly known as North
Fork). Of that acreage, about 234 acres is developable.
5 of 5
Attachment E
BOS 10-7-14
Acreage Available by Parcel Size of Vacant Industrially Zoned and/or Designated Land
Parcel Size
(ac.)
Developable Parcel Acreage
Designated & Zoned
Industrially (ac.)
Developable Parcel Acreage
Designated & Not Zoned
Industrially (ac.) Total (ac.)
1-2.99 24 32 56
3-4.99 3 11 18
5-9.99 31 74 97
10+ 281 148 429
Total 339 242 604
Source: Albemarle County CDD 2013
Having a supply of land for industrial uses over the next 20 years does not guarantee that the same land
will meet all of the needs of future industrial users. Industrial land will need to be available which meets
the needs of the targeted industries. Additional work on this issue will likely take place in the newly
formed Economic Development office.
Attachment F – 10-7-14 BOS Meeting page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT F
Map Showing Expansion Requests from Owners and the Board of Supervisors
Reviewed by the Planning Commission 2011-2013
Yancey Mills
Business Park
John Chavan
and BOS –
Shadwell
Interchange
F.A. Iacetta, S,
Fork Land Trust,
and Hurt
Investment Ingleridge,
Montvue, and
Morris
Montague, et. al. –
Redfields addition
Whittington
Wendell Wood NGIC *
Wendell Wood--
Somerset Farm
Vermillion
Wheeler
* Request made in 2013. All other requests made in 2011 or before.
Attachment G
1 of 2
BOS 10-7-14
ATTACHMENT G
Recommended Changes from the Planning Commission for Places29 Master Plan
The Planning Commission viewed a request for the designation of an existing mobile home park and
properties adjacent from light industrial to urban density residential and decided that the request was
reasonable due the fact that zoning allowed for a mobile home park in both areas.
Existing Land Use Map in the Vicinity of the Mobile Home Park (MHP) on Dickerson Rd.
MHP
MHP and
properties zoned
for MHP
recommended for
urban density
residential
designation
Proposed Land Use Map in the Vicinity of the Mobile Home Park on Dickerson Rd.
Charlottesville Albemarle Airport
Dickerson Road
Rt. 643
Airport
Road
Rt. 29 N
Attachment G
2 of 2
BOS 10-7-14
In addition, the Commission endorsed the location of water storage tanks and pump as indicated in the
image to the left be indluded in the Places
29 Plan at the property located between
Airport Road and the north end of
Hollymead Town Center (and adjacent to
the future alignment of Meeting Street). The
property is parcel 32-41 fronting on Airport
Road. This site is designated for placement
of finished water storage tanks and a
pumping station on the southern portion of
the parcel which has the highest elevation
on the property. The new facilities are
proposed to be placed adjacent to an
existing telecommunications facility (tower).
In addition to the tanks, the project will
include a large diameter waterline from the
South Fork Rivanna W ater Treatment Plant
to the site.
(Although the plan shown to the
Commission reflected only one tank, two
tanks were actually proposed.)
Figure 3: Potential Location of New RWSA
Finished Water Supply Tanks and Pump Station
(heavy outline notes parcel 32-41). Blue dots
denote general tank locations and blue rectangle
denotes general pump station location.
Attachment H– 10-7-14 BOS Meeting page 1 of 7
ATTACHMENT H
Wendell Wood Request for Land Use Change
and
Peter Borches Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) Request
Wood Request
In the summer of 2013, after several discussions with staff and the Planning Commission, Wendell Wood,
owner or properties near and north of Rivanna Station (approximately 75 acres) asked for an expansion
of the Development Areas. The location is shown in the image to the right on the following page. At the
request of the Commission, Mr. Wood’s proposal was reviewed on June 19, 2013 by the Places 29
Advisory Council. The Advisory Council approved of Mr. Wood’s request; however, because of the extent
of change requested for the Master Plan and the relationship of the changes to other properties on Watts
Passage, the Commission did not recommend approval of the request with this Comprehensive Plan
update. Instead, they said the request should be made following the regular CPA process or considered
in conjunction with the next Places 29 Master Plan update.
At the Board’s March public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Wood asked the Board to review
this request. The Board agreed to consider the change in land use.
Staff Recommendation: At this time, staff does not recommend approval due to the need for a more
detailed study with significant public involvement.
Borches Request
On September 2, 2014, Peter Borches of Colonial Auto Center made a request to change the land use on
a property located on Berkmar Drive, across the street from Agnor Hurt Elementary School. He had
previously requested input from the Planning Comm ission on this change on April 15, 2014. Anticipating
that the Comprehensive Plan would be adopted by September 2014, the Commission said that the
applicant should get feedback from the Places 29 Advisory Council, then, make a formal CPA request.
The Planning Commission said that the major issues that should be considered when moving forward
with the request were:
a. The need for m ore specificity for what is actually being proposed on the site regarding use and
design.
b. The visual and character impacts to Berkmar Drive.
c. The potential connection of Meyers Drive to Berkmar Drive.
d. Determining an adequate right-of-way for the ultimate Berkmar Drive expansion.
In addition, several Commission members mentioned a desire not to intensify the scale of development in
terms of its impervious surface and environmental impacts.
Staff Recommendation: Staff believes that the size and scale of Mr. Borches’ request is considerably
different than that of Mr. Wood’s. Mr. Borches’ request is for a change to a 3.5 acre parcel within the
Development Areas rather than a change of 75 acres to expand the Development Areas. He has already
received a favorable endorsement by the Places 29 Advisory Council. Staff believes that the Planning
Commission could complete its review of this request in time for a recommendation to be returned to the
Board, prior to its public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the Board direct the
Planning Commission to provide a recommendation by January 2015.
Attachment H– 10-7-14 BOS Meeting page 2 of 7
Wendell Wood Request for Land Use Change
Current Recommendation for Places 29 Master Plan Land Use Plan Change Requested by Owner, but not supported by Planning Commission
(Existing Places 29 Master Plan)
Legend
Development Area expansion
requested – approximately 75
acres (35 developable acres) –
From Rural Area to
Neighborhood Density
Rt. 29 North
Boulders Road
Change in use request from
Neighborhood Density to Urban
Density
Rt. 29 North
Watts Passage
Watts Passage
A
A
B B
C C
Development Area Boundary Development Area Boundary
Attachment H– 10-7-14 BOS Meeting page 3 of 7
Attachment H– 10-7-14 BOS Meeting page 4 of 7
Attachment H– 10-7-14 BOS Meeting page 5 of 7
Attachment H– 10-7-14 BOS Meeting page 6 of 7
Attachment H– 10-7-14 BOS Meeting page 7 of 7
1 of 2
Attachment I
BOS 10-7-14
ATTACHMENT I
Places 29 Advisory Council Comments from September 22, 2014
On September 22, 2014, the Places 29 Advisory Council met and offered the following comments on the
Development Areas Chapter of the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
Objective 1: Use Master Plans to guide development and investment in each Development Area.
Master plan update should be ongoing discussion so that comments are ready for 5 year update -
speed the process along by capturing input
Importance of staff support – continue to provide staff resources to provide adequate council
support
Objective 2: Encourage and support development at the higher end of the density range as
recommended on the Master Plans.
Potential overestimates of density projections in Places 29 – should we do modeling? Buildable
vs. unbuildable land? Do we need a more realistic calculation?
Should we continue to focus on getting developers to provide the higher end of density?
Is there market demand for density?
Is there water and sewer capacity/existing infrastructure to support density?
Density depends on significant transit investment
Urbanization images in Places 29 not matching reality of what we are seeing on the ground –
what is a realistic vision? Is there market demand for those products?
Challenge of creating walkability in this area
Cannot “social engineer” the walkability aspect
Hard to replicate City’s urban area – what should Albemarle’s urban area aspire to?
Should Neighborhood Model be revisited to address what is more realistic for Albemarle County?
Where are employment opportunities?
What is the outcome for existing housing stock that is no longer attractive to the market?
Objective 3: Promote commercial, industrial, and other non-residential development with the
Development Areas.
Concern about language, re: target markets including full spectrum of skill sets not just high end
jobs
Support and retain existing business through appropriate land use
Focus on redevelopment
Objective 4: Achieve high quality development through application of the Neighborhood Model
Principles.
Should principles be revisited? Focus is only on new development, should also talk about
supporting older neighborhoods
Closer look at interconnections
Should County incentivize residential redevelopment?
Strengthen the infill and redevelopment strategies
Objective 5: Facilitate infill development, including redevelopment of existing structures or new
development of vacant and underutilized land. In doing so, respect the cohesiveness of existing
neighborhoods and minimize impacts from new uses.
How does Neighborhood Model impact existing established neighborhoods?
Mitigate impact of new neighborhoods on older?
2 of 2
Attachment I
BOS 10-7-14
How do we help older neighborhoods enjoy those new amenities?(infrastructure investment)
Objective 6: Preserve natural systems which are shown for preservation on Master Plan Land Use Plans.
Focus on this!
Make sure this is not restricting or running counter to stated purpose of development areas
Avoid contradiction with infill priorities
Objective 7: Match infrastructure availability and capacity with new development, especially in Priority
Area.
Should rural area section along Route 29 be put into development area?
Objective 8: Keep the Development Area boundaries intact until it can be demonstrated that additional
land area is needed to accommodate future populations.
Support for continued emphasis on strong boundaries
Objective 9: Consider allowing for urban agriculture practices to increase access to healthy, local, and
affordable foods and encourage the productive use of vacant land.
General:
Can GIS system accommodate shifting policies i.e. Stormwater?
Some pressure on people looking for options in a more urban environment, not looking for rural
options
Is Comp plan still a good guide, or is it too rigid and detailed?
The intent section of the PRD section of the zoning ordinance states, "Through a planned
development approach, the regulations in section 8 are intended to accomplish the goals and
objectives of the comprehensive plan to a greater extent than the regulations of conventional
districts." Please consider adding to your list of comments to the board and planning commission
the view that "encouraging the use of the County's Planned Development District ordinance is an
effective tool for accomplishing the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan."
1 of 1
Attachment J
BOS 10-7-14
ATTACHMENT J
Recommended Changes from the Planning Commission to the Pantops Master Plan
Two streets planned for future roadway connections in the Pantops Neighborhood are proposed for
removal from the Master Plan with this Comprehensive Plan update. The road in the purple box on the
left hand side of the map below had been proposed as a potential alignment for an Eastern Connector.
This alignment is not viewed as necessary. The second road shown in the purple box in the lower right
corner of the map was proposed to connect State Farm Blvd. at that light on 250 through the Aunt
Sarah’s property to the road network behind the Luxor development. The owner of that property
persuaded the Pantops Community Advisory Council and the Planning Commission that the road was
redundant. Both the Advisory Council and the Commission viewed these changes as appropriate.
Existing Land Use Map in the Vicinity of Route 250 East in Pantops
1 of 1
Attachment K
BOS 9-9-14
ATTACHMENT K
Recommendations from Planning Commission for Rivanna River in Pantops and Woolen Mills
Objective 7: Work with the City of Charlottesville on joint projects to improve
parks and recreation services, greenways, and green systems.
The City and County’s urban area parks are connected by greenway trails and the City and the
County share several parks and recreation facilities. The arrangement to share facilities enhances
the quality of life for both City and County residents. Through the Livability Project, several other
recommendations have been made to encourage additional cooperative efforts.
Strategy 7a: Create a plan that incorporates a unified vision for land adjacent to the Rivanna
River.
Through the Livability project, the City and County have decided that developing a unified
vision of the land adjacent to the Rivanna River in the Pantops and Woolen Mills area is a top
priority. Along with creating a plan to coordinate building sidewalks across City-County
boundaries, this strategy was chosen as one of the top two projects for the communities to
work on in the future. Both localities believe that the Rivanna River is a shared resource that
can benefit County and City residents by coordinating land use and recreation planning
efforts. Coordinated land use efforts can also ensure that future land uses do not further
degrade water quality and works to improve it. Unifying lands uses adjacent to the River
under a joint vision can also lead to land uses that transition between the City and County and
across the River well. A shared vision for parks, trails, and recreational opportunities
associated with the river can make the Rivanna River an enjoyable destination for residents
and tourists. Ultimately, City and County’s residents, their economies and the health of the
Rivanna River should benefit from a shared City-County plan for the river. Recommendations
from the Rivanna River Basin Commission on how a plan might be developed are provided in
the Reference Documents. These recommendations should be reviewed as part of
development of the plan for the Rivanna River in Pantops and Woolen Mills.
1 of 3
Attachment L
BOS 10-7-14
ATTACHMENT L
Recommended Changes from Planning Commission and Staff for
Village of Rivanna Master Plan
There are three topics for discussion in this attachment: the supplemental Land Use Plan, recommended
text on the history of the Village, and density calculations. Additional requests from the Village of Rivanna
Advisory Council are provided at the end of this attachment. The section of this Attachment related to
density calculations takes into account some of the comments from the Advisory Council.
Supplemental Land Use Plan
The Village of Rivanna Master Plan was created in 2009-10 and adopted by the Board of Supervisors in
May 2010. The maps and plans were prepared by the Thomas Jefferson PDC. Unfortunately, the Land
Use Plan contained environmental features that are identified as land use features. In and of itself,
having both sets of features on a map is not problematic. However, it has become problematic for
posting on the GIS Web and is very inconsistent with other Master Plan Land Use Maps.
The existing plan and supplemental plans are shown on the last page of this attachment. The only
difference is that steep slopes, floodplain, and wetlands are designated as part of parks and green
systems instead of shown as independent uses. Adding this map to the Master Plan will make it possible
to place on the GIS Web and use consistently with the other maps.
Both the Planning Commission and the Village of Rivanna Advisory Council endorsed this change.
Recommended Additional Text on the History of the Village of Rivanna
Approximately 25 years ago, the County added the Village of Rivanna to the Development Areas and also
added language about expectations for new Villages in the County. The Village of Rivanna did not meet
all of the expectations for new villages; however, for other reasons, the Board of Supervisors approved
the Village with Glenmore development as a major component. The developer made the case that
providing a gated community with a country club could meet the market need of many new residents who
would otherwise want to build in the Rural Area.
When the Rivanna Village at Glenmore Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved, the County
attempted to help the Village of Rivanna meet more of the County’s expectations for Villages by
designating a mixed use area. However, it proposed more retail and commercial uses than the
Comprehensive Plan recommended for Villages. Again, the Board of Supervisors approved the
development because it met many of the expectations of the Neighborhood Model and the additional non-
residential square footage was considered advantageous if it could help reduce the number of trips being
made on Route 250 East. Subsequently, the Master Plan was updated to reflect the approval of a higher
level of retail and commercial uses.
For several years, though, the differences in the expectations for Villages and the zoning approvals have
been a point of frustration and confusion for many residents of the Village. Many hours have been spent
by residents trying to understand why approvals took place that were not totally in keeping with
expectations for a Village. Likewise, County staff has spent many hours trying to explain the history of
the approvals. To help reduce confusion and conflicts in the future, staff recommends that a history of the
Village of Rivanna be added to the text of the Master Plan to reflect the ways in which the Village of
Rivanna met and did not meet expectations for Villages at the time of the Comprehensive Plan
amendments that took place after 1989.
Net Density and Gross Density Calculations
Calculation of allowable density for a parcel has been a point of some confusion in the Village of Rivanna.
Questions of how one interprets the allowable density range of 3 – 6 units per acre and why the County
does not remove all environmentally sensitive areas from the areas to be counted towards density have
2 of 3
Attachment L
BOS 10-7-14
been asked several times. In addition, language related to calculating density in the Neighborhood Model
Zoning District is not clearly stated, nor reflective of current Master Plan designations.
The Village of Rivanna Advisory Council has made some requests for changes that are policy decisions
and some requests for clarification of the County’s position . For example, a request to exclude all
features, “protected by law” from area available for density is actually a policy decision. Intermittent
streams in the Development Areas outside of Crozet do not have stream buffer requirements and
historically have not been regulated by the Count y. Some of these streams, however, may be regulated
at a federal level. More study may be needed on the relationships of various regulations and whether and
how those regulations may relate to density, before making any decisions about intermittent streams.
Conversely, adding a statement that explains how the colors on the land use maps advise about density
could easily be accommodated.
At this juncture, staff believes that it would be advantageous to add language to the Development Areas
chapter that
explains the relationship between the land use plan designations and density calculations
clarifies the relationship between recommendations on the Master Plans and general text about
Villages
adds a strategy to update the zoning ordinance in places , such as Section 20.A.7. Neighborhood
Model District, to better correspond with Master Plans recommendations
The Board may also want to consider adding a strategy to the Natural Resources section to study how
state and federal requirements relate to the County’s stream buffer requirements. This study may prompt
additional investigation into whether additional areas should be designated for protection on the
Development Area Master Plans.
3 of 3
Attachment L
BOS 10-7-14
4
Supplemental Land Use Plan
4 of 3
Attachment L
BOS 10-7-14
1 of 2
Attachment M
BOS 10-7-14
ATTACHMENT M
Village of Rivanna Advisory Council
Recommended Changes to Comprehensive Plan
From Minutes of Meeting Held September 15, 2014
A discussion was held regarding Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan draft which will be reviewed in a
work session of the Board of Supervisors on October 7 at 5:00PM. A template, which is attached to the
minutes, served as the basis for discussion, and a number of changes were suggested. These changes
are also attached. Several descriptive terms such as “it is expected”, “encourage and support”, and “work
with developers” which are used in various ways to describe the desire of the County to have develop ers
build at the higher end of the density range, were discussed with the group, and it was asked just how
these terms should be interpreted by developers. Supervisor Dittmar will discuss this with Staff. The
Council challenged the need for intense development in view of the fact that undeveloped land in the
Development Area, as noted in the Comprehensive Plan provides room for growth through 2030. It was
felt that any activity planning for development beyond this point is dealing with major unknowns. There
are approximately 7,900 unbuilt units that have been approved at this point, according to the
Comprehensive Plan.
It was suggested that the structure and relationship of Community Advisory Councils to the planning
process in new development be formalized. The intent would be to show where and when the CAC’s fit in
the steps required to approve an application.
Chapter 8, Comprehensive Plan Draft: Development Areas: Suggested Changes for Clarification
and Emphasis:
1. Page 8.3: Vision: 3. “Expectations for the Development Areas Include:
Change: “Development at the higher end of the density range as recommended on the Master Plans”
To: “Development at the higher end of the density range as recommended on the Master Plans should be
calculated on net developable acreage, not on gross acreage when the site to be developed includes
unbuildable acreage containing such features as ponds, streams, critical slopes, intermittent streams,
wetlands, or other features protected by law.”
2. Page 8.4: Villages: Village of Rivanna:
Change: “Overall density of the area designated for development should not exceed six (6) dwellings per
acre; however higher density in some areas can be provided if lower density is provided in other areas to
average no more than six (6) units per acre.”
To: “Overall density of the area designated for development should not exceed six (6) dwellings per acre;
however higher density in village centers can be provided if lower density is provided in other areas so
that the total density averages no more than six (6) units per net developable acre.”
3. Page 8.7: Villages: Village of Rivanna:
Change: “When new villages are designated or existing villages expanded, the decision should take into
consideration ways to protect surrounding properties. In particular, the impact of the plan on existing
development should be emphasized. It is expected that consideration will be given to the needs and
wishes of those persons already living and owning property in the area. Any development near the
boundaries of a village should be sensitive to the existing character of the surrounding Rural Area.
2 of 2
Attachment M
BOS 10-7-14
To: “When new villages are designated or the boundaries of existing villages are expanded, major
consideration must be given to protecting surrounding properties from the impacts of high density
development. The impact of the plan on existing development should be sensitive to the character of
surrounding Rural Areas and major consideration given to the needs and wishes of those persons already
living and owning property in the area. The effect on existing transportation infrastructure should also be a
major consideration in planning the development.”
4. Page 8.9: Objective 1, Strategy 1a.
Change: “The (master) plans are updated approximately every five years. Community Advisory Councils,
appointed by the Board of Supervisors, provide the venue for updates to the Plan. As with the
development of the Master Plans, the County’s Growth Management Policy will continue to play a strong
role in achieving Development Area densities that will help avoid development in the Rural Areas.”
To: “The (master) plans are updated approximately every five years. Community Advisory Councils,
appointed by the Board of Supervisors, will provide input for updates to the Plan. As with the
development of the Master Plans, the County’s Growth Management Policy will continue to play a strong
role in achieving Development Area densities that will help avoid development in the Rural Areas.”
5. Page 8.10
Change: “Encourage and support development at the higher end of the density range as recommended
on the Master Plans”
To: “Development at the higher end of the density range as recommended in the Master Plans should be
calculated on net developable acreage.”
6. Page 8.11, Strategy 2b
Change: “Work with developers to build at the higher end of the density range, provided that development
will be in keeping with design recommendations from the Neighborhood Model”
To: “Developers should be encouraged to build at the higher end of the density range on net developable
acreage, and such development must be in keeping with design recommendations from the
Neighborhood Model.”
7. Change: When new development is proposed through rezoning, density should not be valued higher
than good design; however, the best outcome is well-designed development at the highest density the
land and infrastructure can support”.
To: “Density is encouraged but in any new development, good design that incorporates pedestrian-scale
buildings and streetscapes and that is sensitive to its surroundings and to the environment must be given
most emphasis; the best outcome is well-designed, attractive development.”
The total capacity for additional dwelling units in development areas ranges from 13,370 to 29,075, as
shown in Figure 5. In Figure 4, the total residential units needed by 2020 and 2030 is shown as 6,423
and 14,895 respectively. Why not let the market dictate what developers are going to do? Just because
a development is approved at a higher density doesn’t mean that it is going to be developed at that level.
What is being accomplished here? By the County’s own figures, there is more than enough capacity
through 2030, without considering that many people will buy existing houses.
1 of 8
Attachment N
BOS 10-7-14
ATTACHMENT N
Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan
Planning Commission Recommendations, Additional Comments, and
Staff Suggestions
Background on Development of the Master Plan
In early 2012, staff began work on the last area in the Development Areas to be master planned. To
develop recommendations, staff relied heavily on the recommendations in the 1996 Land Use Plan and
input from two community meetings. This information was then provided to the Planning Commission for
their review on April 24, 2012. During the same time, work with the City and UVA on Area B
recommendations was taking place as well as traffic modeling for several potential connecting streets in
the southern neighborhoods. The Commission requested staff get additional input from the public o n the
recommended plan after Area B work and traffic modeling was complete. Input was gained at a meeting
that included both City and County residents and staff on November 29, 2012. The Planning Commission
developed its first draft of recommendations for these neighborhoods at their December 18, 2012
meeting. The Commission further refined its recommendations on February 12, 2013 and July 30, 2013
after hearing from the public.
Draft Master Plan
The Draft Master Plan recommended by the Planning Commission contains most of the
recommendations for land use and infrastructure from the 1996 Plan. The biggest differences are:
Identification of environmentally sensitive areas, parks, and green systems as areas for which
development is not recommended (similar to other Master Plans)
Identification of “centers” for consistency with the Neighborhood Model and other Master Plans
Updating land use categories for consistency with other Master Plans
Changes in the land use designation from Neighborhood Density Residential to Parks and Green
Systems for the Biscuit Run property
Mapping of Areas A and B in these neighborhoods with specific recommendations
Changes in land use designation for a 13-acre parcel (the Parham parcel, now known as Spring
Hill Village) from Urban Density Residential to Office/R&F/Flex/Light Industrial
Changes in the land use designation for Southwood Mobile Home Park from Neighborhood
Density Residential to Urban Density Residential
Changes in land use designation for Piedmont Virginia Community College for a parcel on Avon
Street Extended from Institutional to Urban Density Residential
Changes of properties near Galaxy Farm Roads from Urban Density Residential to Neighborhood
Density Residential
Acknowledgement of the Bent Creek Drive connector.
Modification of recommendations for the Southern Parkway connector and the Sunset-Fontaine
connector to acknowledge they will not be needed until after 2040, but right-of-way should be
secured, as possible, through by-right development for future needs. In the meantime, the right-
of-way for Sunset-Fontaine could be used for a street; however, the right-of-way for the Southern
Parkway should be available for trails and paths.
Expansion of the Development Area Boundary to include the Whittington development.
A comparison of the existing Land Use Plan and proposed Land Use Plan for the Southern and Western
Neighborhoods are provided on the following pages.
2 of 8
Attachment N
BOS 10-7-14
Existing Plan for Southern Neighborhoods
Proposed Plan for Southern Neighborhoods
3 of 8
Attachment N
BOS 10-7-14
Existing Plan for Western Neighborhoods Proposed Plan for Western Neighborhoods
4 of 8
Attachment N
BOS 10-7-14
Expansion of the Development Area
The only expansion of the Development Areas recommended by the Planning Commission was for the
Whittington subdivision. Adding this area required adding the Mosby Mountain subdivision and a small
portion of land north of Mosby Mountain. Adding these properties did not provide much additional area
for development; however, it did bring in existing and proposed developments that are served by public
utilities. The Plan contains text that recommends the Whittington development be kept at a density of 1
unit per 2 acres to reflect the existing zoning.
Concerns from the Public to the Planning Commission
Parham Parcel/Spring Hill Village
One of the largest concerns from the public had to do with recommendations for the Parham parcel. At
the time the Commission was developing the Master Plan, the County was also looking for sites for future
employers that would have good access to I-64. The Parham parcel is a 13-acre parcel, the location of
which is shown by a red star in the image on the following page. Currently, it has an Urban Density
Residential designation. The proposed plan shows the property as Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial.
Whittington Whittington
Proposed Land Use Plan Near Whittington Existing Land Use Plan Near Whittington
Mosby Mtn
Mosby Mtn
5 of 8
Attachment N
BOS 10-7-14
The neighbors asked that this property retain its Urban Density Residential designation. The Planning
Commission heard the neighbors concerns but, were persuaded that the County needed the land for
employment uses. The Commission made the following specific recommendation in the Plan:
The area between Rt. 20 South and Avon Street Extended (Figure 25), just north of
where the two roadways intersect is near the southern boundary with the Rural Area.
A large area of land designated for Office/R&D/Flex /Light Industrial use is bounded
on the north and south by urban density residential land. The Office/R&D/ Flex/Light
Industrial designated land is expected to be an area for further development,
especially to provide for light industrial uses and employment.
The Parham parcel, in particular, has a higher set of expectations. Currently an
undeveloped parcel, this property could be developed solely for
Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial for target industries or contain a mixture of uses,
including residential, but not including retail. The most important features for any
development of the Parham parcel include a pedestrian orientation, building and
spaces of human scale, relegated parking, and site planning that respects terrain. It is
especially important that sensitivity to the Entrance Corridor and adjacent residential
parcels be used when developing this parcel. Attention must be paid to building
Parham
Property
6 of 8
Attachment N
BOS 10-7-14
massing, scale, lighting, location of loading bays, and other aspects which might have
negative impacts on adjoining properties and properties in the area. Architectural
features, screening, and landscaping techniques should be used to help mitigate
impacts.
Most of the nearby residents were not in agreement and have asked that the Board retain the designation
for Urban Density Residential use.
Since the time that the Planning Commission made its recommendation, a new owner of the property has
gone through the rezoning process for Spring Hill Village with the Planning Commission. The proposed
project primarily is made up of residential uses; however, 10,000 – 60,000 square feet would be available
for non-residential uses, including retail, office, and manufacturing. On August 19, 2014, the
Commission voted to recommend approval of the development.
The Board is scheduled to hear the rezoning request on October 8 and may wish to consider the
appropriateness of the land use designation at that time. In its present form, the proposal conforms with
the recommendations in the current Comprehensive Plan and to the Neighborhood Model.
Another major concern from the public was the possibility of expanding the Development Areas to include
Somerset Farm. This 620 acre property is located to the east of the existing Southern Development Area
boundary – Route 20 – and part of the
land includes Carter Mountain. It is
shown in the orange color in the image to
the left. The applicant’s proposed road
network is also shown in the image.
Somerset Farm consists of 16 parcels
and approximately half of the acreage
was proposed for development. The
remaining part was proposed for open
space. (More information on Somerset
Farm can be found in the October 11,
2011 staff report.) The Planning
Commission did not view a current need
to expand the Development Area at this
time, so they did not include Somerset
Farm in the Master Plan
recommendations.
Additional Concerns from the Public
to the Board of Supervisors
Two other large areas of concern were
voiced at the community meeting on July
24, 2014. These concerns were for the
County-owned properties near Monticello
Fire Rescue Station and the need for
advancing construction of transportation
improvements.
7 of 8
Attachment N
BOS 10-7-14
County-owned Properties near Monticello Fire Rescue Station
County-owned properties are outlined in pink in the illustrations below and recommended for institutional
use on the Land Use Plan for the Master Plan.
These 4 properties are located southeast of Mill Creek Dr and northwest of Rt. 20 South.
In July 2013, the Board of Supervisors began a discussion on future locations for solid waste
convenience centers. One location suggested by staff for a convenience center was on one of the
County-owned parcels adjacent to the Monticello Fire Rescue Station. After the July 2013 meeting, the
public began to get involved and input on whether to locate such a facility near the Monticello Fire Rescue
Station was overwhelmingly against the proposal. In January 2013, the Board of Supervisors set aside
decision-making on any convenience centers until additional information related to solid waste
management policies could be provided and discussed.
Since the meeting, residents in the Southern Neighborhoods have continued to voice concerns for the
future use of the County-owned properties and this was a topic for input at the community meeting held
on July 24, 2014. The Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan does not call out a specific use
for the County owned property, although it’s institutional designation reflects and expectation for a public
use. Recommendations from the public include:
Community gardens
Library
Community center
Pool
Library
Nature center
Walking trails with connections to the T.J. Monticello trail (Saunders Trail), Biscuit Run State
Park, and Piedmont Virginia Community College
Tech center/computer center
Park/recreational facility/playground
Combine Food Lion Center with County Center to have once center on Mill Creek Drive to act as
Town Center
Monticello HS Monticello HS
Rt. 20 S Rt. 20 S
County-owned Properties
8 of 8
Attachment N
BOS 10-7-14
One theme related to these uses is the need to develop a specific plan in conjunction with residents and
property owners. The plan should reflect a “town center,” be attractive, function well with the
neighborhoods, and be walkable.
At this juncture, more planning and input is needed before suggesting any specific uses for the property in
the Plan. To help with future decision-making, the Board may want to consider this as a location for a
future small area plan. Small area plans have been recommended in other Master Plans to help identify
more specific design, use, and transportation functions needed for a particular area. To do this, the Board
would need to add a strategy to develop a small area plan and provide text for any particular expectations
for the area or items that should be studied for the area.
Transportation Improvements
Residents from the neighborhoods also voiced concern about the current transportation network. They
identified several intersection improvements needed , as well as a need and desire for additional bus
service, crosswalks, bike lanes, sidewalks, multi-purpose trails in greenways, guardrails, interchange, and
bridge improvements. Most of these improvements are identified in the Plan and listed in the
implementation table which is provided at the end of this attachment. The residents’ concerns are similar
to those of other Albemarle citizens: they would like to see the improvements made sooner rather than
later. The timing and level of investment in infrastructure are decisions made by the Board.
Inadvertent Omissions from the Plan
Two items were inadvertently omitted from the Master Plan that was posted on-line for the March 2014
public hearing. They were both added to the on-line version of the Plan in late August 2014. The
Implementation Table was reviewed by the Planning Commission in July 2013 and recommended for
inclusion in the Master Plan. The second item is a reference document for the Plan – the 2008 Ivy Road
Improvement Study PACC Report. This report updates items that are needed to complete the Ivy Road
project that was endorsed by PACC in 1994. Both of the items will be added to the final draft of the
Master Plan.
Attachment O – 10-7-14 BOS Meeting page 1 of 6
ATTACHMENT O
Pete Caramanis/Brian Roy CPA Request for Woolen Mills
Over the last two years, Pete Caramanis and Brian Roy have been meeting with staff to discuss the
potential redevelopment of the historic Woolen Mills buildings in the Woolen Mills area of the County.
This area is on the County’s eastern border with the City of Charlottesville at the end of East Market
Street and near Broadway Street. It contains a mixture of industrial uses and residential uses. The old
mill buildings are landmark features of the Woolen Mills National Register Historic District. The property is
in the Southern Neighborhood.
On September 2, 2014, Mr. Caramanis and Mr. Roy, as contract purchaser for the property, made
application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to change the land use designation from
Industrial Service to Transitional. (The Transitional category currently exists in the Comprehensive Plan
but is being phased out with the new Land Use Guidelines.) In reality, the applicants would like to have
the ability to use the property residentially, commercially, and industrially, as a mixed use project. The
recommended land use designation, Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial, does not allow a majority of the
property to be used residentially. The applicants would like to have that option and, accordingly, have
asked for a different designation.
The property is outlined in a purplish/pink color in the map below. The blue area represents the known
extent of the floodplain.
This property has potential for historic preservation, economic development, parks and greenways, and
environmental preservation. It has been expected to be part of the area studied with the joint City-County
Rivanna River Corridor Project. Expectations for future use also need to be considered in conjunction with
the County’s economic development activities. It has been County policy to retain existing zoned
industrial land for future employment uses. The changes contemplated by the applicants may or may not
be able to accomplish provision of employment opportunities within the County’s desires to support target
industries.
Attachment O – 10-7-14 BOS Meeting page 2 of 6
As mentioned in the Executive Summary, the Board has traditionally not entertained CPA applications
within six months of the expected adoption of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. This request falls on
the cusp of the expected time of adoption, which leaves several options for the Board. The first option
would be to advise the applicant that the application is premature and should not be considered until after
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, which includes Southern Neighborhoods Master Plan. The second
option would be to ask the Planning Commission to review the application as they would any new
application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The third option would be to ask the Commission to
see if it could provide general recommendations on the Woolen Mills area that could catch up with the
rest of the Comprehensive Plan as the review is completed by the Board.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the request be forwarded to the Planning Commission for
review and recommendation for possible inclusion in the Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master
Plan should the Commission complete its review for the Board’s consideration before the Board holds it
public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update. Coordination with the County’s Economic
Development Office should play a key role in the development of recommendations by the Commission.
Attachment O – 10-7-14 BOS Meeting page 3 of 6
Attachment O – 10-7-14 BOS Meeting page 4 of 6
Attachment O – 10-7-14 BOS Meeting page 5 of 6
Attachment O – 10-7-14 BOS Meeting page 6 of 6
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 1
FINAL MINUTES
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 11, 2011
A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 11,
2011, at 6:00 p.m., Room #241, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Ed Smith, Linda Porterfield, Don Franco, Thomas Loach,
and Calvin Morris, Vice Chair. Commissioners absent was Duane Zobrist, Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia (Ex-officio), was absent.
In a transactional disclosure statement Mr. Zobrist recused and disqualified himself from CPA-2010-0001
Comprehensive Plan Update Expansion Area Request – Development Area 5 – Redfields.
Other officials present were Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Community
Development; Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; and Andy
Herrick, Assistant County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Vice Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Committee Reports
Mr. Morris invited committee reports. There being none, the meeting moved to the next item.
Matters from the Public not Listed on the Agenda:
Mr. Morris invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none,
the meeting proceeded to the next item.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting – October 5, 2011
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on October 5, 2011.
Consent Agenda:
Approval of minutes: July 26, 2010
Mr. Morris asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda for further
review.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded for acceptance of the consent agenda as
presented.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris said the consent agenda was approved.
Work Session:
CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update
Work session on Demographics, Capacity Analysis, and Expansion Area Requests (Elaine Echols)
Purpose: The Planning Commission held a work session to review and discuss three areas of
importance to the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update, as follows:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 2
FINAL MINUTES
1. Current demographic and land use information
2. Trends and projections for future populations; land capacity for growth
3. Requests for expansions of the Development Areas
Mr. Morris noted that this evening he would ask the staff to discuss sections 1 and 2, the overall picture of
what they are looking at with the comprehensive plan. They would then discuss it as a Commission,
open it up to the public so the public can focus on that area, and then bring it back, discuss it, and give
staff any feedback that they might want. Then on section 3 there are about 12 specific items that they
want to look at individually. All of those items will be covered by staff. The Commission will open it up for
public discussion and then bring it back to the Commission for discussion. The public as well as the
Commission will have a chance to digest this thing in smaller bites.
Ms. Echols said they have been working on the comp plan quite a bit lately more in a regional sense with
the city. Now they are getting into the County’s comp plan update. This is the first meeting where staff is
going to be bringing the Commission background information that relates to future decisions. They want
to go over the demographic information provided in the staff report, talk a little bit about trends,
projections for population, the capacity they have for growth, and then go over the requests that have
been made for expansion for the development areas boundaries.
Parts 1 and 2: Current Demographics and Future Projections, Trends and Capacity
Ms. Echols presented PowerPoint presentation on Section 1 on demographic changes which will inform
the work with the comprehensive plan. The Commission held a discussion with staff, received no public
comment, and provided comments and feedback to staff.
Ms. Echols noted that Mr. Sorrell had put together a notebook concerning the capacity analysis with
provisional numbers.
Mr. Sorrell continued the PowerPoint presentation on Part 2 Trends and Projections highlighting the major
elements of current county demographics and what future projections were expected to be. Staff next
compared the projected population and need to land supply and residential capacity to show how the
County’s future residential need could be accommodated by our current land supply. Staff presented the
methodology for calculating the housing needs of future populations and a capacity analysis on the ability
of the undeveloped land to provide for future residential growth. The capacity analysis indicated that
there is sufficient developable land area on zoned parcels as well as designated parcels on the land use
plan to accommodate anticipated residential demand through 2030. The Commission held a discussion
with staff, received public comment, and provided comments and feedback to staff.
The Commission then had several questions and comments for staff.
· Don Franco –
o Would like to see a breakdown by dwelling unit types in the approved rezonings since
2001 that have not been built (expand upon information in Table 6). This would help in
unit type projections which we do not have now. The biggest competition between the
growth area and rural area is going to be the single-family detached numbers.
o In charts 6 and 7 he was looking for the historic information to get an idea of how they are
doing. There was some value in breaking down the price points.
o Asked how non-residential land area was backed out of the “land available for residential
development” column in Table 2.
o Asked what type of development are we producing now and stated that he did not believe
we are currently producing the higher densities the Comprehensive Plan desires.
o Asked what the metrics were for measuring success or failure in the future – is it less
dwellings in the Rural Areas? What do we use to measure success or failure?
· Tom Loach-
o Questioned the development in the rural section. The 35 percent average of
development in the rural growth area is a significant number since they are talking about
one-third.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 3
FINAL MINUTES
The Commission next opened the floor for public comment on Parts 1 and 2.
Public Comment on Parts 1 and 2:
· Morgan Butler, with Southern Environmental Law Center, stated that the capacity analysis was
conservative in its estimation of buildable lands. The analysis did not include a look at potentially
redevelopable land or the demand for dwelling units in the Rural Area. The analysis backed out
all critical slope and stream buffer land on potentially buildable land, but the county could grant
waivers to use these areas.
· Jo Higgins stated that the density planned when developments have been rezoned over the last
10 years is not being achieved. Rezonings approved an upper limit but did not set a lower-limit
floor.
· Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, said the concurrency of infrastructure is important.
Expansions make sense where utilities already exist or are nearby. He also requested the
Commission to consider how they measure success of growth in the Development Areas (and
non-growth in the Rural Areas).
· Jeff Werner pointed out the average persons per unit multiplier used (2.19) is very conservative
and should be higher. He stated that people moving to the Rural Areas are moving to the RA to
be there not to be in some type of country suburbia.
· Steve Blaine cautioned the Commission to rely upon on staff’s supply and need analysis because
historically central governments have done a poor job of predicting future need.
· Scott Collins stated that if the Commission waits 10-20 years to include property within
Development Areas that is close to it now, it is likely such property will develop by-right and lose
the chance to accommodate greater density. The result would be “leap-frogging” to other parcels
further away from DA boundaries that would result in a less-compact development and utilities
pushed further out.
Requests for expansions of the Development Areas
Part 3: Expansion Area Requests
Ms. Echols continued with a PowerPoint presentation entitled, “To Expand or Not to Expand … that is the
question”, that highlighted expansion area request in Development 7, Hollymead, Pantops, Development
Areas 4 & 5 and the Shadwell interchange area. Section 3 of the report contained analysis of individual
requests for inclusion in the Development Areas.
· Staff noted that more up-to-date information was going to be presented for the Redfields request,
since the staff report that went out to the Commission was not correct due to the Zoning Map
Amendment request preceding the Expansion Area request.
· They hear a lot about the figure of 5 percent and wonder where did it come from and what does it
actually mean. In the staff report it was a matter of things just worked out that way. It has
become a convenient way to convey our goals for the county – 95% undeveloped and 5%
developed. Sometimes they look at that in terms do they want to retain that 5%. The question
should be rephrased more about what they want to have for future residential capacity rather than
land area and see how that all works out.
· Staff proposed in the staff report some modifications of the boundaries, as follows.
One area to be removed relates to Biscuit Run and the Forest Lodge property for which a conservation
easement has been requested.
Biscuit Run’s Effect on the 5%
• Proposed staff revisions = 298 ac. net reduction in DA
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 4
FINAL MINUTES
• Leaving 22,113 acres in DA
• Removal of majority of BR still permits 5.0% DA
Currently: 23, 411 / 464,623 = 5.0% (5.04%)
Reductions: Polo grounds (southern end of 4) 85 acres, BR 561 acres out of 5 = 646 acres
23, 411 – 646 = 22,765 / 464,623 = 4.9% (4.90%)
Additions: Whittington 199 acres, 110 acres Mosby Mountain (what is not in already), 16 acres between
Mosby Mnt. & Redfields and 23 acres of Redfields already in lots = 348 acres
22,765 + 348 = 22, 113 / 464,623 = 5.0% (4.97%)
22,113 is a net reduction
Note: proposed to keep the 231 acres of BR in 4 in due to Breeden property & possibility of public utilities
need for BR property for cabins and etc.
Expansion Area Requests
• Neighborhood 7 on Barracks Road – There are three development area requests outside of that
area.
• Hollymead –Polo Grounds Road
• Pantops – Route 20 North
• Neighborhoods 4 & 5 – Redfields, Somerset Farm -
• Shadwell – Rt. 250 East and Interchange with I-64
The Expansion Area Requests, in this order, are as follows:
• Neighborhood 7 – These Barracks Road requests are not recommended because they are in
the drinking water supply watershed.
• Hollymead – This request on Polo Grounds Road is not recommended due to environmental
impacts.
• Pantops – These two requests might have value if improvements to Rt. 20 and 250 can be made
and sewer extension issues are dealt with.
• Neighborhoods 4 & 5 – Redfields is not recommended for approval. Somerset Farm may have
value if the historic, cultural, and environmental features are respected in conjunction with a
development proposal.
• Shadwell – The request is non-residential in nature. (We are recommending further study of this
area after the Target Industry Study and the area will be larger than shown on the map, at least
for study.)
Other Changes Recommended by Staff
• Biscuit Run – Boundary reduction – Rt. 20 South
• Whittington and Mosby Mountain – Old Lynchburg Road
Neighborhood 7 Expansion Area Requests
Morris, Montvue and Ingleridge Farm
1. Morris parcel – interesting question, between existing townhouse development, undeveloped
land, and then an apartment complex. Across the street from the Colonnades. To bring it into
the DA would mean a change in the water supply watershed boundary to the west. Understand
the applicant’s desire is for more than a residential use. Staff cannot recommend.
2. Montvue is further out on Barracks Road. It has some greater environmental constraints than
Morris does. It also has an historic structure on it. The request is for low density residential.
3. The third request on Barracks Road has to do with the Ingleridge Farm. It has a few of the same
issues environmental constraints. It is located in the rural areas and adjacent to a conservation
easement.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 5
FINAL MINUTES
Neighborhood 7 Issues are fairly significant in terms of a policy shift.
• Water Supply Watershed – (Note: Ms. Higgins supplied information today on the water supply
watershed.)
• Barracks Rd Improvements
• Environmental and historic features
• How far do you go into the Rural Areas?
Mr. Morris asked as they go further out would they be taking everything from the current boundary of the
development area out to the new area. He asked would that all be included in the new development
area.
Ms. Echols replied that it had to be a contiguous area. .
Polo Grounds Road – Hollymead Expansion Area - Neighborhood 2
The request is for a piece of land between the two development areas of Neighborhood 2 and Hollymead.
Environmental Features and Tree Cover for the Polo Grounds Request was described as an area of
steep slopes with a fair amount of tree cover. There are advantages in keeping the forest cover on that
land for water resources. Staff does not believe this one is a good candidate for expansion due to the
following reasons:
Polo Grounds Road – Hollymead Issues
• Confluence of Rivanna River and Powell Creek
• Polo Grounds Rd. Improvements
• Water resources and forest cover
• Difficulty creating NMD-type development
Pantops
There are two properties:
1. Clara Belle Wheeler property, which formerly was in the development areas. It came out at what
they thought was the request of the owner of the property. The owner of the property said she
wanted to be back in the development areas before the Pantops Master Plan was adopted.
However, at that point the Board decided to go ahead and leave the property out.
2. Franklin Farm – Vermillion – They made a request at the end of the Pantops Master Plan process
to be brought in.
Pantops: Environmental Features for Wheeler and Franklin Farm - Vermillion
• There is a stream buffer in this particular area. This parcel has a fair amount of buildable area if
the issue of access can be taken care of.
• The staff report talked about sewer problems. Staff got some conflicting reports as to how easy it
would be to provide sewer to both the Wheeler and the Franklin Farm property. That needs to be
researched more. Pete Gorham, with the Service Authority, indicated that providing sewer under
the Rivanna River is not as imposing as it sounds. However, there would have to be some kind of
sewer extension that would take place on each of these parcels in order for them to be
developed. If this is an area the Commission expresses an interest in getting more information
on, staff can bring that back.
Pantops Issues
• Historic Structures
• Need for Rt. 250 at Rt. 20 Improvements
• Potential Rt. 20 N Improvements
• Access for Franklin Farm
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 6
FINAL MINUTES
Neighborhoods 4 & 5
Redfields Expansion
· In a transactional disclosure statement Mr. Zobrist recused and disqualified himself from CPA-2010-
0001 Comprehensive Plan Update Expansion Area Request – Development Area 5 – Redfields.
Staff thanked Steve Blaine for pointing out some problems and issues with the staff report. Staff did err in
the report provided to the Commission. When staff did the analysis, they were writing the report at the
same time the ZMA report was being done. The CPA analysis got behind the ZMA report. Staff missed
some things that should have been caught. Staff wants to provide a more up-to-date report on the
Redfields expansion.
Last week the Planning Commission made a decision not to recommend approval of the rezoning. That
does not presuppose that the Comprehensive Plan decision has been made. The CPA stands alone.
The Commission’s decision needs to be on the CPA and not on the rezoning. The rezoning proposal has
some influence over it because they can see what is proposed.
Redfields Issues to Consider:
• The CPA stands alone
• Open space for use by residents
• Streams and slopes
• Value as an RA parcel
• Access
• Neighborhood Model Principles
• Adjacencies
Redfields - Value for Rural Areas
• Provides a conservation area for animal and plant habitat.
• A rural area stream will be affected by the crossing; critical slopes may also be affected with the
development.
• Provides for low-impact recreational use to nearby residents.
Value for Development Areas
• Adds units in an area between existing residential developments with old zoning
• Has utilities
• Can meet some of the principles of the Neighborhood Model
Factors Favorable and Unfavorable
Favorable
• Is adjacent to the Development Area and to PRD zoning.
• Near major highway access and utilities.
• Available land for development is used as intensively as possible.
• Utilities are available.
• The applicant is proposing the highest density on the buildable part of the land.
Unfavorable
• One way in and one way out of this property
• In looking at the potential to connect to the adjoining properties where there is a stub out that
piece of property is in the rural areas right now. That would be something that needs to be
looked into.
• Sunset Avenue is substandard in design and alignment and not upgrades are planned for or
funded. The additional traffic on Sunset Avenue would need to be considered. This is an issue
to be considered because they have substantial infrastructure in a number of places in the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 7
FINAL MINUTES
development areas now.
• Open space/trails that the community has been using will no longer be available.
• New trails are proposed in the area which could otherwise not be developed.
• The community of Redfields would be losing something that is fairly valuable and also provides a
rural area function of conservation.
Staff Recommendation
• Still cannot recommend approval because of the current function of the property for conservation,
slope preservation, and stream quality.
• If the Planning Commission wishes to expand in this area, staff recommends less impact to
critical slopes.
In the rezoning proposal the Commission saw a development plan that was not on the critical slopes.
However, staff believes that critical slopes would still be affected by the development proposal. Staff
would like some considerations given to the amenities that would be provided. Right now the trails
provide a significant amenity to the Redfields development and the trails that would be proposed really
are some difficult trails that would not be the same kind of amenity that they have right now because of
the steepness of the slopes.
Somerset Farm
Proposed Use:
• Up to 1902 units
• 2 centers
• 350K sq. ft. office and commercial
• No dev. Above 700’ elevation
Somerset Farm Issues to Consider:
• Approximately 273 Acres are buildable
• Within historic district; adjacent to Ag-For District and conservation easement
• Transportation improvements needed that would be similar to improvements for which money
was proffered in Biscuit Run
• Water service may be problematic because of the ability to serve at higher elevations.
• Historic structures on-site
• Can meet Neighbor Model Principles
• Would need to provide for extensive preservation on rest of 710 acres
• Current boundary of Rt. 20 forms a very visible edge between Rural Areas and Development
Areas
Staff Recommendation
• Still can’t recommend approval because of the current function of the property for conservation,
slope preservation, and stream quality.
• If the Planning Commission wishes to expand in this area, staff recommends less impact to
slopes. The development rights could potentially be eliminated at the top of the slopes. There
may be a good value for getting that for the development areas, again, if they need more
capacity.
Other Changes Recommended
Shadwell Interchange
- Chavan request is for designation to allow for mini-warehouses. There are issues to consider
since it is an economic development opportunity.
Shadwell Interchange Area Zoning
- The old zoning creates some large issues.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 8
FINAL MINUTES
- Staff is recommending this whole area be considered for possible expansion area potential since
it might provide areas to meet economic goals and worthly of discussion.
Decisions
• Does the Commission believe expansion is appropriate?
• If so, which areas, if any, deserve more study?
The Commission then had several questions for staff.
· Don Franco -
o Reiterated that he would like to see the dwelling unit types that were planned in the
rezoning projects that have unbuilt dwelling units within them.
o Also stated he would like to see how the unit type capacity in our Rural Areas compared
to the unit type capacity that has already been approved in rezoning projects –
specifically, how does the number of single-family detached dwellings we have approved
capacity for compare to what the trend is for such units in the Rural Areas.
o Stated the “Leap Frog” effect mentioned in public comment was an interesting point for
consideration.
o Indicated he liked a larger person per unit multiplier – such as the number Charlottesville
uses.
o Reiterated the need to understand how we measure success.
· Tom Loach –
o Responding to the public comment about “Leap-frogging”, stated that the County has
failed to provide the needed infrastructure to support the Development Areas
o Stated that with the large amount of additional residential capacity that we currently have,
we should use this time to better plan for infrastructure improvements.
· Linda Porterfield -
o Would also like to know what the number of dwelling unit types are that have been
approved in rezonings.
o Also stated that she would like to know the current number of vacant existing dwelling
units.
o Asked what services the County could really afford to provide in the Development Areas
to accommodate the existing inventory of approved yet unbuilt dwelling units.
· Tom Loach -
o Does not support the expansion requests to that are in the watershed areas
o Stated that we need to look at a more micro, community level rather than the macro
Places 29 level.
o Did not feel that any expansions were warranted at this time.
· Don Franco –
o Indicated that he needs more information (info he has requested at this meeting) before
he would be comfortable in making a decision on the expansion area request.
o Stated that rather than maximum facility, we should be looking at the “practical capacity.”
· Tom Loach –
o Stated that with the impact that expansions would have on county services, it was
important to have the Board of Supervisors weigh-in on the expansion request and if
there was going to be enough funding in the CIP to cover needed infrastructure
improvements.
· Cal Morris –
o If the Redfields expansion request was appropriate, could the DA boundary connect
differently from Mosby Mountain to Redfields?
o Also stated that the Polo Grounds Road expansion request was problematic with the road
issues.
o The Pantops requests appeared to merit further study, but providing utilities may be
difficult due to past issues in the area.
· Linda Porterfield –
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 9
FINAL MINUTES
o Indicated she was hesitant to expand the development boundaries without knowing who
and how the needed road improvements would be handled. Stated that we need to fix
the road and traffic issues we have now before considering adding more land area to our
Development Areas.
The Commission took at short break at 7:42 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:50 p.m. and
returned to accept public comment on Part 3.
Public Comment on Part 3:
· Jack Vermillion said he was the applicant for the Franklin Farm request and that while he had no
plans to develop the property at this time, he was surrounded by development and when his well
was damaged he had to get a special exception to have his home connected to public water. He
said he wished he had never suggested the County remove the property from the Development
Area as had occurred at his request years ago.
· Steve Blaine, representative for the Redfields expansion request, stated that it was inappropriate
to consider expanding the Development Area to include Whittington and Mosby Mountain and not
include the Redfields property which has public water and sewer.
· Nick Leveritt, representative for Wintergreen Land Trust, stated that they would like to include all
of the remaining land of the Wintergreen Land Trust into the development area (a portion of it is in
right now).
· Scott Collins, representative for the Somerset Farm expansion request, stated that the property
is close to transportation corridors and the City and there are utilities nearby.
· Christina Parker, Redfields resident, indicated opposition to the Redfields expansion request.
· Wendell Wood, developer of Somerset Farms, stated that the property was within walking
distance to a several schools and the fire station. He also stated that the property did have the
ability to connection to public utilities.
· Susan Murphy, Redfields resident, indicated opposition to the Redfields expansion request.
· Cathy Cassidy, Redfields resident, indicated opposition to the Redfields expansion request.
· Marcia Joseph, another representative for Redfields, indicated that the property was private and
the developer could put up a fence if they desired. She stated that the property’s relationship to
the rural areas was important and that it also makes sense to put the adjacent Wintergreen Land
Trust Property in the Development Area.
· Jo Higgins, representative for the Polo Grounds Road expansion request, stated that the property
was surrounded by development and there were a lot of amenities that the county could get if the
property was developed.
· Jeff Warner stated that the County shouldn’t be considering expansions if it cannot fund existing
transportation improvements.
· Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, reminded the Commission that they are the body
that reviews and considers expansions of the development area boundaries not other advisory
boards.
· Jo Higgins, representative for Ingleridge and Montvue expansions, stated that development was
adjacent to it on the north and east and that it was suited to rural farmette type lots of 2 acres.
Not including it in the Development Areas would be an opportunity lost.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the request back to
the Planning Commission for discussion and possible action. He asked exactly what staff expects the
Planning Commission to do tonight and if and when would these things be brought up again.
Ms. Echols replied that staff hoped the Commission might be able to advise them on whether or not they
wanted to do expansions of the development areas. The Commission has not answered that question,
but has listened to the requests. She also heard from at least one commissioner that more information is
needed before they can answer the question on whether or not they want to recommend expanding the
development areas. She thought at this junction what she would like to get is the list of questions the
Commission wants answers for and then they will bring back the answers to them and they can advise
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 10
FINAL MINUTES
staff on how they want to deal with the expansion area requests.
Ms. Porterfield asked if staff has a feel for when that would happen. She thought that for the people who
came to speak from some of the areas that it would help if they had a clue. It did not have to be a specific
date, but whether staff was talking about a few months or three weeks.
Ms. Echols noted as she made a list of the questions the Commission wants answers for she thinks they
need to look at how much time that will take to get those answers. The information she heard that the
Commission asked for is as follows:
1. Information on the housing mix that is on the market in relation to the hole.
2. How well the zoning is maxing out its density.
3. A matrix on the mix of units that have been approved by a rezoning (Table 6).
4. Something that is more up to date on the rural area capacity,
5. The type of density that is being achieved in Charlotesville.
6. The single-family detached housing in the rural areas versus the development areas broken down
by value, if possible.
7. Several minor changes in the tables suggested by Mr. Lafferty.
8. What the metrics are for measuring success of our policies or plans.
9. How well the County is providing the amenities to the current development areas where the
problems are currently that are not being addressed. Specific areas would be as far as
transportation, the numbers of police, etc. The Commission wanted to know what infrastructure
improvements are needed just to serve the developments that already exist. The big question is
the infrastructure on any of the 12, or possibly 13, expansion requests.
Ms. Echols asked if she missed anything.
Mr. Franco said the only thing he was still looking for would be in staff’s opinion how they would measure
or what are the metrics for measuring success of our policies or plans. He asked if it was the number of
units in the rural area, the amount of acreage lost to development in the rural areas or density that they
achieve in the growth areas. What are the future metrics?
Ms. Echols replied that those are the things that the Livability Project is working on.
Mr. Franco said that is something they need to be considering during their project as well.
Ms. Echols agreed.
Ms. Porterfield added also how well the County is providing amenities to the current development areas
where there are problems that are not being addressed. Specific areas could be as far as transportation
goes, the numbers of police, and do they need more fire stations. Are there certain things that they are
behind on and what is the chance of catching up on that?
Ms. Echols replied the way she worded that was the Commission wanted to know what infrastructure
improvements are needed just to serve the developments that already exist.
Ms. Porterfield agreed that would be great.
Mr. Loach noted they would have to project out the 8,000 units, too. They have to be included because
they have already been approved. Therefore, they ought to be factored in. As a matter of fact, they
should probably factor in the 35 percent expected in the rural area on top of that if that is the current
average. Irrespective whether are not it is supposed to be there they will be there and will have an impact
on the roads and infrastructure.
Mr. Morris said that infrastructure is the big question for any of the 12 or 13 expansion requests.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 11
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Franco asked staff to speak briefly on the overall big process. He heard people asking where they
were going from here. He knows it is a slow process and not a decision that is going to be made this
month or year. He asked staff to explain in general that timeline.
Ms. Echols replied that their goal in CPA-2013-1 is to have something to the Board of Supervisors by
January, 2013 that they could potentially adopt. This is a very small piece of the whole.
Mr. Morris asked for staff’s benefit that the Commission go down the list by areas and get a sense of
where the Commission is right now on how strong they feel they should be looking further at areas in NH
7.
- The Planning Commission discussed and did not support expansions areas in Neighborhood 7.
One question was how the Western Bypas would affect this area.
- The Planning Commission did not support the Polo Grounds Road expansion.
Mr. Morris asked for thoughts on Pantops that included Franklin and the Wheeler area.
Mr. Franco said that he did not have strong feelings on either one.
Ms. Porterfield said she was scared to death to have anything else that is going through Pantops right
now. The Village of Rivanna Master Plan is written saying that they have to do something with Route
250. This is part of Route 250 essentially.
Mr. Smith said he did not know how much development could be done on the Franklin property by right.
Mr. Morris replied that he thought it was five.
Ms. Echols replied she did not know since it depends on how many development rights are in that area.
Mr. Smith noted that the owner is not interested in doing the development himself, but just wanted it
included. He was in favor of including Franklin.
Mr. Morris said as far as the Wheeler property was concerned, it was in there in the beginning and could
be put back in. It is not needed. As far as the Franklin property, they heard Mr. Vermillion say why he
wants to include it.
Mr. Loach said that he was against including Franklin and Wheeler properties.
Mr. Lafferty supported the Franklin property.
Mr. Morris advanced to Neighborhoods 4 and 5, which was Redfields and the Sommerset Farm.
Mr. Franco questioned what the benefit is. He thought that the staff report to date has said Sommerset
has a lot of advantages and disadvantages. He thought it warrants additional study. He thought
Redfields warrants additional study, but he could not support the density that was proposed last time in
the location within the neighborhood and everything else. There was too much density proposed at the
back of the subdivision. He thought something back there with less of an impact that provides final
resolution to that privately owned land would be a benefit to the community.
Ms. Porterfield suggested Sommerset Farm because it offers both residential and commercial with two
centers that it be moved into the study of the interchanges because it does have interchange access.
Along with that she recommended that the Chavan property in the Scottsville District move into the
interchange section. She thought they both were partially commercial or all commercial in the Chavan
case, and it would be more logical to discuss them knowing that the applications were not totally
residential. She could not support the Redfield proposal.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 12
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Smith said that Sommerset has a lot potential. He did not like the gross numbers that were there
since he felt it was too much. It depends on what the plan does. The utilities are in proximity. If not, they
make pumps and water tanks. He cannot support the Redfields proposal.
Mr. Morris and Mr. Loach both said they have no support.
Mr. Lafferty said they were basically talking about further study on Sommerset Farm. His position has not
changed on Redfields in non-support.
Mr. Morris noted that he assumed with Shadwell they were taking a look at that with the interchange.
Ms. Porterfield said if everyone agreed she felt Shadwell was logical and made sense to be studied with
the interchanges.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out he would not put Sommerset in the interchange study.
Ms. Porterfield replied that she was just saying that since it has commercial in it.
Mr. Lafferty said that it should be independent.
Ms. Porterfield noted it should go with the majority.
Mr. Loach understood with the interchange the commercial was supposed to be low impact and not using
water and sewer. It was for low employment centers and mostly for parking, etc.
Mr. Cilimberg said the way the interchange was described in the economic development plan and
priorities in the economic vitality action plan was to view them where public utilities were not available as
potential areas to support rural agricultural or supplement with potential rural industrial type of use. In this
case he thought they have little different circumstance. In this interchange because there is public water
it is directly adjacent to the development area. So there are areas including the Chavan property that
may actually merit some look as they relate to the development area as well as the interchange. It is a
little different circumstance than the other interchanges that they are going to be looking at as part of the
Interstate Interchange Policy.
Ms. Porterfield said that it also does not say that they can’t look at the interchanges a little bit differently,
too. Obviously, they are a bit down the pike from having started that process. They are also looking at
another financial problem for the County and are already saying that they are not going to meet the
budgetary amount they need again and are going to have to do some cutbacks. It makes sense to start
looking at interchanges as potential areas to bring businesses that could generate income for the County
other than just property tax. The reason she suggests Sommerset Farm is because it has an interchange
that serves it. That is why it might be something they might want to look at both ways at that point.
Mr. Morris asked staff does that help at all.
Ms. Echols replied that it all depends. There was at least one Commissioner supporting everything
except Ingleridge and Montvue. She did not know what to do with that. She did not know if that means
that everything but Montvue and Ingleridge there should be further study on that or if there was some kind
of majority that was being taken here that would suggest that they only go with what the majority wants.
Mr. Loach pointed out this was a question first for the Board of Supervisors to give us some direction
where they should consider expansion in view of the financial status of the County. This is going to add
on to that financial obligation. As far as infrastructure do they have money for roads, what is the future of
the road, and what does the six-year plan look like. He thought they need some information before he
was willing to consider the expansions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 13
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Porterfield said her personal opinion is they don’t need any more residential right now. She was
basically saying she could live without all of the residential applications. The only two she suggested
moving forward were because they have opportunity for commercial. That is a whole different ballgame
than simply talking about property tax. She thought that they have plenty of residential right now.
Somebody mentioned the fact that they need to make a decision as to what they really need. As Mr.
Franco said before, what they may really need are bigger parcels in the development area so that they
can figure out how to get people who might move into the rural area to stay in the development area.
That is a whole different ballgame than anything that is being offered to the Commission tonight.
Mr. Morris asked if there was anything else. He thought Ms. Porterfield hit it right on the head. It seems
that those people who had requested inclusion into the development area need a fair hearing from his
point of view. However, he would agree that based upon the figures they don’t need any more residential
at this particular time or probably for the next five to ten years.
Ms. Echols asked if the Commission was saying that all but those two they should bring back additional
information on, or did the Commission want to vote on whether or not they would bring additional
information back for any on the list.
Ms. Porterfield said she was willing to put a motion on the table.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved that based on the information provided by staff the County does not need
any more residential development at this point and for at least five additional years, they do not need to
study these applications anymore.
Mr. Loach seconded the motion.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that they go back to the list so they were clear. When they say these
applications are they referring to the five bullets in the presentation. He asked if it was the first four
bullets basically.
Ms. Porterfield replied that was correct that it was the first four bullets.
Mr. Morris noted that a motion and second was on the floor. He asked for discussion.
Mr. Franco said he was still nervous about making a decision without having the final data. He was
concerned that single-family detached may be a hole in the analysis at this point. He would like to see
that before everything is thrown out.
Mr. Lafferty asked to give Mr. Franco what he wants on how much delay are they talking about to have a
refinement in the figures.
Ms. Echols asked Mr. Franco if he was saying that he wants to see the metrics on the mix of units that
have been approved by a rezoning and something in relation to the rural areas, the demand in the rural
areas for single-family detached versus in the development areas how much supply they are providing
right now for detached
Mr. Franco replied yes that it was along those lines that they keep talking about the projects in the
pipeline. It would be looking at those and figuring out what that product mix is so they can better
understand what is coming down the pipeline as far as single-family detached goes. Then they can sit
down and look at what the past needs have been, which starts to tell him whether there is an adequate
supply of that or not.
Mr. Cilimberg reiterated that Mr. Franco’s interest there is to really have a feel for whether they have
enough opportunity for single-family detached in the planning period. He asked if that was really what he
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 14
FINAL MINUTES
was trying to get at since the market, as they know, is also changing. It is not what it was five or ten years
ago.
Mr. Franco replied yes, which was part of what Mr. Loach was asking for as far as the price points.
Mr. Loach said what he was trying to discern is why people are buying in the rural area versus in the
development area and be able to say in those two acre lots within certain price points. Then they could
see if there is anything they can do as far as changing them. He understands what he is saying as far as
in the growth area, but wondered in the 8,000 units how many would be single-family homes. With that
said he was not sure how they would extract out of that equation the change in market towards the
different types.
Mr. Franco thought they would get the stand alone in what he is asking for. They need the information
Mr. Loach was asking for as well or they have to make some assumptions about that. Right now he
does not have a good idea how many of those 8,000 units they have been talking about tonight are
single-family detached versus multi-family or townhouse. He thought the biggest competition for the rural
area house is a single-family detached house in the growth area. The percentage is changing, but that is
still the bigger component. Therefore, he would like to know how many of those are in the pipeline.
Mr. Morris asked Ms. Porterfield if she would entertain a motion to table her motion until this information is
gained.
Ms. Porterfield asked when they can get it. She asked if another work session is scheduled for this.
Ms. Echols replied that she did not have that information right now. The initial information on what is the
breakdown by unit on what has been rezoned won’t take long. That could be done in a couple of days.
Staff could probably get something out to the Commission in two weeks. As far as the price points that is
questionable.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out staff does not actually track that information.
Mr. Loach said he thought it was interesting what Mr. Franco was asking for. He did not think it changes
the equation overall what is available. It may give them some information on ways they may be able to
look at rural area development and make some impact on it within the growth area. But, he did not think
it was going to drastically change the capacity now as Ms. Porterfield said for five and possibly ten years.
He would recommend Ms. Porterfield go ahead with the resolution.
Mr. Smith said he would not support Ms. Porterfield’s motion because for five to ten years down the road
they certainly can’t ask these people to sit on their hands for that time period. He did not think any of
them knew the answer.
Ms. Porterfield suggested they vote on the motion. In reading the staff report it made her realize they
have more approved than they need. They may have gotten the wrong things approved. However, that
is the developer’s responsibility to then come back in and say they need to change what they asked for
because it was not selling and he wanted to do this or that. But to sit here and spend time and make the
residents of this County keep coming back to either support or fight a particular application that at this
point they really don’t need, she has problems with that. Not only do they not need it, but she is really
afraid that they can’t afford what they have already got. All they are going to do is lower the quality of life
of the people who live in Albemarle County, as Mr. Loach said. Based on that, she would ask to call the
question.
Mr. Morris asked that the motion be repeated.
Ms. Porterfield said the motion was that they do no further study on any of the expansion area requests
except for the Shadwell one that will move into the Interchange Study.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 15
FINAL MINUTES
The roll was called.
Mr. Lafferty voted aye. Given the report, which is an excellent report, he believed that they don’t need to
have any further expansion.
Mr. Loach vote aye.
Mr. Morris voted aye.
Mr. Smith vote no.
Ms. Porterfield voted aye.
Mr. Franco voted no. Without an understanding of the product types that are in the pipeline, he can’t
support the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:2. (Franco and Smith voted nay.)
In summary the following action was taken:
Vice-Chairman Morris polled each member on the expansion requests to the 5 areas discussed tonight
(DA 7, Hollymead, Pantops, DAs 4 & 5, and the Shadwell interchange) and each member was given an
opportunity to explain their position on the expansion requests. Following this discussion, a motion was
made:
Ms. Porterfield moved to not consider the proposed residential expansions to DA 7, Hollymead,
Pantops, Development Areas 4 & 5 at this time due in part to the large existing supply of
residential capacity that is currently available in the Development Areas. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Loach.
Vote:
Aye: Morris, Lafferty, Loach, and Porterfield. Nay: Franco and Smith.
Mr. Cilimberg asked to add information on this year’s CIP submittal for the benefit of Mr. Loach’s
question. This year’s CIP submittals were not just a maintenance and replacement CIP. They actually
given the opportunity to request the needs they thought existed based on our development and our future
potential development. Not only was it a five-year CIP request, but it was a second five years of capital
needs requests. So this particular CIP is going to be going through an analysis that is a little different than
it has been for several years based on what are anticipated to be the real needs in the five to ten year
period. How that shakes out in terms of the review and ultimately how the Board decides is yet to be
seen. But, he thinks in this case they will have more of an indication of what kinds of project needs are
out there based on our plans, based on our deficiencies and based on what they expect needs to be.
That is not only for requests they made as community development, but also from other departments.
Mr. Loach noted that was his premise before that maybe this should go to the Board and let them tell us
within the context of this new and upcoming CIP.
Mr. Cilimberg noted they won’t actually have that until next year. The answers to the question that might
come from the Board really won’t come until the budget process is done.
Mr. Loach noted that they have to deal with what they have currently.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out he just wanted to let the Commission know what was coming. He thought there
would be a work session with the Commission in January just to inform them on how those requests were
moving forward.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 16
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Franco said there has also been a potential change in the funding strategies as well. He thought that
there was a two million dollar reserve previously that was lowered and they were encouraged to look at
some other funding sources.
Mr. Cilimberg said there have been a variety of revenue considerations. He did not think any definitive
decisions have been made. That will also happen as part of the budget process.
Mr. Morris pointed out that what would be sent to the Board at this time is the Commission does not
recommend any further increase in the development areas for residential as represented by the four
requests as shown in bullets.
Mr. Franco asked if the Commission was still going to get the information.
Mr. Cilimberg said it could be pertinent to their consideration in what land uses changes may be
necessary in 4, 5, 6 and 7, which are actually non-master planned areas that they will be taking up during
the comp plan work.
Ms. Echols noted that it would also be important as they talk about the housing section of the comp plan.
Mr. Collins asked with that ruling as far as the Shadwell Interchange was the commercial part of
Sommerset included in that motion.
Mr. Morris replied that it was not. However, he understood based upon what they said if Sommerset
Farm is considered in the interchange location that when that is considered it may come up again.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the Interstate Interchange analysis is based on some distances from the
interchange, which this would not qualify under. He wanted to be clear so not to mislead anybody.
Mr. Morris noted that Sommerset Farm would not be considered since the interchange would be based
upon the distance factor.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff will send the Commission’s action taken on to the Board for their
information. They want to keep the Board abreast of decisions that get made during the process of the
comp plan review.
Old Business:
Mr. Morris asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting moved to the next item.
New Business:
Mr. Morris asked if there was any new business. There being none, the meeting moved to the next item.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m. to October 18, 2011 meeting at the County
Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1
MARCH 20, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 20, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, March 20, 2012, at 6:00
p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Richard Randolph, Bruce Dotson, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Don Franco,
Calvin Morris, Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use
Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Lee Catlin, Assistant to the County Executive for Community and Business
Partnerships, Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Phil Custer, Engineer; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer;
Ron White, Director of Housing; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of
Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Francis MacCall, Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Morris invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none,
the meeting moved to the next item.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting – March 7, 2012 & March 14, 2012
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on March 7, 2012
and March 14, 2012.
Consent Agenda
Approval of Minutes: January 24, 2012, February 14, 2012, and November 17, 2011.
Resolution of Intent: Site Plan Ordinance Cleanup (Francis MacCall)
Resolution of Intent: Tourist Lodging (Amelia McCulley)
2011 Planning Commission Activity Report (Wayne Cilimberg)
Mr. Morris asked if any Commissioner wanted to pull any of the items on the consent agenda for
discussion. There being no questions, he asked for a motion.
Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Randolph seconded for approval of the consent agenda as
recommended by staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris said that the consent agenda had been approved unanimously.
Deferred Item:
ZTA-2012-00002 Water/Sewer Regulations
Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.1, Area and health regulations related to utilities, 4.2, Critical slopes,
4.2.1, Building site required, 4.2.2, Building site area and dimensions, 4.2.3, Location of structures and
improvements, 4.2.4, Location of septic systems, 4.7, Open space, 5.1.43, Special events, 5.1.44, Farm
worker housing, and 10.5.2, Where permitted by special use permit; and repeal Secs. 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3,
4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6 and 4.1.7 (all untitled), of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This
ordinance would amend the regulations pertaining to building sites, critical slopes, and water supplies and
sewer systems serving developments and individual lots by adding and deleting definitions (3.1), restating
and clarifying the standards for developments and lots to be served by public or private water supplies
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2
MARCH 20, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
and sewer systems (4.1), updating the terminology for provisions pertaining to critical slopes (4.2),
clarifying the minimum standards for building sites (4.2.1), restating the minimum standards for building
site area and dimensions for uses not served by public sewer systems, and providing for special
exceptions from those standards and for alternative onsite sewer systems (4.2.2), eliminating an
ambiguity as to whether special use permits for additional development rights are permitted in the
watershed of a public water supply reservoir (not allowed) (10.5.2), and making corresponding technical
changes and non-substantive changes updating terminology to other related sections (4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.7,
5.1.43, 5.1.44, 10.5.2). A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Glenn Brooks) DEFERRED FROM THE FEBRUARY 28, 2012
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Brooks summarized ZTA-2012-0002, Water/Sewer Regulations. This item was deferred on the
February 28th Planning Commission meeting to incorporate additional changes and to prepare a
corresponding Subdivision Text Amendment. It is an update of the zoning ordinance to accommodate
alternative onsite sewage systems for individual lots. It also made some corrections to other parts of the
ordinance and clarifications, which staff could review, that were written in the advertisement and the staff
report. The subjective change made since February 28th is staff removed item 1 from the ordinance
section on display for alternative onsite sewage systems, which took out the requirement for a reserve
drainfield. It remains in for conventional onsite sewage systems. The zoning text amendment was
deferred to accompany the subdivision text amendment, which will follow this. The subdivision text
amendment is doing the same in updating the ordinance to reflect recent state laws changed as of last
year to allow onsite sewer systems by right.
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Mr. Dotson asked what was the rationale and reasoning behind the change about the reserve drainfield.
Mr. Brooks replied that the state does not allow localities to require a reserve drainfield for an alternative
system.
Mr. Kamptner added that staff did not think there was any other reasonable basis upon which to require
the reserve drainfield in that case.
Mr. Dotson said if an alternative system failed, then the homeowner would install a new alternative
system.
Mr. Kamptner agreed that the owner would install another alternative system. He noted when land is
being subdivided the subdivider will essentially be making the choice for a particular lot may it be served
by either type of system or served only by an alternative system. It will depend on how that lot is
configured and the soils that are on that particular lot.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being no public comment, he
closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to the Planning Commission. He asked staff what
action they were recommending.
Mr. Brooks replied staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for approval of
ZTA-2012-00002 to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Kamptner added for the record that the Planning Commission did open and close the public hearing
for ZTA-2012-00002 on February 28th. Therefore, this was the second public hearing on this matter.
Mr. Dotson said there were a couple of things he would like to hear staff’s response on. If this ZTA is
approved will it have any impact on rural density or the rate of rural development.
Mr. Brooks replied no, not that he was aware of since this is related to the area/lot requirements. The
ordinance requires a 30,000 square foot area on a lot for buildable area. That has not changed. What
they can subdivide is essentially the same.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 3
MARCH 20, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Dotson asked are there any changes here that they don’t have to make or have elected to do.
Mr. Brooks replied yes.
Mr. Dotson asked if the changes are editorial and housekeeping.
Mr. Brooks replied that the changes that are voluntary are editorial and housekeeping. Staff has updated
terminology and minimum standards for building site area and dimensions. In addition, the changes are
eliminating ambiguity as to whether special use permits for additional development rights are permitted in
the watershed of the public water shed. There are some other small changes in the other parts of the
ordinance.
Mr. Dotson pointed out the reason he was nervous about these systems is because they require very
careful maintenance and upkeep. He knows the state has the responsibility for looking after that and the
county does not. None the less he just wants them to go into this with their eyes open.
Mr. Brooks agreed. However, he did not think the county has much choice since the state has been very
clear that they are not to add on any requirements for maintenance.
Mr. Kamptner noted there was an opinion from the Attorney General on March 9th that reinforced the fact
that localities have no authority to impose maintenance requirements on these systems.
Mr. Morris invited further comments.
Mr. Randolph said he had questions about the special events. His understanding was the proposal was
just for changes in the existing policy for the county. He noticed, however, that there was no mention of
any noise restrictions on special events. He asked if that is already codified elsewhere so it need not
have been cited here.
Mr. Morris pointed out the noise ordinance is codified elsewhere.
Mr. Kamptner agreed since that would be regulated under the noise regulation in Section 4.18. These
events are subject to special use permits and it would also be covered under the special use permit
conditions. He was not sure if they have actually had any special events come in under this particular
section since it was adopted.
Mr. Brooks noted that most of those requests staff sees are with wineries, which come in under special
use permit provisions.
Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to recommend approval of ZTA-2012-00002,
Water/Sewer Regulations.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris said that ZTA-2012-00002, Water Sewer Regulations, will be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors with a recommendation for approval at a date to be determined.
Public Hearing Item:
STA-2012-00001 Water/Sewer
Amend Secs. 14-106, Definitions, 14-309, Soil evaluations, 14-310, Health director approval of individual
private wells and/or septic systems, 14-415 Central water supplies and sewerage systems, and 14-416,
Individual private wells and septic systems, of Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County
Code. This ordinance would amend the regulations pertaining to onsite sewage systems serving
subdivision lots by adding definitions pertaining to onsite sewage systems (14-106), and by allowing
subdivision lots to be served by either conventional or alternative onsite sewage systems, requiring health
director review of such systems, and revising the terminology (14-309, 14-310 and 14-416); and would
amend the minimum area requirements for lots served by central water supplies or central sewerage
systems (14-415). A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 4
MARCH 20, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Glenn Brooks)
Mr. Brooks summarized STA-2012-00001, Water/Sewer Regulations, which is the corresponding
subdivision text amendment. In the sections of Code staff added the state definitions and allowed a
provision for onsite alternative systems.
Mr. Kamptner noted the purpose for this zoning text amendment was simply to align the subdivision
ordinance with the changes that the Commission just recommended in the zoning ordinance, which
brings these regulations up-to-date with state statutes and regulations.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. There being no questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and
invited public comment.
Neil Williamson, with The Free Enterprise Forum, said he believed Mr. Dotson may have misspoken.
There is nothing in any of the regulations that controls the pace of development in the rural area or the
development area. The pace of development is controlled by the markets.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to
the Planning Commission for additional discussion and a recommendation.
Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of STA-2012-00001,
Water/Sewer Regulations.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris said that STA-2012-00002, Water Sewer Regulations, will be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors with a recommendation for approval at a date to be determined.
Work Session
CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Revision –
Work session 6 - Industrial Land Inventory, Rural Interchanges, and Locations for Industrial Uses and
Target Industries (Echols, Sorrell, Weaver)
Andy Sorrell and Elaine Echols presented a Power-Point presentation.
Mr. Sorrell presented the first portion of the presentation.
Tonight the discussion will be held on the following issues:
· Industrial Land Inventory,
· Rural Interchanges,
· Locations for Industrial Uses, and
· Target Industries
The schedule is as follows:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 20, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
Upcoming Meetings
• Historic Pres./Natural Heritage
• Neighborhoods 4,5, 6, 7 – April 2
• Joint PCs Meeting – April 17
Mr. Sorrell noted there will basically be three portions to th
questions after each section. He asked how the Commission wanted to handle it.
The Planning Commission requested to take the presentation in segments so that they focus their
attention on it.
Mr. Sorrell noted the first portion of the presentation will be speaking to:
Presentation Overview
• Available Industrial Land
• Industrial Land Need and Target Industries
• Locations for Industrial Uses & Targets
• Land in Development Areas
• Urban Interchanges
• Rural Interchanges
• Conclusions & Recommendations
Industrial Land Area Needs
Based on Employment Projections
• 2030 -- approx. 18,000 new jobs
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Historic Pres./Natural Heritage E.C. Workshop at Water Street - March 29 4 – 7pm
April 2
April 17
Mr. Sorrell noted there will basically be three portions to the presentation. Staff will be happy to answer
asked how the Commission wanted to handle it.
The Planning Commission requested to take the presentation in segments so that they focus their
Mr. Sorrell noted the first portion of the presentation will be speaking to:
Industrial Land Need and Target Industries
Locations for Industrial Uses & Targets
Land in Development Areas
Conclusions & Recommendations
approx. 18,000 new jobs
5
7pm
Staff will be happy to answer
The Planning Commission requested to take the presentation in segments so that they focus their
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 6
MARCH 20, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
• 2030 -- 3,000 industrial/quasi-industrial jobs
• Land area needs for these jobs: 200-557 acres
Formula
[Employees X square footage/employee for use X F.A.R. for use = acreage needed. Range of land area
relates to low and high square footage/employee.]
Available Industrially Designated Land
• This chart shows that most designated but not zoned industrial land is in the Piney Mountain &
Hollymead Development Areas. Land with residential zoning and rural area zoning that has
industrial designation is generally located in those areas. Other areas have some, but the majority
is in the Places29 area. There is also land area that has industrial zoning and designated
industrial. So that is land that could potentially be used without having to be rezoned for an
industrial use.
*Land in portions of less than 1 acre in area has been excluded, totaling 29.91 acres.
**Includes 2 acres of Acme Visible Records land which would not be available until 2016
***Includes UVA Research Park
****Report of 2-8-12 indicated 841 acres of non-constrained land; this figure inadvertently included 127
acres of constrained land in the UVA Research Park
Disclaimer/Clarification
• Page 2 of staff report 422 acres of designated land with industrial zoning
• Page 3 of staff report says 376 acres of industrial land (which came from Feb. 8 staff report)
• Correct # is 422 ac – the Feb. 8 staff report missed a few of the vacant parcels because they
were part of planned districts. (Ex. Industrial area of HTC – zoned NMD)
Undeveloped Industrially-Designated Parcels
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7
MARCH 20, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
• Few available parcels for larger land users
• Only 12 parcels 10 or more acres of that only 2 are 25 acres or more
• Some opportunities exist to combine parcels
Staff presented a map showing land that could potentially accommodate some additional industrial zoning
that had the industrial designation by the Comp Plan, which was south of Hollymead Town Center.
Access would be one of the bigger issues with that getting to that site since it was not directly accessed
from a major road right now.
Industrial Land Need
Recommended target industries:
• Bioscience and Medical Devices
• Business & Financial Services
• Information Technology and Defense & Security
Complementary targets:
• Health Services
• Arts, Design and Sports & media
Target Industries
– Bioscience & Medical Devices: 3-5 ac. parcels
– Info. Tech. and Defense & Security: 3-25 ac. parcels. (Some targets might need area for
buildings up to 350,000 sq. ft.)
Other requirements:
• High-speed internet
• Reliable electricity (some are large power users)
• Public utilities (some have large water needs)
Industrial Land Need Conclusions
• BOS needs to pick targets based upon recommendations of study and their input
• Many targets could use comm. zoned land
• Based on raw #s, need exists for 200 – 557 acres
• 674 ac. non-constrained land might be available (need buy in of the property owners)
• Few large parcels; some targets need large parcels
• Most properties in Hollymead-Piney Mountain area; some targets want to be in H-PM area
• Even with environmental constraints removed, some industrial designated sites will continue to
have challenges (access issues and things of that nature)
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Mr. Randolph asked staff to go back to the section where he talked about large electricity users where it
says high-speed internet, reliable electricity, and public utilities. If those are guidance as to where light
industrial development could occur he asked at the current time is there a single intersection on I-64 in
this county that meets those three capabilities where there is high speed internet available, reliable
electricity and public utilities that would meet the need for both high power users and high water users.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 8
MARCH 20, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Echols replied that there may be. Staff would like to go over the interchanges themselves and then
maybe staff could bring that back up at that time where they can give an idea of what those interchanges
are capable of.
Mr. Randolph agreed, but wanted especially to identify these three factors for that discussion when they
get to it.
Mr. Franco said it was important to note that it was not necessarily just to be reliable, but a lot of the users
associated with the IT and Defense needs redundant power supplies and internet. That is an important
point.
Ms. Echols suggested that there may be a better word to use than reliability. Some parcels don’t have
continuous electrical supply because of different kinds of interruptions in the supply.
Mr. Loach said on the employment figures he noticed staff went to 2030 to get data. He wondered if staff
went back 20 years and looked at the LI rezoning to see if that same percentage of employment
extrapolated out the same.
Ms. Echols replied no, they did not go backwards. They just went forward.
Mr. Loach noted that over the past couple of years the Board has rezoned over 130 acres of LI land to
commercial. One has to wonder if they went back 20 years if they could see that same curve. He
recalled a rezoning case several weeks ago involving a request from industrial to commercial. His only
objective is the methodology. He felt it should not have been used until they came out with a firm list of
target industries and looked at what their needs are going to be.
Ms. Echols noted the target industry study is in a preliminary stage and could change. That being said
they know there are a large number of users. There was just a variety of different kinds of potential users
within the categories that they have. What they tried to do was get at what are the ones who would have
the large land area. Staff does not know what the number is. They don’t know how much or how many of
those targets they would be looking for or how much they could accommodate. They believe they can
accommodate quite a bit with their already zoned land. In past staff reports staff has given them the
figures of the square footage that has been approved in the commercial developments. They know there
is an awful lot of land. They were trying to find a figure that they could work with in the sense of giving an
idea about additional land area that would need to be designated. It is not a science. It is an art. His
points are well taken. There are many targets. If these are the targets the Board chooses, that could go
into the commercial end. They don’t know what is needed until they decide what the targets are
Mr. Franco said it would be helpful if table 3 were redone so that they saw how many parcels were less
than 3 acres in size. He acknowledged that they were dealing just with the target industries, but that
same rezoning Mr. Loach was referring to really dealt with a size question as well. It was one of the
problems that applicant was having. She had an existing structure and was having a hard time keeping it
filled. There were a lot of things there. However, part of that conversation was the parcel was relatively
small. If this was identifying that their target industries need a minimum of 3 acres, then they ought to
know how much of the acreage that is currently zoned and/or intended to be zoned LI doesn’t fall into that
range.
Mr. Loach asked when they are looking at 3 to 25 acres are they just looking horizontally or can they
accommodate these vertically on less land as well, too.
Mr. Franco agreed that was a good point. However, he felt if this is the information they are looking at he
would like to know if 3 acres is the right thing because they’ve considered verticality and all of the other
stuff. He would like to know how much of this acreage does not fall into that category.
Mr. Loach said this goes back to the premise that Ms. Echols said that they really should have the target
industries.
Mr. Dotson suggested before this moves on that staff find out if the smaller adjacent parcels with the
same owner are easily assembled parcels
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 9
MARCH 20, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Franco noted he would go so far as to say it does not have to be the same ownership but just
contiguous pieces would be helpful.
Ms. Echols presented the next segment of the Power-Point presentation.
Interchanges and Other Possibilities
One of the places people are most interested are the interchanges. The interchanges are most
interesting because that is where they have the largest road network; where they have the greatest
amount of traffic; and potentially the most opportunities for economic development. There are seven
interchanges in the County with 3½ urban and 3½ rur al. The one that seems to have gotten almost all of
the attention in recent months has been Shadwell Interchange. However, there is a runner up because
there are people from Crozet present tonight to speak.
Shadwell Interchange
Staff reviewed the issues and challenges regarding the Shadwell Interchange, as follows.
Issues:
• Access
• Utilities
• Interstate changes
• Topography
• Historic Resources (Monticello and Southern Albemarle)
Ms. Echols explained the above noted issues and the challenges.
Recommendation: Wait until interchange improvements are designed; revisit with next Comp Plan.
Rt. 29 South & I-64
(Sieg Distribution Facility)
- Designated for Regional Service
Issues:
• Access - (In our current Comp Plan it calls for preservation of the ravine. The ravine is about
the only area they can get access into the rest of this particular site. Therefore, it is a challenge
to get access due to the topography.)
• Property owner doesn’t favor redesignation (One property owner indicated desire to have a mixed
use.)
Recommendation: Expand Development Area boundary to provide better access; allow for commercial
or industrial use. Consideration needs to be given to take the language out of the Comp Plan that says
the ravine needs to be preserved. They can’t do both.
Southpointe/5th Street
With the Avon/5th Street rezoning that took place there was concern at that time they were losing Light
Industrial land. The Comprehensive Plan left in the text an opportunity for that to be rezoned to an
industrial district for an industrial use should that commercial use not pan out. That is the same kind of
idea they have for some of these other ones. Right now it may not be what the owner wants to do. There
might be an industry that would like to have that spot and they might be able to work out something that
would then be in support of a rezoning for that area.
Issues:
• Owner of largest property doesn’t favor redesignation
• Only about 12 acres developable land
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 10
MARCH 20, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
As with the other interchange, the property owner does not really want to lose that commercial
designation that they have right now. It is zoned R-15.
Recommendation: Allow for commercial or industrial use. In the text they would make that land
available for a rezoning to industrial or the commercial designation that they would be putting on the land.
5th Street / Avon Properties
If commercial development doesn’t take place, Comprehensive Plan allows for industrial use already.
Staff thinks this is going to be developed commercially. There is a rezoning to modify the plan that has
been submitted in recent weeks. Staff does not think right now this is in the mix of properties that are
available for industry.
Rt. 20 at I-64 (Blue Ridge Area Hospital Site)
· University of Virginia Foundation wishes to retain institutional designation
· Staff working with University of Virginia Foundation in area B discussions on future uses or other
designations
Staff members will be talking about this tomorrow to see if they might be able to figure out a way that this
could be available for the University should they want to make it available for a Light Industrial type of
use. She would defer to that conversation tomorrow in the Area B process.
Boulders Road area near NGIC
This area is designated for Urban Density Residential. Since it is such a large parcel it might be an
available land area to be designated. The idea would be that this industrial designation would just be
expanded. Staff thinks it is very important as they did at the Places29 planning time that they have some
residential in this area to allow for people who work in this area to get quickly and easily to work without
having to drive all the way up 29 or down 29. They don’t regulate where people live and where they work,
but they like to make that opportunity available.
· Residential areas could be reduced for greater industrial opportunities
· If Board of Supervisors endorses the targets that have been recommended, this one might be a
place to look to consider redesignation of some additional land.
Properties between Avon St and Rt. 20
Most of this property is Urban Density. There is a swath that is shown for Industrial Service. They think
there might be some opportunities to expand that down. It would not pick up a whole lot. There is not a
large property. This particular property would have to probably be accessed from both sides and it may
or may not be able to connect because there is about a 100’ drop from Avon down to Route 20.
· Area adjacent & south of Snow’s Garden Center
· Need property owner support
They will be working with that property owner through the Neighborhoods 4 and 5 planning process. That
is another place they have been looking for land that would help accommodate the needs of future
employers in the area.
Conclusions:
• Vacant land at SW quadrant at Shadwell/I-64 would be difficult to develop at this time.
• Vacant land at urban interchanges designated for commercial use appears could support
industrial uses; property owners don’t want to lose commercial designation.
• Better access is needed for properties at SW quadrant of Rt. 29 S/I-64 interchange.
• There may be some opportunities to designate land for industrial use in Neighborhood 4;
however, parcels would not be large and residents have concerns about impacts about adding
more industrial land in that particular neighborhood.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 11
MARCH 20, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
Recommendations:
• Allow for urban interchanges (not Pantops) to be used for office/R&D/flex/light industrial uses as
well as commercial uses.
• Expand Development Area near Rt. 29 S/I-64 Interchange to provide area for access into the site.
• Redesignate some of the residential area near NGIC to office/R&D/flex/light industrial
• Work with University of Virginia Foundation on the Blue Ridge Area Hospital site with Area B
• Look for opportunities in Neighborhood 4 for more industrial property.
This all predisposes that those are the right targets. If they are not the targets the Board wants to work
with, staff will be coming back to the Planning Commission. However, with the schedule that is what staff
had to work with.
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Mr. Randolph asked if there was a good possibility out of all of these different targets that they will
establish a list of priorities based on the characteristics and suitability of each of the interchanges just
reviewed so there would be a ranking from a development standpoint where there would be the least
environmental impact. What is left out of the equation is any discussion about industrial development in
any of these undeveloped areas and the impacts in terms of rivers and streams in that habitat.
Ms. Echols replied right now at the urban interchanges there are some uses such as office uses that
could occur, which with our zoning would be under the current regulations. In terms of the changes in
designations and the new areas they would be looking at the targets, what their needs are, and doing a
more detailed review of what the Commission had just seen. However, in terms of rankings staff was not
planning on doing that. She would ask Ms. Catlin. Staff plans to work though this Target Industry Study
and then see where they go from there.
Ms. Catlin pointed out where they were in the process. They have two parallel things that are moving
forward. For the Target Industry Study they are in the final stages of the study itself. However, they are
in the early stages of determining exactly how well those targets fit for Albemarle County and our
preferences and concerns about environmental impacts, etc. What they have been trying to do in
working with Ms. Echols is talking about what capacities might there possibly be at the same time that the
Board is working through which of those target industries really will be the ones that work for us, are there
additional ones that they have not even talked about, etc. The matching of the two of those things is
going to have to be worked out over the next couple of months, which is why she thinks Ms. Echols in
several instances said this is a preliminary look at capacity and inventory and when it might be possible.
However, certainly the finer work of matching that up with exactly where they end up with the Target
Industry Study, including environmental constraints and issues, is going to have to be worked out. That
may require coming back to the Commission and revisiting some of this.
Mr. Franco said that he was not trying to promote one piece over another. There is a lot of additional
study that is required. When they talk about the section that is to the Southwest of 29 and 250 at
Shadwell it makes more sense that they should look at it and decide whether they want it included now
and then let VDOT design their access to that piece in the future and their interchange around our needs
versus waiting to see what VDOT does and potentially having to come and redo work. He was not saying
that piece belongs in there. He was simply saying let’s not wait for VDOT to react to what they do. Let’s
decide what is best for us first.
Ms. Echols continued the Power-Point presentation.
Rural Interchanges
The Board spoke to the community, staff, as well as the Commission on what they wanted to see on rural
interchanges. What they said was they wanted to have uses at those interchanges that have a
relationship to the rural and agricultural economy and have low impacts. What staff has been looking at
is how that actually happens. First they looked at the interchanges. These things were in the February
8th report as well as that presentation. They looked at the three different rural interchanges and their
characteristics. The other half is Shadwell.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 12
MARCH 20, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
Boyd Tavern/Black Cat Interchanges
• Very rural & heavily wooded
• Vacant parcels abut conservation easements
• Most parcels have critical environmental resources
Staff does not think there are many uses that could go in this area. Someone might be able to make a
case in this area that would be supportive of agriculture and agri-business and need that kind of a
location.
Ivy Interchange
• Very rural & heavily wooded.
• Critical environmental resources.
• Access to parcels from interstate could meet standards, but roads are narrow and winding.
The roads are not accommodating. The very narrow and winding roads don’t support a lot of traffic.
Crozet Interchange
• Decision to remain Rural as part of Crozet Master Plan update
• SE quadrant has good access and adjacent to large tracts of agri-industrial land
• NE quadrant -- potential historic district
• SE and SW quadrants difficult to use and access
The Crozet Interchange is not quite as rural or winding and really takes them down 250 into Crozet. A
decision was made with the Crozet Master Plan when area was under consideration for either having
some kind of a special designation or being included in the development areas. The decision was made
by the Board that it was not going to become part of the Crozet development area. However, the Board
wanted them to look at what could happen there, again, in support of agriculture and agri-business.
The Southeast quadrant does have good access from 250. It is adjacent to industrially designated land
right now. This is in the Greenwood Historic District. Many concerns have been expressed by the
community of Crozet. The Commission received a copy of the resolution that will be introduced tonight
that there is the desire by most of the Crozet Community that this remain rural. Staff has looked at it in
terms of what its opportunities and challenges are. It potentially has some opportunities for those kinds of
uses that would be support of agriculture.
Characteristics of Future Uses
At rural interchanges –
• Low traffic generation & meet VDOT access requirements
• Little need for water & sewer i.e. no future demand for public utilities
• Small scale
• Little impact on natural resources or nearby historic or scenic resources
• Could meet Entrance Corridor Guidelines
• Interstate access enhancing product distribution from the rural areas with an emphasis on local
Potential Comprehensive Plan Changes
• Recognize rural interchanges have potential benefits for supporting the rural economy
• Add provisions for characteristics of uses that would be appropriate at rural interchanges
• Add information on other uses that might be appropriate in RA
• Recommend changes to Zoning Ordinance
Potential Zoning Ordinance Changes
Existing RA Special Uses:
• Show grounds
• Custom slaughterhouses
• Sawmills
• Packing plants
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 13
MARCH 20, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
• Special events
Examples of Potential Additional RA Special Uses
• Small storage and distribution facilities that relate to local agricultural or forestry production
• Landscape services
• Wholesale nurseries
Staff noted that special use permits are about is this the right location for this use at this time. There is a
lot of discretion that is given to the Board of Supervisors in their decision making about what goes where
when there is a special use permit involved.
Other Potential Special Uses
Not necessarily supportive of Rural Ag, but may have a place in RA
• Contractor’s Storage Yards
• Mini-warehouses
Those uses also have many of those same features that they were recommending for the interchanges.
Mini-warehouses go in the development areas, but they don’t require any utilities. To make a use that
does not require water and sewer and very little electricity there is some desire to have those in places
where they can better meet the needs of the community.
Staff has made some recommendations about some other uses.
Change interstate interchange policy to allow for rural and agricultural supportive uses at the
interchanges that have:
• Low traffic generation
• No need for public utilities
• Small building and parking footprint
• Little -to- no impact on natural or historic resources
• Could meet EC guidelines
• Enhanced by access to interstate for distribution of products
Add wording to the Comprehensive Plan which supports other uses, such as contractor’s storage
yards and mini-warehouses which may be appropriate in the Rural Areas where they have:
• Low traffic generation
• No need for public utilities
• Small building and parking footprint
• Little -to -no impact on natural or historic resources
• Ability to meet EC guidelines (if in EC)
• A location near an interstate interchange or crossroads community to serve residents
Comments and Direction
• Industrial Land Supply
• Industrial Land Need
• Interchanges
– Urban
– Rural
Mr. Morris invited questions and comments.
The Planning Commission held a discussion on the information presented in the presentation, including
questions for staff, and noted issues and concerns, as briefly summarized below. A detailed summary of
the Planning Commission’s comments and suggestions from their discussion are provided after the public
comment.
• Crozet Interchange should not be on the list. Master plan approved by the Board of Supervisors.
• Preserve natural resources unless have a good reason to do so.
• No compelling reason on rural interchanges to add industrial uses.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 14
MARCH 20, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
• It would change the character of districts – reducing beauty of region. No pressing demand to go
in this area.
• If place those type of uses as discussed at interchanges – think about what kind of potential
congestion creating.
Mr. Morris noted that the Commission would take a ten minute break and then take public comment
afterwards.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:27 p.m. and the meeting reconvened 7:34 p.m.
Mr. Morris noted that they would now hear comment for clarification from Lee Catlin.
Lee Catlin reminded the Commission that the information provided by staff on the interstate interchanges
and potential uses at those interchanges was at the request of the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Public comment was taken from the following persons:
· John Savage, CCAC member, read the CCAC petition or resolution of intent in opposition to the
Crozet Interchange or any commercial development thereon. The CCAC asked that the Crozet
Interchange be taken off the table since the Crozet Master Plan opposed any type of commercial
or industrial rezoning at that interchange. It was suggested that staff look at the Greenwood
Historic District map since the Crozet Interchange is included in that area and the area should be
preserved. (Attachment A – Crozet Community Advisory Council Resolution Regarding
light industrial and interstate interchange zoning dated march 15, 2012)
· John Lowry, Chairman of Albemarle County Economic Development, suggested that the
discussion is about using the interchanges to further economic growth and businesses in the
county to provide jobs to the community. He urged the Commission to provide comments so the
Interchange Policy can be rewritten for future business development to create jobs.
· John Chavan, a proponent for the interstate interchanges, particularly the Shadwell Interchange
said he wants to provide mini warehouses that will provide jobs. He has a hotel as a neighbor
and Route 250 at the Shadwell Interchange generates 30,000 to 50,000 cars per day. Mini
warehouses would be a compatible use to that area.
· Mary Rice, resident of White Hall, opposed the Crozet Interchange. She suggested there should
be criteria for granting a special use permit, which should answer what is “low”, “minimal”, “small
scale” and “minimal impact.” There needs to be specificity.
· Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council, spoke against changing the interchange
designations and said staff’s projections were hand grenade estimates.
· Alan Taylor, with Riverbend Management represented the Siegs, who own property at the Rt. 29
& I-64 Interchange. The Siegs do not wish a change in designation of their land at the
interchange to allow industrial use since they want to develop it as a mixed use project. They
intend to put together a Neighborhood Model plan which respects the environment, beauty of the
area, and topography of the area.
· Morgan Butler, Southern Environmental Law Center, spoke against the interchanges since there
is a fair amount of vacant land available for industrial. There was no pressing need to go outside
of development areas to look for industrial land. Not all industrial uses need industrially zoned
land to locate.
· Mary Gallo, Vice Chair of CCAC and Crozet resident, spoke against changes to the Crozet
interchange due to concerns from the residents and the schools. Trust would be broken with the
county if Crozet Interchange was allowed.
· Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum, said each interchange should be considered individually.
He said it is important to keep in mind how jobs are impacted by land use decisions.
The Commission commented on the information provided as follows and asked staff to take these
comments into consideration in the continuing work on the Comprehensive Plan.
Comments in general to be addressed after the Board has completed its work from the target industry
study:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 15
MARCH 20, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
· Bring back actual acreage and location needs for targets
· If 3 acre parcels are still needed – how many do we have and where are they? Remove parcels
of less than 3 acres from the inventory information.
· Bring back information on commercially zoned properties that can accommodate the targets
· Consider the transportation impacts of targets
· Retain the Boulders Road area near NGIC and the properties in Neighborhoods 4 & 5 near the
Industrial Service designation as a possibility for future industrial designation if needed.
· Approach owners about consolidation of smaller parcels in designated areas, if there is a need to
have larger parcels
Interstate Interchange Policy
· No changes are needed to the Interstate Interchange policy for Rural Areas, including the Crozet
interchange which the Commission considered to have been previously decided during the
Crozet Master Plan. (Mr. Smith disagreed because he felt that Crozet interchange still needs to
be considered.)
· Bring back a recommendation for future land use on the south side of the Shadwell interchange
including the north side of Rt. 250 to Hunter’s Hall Industrial Park. (Mr. Smith disagreed.)
· Benchmark projected needs over time. 20 years may be too far in the future to project
employment needs – monitor inventory of land and assess needs every 5 years
· Add language to the text of the Land Use Plan for the urban interchanges, similar to what was
done for the Fifth Street Avon project that would allow for industrial rezonings also
Rural Area Uses:
· The uses suggested by staff for rural interchanges would likely be appropriate in other places in
the Rural Areas
· Bring back recommendation on size, scale, and constraints needed for the potential rural uses
noted in the staff report as well as for mini-warehouses & contractors storage yards
No formal action was taken.
Ms. Echols noted there would be an opportunity for this to go to the Board of Supervisors in April. Staff
has given the Board the report of everything the Planning Commission has done to date. Staff will update
the Board at the April meeting.
Work Session
Affordable Housing Proffers
(Ron White)
The Commission received a report on Affordable Housing Proffers from the Director of Housing, Ron
White, entitled Affordable Housing Proffer Report dated March 20, 2012. Mr. White reviewed the proffer
report located at the end of the minutes in Attachment B adding the following points.
- Discussion topics and questions were provided for later discussion with regards to how they craft
proffers and manage existing proffers.
- For-Sale Units - There is a potential in Old Trail with the 90-day notice that the units might not be
sold as affordable.
- Rental Units
o 88 units have also been completed at Treesdale Park on Rio Road and are currently
being leased. That was 100 percent tax credit deal and all 88 units were proffered as
affordable.
o A number of accessory units have been built in Belvedere and Wickham.
- Cash Proffers
o To date they have gotten over 1,100 units of housing that have been proffered through
rezonings. In addition to the units proffers there has been almost 1.6 million dollars in
cash that has been proffered of which they have received $476,000.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 16
MARCH 20, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
- For a family of one or two person for sale houses the maximum income is roughly $55,000. For 3
or more person household the maximum income is about $66,000. There is a small window in
the current policy to be income eligible.
- Current Maximum Sales Price - $211,250
- Current Cash-in-lieu - $21,125
- Current Maximum Gross Rents (HUD Fair Market Rents)
- As part of the Comprehensive Plan update the affordable housing policy is being reviewed to see
what changes may be made. The Housing Committee is pretty close to being disbanded. An Ad
Hoc Committee is being created to look specifically at the affordable housing policy.
- Discussion Topics – See Attachment B
The Commission held a discussion and raised some questions and concerns.
- Concern about County accepting cash in lieu of affordable units in the 15 percent proffers
- (Question brought up whether they want affordable housing stock or create an affordable housing
opportunity for a low or moderate income person.)
- One Commissioner said that the purpose is to create an affordable housing stock. There are
tools that would keep that unit which was assessed at $220,000 at $170,000. The Thomas
Jefferson Community Land Trust is starting to get off the ground. There are second mortgages
that could be placed that would be paid back upon sale so that it could be preserved as
affordable housing stock. They need to look at some of those tools that are out there to preserve
that once it is created.
- A suggestion was made that other agencies such as Piedmont Housing Alliance should be invited
to the future meeting to discuss the problems and the best way to approach them.
- Due to the late hour, future follow up with the Planning Commission was requested.
- Questions from Planning Commissioners should be forwarded to Mr. Cilimberg to transmit to Mr.
White. Mr. White will inform Mr. Cilimberg when a committee reviewing Affordable Housing
policies is formed. At that time Mr. Cilimberg will request two volunteers from the Planning
Commission to participate on the committee.
No formal action taken.
Old Business
Mr. Morris asked if there was any old business.
• Planning Commissioner meeting evaluation results will be reviewed at the Commission’s April 3rd
meeting.
There being no further old business, the meeting proceeded.
New Business
Mr. Morris asked if there was any new business.
· No meeting on March 27, 2012
· Next regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday, April 3, 2012
There being no further business, the meeting proceeded.
Adjournment
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at p.m. to Tuesday, April 3, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. at the County
Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 17
MARCH 20, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 18
MARCH 20, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 22, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May
22, 2012, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Bruce Dotson, Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph,
Don Franco, Calvin Morris and Russell (Mac) Lafferty. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior
Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner;
Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; David Benish, Chief 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.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Morris invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
There being no comments, the meeting moved to the next item.
Consent Agenda:
Approval of Minutes: 1-31-2012
Mr. Morris asked if any Commissioner wanted to pull any item from the consent agenda.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Randolph seconded for acceptance of the consent
agenda.
The motion carried by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted the consent agenda items were approved,
Regular Item
SDP-2012-00020 NTELOS-Tier II Monopole (CV732) “SKI Enterprises, Inc.” Final
Site Plan
PROPOSED: Tier II treetop steel monopole to be 84.6 feet tall containing a flush
mounted antenna array and associated ground equipment.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
2
SECTION: 10.2.1 (22) which allows for Tier II personal wireless facilities in the RA
Zoning District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 1 -
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development
lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 1831 Eden Lane, east side of Old Ballard Rd. at Ivy
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 05900-00-00-028C0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
(Sarah Baldwin)
Mr. Benish noted the applicant is requesting deferral of SDP-2012-00020 Ntelos-Tier II
Monopole.
There being no questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to address the Commission. Since the applicant had no comments, Mr. Morris
invited public comment.
There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter before
the Planning Commission for further comment and action.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to recommend approval of
acceptance of the deferral of SDP-2012-000020 Ntelos-Tier II Monopole (CV732) “SKI
Enterprises, Inc.” Final Site Plan.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted that the request was indefinitely deferred.
Public Hearing Items
Mr. Morris asked staff to address all five Agricultural Forestal District items at once. Two
requests are from one district, one from another and one stand alone. All five requests
will be briefed together, opened up to the public, and then brought back to address and
vote on individually.
Mr. Clark pointed out the proposed additions in the same district would be grouped
together. Therefore, there will be three actions rather than five. He presented a
PowerPoint presentation and summarized each request as described.
Agricultural-Forestal Districts
o Voluntary conservation program – landowners apply to join
o Each District is reviewed on a 10-year cycle
o Withdrawal is permitted during reviews
o Effects
o Limitations on subdivisions (family divisions or 21 acres only)
o Additional review of special use permits
o Consideration in land-use planning decisions
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
3
o Current Status
o 27 Districts
o 1,093 parcels
o 69,938 acres
The first two proposed additions are in the Keswick District, as follows.
AFD-2012-0001 Keswick AFD Addition – Gonda
PROPOSAL: Addition of a 22.41-acre property to the Keswick Agricultural/Forestal
District
ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density
(0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
OMPREHENSIVE 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: 4969 Barn Field Dr
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 08100000006900
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
AND
AFD-2012-0005 Keswick AFD Addition – Cox
PROPOSAL: Addition of a 68.26-acre property to the Keswick Agricultural/Forestal
District
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: 4760 Barn Field Dr
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 08100000007200 and 08100000007300
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
AFD-2012-0002 Hardware AFD Addition – Vlasis
PROPOSAL: Addition of a 21-acre property to the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal
District 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: 5245 Dick Woods Rd.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 072000000051C0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Samuel Miller
AND
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
4
AFD-2012-0003 Hardware AFD Addition – Eudy
PROPOSAL: Addition of a 21-acre property to the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal
District 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: 18 Merit Dr
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 088000000003T0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
AFD-2012-0004 Chalk Mountain AFD Addition – Mehring
PROPOSAL: Addition of a 551.906-acre property to the Chalk Mountain
Agricultural/Forestal District
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: 3893 Hungrytown Road
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 097000000021B0, 097000000021C0, and 097000000021D0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
Keswick District
The District was created in 1986 and originally included 38 parcels and 4,622 acres.
The District now includes 67 parcels and approximately 6,799 acres.
Proposed Additions:
AFD 2012-01 Gonda:
TMP 81-69, 22.41 acres
AFD 2012-02 Cox:
TMP 81-72, -73, xxx acres
Committee Recommendation:
At their meeting on March 19, 2012, the Agricultural & Forestal Districts Advisory
Committee recommended approval of the proposed additions to the Keswick
Agricultural and Forestal District
Hardware District
The District was created in 1986 and originally included 52 parcels and 5,947 acres.
The District now includes 30 parcels and approximately 2,411 acres.
Proposed Additions:
AFD 2012-02 Vlasis:
TMP 72-51C, 21 acres
AFD 2012-03 Eudy:
TMP 88-3T, 21 acres
Committee Recommendation:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
5
At their meeting on March 19, 2012, the Agricultural & Forestal Districts Advisory
Committee recommended approval of the proposed additions to the Hardware
Agricultural and Forestal District
Chalk Mountain District
The District was created in 1989 and originally included 14 parcels and 1,082 acres.
The District now includes 13 parcels and approximately 1,049 acres.
Proposed Additions:
AFD 2012-04 Mehring:
Tax Map 97 Parcels 21B, 21C, and 21D
552 acres
Committee Recommendation:
At their meeting on March 19, 2012, the Agricultural & Forestal Districts Advisory
Committee recommended approval of the proposed addition to the Chalk Mountain
Agricultural and Forestal District
Recommendations and Actions:
a. AFD-2012-0001 Keswick AFD Addition – Gonda
AND
b. AFD-2012-0005 Keswick AFD Addition – Cox
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
proposed additions to the Keswick District, AFD201200001 and AFD201200005, to the
Board of Supervisors.
c. AFD-2012-0002 Hardware AFD Addition – Vlasis
AND
d. AFD-2012-0003 Hardware AFD Addition – Eudy
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
proposed additions to the Hardware District, AFD201200002 and AFD201200003, to
the Board of Supervisors.
e. AFD-2012-0004 Chalk Mountain AFD Addition – Mehring
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
proposed addition to the Chalk Mountain District, AFD201200004, to the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Randolph asked the street address for the two parcels in Keswick, and Mr. Clark
replied that he would look in the report.
Mr. Dotson asked if there was any policy guidance in making additions to AF Districts
about contiguous parcels either to conservation easements or existing AF Districts.
Mr. Clark replied there was language in Chapter 3 of the County Code that specifies
which parcels can join a given district. The Code says that a parcel within one mile of
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
6
the core of the district, which is the original set of parcels, can join. For example, the
Vlasis addition is actually within a mile of the original core of the district. It is land that
has since come out of the district but gone into a conservation easement. Recent
changes to the State Code said that parcels more than one mile from the core can be
added if the committee finds that agriculturally significant land. However, it really does
not define what that means.
Mr. Dotson pointed out in this case staff did point out unique soils. Therefore, that
answers his question.
Mr. Kamptner noted in addition the state criteria allows what has taken place on
adjacent lands to be factors in considering whether to add land to an existing district or
to establish a district.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited
public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
before the Planning Commission. Each item would be addressed in turn.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out since it was a recommendation a single action could be taken
by the Commission on all five requests.
Motion: Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of the five
requests for AFD-2012-00001 Keswick AFD Addition – Gonda, AFD-2012-00005
Keswick AFD Addition – Cox, AFD-2012-0002 Hardware AFD Addition – Vlasis, AFD-
2012-0003 Hardware AFD Addition – Eudy, and AFD-2012-0004 Chalk Mountain AFD
Addition – Mehring.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted that all five requests would go to the Board of Supervisors on a date to
be determined with a recommendation for approval.
Mr. Clark pointed out the answer to Mr. Randolph’s question was both of those
properties in the Keswick District are on Barnfield Drive.
SP-2010-00057 Pine Knot Historical Center
PROPOSED: Historical center at Pine Knot with tours, related special events (up to 12
per year, not to exceed 150 persons), restroom facility, and museum and educational
building (not to exceed 1,500 square feet)
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots);
SECTION: 10.2.2.49, Historical centers, historical center special events, historical
center festivals (reference 5.1.42)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5
unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
7
LOCATION: 711 Coles Rolling Road (Route 712), approximately 0.6 miles east of the
intersection with Glendower Road (Route 713)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 12200000001100
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
(Andy Sorrell)
Mr. Sorrell presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request for SP-
2010-00067. This is a special use permit for Pine Knot, which was Theodore
Roosevelt’s retreat during his presidency back at the turn of the 20th century.
Proposal:
• Bring use of site as an historical center with special events into compliance with
the zoning ordinance
• Requesting up to 12 special events/year maximum 150 people
• Special events subject to parking plan approved by Planning Director (minor
exemptions apply)
• Events will promote the mission of the historical center related to the education
and the fundraising for the facility itself.
• Remove portable toilet and construct permanent composting restroom building.
The site currently is not served by any electricity or water. They are not planning
to have any future services like that. The composting restroom building would be
served by solar power.
• Construct new stand-alone historical center
• Add overflow parking area
• No changes to existing parking area or entrance
• No changes to historic Pine Knot cottage
Overflow Parking & Site Access–
Currently: 40 vehicles with another 35 vehicles capable of being accommodated in
undefined spaces on either side of the gravel entrance. Loop overflow parking area will
be able to accommodate approximately 40 additional vehicles with spaces defined by
railroad ties. It is planned that the overflow parking area would be installed in
conjunction with the restroom building.
Traffic Control
Parking plan submitted to manage the availability of parking during special events when
the number of vehicles onsite is expected to exceed the number of available onsite
parking spaces (115 with the additional overflow spaces) They are not proposing to
change the existing parking area or entrance. They are not proposing to have any
changes to the cottage at Pine Knott.
If number of vehicles to be onsite exceeds the number of parking spaces the applicant
will either: 1) limit the number of participants and/or vehicles to not exceed onsite
parking or 2) make arrangements for additional overflow parking with Christ Church
Glendower which is approximately 1.5 miles from the property. Arrangements would be
made to shuttle visitors from the church to the property. In addition, when onsite
parking exceeds 40 vehicles the applicant will provide parking directors to ensure
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
8
parking occurs in an orderly fashion, to maximize available parking spaces and to
ensure safe entrance and exit from the property.
Minor exemption to parking plan: terms of the historic conservation easement require
the property is open to the general public one day a year (the day of the Garden Club
tour). With prior permission from DHR, the site can be open to the public additional
days. For this day or other days approved by DHR, the applicant desires to manage
traffic onsite only because unlike a special event, the applicant does not have prior
knowledge of the number of visitors. Staff finds this limited exception acceptable
because of its infrequency and the overall site limitation of 150 persons.
Staff reviewed the proposed concept plan. The restroom building is further interior to
the property and would be accessed through a trail from the historical center, which
would be located at the bottom of the existing parking area. The overflow parking would
be adjacent to the existing area, but also contain a storm water management element
that would ensure that the storm water would not enter the creek or the adjacent water
ways.
VDOT reviewed the plan and did not have additional requirements for the entrance. It
was upgraded to a commercial entrance in approximately 1997.
They are looking to doing some limited logging of the property to remove some of the
pine in that particular area to restore it to the way it looked closer to when Mr. Roosevelt
was there. The Loblolly Pine that they have there now was not something that was in
use there when Mr. Roosevelt visited the property. They would be looking to restore
that back to a more natural vegetated state. While they are doing that would likely be
when they do the overflow parking area for rest of the building. It is their most
intermediate need for the property. The future historical center would be a less
intermediate need, but in a three to six year time period.
The applicant proposes up to 1,000 square feet on the first floor with the balance being
on a second floor or future phase of about 500 square feet. The majority of the major
elements of the particular historical center would be exterior porches that that they see
on the floor plan. That would not count towards the limitation of the interior square
footage.
The restroom building is an intermediate need. The proposed site of the restroom
building is already in an area that has been partially cleared. There would be two
separate restroom buildings for men and women. It would be a composting toilet that
would require the Department of Health to approve its use and operation. Ideally they
would like to be able to take the composted liquid waste material and spread that on site
after it has passed tests to make sure it is properly cleaned. However, that would
require a variance from the Health Department, which they have currently applied for.
There are methods that they can use to dispose of the waste there that can meet Health
Department approval. They are hopeful that the Commissioner of Health will consider
that variance request. The bridge shown in the slide is over Miller Creek, which leads
over to the cottage.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
9
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP-
2010-00057 Pine Knot Historical Center, subject to the following conditions:
1. Development and use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “Ex.
Conditions and Site Plan Special Use Permit – SP#201000057” prepared by
Water Street Studio and dated (last revised) March 22, 2012 (hereafter
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use
shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the
design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan
· limits of disturbance
· location of buildings and structures
· location of parking area and associated BMPs for stormwater management
Minor modifications to the plan, which do not conflict with the elements above,
may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Transportation to and from the Pine Knot property for attendees of all special
events shall be subject to a transportation management plan approved by the
Planning Director.
3. Approval from the Health Department for the composting restroom facility shall
be required prior to issuance of a building permit for this use.
4. Construction of the new building, as identified on the conceptual site plan
(Attachment C) shall commence on or before six (6) years from (the Board of
Supervisor’s approval date), or this special use permit shall be deemed
abandoned and the authority granted hereunder shall be thereupon terminate.
Zoning Ordinance Modifications
1. Request waiver of the submittal of a site plan as required under 5.1.42(d)
• site plan not required by section 32.2 of the zoning ordinance because:
― existing ingress/egress is not required nor proposed to be changed
― Additional structures & site activity do not require additional parking over
what it already provided and proposed.
2. NEW: Request permitted square footage as required under 5.1.42(a) be modified
from 1,500 to 1,700
― to accommodate detached restroom building and historical center
Staff finds the conceptual site plan sufficient for the proposed site improvements and
has no issue with the small amount of additional square footage requested. Staff
supports the proposed zoning modifications.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Dotson asked what the ordinance actually says in the section staff referred to for the
second modification.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
10
Mr. Sorrell replied that in Attachment E of the staff report, which is the section that
speaks to the supplementary regulations, it says newly constructed structures for
historical centers shall be limited to 1,500 square feet in size aggregate including
interruptive space and accessory uses within such structures.
Mr. Dotson asked does it require a modification since it is detached and this says within.
Mr. Sorrell replied he checked with the zoning administrator and since it is detached, in
the aggregate, and it mentions structures that the 1,500 square feet would apply to all
the structures proposed with the facility.
Mr. Dotson suggested that a general requirement on modifications to that section say
that specific feature can be modified or is there something that says modifications can
be made to many different features.
Mr. Sorrell replied since this is something within the zoning ordinance, the Commission
does have the flexibility to recommend these modifications.
Mr. Benish noted these are supplementary regulations that can be waived. It is required
for any new structures. So this proposed new structure could potentially reach 1,500
square feet. A waiver could be done at a later date. However, this provides for some
margin for error to ensure that addition if it does technically exceed that 1,500 square
feet they don’t have to come back for a modification.
Mr. Dotson suggested that a future work session on modifications would be helpful to
help him understand.
Mr. Randolph said the applicant has contacted neighbors using this road. He asked if
there would be provision as they talked about last week for email notifications when
special events occur so people that are customarily using the road are alerted to the
fact that there is going to be increased traffic coming because of the special event
associated with the center.
Mr. Sorrell replied that was something the applicant can address. This afternoon he
heard from one person who lives on that road who had some concern with the use of
the property and the additional traffic that might come out on the road. Since it was a
gravel road she had some concern about the traffic and things of that nature,
particularly the dust. She felt the any additional uses on the road might be something
that should necessitate paving the road. Staff spoke with VDOT who reviewed the
application and felt that as proposed the commercial entrance was adequate to meet
the needs for this particular use.
Mr. Lafferty said for consistency with the vineyards he wondered why they did not go to
200 visitors. He realized the road is a choke point, but the parking is not that far off.
Mr. Benish replied that was one thing staff had observed and they were going to take
that into consideration with future updates. They do look at that at this point in time on a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
11
case by case basis. However, they look at the 200 visitors as an experience that they
have had with wineries with some success. So that is a realistic baseline that they look
at.
Mr. Lafferty asked about the hours of operation.
Mr. Sorrell replied since the site does not have any electricity the hours would be within
daylight hours.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Paula Pierce Beasley, President and Chair of the Board of Directors of the Edith
and Theodore Roosevelt Pine Knott Foundation, said the Foundation operates and now
owns the Pine Knott property. The Foundation was formed in 2001 and has operated
the property for ten years. Pine Knott is a rustic cottage nestled in the middle of
southern Albemarle. The spot was selected by Edith Roosevelt as a perfect wilderness
retreat for her husband Theodore as he needed a place for rest and repairs within a
day’s trip of Washington yet remote enough and deep within the woods so as to leave
his presidential cares behind. They are seeking to codify the existing visitation use of
the Pine Knott cottage as a house and museum with walking and educational trails and
periodic special events opened to educational history and architectural groups by
appointment as permitted by its historical landmark’s easement.
By requesting formal recognition of Pine Knott as an historical site and to address just
briefly the issues of traffic they generally have a spring and fall event currently and the
attendance ranges from 55 people to their largest of 150 people. As part of their
application they seek to have a few events where they could have 200 people, but given
the other difficulties that they have had and wanted this process to be smooth and not
seek more modifications than seemed necessary. But in that respect, although it is a
gravel road, not only is the entrance a commercial entrance, but the road for a gravel
road in Virginia is fairly wide at that point. There is good visibility. They have had no
issues with traffic previously.
Generally when they have events people stagger in their arrival and departure times
because some will come earlier to have a tour of the house. Some will come earlier to
walk the trails. Or some will just come for the specific author event or particular
program. It has not created a problem historically and they don’t anticipate that it will in
the future. At one event when Christ Church was having a program with John Karan,
who is a neighbor, there was somewhere near 1,500 people. They had requested that
they be able to have a tour of Pine Knott. They did accept a total of 250 people, but in a
course of a three hour period. So they staggered it with shuttle buses and were able to
accommodate that many people without having too many people on the site at one time.
They are highly conscious of that because it is a site that was originally selected by the
President’s wife for its birds, wilderness and those aspects of it that they hope will
always remain there. It is a fine balance for the amount of visitation that could be on the
site at any one point in time. It has been a long process with our board deliberating
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
12
precisely how to develop this remaining mindful of those particular things that is so
important to the site.
They are seeking first and foremost an accessory amenity consistent with the existing
restrictions and easements that they have to help enhance the public visitation. They
currently have a don’s john there, which is fairly unattractive and is not used too much.
They do have people who are on the site for long periods of time for an hour or more.
They have groups of school children and older folks that come there. Generally the
need for a restroom does arise and they would like to make it something that is not a
horrible experience. The composting restroom was selected after considerable
research keeping in mind not only the president’s conservation, preservation and
aesthetics but also considering the fact that the site and house originally did not have
any electricity, plumbing, heating, or interior finish. There is still no water or electricity.
There is electricity in a supplemental building close to the cottage to provide security.
However, that is very far removed from the location of the restroom and the future
educational center. They have kept those more towards the entrance so that they won’t
impinge on the wilderness qualities of the site.
They chose the composting restroom for a number of reasons. This Clivus Multrum
was originally designed by a Swedish engineer, Rikard Lindstrom, who developed it
back in 1939 to prevent pollution in the Baltic Sea near his home. He later founded a
company in 1962 to develop it and that company was incorporated in the United States
in 1973. It has extensive installations throughout the National Park Service, the US
Army Corps of Engineers, the City of New York, Green Builders, and many other state
and local parks in the United States. In fact, there are seven sites in Virginia currently
that are using the Clivus. Most of them are in much more populated areas like Fairfax
and golf courses. They are, in fact, also spreading the liquid end product, which is what
they seek to do. They are having discussions and have applied for a variance because
it seems to vary some from the regulations. The conditions they have offered ensure
that public health is first and foremost. If they were to take the liquid end product it
would be tested prior. The testing so far at the other sites has shown that there is less
than 200 MPN (Most Probable Number) of fecal chloroform per 100 milliters present in
liquid product and that is 100 times less than the standard for swimming water.
Therefore, they think the potential harm is fairly low. They are willing to exclude the
public during the time when the spraying is done and for several weeks thereafter. It
would be sprayed on native grass. The science behind this composting toilet is that
basically the plant takes up 90 percent and it tests out as very watered down nitrogen.
The plant takes up 90 percent and 10 percent reaches down and is cleansed by the
limestone in the soil. If they look at the site plan it is more than 600 yards away from
any water. It is really in the middle of a forest. They have about 90 acres and it is on
the upper end. It is well in the middle of the forest with another 1,260 acres in
agricultural lands and conservation easement around it. They are fairly confident since
they visited other sites. It is waterless. It is odorless. It is environmentally an extremely
neutral application, which they think is in keeping with Theodore Roosevelt’s
conservation and preservation ethics. They believe the proposal to recognize Pine
Knott as an historical center, including its development of these additional modest
facilities is supported by the Comprehensive Plan’s goal to protect the county’s
historical and cultural resources and will promote tourism in the county.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
13
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Randolph asked when they have a special event has there been discussion within
their Foundation to provide an email notification for intermediate neighbors and people
that are customarily using Route 712 so that they would be aware that there was a
special event. Also, given that road is not a highly traveled road would they have
somebody stationed out on the road to help police and ensure that there was safety
maintained of traffic coming in and out of the site.
Ms. Beasley replied they have not historically needed to have anyone posted on the
road. As indicated there is very good visibility. Of course, depending on the number of
cars expected they would do whatever would be needed. Typically for events they are
expecting more than 75 people. When they have 150 people they are probably going to
have 60 or 70 cars. Generally people are coming as couples or as families. It really
has not been a problem. They have stationed people in the parking area to show the
public how to park so that all the cars get into the parking area. Whenever they
anticipated such a number that it might be a problem they have worked out a shuttle
service or whatever might be required. In terms of notifying local landowners, they have
never done that although a number of them are on their list because they have had
neighborhood events at the site. They don’t have a complete list of all adjacent
landowners and have never done that in the past. They would not have an objection to
it. She had one question about the recommendations that relates to the six year period.
They anticipate putting in the restrooms pretty quickly assuming they can work out the
issues with the health department. The educational center is planned for later. If for
any reason the second new building did not happen within that timeframe she would
think the special use permit would still exist with respect to approving the site as an
historical center and with respect to the building of the restroom they would just not
have that aspect of it..
Mr. Sorrell replied that is correct provided they build the restroom building that pretty
much starts the special use permit to show they are actually getting it constructed. That
would keep the special use permit valid. If they do not build that portion within the six
years, then they would have to get the special use permit amended for the historical
center if it was built.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Gerome Beasley, Director of the Edith and Theodore Roosevelt Pine Knott Foundation,
said that Pine Knott was located 13 miles south of Charlottesville off of Route 20. It is a
valuable asset to this community and the state providing the unique opportunity for
students and adults alike to learn about Theodore Roosevelt, his conversation values in
the natural world, birds and wildlife. The Foundation has carefully assessed the needs
of the site while maintaining the rustic wilderness aspects of the site that were the
reasons the Roosevelt’s chose Pine Knot as their family retreat. Pine Knott really needs
a restroom facility. Honoring Roosevelt’s conservation and preservation principles the
Foundation researched the most appropriate environmentally sensitive application for
the site and one that would not entail creating water, plumbing, heating, or electricity at
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
14
this site since the cottage itself has never been fitted with any. Aesthetically and in
keeping with the site this restroom is the right one. In addition, from the cost
consideration this restroom is the right one as well. The Clivus method of separating
liquid and solid waste, which then separately decomposes the liquid and solid using
aerobic decomposition and organic compounds to speed the decomposition process,
was developed in 1939 by a Swedish engineer to prevent pollution in the Baltic Sea
near his home. It was developed by a company he founded in 1962 which then
incorporated in the United States in 1973. Clivus had composting toilets and gray water
system installations in residential and commercial buildings throughout the national park
service, US Army Corps of Engineers, the City of New Yolk, and many other state and
local parks in the United States, in Europe, Canada, Australia and Korea. These
systems are clean using no energy other than sunlight and odorless, attractive and
practical and produce end products that are organic and totally returnable to the natural
environment. They had visited multiple Clivus installations with several in Washington
State, am extremely progressive environmental state. One sits in the corner of a
community garden and has for a number of years. None of these sites have had
problems. All other sites where the liquid end product is spread tests 100 times less
than the E Coli EPA requirement for swimming pools. They urge their support in
assistance in supporting the Clivus installation including the disposal of liquid end
products provided it tests as safe. Bottom line is they believe the concept plan before
the Commission is consistent with the obligations. He hoped they would assist them
with moving forward with this plan.
Don Woodsmall, resident of Dunlora in Albemarle County, said he was fortunate to be a
member of the Board also. In a prior life he was a real estate lawyer and developer. He
has been before a lot of Planning Commissions on a lot of technical issues on hundreds
or thousands of acres that they were master planning and developing. This is an easy
request since it is truly an historical treasure for the county. The two persons who spoke
previously have spent countless hours and their own dollars so that Albemarle County
has three presidential homes. The only thing additional he would urge them not to put
additional requirements on like an email notification to neighbors. He suggested that
they visit the site since the road is broad and long.
Walter Morgan, resident of Albemarle County, said they need the center and the
facilities in order for the children to visit the historical retreat of Teddy Roosevelt. It is a
lovely place. He asked the Commission to help them proceed with this project.
Mr. Morris invited further public comment. There being none, the public hearing was
closed and the matter before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Kamptner suggested a minor change to the language in condition 1 that requires the
development shall be in accord. The language staff has been trying to standardize
would be “general accord”, which gives the applicant some flexibility. The rest of the
condition describes the parameters of what general accord is. He recommended that
“accord” in the two spots be changed to “general accord”. Just for Planning
Commission information to update the modification they are being asked to act on that.
It goes to the Board and is acted on as a special exception under the new regulations.
He suggested that two separate actions be taken.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
15
Mr. Lafferty asked that they make it clear that they are not requiring email notification of
the neighbors.
Mr. Morris replied agreed unless that is put in.
Mr. Loach pointed out that Ms. Beasley said they have a web site that they can sign up
for. Therefore, if the neighbors want to know all they have to do is get on their email list
and that settles really what they were asking for.
Mr. Lafferty said he wanted to make sure that was clear.
Mr. Randolph said his goal was not to make interference. His goal was to ensure there
was adequate notification for neighbors in a rural area. They are looking at application
after application in the rural area where people have moved out to enjoy the bucolic
setting and the traffic, which is more urban in nature, but is now coming out in that area.
He was just trying to be consistent because they had the same discussion about
Panorama Farms.
Mr. Morris noted Panorama Farm was unique.
Mr. Randolph said that notification was just being a good neighbor.
Mr. Morris noted one item he would invite the Commission to consider with Panorama
was that last time the Commission increased the number of people that could be in
attendance to 200 trying to level the playing field. Mr. Lafferty brought this up. He
asked if there were any thoughts on that or should they leave it within what the
guidelines say right now.
Mr. Loach agreed because the applicant did mention that at one time they had 200.
Mr. Morris pointed out that was in the original proposal from the applicant.
Mr. Franco said that would be a modification.
Mr. Lafferty said he was in agreement with 200.
Mr. Dotson asked if there would be sufficient parking area if that was done.
Mr. Sorrell noted there should be enough parking to accommodate that given not
everyone comes in their own vehicle. People typically arrive several to a car. Again, if
that is what the Commission desired to do then that would be another modification. He
suggested confirming with the applicant that is something they want. It does sound like
they did. However, they did withdraw that particular aspect of the application.
Mr. Morris asked the applicant to come forward and address that particular area.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
16
Mr. Lafferty noted that she also explained that they withdrew it because they did not
want to complicate it.
Mr. Morris said absolutely, but he believed it was in the original application for 200.
Ms. Beasley said in the original application they indicated they would like to have
permission for at least two events where they could have 200. It was more a concept of
flexibility that people are permitted there only by invitation or by appointment. That is
consistent with their easement. For a fund raising event if they were to have 200 people
who wanted to come they certainly would want to have them there because that is what
funds the foundation. As she said, historically the highest they have ever had was 150.
It is not inconceivable as they develop more programming and it becomes better known
that 200 people might want to come. Originally they had that in the application to
provide some flexibility. Their primary goal is get this approved. Therefore, they don’t
want to complicate the process.
Mr. Lafferty asked if it was by invitation only or special events - fund raisers.
Ms. Beasley replied yes.
Mr. Lafferty asked if one of the Board members invited the general public to come and
view it.
Ms. Beasley replied that the general public is welcome at any time by appointment.
Their volunteers have never turned anyone down.
Mr. Lafferty recommended allowing 200 people twelve times a year and not just two
times a year.
Motion for Special Use Permit:
Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to recommend approval of SP-2010-
00057, Pine Knot Historical Center, based on the findings in the staff report subject to
the conditions listed in the staff report, with amendments to condition one (1) to include
in “general accord”.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled
“Ex. Conditions and Site Plan Special Use Permit – SP#201000057” prepared by
Water Street Studio and dated (last revised) March 22, 2012 (hereafter
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development
and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development
essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan
a. limits of disturbance
b. location of buildings and structures
c. location of parking area and associated BMPs for storm water
management
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
17
d. Minor modifications to the plan, which do not conflict with the elements
above, may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Transportation to and from the Pine Knot property for attendees of all special
events shall be subject to a transportation management plan approved by the
Planning Director.
3. Approval from the Health Department for the composting restroom facility shall
be required prior to issuance of a building permit for this use.
4. Construction of the new building, as identified on the conceptual site plan
(Attachment C) shall commence on or before six (6) years from (the Board of
Supervisor’s approval date), or this special use permit shall be deemed
abandoned and the authority granted hereunder shall be thereupon terminate.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris asked for a motion on the modifications.
Motion for Modification:
Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of the Zoning
Ordinance Modifications for SP-2010-00057, as recommended by staff permitting no
more than 1,700 square feet (in aggregate) for the Pine Knot Historical Center with the
addition of a modification to allow an increase from 150 to 200 persons in the maximum
number of attendees.
Mr. Kamptner clarified that the increase of attendees would be attendees at special
events under 5.1.42 subsection i, which would increase from 150 to 200 persons.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the following modifications:
· Section 5.1.42(d) to waive the submittal of a site plan, of 5.1.42(a),
· to permit an increase from 1,500 square feet to 1,700 square feet (in aggregate)
for the Pine Knot Historical Center, and
· Modification to Section 5.1.42(i) to allow an increase from 150 to 200 persons in
the maximum number of attendees.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2010-00057 Pine Knot Historical Center and modification
requests would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for
approval on a date to be determined.
At 6:57 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed and then reconvened at 7:02
p.m.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
18
CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Revision
Work Session 8 – Community Facilities and Design Expectations for the Development
Areas (Elaine Echols)
The Planning Commission held a work session to set general direction on the following
issues regarding Community Facilities and Design Expectations for the Development
Area:
· Neighborhood Model - Re-affirm the recommendations
· Entrance Corridor Needs
· Community Facilities – Review existing and proposed standards and provide input to
staff
Elaine Echols and Andy Sorrell made a presentation on the existing Neighborhood
Model principles, a proposed change to their format and reduction from 12 to 8
principles, information on the relationship of the Entrance Corridor guidelines to the
Neighborhood Model, and expectations for Community Facilities. The following
comments were received from Commissioners:
Neighborhood Model
· The 12 principles should be kept intact rather than generalizing them to 8
principles. More specificity rather than less is desirable. Reducing the number
may send a message that the individual principles are not as important.
Whatever you do, don’t lose the substance of the 12 principles.
· The proposed 8 principles better reflect what has been learned over with the
Neighborhood Model the last 10 – 12 years.
· The principle of “neighborhood friendly streets and paths” seems to be missing.
Due to concerns about preservation of paths in the community, this principle
needs to be retained and emphasized. There are redundancies in verbiage that
should be removed. Mr. Lafferty offered to provide specific information upon
request. Additional detailed comments on NH model and public facilities will be
emailed by Mr. Dotson.
· More emphasis is needed on multimodal transportation. The term, “multimodal”
doesn’t have to mean having all modes on the same street.
· Comments in the Neighborhood Model related to concurrency should not be
dropped.
· Consider using the City’s terminology of “enhanced pedestrian experience” rather
than “pedestrian orientation or human scale”.
· Provide a better explanation about different types of housing and the importance
of affordable housing in development.
· Look for as many ways possible to emphasize “centers” -- on maps, in the text.
The term, “commercial center” may better imply or describe the kinds of centers
that are desirable.
· When siting community facilities, see if you can group them together on the
ground to create new centers. The principle of interconnectivity needs work,
especially where the interconnections may affect an existing neighborhood. In
some instances, the Commission has not supported this principle.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
19
· Walkability in areas and having the sidewalks along the street in front of the door
to the street is very important to welcome pedestrians to shopping and
employment areas.
· If we are going to make the development area pedestrian friendly, then we have
to figure out a way of getting people across those major thoroughfares without
impeding more of the traffic.
· Having sidewalks along Rt. 250 East and Rt. 29 North with entrances to buildings
from these sidewalks is not realistic due to the amount and speed of traffic on
these streets and the lack of pedestrian crossings across the roads.
· If the western bypass is built, don’t count on less traffic on Rt. 29. There are no
real opportunities to make this street more pedestrian friendly.
· The Neighborhood Model has changed the form of development over the last 10
– 12 years, but, has it really increased density? See if you can provide more
detailed information on densities achieved.
· How will the upcoming critical slopes changes relate to the NM Principle of
appropriate site grading?
· The original NH Model principle, Clear Boundaries with Rural Areas, was left out
of the new 8 principles and there does not appear to be a reference to the need
for clear boundaries. Is there a change in philosophy? We don’t want to lose
that principle.
· On the attractive multimodal streets description, the last sentence says, “Lighting
improves safety and allows for pedestrians to use sidewalks after dark.” Does
this conflict with the dark sky goals?
Entrance Corridors
· Why keep the recommendations for developing corridor specific guidelines if
there is no staff or money to pay for development of these guidelines?
· More flexibility is needed with application of EC guidelines. It isn’t useful to
spend hours of time arguing over paint colors.
Community Facilities
· Concurrency goals should be added to the Community Facilities Plan particularly
on infrastructure. There need to be benchmarks established.
· Greater direction is needed for guidance on how to provide facilities and services
when full funding is not available.
· Cost effectiveness should be defined.
· Statements should be provided that relate to the need for consistency of service
delivery.
· Items listed in the CIP need to be listed in the Comprehensive Plan first. There
seems to be a disconnect between the CIP and Comprehensive Plan at times.
· A community facilities map is needed so that one can see the relationship of
community facilities to one another.
Public Comments
Valerie Long:
· Don’t lose the language in the current Comprehensive Plan related to
redevelopment and infill. The County historically has supported infill and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
20
redevelopment even when it has not been considered to be compatible by
neighbors. There is some really wonderful helpful language in the Infill
Development process that could be looked to for guidance on this issue.
· How do critical slopes and critical slope regulations relate to goals for site
grading? Is more flexibility for disturbing critical slopes contemplated in the
designated development areas? If so, how do those two issues relate? It is very
important to be clear on the expectation because oftentimes applicants are
working so hard to avoid disturbing critical slopes that, final grading is not
necessarily the best outcome. There needs to be some balance between critical
slope regulations and grading expectations.
· There should be some language added to the introduction of the Entrance
Corridor Guidelines to discuss goals, the scope of ARB review, and statement
that the guidelines aren’t intended to micro- manage design in developments but
ensure compatibility.
· There is a need for balance between achieving the kind of development in the
designated growth areas that is desirable and the incredible challenges, delays,
and expenses that come with the ARB process.
· Retain flexibility in application of the NM Principles. Having 8 rather than 12
provides greater flexibility in how the principles are addressed. If it makes more
sense to have 8 principles the smaller number allows the same goals to be
achieved. Don’t discourage efforts to simplify the process.
· Have the ARB provide better guidance when they are reviewing projects
· Rules need to be flexible enough to achieve the common goals.
Neil Williamson
· The EC Guidelines are ripe for reform as is the role of the ARB. Consideration
should be given to establishing performance standards and getting rid of the
ARB.
· The Commission should have asked for public comment before discussing the
information that came from the staff presentation.
· It is unfair to say that builders are not relegating parking as they are working to
do just this.
No formal action was taken.
Old Business:
Mr. Morris asked if there was any old business. There being no old business, the
meeting moved to the next item.
New Business:
Mr. Morris asked if there was any new business.
· There will be no Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 29, 2012, June
5, 2012 or June 12, 2012.
· The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 19, 2012.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
21
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. to the Tuesday, June 19,
2011 meeting at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Room #241,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission &
Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1
JULY 24, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 24, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, July
24, 2012, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Richard Randolph, Bruce Dotson, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach,
Don Franco, Calvin Morris, Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia
Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Andy Sorrell, Senior
Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, Amelia McCulley, Director of
Zoning/Zoning Administrator; J.T. Newberry, Senior Planner; and Greg Kamptner,
Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Morris invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
Diane Webber spoke regarding allowing restaurants at wineries to benefit tourism and
serve County residents.
Kellyn Kusyk spoke in support of urban agriculture and specifically the raising of
American Guinea Hogs in the R-1 residential zoning.
Charles Battig, county resident, spoke regarding the Comp Plan Update and the
negative consequences of “smart growth”. (Attachment A - Memo dated 7-24-2012 to
Albemarle County Planning Commission from Charles Battig)
Staff noted that comments regarding Urban Agriculture and the Livability Project Goals
should be taken during the work session.
There being no further comments, the meeting moved to the next item.
Work Session
Comprehensive Plan -
Urban Agriculture - Supporting small-scale agricultural production in the Development
Areas
Andy Sorrell presented the Power-Point presentation, as follows.
Tonight’s discussion is urban agricultural and how they can discuss that in our
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2
JULY 24, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
Comprehensive Plan.
Perspective
Earlier in the 20th century urban agriculture involved having chickens and community
gardens. Urban agriculture was something commonly seen in cities and urban areas,
especially during World War I and II and something the government encouraged
citizens to do.
How Do We Get Food Now?
Basically now food comes from far away. There is a large cost to get that food to us
wherever it may come from.
Examples – Rural Chickens
- A rooster was something they would not want in an urban center.
Examples – Urban gardening
– Community garden
– Rooftop garden in a city
Examples – Chickens, Goats
- Backyard Hens & backyard goat
Examples – Beekeeping
– Bee hives on suburban style lot (limited #)
– Beehive and keeper in a city setting
How is it Currently Addressed?
• Comp. Plan supports agricultural uses in Rural Areas
• Silent on support for small-scale agricultural uses in DAs
• Zoning permits all forms of agriculture in RA and Village Residential (VR) districts
• Zoning only permits gardening as accessory use to a dwelling in residential
districts
• Recent years have included requests for laying hens, pigs, and goats.
Albemarle's Comprehensive Plan supports agriculture in the Rural Areas, but does not
mention support for small-scale agriculture in the Development Areas. The zoning
ordinance allows for all forms of agriculture in Rural Areas and Village Residential
zoning districts. In the urban zoning districts (which include all residential districts)
production of fruits and vegetables is permitted as an accessory use to a dwelling (i.e.
gardening). However, such use is not permitted as a primary use of a property. While
the typical requests from the public to the Zoning Administrator are for the keeping of a
few laying hens (backyard chickens) or keeping of a few goats for milk production, it
should be noted that gardening as a stand-alone use is not permitted in urban zoning
districts Beekeeping has not been a request, although it is likely occurring. A request
to keep pot-bellied pigs as pets was made by an owner several years ago, but the
Board determined that this should not occur in the Development Areas due to significant
impacts of pigs.
What’s the Problem?
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 3
JULY 24, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
There are animals that are already currently permitted in Development Areas or growth
areas such as dogs that have the potential for noise and being nuisances.
When it comes to urban agricultural activities they want to make sure that the people
that are getting involved in those activities know what they are getting into. There may
be certain limitations on it. If they have animals that escape or they expect were hens
but ended up being roosters – a place where they can go. Most of the times SPCA’s
and places like that are not equipped to take farm animals. So they would have to find
other means for taking stray animals that might be caught or other situations.
Purpose of Work Session:
• Consider whether Albemarle’s Comp. Plan should support urban agriculture in
the Development Areas.
• If so, then ZTAs would follow to allow for this use under certain conditions
Background:
Current interest in:
• Locally grown
• Organic
• Chickens (laying hens)
• Pigs
• Goats
• Bees
What is Urban Agriculture
• producing, raising and cultivating items for local sale and consumption within an
urban context
• Wide variety of activities can include:
What is Urban Agriculture?
As found in a piece written by Ms. Kate Voight for the Boston College Environmental
Affairs Law Review,
“The terms “urban agriculture” and “urban farming” encompass a wide variety of
activities. They can include: growing tomatoes on a roof to supplement a family’s dinner;
cultivating a variety of crops on vacant, industrial plots to sell at a local farmers’ market;
and raising chickens in a backyard coop to produce enough eggs for a few families.
Assigning one definition is difficult because of this diversity, but in general, urban
agriculture includes “any processes that produce traditional subsistence, nutritional or
commercially profitable food or other grown or raised products, removed from rural
domains, and instead cultivate them in special intensive conditions within the urban
context or in its surrounding buffer, peri-urban, regions.” Urban agriculture often
employs “resources (unused or under-used space, organic waste), services
(technical extension, financing, transportation), and products (agrochemicals,
tools, vehicles) . . . and, in turn, generates resources (green areas, microclimates,
compost), services (catering, recreation, therapy), and products (flowers, poultry,
dairy) largely for this urban area.”
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 4
JULY 24, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
How is it addressed elsewhere?
• Most information found in localities zoning ordinances
• some urban localities do not support agricultural production in residential areas
or discourage it
• Some support agriculture production in residential districts with limitations
• Enforcement usually by zoning or animal control
– Many urban areas searching for ways to support concept without compromising
resident health and safety
– Staff reviewed Comp. Plans of multiple localities – found that most address urban
agriculture as part of an overall sustainability theme
– Most information found in localities zoning ordinances
– some urban localities do not support agricultural production in residential areas
(Rockingham Co., City of Portsmouth) in residential districts) or discourage it
(Chesterfield Co. – req. SUP )
– Some support ag. production in res. districts with limitations (Town of Culpeper,
City of Charlottesville)
– Enforcement usually by zoning or animal control
Charlottesville
• Charlottesville
– Permits chickens (no roosters), small goats (limit 2) & bees
– Does not permit cows, pigs or sheep
– Enforced by Animal Control
– Have had no major issues with diseases, cruelty/mishandling; biggest
issue is chickens running loose
Common Regulatory Themes:
• Limits on # of animals permitted per household;
• Limits on types/ size of animals kept;
• Nuisance clauses for noise, odor disease, pests, waste disposal and predation;
• Permits/fees for keeping animals;
• Enclosure/containment & slaughtering restrictions;
• Setbacks for animal enclosures from dwellings and or property lines
Where localities allow for urban agriculture, there are common regulatory themes which
include:
--Limits on the number of animals permitted per household (commonly 3-4 chickens
are permitted per household, with more possible by special use permit if meeting
certain standards. Some require a minimum square footage per animal);
--Limits on the types of animals that could be kept. The most commonly permitted
were chickens (hens), ducks, quail, small goats, rabbits and bees. The following
animals are not usually permitted due to issues with excessive noise, space
constraints, difficulty in containing the animals, etc.: roosters (male chickens),
geese, guinea fowl, pigs, larger goats, cows, sheep and horses;
--Limits on the size of goats;
--Rules concerning odor and waste disposal;
--Nuisance clauses for noise, odor, disease, pests, waste disposal and predators
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 5
JULY 24, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
--Permits and fees required for keeping animals (no different than for keeping dogs
or cats);
--Enclosure/ containment restrictions (no at-large running; Coops are best treated
like dog houses which don’t require building permits);
--Slaughtering restrictions (either not at all or only in an enclosed structure); and
--Setbacks for animal enclosure areas from property lines (common range is 10 – 90
feet) and distance restrictions in relation to dwellings (often range from 20-50
feet).
Important to also keep in mind:
Urban agriculture regulations that incorporate citizen input in the creation stage
ensure an ordinance that best fits the needs (and is supported by) the
community; and
If regulations are unclear and guidance is not provided to citizens, a higher
percentage of code enforcement issues and neighbor disputes will arise.
Considerations for Albemarle:
• If regulations changed, what kind of enforcement would be necessary & how
would it be done?
• What happens to strays? (loose animals)
• Level of production desired?
• How would community education be provided?
-- If regulations changed, what kind of enforcement would be necessary & how would it
be done?
-- Staff time to investigate complaints will be needed, either by the Zoning
Division or by the Animal Control staff.
- Investigations of complaints takes time and staff resources.
-- Cross-training of departments would be needed since typically both
Zoning and Animal Control receive complaints and questions.
-- Staff would need to be available to assist residents in permitting and
understanding regulations.
-- Animal control staff was wary due to the additional enforcement & they
are at capacity with 3 officers covering the whole County.
-- Zoning enforcement staff has been reduced from 7 3 in recent years.
-- Complaints about potential zoning violations are up 10% with remaining
staff handing a greater workload.
-- Additional enforcement responsibilities may delay response times or
times to abate violations in general depending on the extent of the Zoning
Division’s involvement.
-- Cville Animal Control fields several calls a month – mostly asking permitting
questions
-- What happens to strays? Most groups like SPCA are not equipped to take farm
animals – need alternatives for strays
-- Most localities enforce through Animal Control or Zoning Dept.
-- Albemarle has had a minimal # of complaints – last one took about 4 hours not
including adjudication if needed
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 6
JULY 24, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
-- Level of production desired?
-- Support in all or part of the DAs? Some places not appropriate? How many &
what kind should be allowed? Should permits be required? What parameters are
needed to protect residents, adjacent property owners as well and livestock?
-- How would community education be provided?
-- Many in the community believe that local food production should be
supported in the Development Areas.
-- But, there are residents who have strong feelings that livestock should
not be allowed in residential areas.
-- Activities would be needed to help people understand how urban
livestock and bees can be managed in residential areas without negative impacts.
Relation to Comp Plan
• Support for urban agriculture in the Development Areas requires additional
Comp. Plan guidance on:
– what types of agriculture are appropriate in the Development Areas and
– how activities/uses should be managed so that zoning regulations could
follow that allow the activity
Language to Consider:
Objective: Support local food production and consumption through the use of urban
agriculture practices as a means for increasing access to healthy, local and affordable
foods and encouraging the productive use of vacant land.
Strategy: Encourage and promote appropriate agricultural uses of urban land.
Adopt zoning regulations that:
– Clearly define urban agriculture, including the allowance for gardening as
a stand-alone use as well as stipulation of what animals is permitted and
which ones are not and other limitations. Strong consideration should be
given to only allowing chickens (no roosters) and small goats which have
been neutered.
– Allow for beekeeping with restrictions on the number of hives and
performance standards to prevent negative impacts to adjoining residents
and people.
– Discourage health and nuisance hazards sometimes associated with
agricultural activities, which may include setback requirements, yard size
requirements, and complaint procedures
– Require a permit be issued for keeping of bees, small livestock, and
poultry to ensure that operators understand the regulations and also to
provide guidance on resources for assistance.
– Require a waste management plan with keeping of small livestock and
poultry
– Provide staff resources for enforcement, primarily for investigating
complaints. Assign county staff to serve as the point of contact for
permitting and urban agricultural questions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7
JULY 24, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
– Partner with local organizations to provide education on how to keep
backyard chickens and goats as well as on local regulations.
Commission Action
• Staff asks that the Commission provide direction regarding the inclusion of
language in the Comprehensive Plan supporting local food production and
consumption through the use of urban agriculture practices.
Ms. Echols pointed out what staff was looking for is direction on whether or not this is
something they should be pursing and, if so, what are the perimeters they think they
ought to be putting around this. Some of those things in the staff report they were
talking about would be direction for future zoning text amendments.
Urban Agriculture Discussion
The following comments came from the public:
1. Amy Coffman – Spoke in opposition to permitting agricultural activities in the
Development Areas. Spoke of past issues with a neighbor in Ednam Forest with
pigs and how that impacted her property. Specifically spoke of guinea hogs and
how hard they were to contain and the vectors they attracted like rats. Also felt
that current county staffing levels were inadequate to add additional regulations
to enforce.
2. Lonny Murray – Represented the Natural Heritage Committee and spoke of
urban agriculture’s relationship to sustainability. Stated that people currently
living in the rural areas may be encouraged to live in the urban areas if they knew
they could do some of the activities they can do in rural areas. Liked the idea of
not permitting roosters and keeping the number of permitted animals small.
Encouraged staff to review Charlottesville’s urban agriculture regulations.
3. Diane Webber – Supports urban agriculture and suggested the county work with
the Virginia Tech Cooperative Extension Agency as they were helpful to her
when she raised bantam chickens. Stated chicken manure is good fertilizer and
that neutered goats may conflict with the goal of milk production.
4. Kellyn Kusyk – Supports urban agriculture and specifically the raising of
American Guinea Hogs in R-1 residential zoning. Stated the hog is a heritage
breed important to the history of Albemarle County as Thomas Jefferson also
had this breed.
5. Robert Kusyk – Owner of American Guinea Hogs that used to live on his property
in Ednam Forest. Supports urban agriculture and would like it to also include
hogs such as these. Raising the animals is a good hands on experience for
children and promotes sustainability.
6. Albert Connette – Once lived on Garth Road and had chickens but moved to St.
George Avenue in Crozet and cannot have them there. However, originally
people probably moved to this older part of Crozet and brought their chickens
and other animals with them.
7. Helen Swift-Dovel – Asked to make sure that sale of produce is possible.
Referenced farmer in Fauquier County being fined by the FDA for selling his
produce.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 8
JULY 24, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
8. Dr. Michael Johnson – Supports urban agriculture, but also felt roosters were
needed to maintain a sustainable chicken flock. Roosters will have to be sent
somewhere since it is hard to tell the sex of a chicken when they are small.
9. Greg Quinn – Asked the Commission to use common sense when considering
new regulations and keep things simple. Let neighbor have a vote when it
comes to nuisance concerns.
10. Dana Turname – beekeeper and chicken keeper off of Profit Road. Supports
urban agriculture. Noted that chickens are flock animals and need company.
Did not feel permits were necessary given the staff constraints.
11. Ashley Kippers – She has a bachelor degree in animal and poultry science from
Virginia Tech. She recently moved to an Albemarle County residential district
and brought her two goats and chickens. She consulted the zoning laws and
they were very unclear. She found out later they were not permitted by zoning.
She could not find it stated in the ordinance where such animals were not
permitted. She stressed that the County needs to make the zoning regulations
very clear when it comes to what is permitted and what is not. She was in the
process of being forced to get rid of her animals at this current time and asked
that the regulations be changed.
12. Joseph Jones – past President of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, said the
Farm Bureau supports urban agriculture and would be happy to work with the
county to find homes for stray farm animals. Liked the idea of working with
neighbors to get a setback reduced if the neighbor did not mind. He stated that
children that grow up with fur bearing animals and chickens have fewer allergies.
He suggested high schools should reinstate agricultural instruction so that
younger generations can learn of agriculture.
13. Charles Battig – Asked that if urban agriculture activities were to be permitted,
then not to allow commercial sale of produce and other items from such activity
because it would need to be inspected. He asked who would do that.
Commissioners made the following comments or asked the following questions:
1. What is the size of a small goat?
2. Safety, welfare, and protection of the community are essential.
3. If the Commission supports this change, any proposed regulations should be
published in the newspaper for a month.
4. It may not be appropriate to allow urban agriculture in denser areas such as with
apartment buildings or condos. The County will need to pick and choose where
such activities will be allowed.
5. The County should align its regulations with the City; the area has been
historically agricultural.
6. If the County goes this way, minimum standards are needed for poultry and
livestock, and also for bees.
7. Negative comment made concerning personnel and effective enforcement.
Enforcement and penalties will need teeth to work. Any permit fees should go to
a dedicated revenue stream that goes to fund enforcement.
8. The idea of permitting community gardens as a primary use is good; however, a
measured approach is needed on the other aspects of urban agriculture due to
potential enforcement costs.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 9
JULY 24, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
9. There does not seem to be a high demand for this change based on the
attendance at the meeting tonight. Some people are committed to urban
agriculture activities, but others are not.
10. It is important to hear from animal control first.
11. Consider making a survey of urban area residents to assess the level of support
that exists.
12. Neighbor input is important.
13. Decisions for urban agriculture should be dependent on what the neighbors think.
14. The County should not enable what we cannot enforce.
15. Consider phasing in different species of animals over time. Could start with
chickens and see how it works.
16. Consider grandfathering in people who may have chickens now but haven’t had
complaints lodged against them.
17. They should be aware of the difference in the breeding of animals.
The Planning Commission cautiously supports modifying the Comprehensive Plan and
the Zoning Ordinance to allow for urban agriculture. The Planning Commission
overwhelmingly supports removing the prohibition against community gardens.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to support the following proposed
language to make it more general:
• The objective would be modified to say consider supporting local food production
through urban agriculture rather than support.
• On the strategies investigate zoning regulations about the different items in
taking out the particulars, such as strong consideration should be given to only
allowing chickens and small goats which have been neutered.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:32 p.m. and the meeting reconvened
at 7:42 p.m.
Livability Project Goals
Topics for Joint Comprehensive Plan Goals: Land Use and Transportation (Summer
Frederick)
Summer Frederick presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the executive
summary.
Purpose of Work Session: The purpose of the work session was to discuss county
goals related to Land Use and Transportation, and to identify specific opportunities
within these topic areas for the City and County to work together on joint goals. This
work session is the second in a series of Commission meetings being held in advance
of meeting with the City Commission.
The Commission reviewed, discussed, took public comment, and advised on potential
areas for joint goals with the City, as follows:
Livability Project Discussion
The Commissioners suggested the following ways to work with the City on the following
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 10
JULY 24, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
geographic areas:
1. The Woolen Mills Neighborhood
2. The L-shaped corridor along Route 29N and Route 250 E
3. The portion of Rio Road referred to as “Gasoline Alley”, and
4. The Rivanna River
Woolen Mills
· Plan together for a bike/pedestrian path/ bridge across the Rivanna River
· Bring in Dan Mahon and Chris Gensic to talk about City and County
greenway trail opportunities
· Plan for recreational opportunities on the Rivanna River
· Both Planning Commissions should take a field trip to walk the area
· Neither locality should turn its backs to the River
· There should be access to the resource
L-Shaped Area
· There need to be more bridges across the Rivanna River to make the
traffic flow better in this area
· City-County cooperation must take place when dealing with traffic
· Make sure we are working on the Northtown trail together. This is a City-
County trail that could go through Hollymead Town Center. It opens the
possibility of walking and commuting from Hollymead to Downtown
· We may be able to use existing piers for a river crossing
Gasoline Alley
· Completion of Meadowcreek Parkway and additional traffic plus
intersection of Rio Road and Rt. 29 means that we need the grade
separated interchange built
· We need input from the City on the appearance of the entrance corridor
there
· Walking across Rio Road is dangerous at Gasoline Alley.
The Rivanna River
· Making the Rivanna River an amenity and not a backyard is important
· Our Comprehensive Plans should make more substantive statements to
allow the area between Darden Towe and Free Bridge to develop towards
the Rivanna River
· We are limited by some of the current activities on the City side
· What about a ferry across the Rivanna River?
· Trails are on both sides of the Rivanna River – look for bike accessibility
as well as riverfront recapture
· Plan together for future opportunities – bridges are needed for alternative
transportation
Other Commission comments:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 11
JULY 24, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
· Mr. Franco suggested that Stribling Avenue and the Granger property be
looked at due to the large amount of traffic involved. Ms. Echols indicated
it would be coming back after the traffic study was completed.
· Ms. Monteith noted when they are talking about bus service there is a lot
of thought being put into that. CAT does not have a current director. So
anything they would try to put a lot of energy into bus service would be
conjecture at this point. The broader idea of expanding bus service is
good, but specifics about that are going to come out of the current study
that is looking at the way that the system is working. It is the second study
in the last two years. She was not sure they were going to come out with
firm conclusions. The general idea of expanded service is good.
However, for specifics they need to wait for more information.
Public Comment Livability Project
1. Helen Swift-Doval – current President of the Jefferson Area Tea Party,
spoke of the need for limited government as a representative for the Tea
Party.
2. Charles Battig – also represented the Tea Party and spoke of the need for
less government interference. He noted that so called public input is not
the same thing as a scientific survey.
3. Lonny Murray – encouraged the Commission to rethink the
Stribling/Granger area. The Natural Heritage Committee in looking at that
area has identified a lot of biodiversity in that area. It is one of the few
areas that they can find trees like Umbrella Magnolia. It would be nice to
see a greenway coming down from that corridor through the mountains
west of 29. He encouraged people to put more attention to our National
Bike Route that goes through Charlottesville and Albemarle. He
encouraged adding bike lanes in areas other than areas being developed.
He spoke of the need for better connections particularly for bike
connections between the rural and development areas. They need to
separate the pedestrians, bicycles, and cars.
4. Greg Quinn – Felt that local government should be managing itself and
they do not need outsiders telling us how to plan our community.
5. Jim Moore – Addressed comprehensive Planning and spoke of mass
transit and its impact on the air quality especially when the buses are
running empty and not at their capacity.
6. Morgan Butler – Spoke of taking better charge of improving the water
quality of the Rivanna River. Should not just rely on TMDLs. Should take
more charge of improving the water quality now that will affect the larger
goals as well.
Staff was asked to take the Commission’s comments into consideration in the Comp
Plan Update. No formal action taken.
Old Business
Mr. Morris asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting
proceeded.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 12
JULY 24, 2012 – FINAL MINUTES
New Business
Mr. Morris asked if there was any new business.
· Next regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Adjournment
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. to Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at
6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission &
Planning Boards)
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 7-30-2013
Page 1
FINAL ACTIONS
Planning Commission Meeting of July 30, 2013
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
FOLLOW-UP ACTION
1. Call to Order.
· Meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m.
by Calvin Morris, Chairman.
· PC members present were Mr. Morris,
Mr. Dotson, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Franco,
Mr. Smith, Mr. Lafferty and Mr. Loach.
Ms. Monteith was present.
· Staff present was Mark Graham, Andy
Sorrell, Elaine Echols, Sharon Taylor,
and Andy Herrick.
2. Work Session
CPA 2013-00001 – Comprehensive Plan –
Review Draft dated July 23, 2013
The Planning Commission continued their
review of the draft Comp Plan dated July
23, 2013 starting with Chapter 8,
Development Area. Staff provided an
overview section by section and the
Commission provided feedback/direction as
shown in Attachment 1. Public comment
was deferred to other matters. Final action
deferred to regular meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Staff:
· Refer to feedback/direction noted in Attachment 1
in finalizing the Comp Plan Update. Deferred
completion of review of draft Comp Plan and final
action to 6:00 p.m. Public comment taken under
other matters not on the agenda.
Recess: The Planning Commission
recessed at 5:31 p.m. for dinner. The
Planning Commission meeting
reconvened at 6:00 p.m.
3. Call to Order.
· Regular meeting was called to order at
6:00 p.m. by Calvin Morris, Chair.
· PC members present were Mr. Morris,
Mr. Loach, Mr. Dotson, Mr. Randolph,
Mr. Franco, Mr. Smith, and Mr.
Lafferty. Ms. Monteith was present.
· Staff present was Andrew Sorrell,
Elaine Echols, Glenn Brooks, Claudette
Grant, Megan Yaniglos, Sharon Taylor,
David Benish, and Andy Herrick.
4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for
Public Hearing on the Agenda.
The following individuals spoke in
reference to the Comp Plan:
Clerk:
· No action required
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 7-30-2013
Page 2
Helen Swift-Dovel, Earlysville resident,
spoke about her concerns regarding
unanswered questions about the comp plan
update process and private property rights.
Charles Battig spoke in opposition of the
Comp Plan Update. (See Attachment A-
Presentation Albemarle County Planning
Commission July 30, 2013 with written
minutes)
Joe Draego, Carrsbrook resident, spoke
about his concerns about the Comp Plan
Update process.
Doug Arrington, spoke about his concerns
about Old Lynchburg Road in not placing
any properties in the Development Area
beyond the four lane road.
Audrey Wellborn, resident of Jack Jouett
District, spoke about her concerns about
there not being enough dialogue on the
comp plan update.
5. Consent Agenda
Approval of minutes: November 20, 2012,
November 27, 2012, June 25, 2013, April 2,
2013 & May 7, 2013
APPROVED CONSENT AGENDA, by a
vote of 7:0.
Clerk
· Finalize Minutes for signature – 11-20-12, 11-27-
12, 6-25-13, 4-2-13, and 5-7-13.
6. CONTINUED FROM 4:00 P.M. WORK
SESSION
CPA 2013-00001 – Comprehensive Plan –
Review Draft dated July 23, 2013
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CPA-
2013-00001 Comp Plan Update, by a vote
of 7:0, with the changes identified at their
July 23, 2013 meeting and this meeting as
shown in Attachment 1 excluding the
Implementation Chapter, the Summary, and
the Southern and Western Neighborhoods
Master Plan.
Clerk:
· Action Letter – CPA-2013-00001 recommended
approval with the changes identified at their July
23, 2013 and July 30, 2013 meeting excluding
the Implementation Chapter, the Summary, and
the Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master
Plan. (See Attachment 1)
· Chapters not included in this recommendation
were the Implementation Chapter, the Summary,
and the Southern and Western Neighborhoods
Master Plan. These chapters should be made
available for public review on August 13, 2013
for a work session and decision on August 27,
2013.
· The matter will go before the Board of
Supervisors to hear an introduction and the
recommendation on the review of the plan at
their August 14 meeting.
7. Deferred Items Clerk:
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 7-30-2013
Page 3
ZMA-2012-00002 Riverside Village
PROPOSAL: Rezone 18.67 acres from R-1
zoning district which allows residential uses
at a density of one unit per acre to NMD
zoning district which allows residential,
mixed with commercial, service and
industrial uses at a density of 3 – 34
units/acre and special use permit under
Sections 30.3.05.2.1(2), 30.3.05.2.2(1), and
30.3.05.2.2(3) of the zoning ordinance for
fill of land in floodways. 112 maximum
residential units proposed for a maximum
gross density of 6 units/acre for the entire
parcel and a maximum density of 11
units/acre for the area designated for
development in the Comprehensive Plan.
Five (5) commercial buildings (up to 50,000
square feet) also proposed. Some floodplain
disturbance for parking and recreational
areas.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Greenspace –
undeveloped areas; Neighborhood Density
Residential – residential (3-6 units/acre);
supporting uses such as religious
institutions, schools and other small-scale
non-residential uses; and River Corridor –
parks, golf courses, greenways, natural
features and supporting commercial and
recreational uses in Neighborhood 3 –
Pantops Comp Plan Area.
LOCATION: Located on the west side of
Stony Pointe Road/Route 20 and the east
side of Free Bridge Lane/Route 1421,
approximately 350 feet south of the
intersection of Route 20/Elks Drive.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800000005800
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
DEFERRED FROM THE APRIL 9, 2013
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
(Claudette Grant)
AND
SP-2013-00010 Riverside Village
PROPOSAL: Rezone 18.67 acres from R-1
zoning district which allows residential uses
at a density of one unit per acre to NMD
zoning district which allows residential,
mixed with commercial, service and
· Action Letter – ZMA-2012-00002 recommended
for approval by a vote of 5:2 with waivers and
revisions to the application plan, code of
development and proffers for reasons cited in the
staff report (executive summary) for approval.
(Revisions based on Attachment IV of Executive
Summary)
· Action Letter – SP-2013-00010 recommended for
approval.
· The matter will go before the Board of
Supervisors on a date to be determined.
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 7-30-2013
Page 4
industrial uses at a density of 3 – 34
units/acre and special use permit under
Sections 30.3.05.2.1(2), 30.3.05.2.2(1), and
30.3.05.2.2(3) of the zoning ordinance for
fill of land in floodways. 112 maximum
residential units proposed for a maximum
gross density of 6 units/acre for the entire
parcel and a maximum density of 11
units/acre for the area designated for
development in the Comprehensive Plan.
Five (5) commercial buildings (up to 50,000
square feet) also proposed. Some floodplain
disturbance for parking and recreational
areas.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Greenspace –
undeveloped areas; Neighborhood Density
Residential – residential (3-6 units/acre);
supporting uses such as religious
institutions, schools and other small-scale
non-residential uses; and River Corridor –
parks, golf courses, greenways, natural
features and supporting commercial and
recreational uses in Neighborhood 3 –
Pantops Comp Plan Area.
LOCATION: Located on the west side of
Stony Pointe Road/Route 20 and the east
side of Free BridgeLane/Route 1421,
approximately 350 feet south of the
intersection of Route 20/Elks Drive.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800000005800
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
DEFERRED FROM THE APRIL 9, 2013
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
(Claudette Grant)
RECOMMEND APROVAL OF ZMA-
2012-00002, by a vote of 5:2 (Lafferty and
Randolph voted nay), with waivers and
revisions to the application plan, Code of
Development and proffers for reasons cited
in the staff report (executive summary) for
approval. (Revisions based on Attachment
IV of Executive Summary)
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SP-
2013-0010, by a vote of 5:2 (Lafferty and
Randolph voted nay).
7. Public Hearing Items Clerk:
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 7-30-2013
Page 5
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)
RECOMMEND APROVAL OF ZMA-
2012-00003 by a vote of 7:0, with the
changes stated as unfavorable factors as
recommended by staff, as amended and
shown in Attachment 2.
RECOMMEND APROVAL,
OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR
CRITICAL SLOPE MODIFICATION,
by a vote of 7:0, as recommended by staff.
APPROVAL of the private streets as
recommended by staff and stated in the staff
report subject to final approval of ZMA-
2012-00003 Out of Bounds.
APPROVAL of the sidewalk and planting
strip modification with conditions for ZMA
2012-00003, Out of Bounds as
recommended by staff and stated in the staff
report.
DENIAL of the curb and gutter
modifications, by a vote of 7:0, for the
reasons stated by staff.
· Action Letter – ZMA-2012-00003 recommend
approval by a vote of 7:0, with the changes stated
as unfavorable factors as recommended by staff,
as amended and shown in Attachment 2.
· Action Letter – Recommend approval of Special
Exception for Critical Slope Modification as
recommended by staff.
· Action Letter – Approval of private streets as
recommended by staff and stated in the staff
report subject to final approval of ZMA-2012-
00003.
· Action Letter – Approval of the sidewalk and
planting strip modification with conditions subject
to final approval of ZMA-2012-00003.
· Action Letter – Denial of the curb and gutter
modifications for the reasons stated by staff.
· The matter will go before the Board of
Supervisors on a date to be determined.
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 7-30-2013
Page 6
8. SP-2013-00006 Commonwealth Office
PROPOSAL: Construct a professional
office building on 1.15 acres under Section
18.2.2.11 of zoning ordinance. No dwelling
units proposed.
ZONING: R-15 Residential – 15 units/acre,
Professional Office by special use permit;
AIA Airport Impact Area – Overlay to
minimize adverse impacts to both the
airport and the surrounding land
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban
Density Residential – residential (6.01 – 34
units/ acre); supporting uses such as
religious institutions, schools, commercial,
office and service uses in Neighborhood 1.
LOCATION: The property is located on
Commonwealth Drive (State Route 1315),
approximately .35 mile north of the
Hydraulic Road-Commonwealth Drive
intersection.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061w0030001400
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
(David Benish)
RECOMMEND APROVAL OF SP-2013-
00006, by a vote of 6:1 (Randolph voted
nay), with the conditions outlined in the
staff report as shown in Attachment 3.
Clerk:
· Action Letter – SP-2013-00006 recommended for
approval by a vote of 6:1 (Randolph nay) with
staff’s recommended conditions as outlined in
Attachment 3.
· The matter will go before the Board of
Supervisors on a date to be determined.
9. Old Business
· None
Secretary:
· None
10. New Business
· THE NEXT PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING WILL
HELD ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 6,
2013.
Secretary:
· None
11. Adjourn to August 6, 2013, 6:00 p.m.
· The meeting was adjourned at 9:04 p.m.
Attachment 1 – CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Update – Comments & Recommendations
Attachment 2 – ZMA-2012-00003 Out of Bounds – Recommendations
Attachment 3 – SP-2013-00006 Commonwealth Office - Recommended Conditions of Approval
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 7-30-2013
Page 7
ATTACHMENT 1 –
CPA-2013-00001 Comp Plan Work Session – Review of Draft dated July 23, 2013 – Comments and
Recommendations for Chapters 8 – 13 and Appendices.
The Planning Commission held a work session on CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan to review Draft
dated July 23, 2013.
Staff provided an overview chapter by chapter and answered Commission questions.
· Staff Overview/Planning Commission Questions
· Planning Commission discussion and consideration of recommendation
Commission Comments
The Planning Commission reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Draft dated July 23, 2013 and provided the
following recommended changes:
General Information
1. At the beginning of all Chapters, add back in the blue boxes that contain the agreed to Livability
goals.
Chapter 8: Development Areas
1. For the village description add term “multimodal” to the sentence that discusses how villages are
connected to the City and urban neighborhoods on page 8.4.
2. Add to the section on creating new villages that more than one route should be accessible to and from
a new village on page 8.4
3. Also on page 8.4., add this sentence, “In particular, the impact of the plan on existing development
should be emphasized. It is expected that consideration will be given to the needs and wishes of those
already living and owning property in the area. Any development near the boundaries of a village
should be sensitive to the existing character of the surrounding Rural Area.”
Chapter 9: Housing
No recommended changes.
Chapter 10: Transportation
1. Add “increasingly” after “…transportation network will…” in the goal on page 10.1 so that it reads,
“Albemarle’s transportation network will be increasingly multimodal, environmentally sound, well
maintained, safe, and reliable.”
2. Add statements about the community’s responsibility to pay for and maintain aging road
infrastructure to address existing needs and accommodate existing zoning. This could be added to
Strategy 1b or be an additional strategy.
3. Be aware that CHART’s name is changing to Citizen’s Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC)
pending approval by the MPO Policy Board later this year, if timing works out so that that occurs
before the Board considers adopting the Plan, change the name in the Plan.
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 7-30-2013
Page 8
4. Add a strategy to the draft to reinstate the Transportation Planner position to help with County road
planning, traffic modeling, coordination with the MPO, and with traffic analyses for development
proposals.
5. Add wording to state that increased road and interchange capacity will be considered after fully
examining all other multimodal options as well. Additional wording may work in Objective 2 or
Objective 6.
6. Amend strategy 11d on page 10.28 to begin with “Participate in the study of a new east-west
passenger train route through the Albemarle-Charlottesville region,” rather than “Initiate a new east-
west passenger train route...”
7. Be sure that the draft reflects that bicycles are classified as vehicles.
Chapter 11: Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways, and Green Systems
1. Add wording to text under strategy 7a on page 11.16 so that the first sentence reads: “Through the
Livability project, the City and County have decided this is a top priority and that a plan should be
developed and implemented that support the river corridor as a destination. . .”
2. A statement needs to be added about the importance of opportunities for the public to participate in
decisions related to park needs.
3. Make sure there is a reference to the trails that are recommended in the Greenway Plan, such as the
Northtown Trail.
Chapter 12: Community Facilities
1. On page 12.3 add a paragraph about strengthening the relationship or link between fiscal planning
and the reduction in federal and state funding. The text should advise the public that local funding
will be needed for community services and facilities. Also, provide text that indicates the need for a
link between community facilities planning and the CIP process.
2. On page 12.12, the reference to public schools should clarify that these are K-12 County public
schools.
3. On page 12.27, reference where in the appendix more information on water and sewer capacity can be
found on the Village of Rivanna and the other Development Areas.
Chapter 13: Implementation
1. On page 13.5 add wording under the heading “Work Program for the County” in the third
sentence so that it reads: “The Work Program is developed by staff, reviewed by the Planning
Commission, and endorsed by the Board of Supervisors…”
2. On page 13.5 Add wording on how the Planning Commission’s annual report will be used to give
a status check on the indicators of progress.
3. Look at the indicators of mobility from the TJPDC to add to the indicators of progress.
4. On pages A.5.4 and A.5.5 provide less specificity in area of each room. Identify the minimum
square footage needed for District Stations as 7,000 sq. feet and 13,000 sq. feet for Training
Academy. Identify the activities the building will need to accommodate.
Appendices A1 through A7 and A9, A11, A12, and A13
No changes were recommended.
Cash Proffer Policy
There were no proposed changes. [It was noted the Board was going to reexamine the whole policy.]
Affordable Housing Policy
There were no proposed changes.
Neighborhood Model Guidance
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 7-30-2013
Page 9
There were no proposed changes with the exception of typos.
Community Facilities and Service Expectations
There were no proposed changes.
Land Use Design Guidelines
- Be sure to provide 11 x 17s instead of 8 ½ x 11 size pages.
Crozet Master Plan
- There were no proposed changes.
Appendix A8: Southern and Western Neighborhoods
1. No changes were recommended at this time to the Master Plan other than to clearly state the
expectations for the Parham parcel that were provided at the May 28, 2013 Commission meeting and
those identified by staff in relation to Area B. The Parham site is intended to allow for a residential
component, but this same allowance is not intended for other Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial
designated properties in the area.
The Commission said it was not opposed to considering a request received last week from three
property owners in the Southern Neighborhood for properties adjacent to Pebble Drive (TMPs 90-
35F, 91-16B, and 91-16A) to be designated as urban density residential through a future
comprehensive plan amendment. The Commission did not feel it was too late in this process to bring
up substantive requests because the larger community had not had an opportunity to see and discuss
the implications, nor had the Commission. Staff noted that the economic development staff were in
support of leaving the designations as shown on the recommended plan because the proposed
designation for Office/R&D/Flex/LI increases localized job opportunities, the location connects
closely to I-64, I-95, I-81, and local target industries looking to expand could benefit from expanded
space options and better location.
Appendix A10: Places 29
1. No changes were recommended to the area north of Rivanna Station which were requested by the
property owner and reviewed by the Places 29 Advisory Council on June 19, 2013. As with the
properties in the Southern and Western Neighborhoods, the Commission believed more study was
needed than the time allowed. Potential road layout in relation to environmental features, such as two
creeks on the property could be problematic. The Commission did not want to endorse creek and
floodplain crossings for future road connections without more study. They did not want to make a
decision without input from other property owners in the general area. In addition, no other
expansions of the Development Areas were being recommended by the Commission with this update,
so it would be unfair to the other applicants to recommend an expansion for just this case.
The Commission said it was not opposed to considering a request after the Comprehensive Plan is
adopted. The request could be considered prior to or in conjunction with the Places 29 Master Plan
update.
The Planning Commission recessed at 5:31 p.m. for a dinner break. The meeting reconvened at
6:00 p.m.
The Planning Commission continued their review at the 6:00 p.m. meeting after review of the
consent agenda on the following three sections.
Community Facilities Standards
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 7-30-2013
Page 10
There were no proposed changes.
Pantops Master Plan –
There were no proposed changes other than the removal of two roads on the Land Use and Transportation
Plans.
Village of Rivanna Land Use Plan
There were no proposed changes except to augment the Master Plan with a Land Use Plan for the Village
using standard colors.
Staff asked the Planning Commission to take action to recommend the Comprehensive Plan to the Board
of Supervisors with the changes they have recommended from July 23, 2013 and July 30, 2013 not
including the Southern and Western Neighborhoods, the Implementation chapter and summary, which
would come to the Commission for a meeting at the end of August.
Conclusions and Directions to Staff
The Commission agreed that with the changes identified at their July 23, 2013 meeting and at this
meeting, a recommendation could be made to the Board of Supervisors to approve the Comprehensive
Plan update. Chapters not included in this recommendation were the Implementation Chapter, the
Summary, and the Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan. These chapters should be made
available for public review on August 13, 2013 for a work session and decision on August 27, 2013.
Action: By a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission recommended approval of CPA-2013-00001
Comprehensive Plan Update to the Board of Supervisors with the changes they have recommended from
both tonight’s and last week’s meeting on July 23, 2013, not including the Southern and Western
Neighborhoods, the Implementation Chapter and Summary, which would come to the Commission for a
meeting at the end of August.
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 7-30-2013
Page 11
Attachment 2
ZMA-2012-00003 Out of Bounds - Recommendations
The Planning Commission took the following five actions.
1. Zoning Map Amendment:
RECOMMEND APROVAL OF ZMA-2012-00003, by a vote of 7:0, with the changes stated as
unfavorable factors as recommended by staff.
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.
2. Critical Slopes Modification:
RECOMMEND APROVAL, OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR CRITICAL SLOPE
MODIFICATION, by a vote of 7:0, as recommended by staff.
3. Private Street Requests:
APPROVAL of the private streets as recommended by staff and stated in the staff report subject to final
approval of ZMA-2012-00003 Out of Bounds.
4. Sidewalk and Planting Strips:
APPROVAL of the sidewalk and planting strip modification with conditions for ZMA 2012-00003, Out
of Bounds as recommended by staff and stated in the staff report.
CONDITIONS:
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’.
5. Curb and Gutter Modifications:
DENIAL of the curb and gutter modifications, by a vote of 7:0, for the reasons stated by staff.
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-410 (I) Waivers for curb and gutter:
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 7-30-2013
Page 12
The applicant has request that this waiver be granted for Road ‘B’ only (Attachment F). Per Section 14-
410 (I)(2) in reviewing a request to waive the requirement for curb and gutter, the commission shall
consider whether: (ordinance language presented in italics below)
(i) the number of lots in the subdivision and the types of lots to be served;
There are 26 townhouse lots being served by this road.
(ii) the length of the street;
The road is approximately 330 feet long.
(iii) whether the proposed street(s) or street extension connects into an existing system of streets
constructed to a rural cross-section;
Road ‘B’ will be connected to Georgetown Road Extended, a proposed public street with curb
and gutter.
(iv) the proximity of the subdivision and the street to the boundaries of the development and rural
areas;
Road ‘B’ is adjacent to other development area boundaries. However, the adjacent neighborhood,
Canterbury Hills, does have rural section roads without curb and gutter.
(v) whether the street terminates in the neighborhood or at the edge of the development area or is
otherwise expected to provide interconnections to abutting lands;
Road ‘B’ will terminate within the neighborhood and will not be connected to abutting property.
(vi) whether a rural cross-section in the development areas furthers the goals of the comprehensive
plan, with particular emphasis on the neighborhood model and the applicable neighborhood
master plan;
A rural cross- section would not further the goals of the comprehensive plan or the neighborhood
model.
(vii) whether the use of a rural crosssection would enable a different principle of the neighborhood
model to be more fully implemented; and
The use of a rural cross section for Road ‘B’ will not enable a different principle of the
neighborhood model to be more fully implemented.
(viii) whether the proposed density of the subdivision is consistent with the density recommended in
the land use plan section of the comprehensive plan.
The proposed density is consistent with the density recommended in the comprehensive plan.
In approving a waiver, the commission shall find that requiring curb or curb and gutter would not
forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest; and granting the waiver
would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, to
sound engineering practices, and to the land adjacent thereto.
While Road ‘B’ is functioning like an alley, Engineering Staff has recommended that this road have curb
and gutter. This area is considered to be the low point of the site. It appears that an inverted crown may be
proposed if curb and gutter is waived, however Engineering has found it does not work well in
subdivision and is difficult to construct.
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 7-30-2013
Page 13
Attachment 3 –
SP-2013-00006 Commonwealth Office
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with sheet C4 of 4 (Concept Plan) of the
plan entitled “Application Plan for Commonwealth Office,” prepared by Shimp Engineering,
P.C., revision 1, dated 5/6/13, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, the development and use
shall reflect the following major elements as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
· Total building square footage of 13,500 square feet.
· Entrance location.
Minor modifications to the plan which are in general accord with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The storm water detention facility shall be located entirely on the subject property (Tax
Map/Parcel 061W0-03-00-01400) and shall be designed and built as approved by the County
Engineer.
3. The use shall commence on or before [date two years from Board of Supervisor approval] or
the permit shall expire and be of no effect.
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 8-27-2013 1
FINAL ACTIONS
Planning Commission Meeting of August 27, 2013
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
FOLLOW-UP ACTION
1. Call to Order.
· Meeting was called to order at 6:00
p.m. by Mr. Morris, Chair. PC
members present were Mr. Morris,
Mr. Lafferty, Vice-Chair; Mr. Dotson,
Mr. Loach, Mr. Smith, Mr. Randolph
and Mr. Franco. Ms. Monteith was
present.
· Staff present was Elaine Echols,
Andy Sorrell, Sharon Taylor, Wayne
Cilimberg and Greg Kamptner.
2. From the Public: Matters Not Listed
for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
The following individual spoke:
· Brian Roy, 1647 Hubbard Court,
offered a letter of support for the
proposed changes to the
Comprehensive Plan as it affects the
Southern and Western Areas of the
County, particularly in the area
where Light Industrial is being
proposed and modified so it will be
more flexible. (Attachment A - on
file with the printed minutes in the
office of the clerk.)
Clerk:
No action required
3. Consent Agenda
Approval of Minutes: June 11, 2013
APPROVED CONSENT AGENDA, by a
vote of 7:0.
Clerk:
Finalize Minutes for signature – June 11,
2013
3. Work Session
CPA 2013 -01 Comprehensive Plan
Update
Review of Southern and Western
Neighborhoods Master Plan,
Implementation Chapter, and Summary
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CPA-
2013-00001 Comp Plan Update for
Southern and Western
Neighborhoods Master Plan, by a vote
Clerk:
· Action Letter – CPA-2013-00001 -
recommended approval of the
Implementation Chapter, the Summary,
and the Southern and Western
Neighborhoods Master Plan as
recommended by staff with changes
shown in Attachment 1.
· The matter will go before the Board of
Supervisors at a date to be determined.
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 8-27-2013 2
of 7:0, as recommended by staff with the
changes shown in Attachment 1.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CPA-
2013-00001 Comp Plan Update for
Chapter 13 Implementation, by a vote
of 7:0, as recommended by staff with the
changes shown in Attachment 1.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CPA-
2013-00001 Comp Plan Update for the
Summary, by a vote of 4:3, (Dotson,
Morris and Lafferty voted nay) using the
short version plus paragraphs 2, 3, and
5 from Attachment C in the staff
information and with reference to the
Virginia Code sections applicable to the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Old Business
· None
Staff:
· None
5. New Business
· Long Range Transportation Plan
Meeting to be held on August 28,
2013 from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Water
Street Location.
· Stonefield Community Meeting
associated with their latest rezoning
request to be held on August 28,
2013 at 5 p.m. in room #235.
· Rivanna Village meeting to be held on
August 28, 2013 at 7 p.m. at the
Rivanna Firehouse.
· No meeting on Tuesday, September
3, 2013
· THE NEXT PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE
ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10,
2013 AT 6:00 p.m.
Staff:
· None
6. Adjourn to September 10, 2013, 6:00
p.m.
· The meeting was adjourned at 7:40
p.m.
Attachment 1 – CPA-2013-00001 Comp Plan Update Work Session – Review of
Southern and Western Neighborhoods Plan, Implementation, and Summary Draft –
Comments and Recommendations
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 8-27-2013 3
ATTACHMENT 1 –
CPA-2013-00001 Comp Plan Work Session – Comments and Recommendations for
Southern and Western Neighborhoods Plan, Implementation, and Summary Draft.
The Planning Commission held a work session on CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive
Plan Update to review the following:
· Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan,
· Implementation Chapter, and
· Summary
Staff provided an overview chapter by chapter and answered Commission questions.
· Staff Overview/Planning Commission Questions
· Planning Commission discussion and consideration of recommendation
Commission Comments
The Planning Commission reviewed the Comprehensive Plan draft of the three sections
individually and provided the following recommended changes:
Southern and Western Neighborhoods
1. Improve map in Figure 1 in A-8-1 to better distinguish the different neighborhoods by
using different colors.
2. Improve Area B map to make blue and red colors the same shade throughout.
3. Page A.8.11; update the community facilities to document the upcoming closing of
the Ivy Landfill.
4. Page A.8.12; add trail connections to other master planned areas that appear on the
map, such as Schenk’s Branch trail.
5. On Figure 7, make note that the text of the plan includes additional details which
relate to the Land Use Plan.
6. On page A.8.27, note that the floodplain is included in the area shown in green.
7. On page A.8.35 as well as other places, replace the term “steep slopes” with “critical
slopes.”
8. Page A.8.48, Sunset-Fontaine Ave. Connector Road, eliminate the second “not” in
the sentence which begins, “There are four main reasons that staff from
Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and UVA are…”
9. For the inset maps, please put the figure number on the right hand side.
10. In A-8-11 under the water and sewer service, make reference to the location for
additional information in the Comprehensive Plan and correct typo that says,
“Rugged Mountain Reservoir.”
11. Provide a reference in Land Use Table A-8-20 that there is text in the master plans
that further explains the expectations provided in the land use table at different
locations. Also correct the photographic reference of First National Bank to Virginia
National Bank.
12. Under Transportation Improvements, mention the potential widening of Route 29 on
the Route 250 Bypass being studied in conjunction with the Long Range
Transportation Plan. Such a widening project hasn’t been reviewed by the public.
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 8-27-2013 4
The upcoming Long Range Transportation Plan activities will bring this project to
light.
Implementation Chapter
1. Add a note which indicates that Indicators of Progress for Growth Management are
found throughout the document.
2. Natural Resource Priorities – change “1991” in Strategy 1b to “1998.”
3. Natural Resource Priorities -- add Strategy 1d to the list of priorities. “Promote the
concept of water conservation and pollution prevention as a community wide issue.”
4. Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources Implementation Priorities – add a strategy
or add to Strategy 1c wording that emphasizes the need to retain “significant historic
records contained in County archives . . .”
5. Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources Implementation Indicators – Add Route 250
East and Route 22/231 to Strategy 7a.
6. Economic Development Implementation Priorities – add all target industries to
Strategy 2c.
7. Economic Development Implementation Indicators -- add an indicator related to
increase jobs in agriculture.
8. Economic Development Implementation Indicators – check to see if Susan Stimart
has any ideas on how to track jobs that provide upward mobility. If there are ways,
add them to the list of Indicators.
9. Rural Areas Implementation Priorities – add wording to Strategy 1d to clarify its
meaning.
10. Rural Areas Implementation Priorities -- change the word “limits” in Strategy 2d to
“minimum amount of produce grown on site.”
11. Rural Areas Implementation Priorities – reference the text in Strategy 6d to clarify
the strategy’s intent.
12. Rural Areas Implementation Priorities – clarify Strategy 7a.
13. Rural Areas Implementation Indicators -- delete the “target” language in the first
indicator. The indicator should say, “Decrease in the number and percentage of new
single-family homes in the County constructed in the Rural Area.”
14. Rural Areas Implementation Indicators – change the word “lost” to “converted” in
Indicator 2.
15. Rural Areas Implementation Indicators – reword indicator 6 so it does not read as if
the County is creating more land.
16. Rural Areas Implementation Indicators – change the word “grape” to “agricultural” in
indicator 10.
17. Rural Areas Implementation Indicators – add an indicator, “No reduction in the
number of parcels less than or equal to 100 acres in size.”
18. Development Areas Implementation Priorities – incorporate “complete streets” into
the priorities.
19. Development Areas Implementation Priorities -- clarify in Strategy 9a that the
animals listed are not intended to be pets; also include noise and nuisances as
points to consider when studying whether or not to amend the zoning ordinance for
urban agriculture.
20. Development Areas Implementation Indicators – add “public transit” to indicator 5.
21. Housing Implementation Priorities – add “affordable units” to strategy 6e.
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 8-27-2013 5
22. Housing Implementation Indicators – reorder the indicators so that affordable
housing indicators are put together and that indicators 1 – 3 are put at the bottom of
the list.
23. Housing Implementation Indicators—add “for affordable units” to indicator 11.
24. Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways, and Green Systems Implementation
Indicators – change indicator 1 to indicate the progress relates to accessibility to
City-owned parks in the Rural Area.
25. Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways, and Green Systems Implementation
Indicators – Add the James River to indicator 5.
26. Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways, and Green Systems Implementation
Indicators – Provide information on where in the Plan to find details on specific trail
connections for indicator 8.
27. Community Facilities Implementation Priorities – Include the number of linear feet in
bike lanes as an indicator of progress. See if you can combine this with information
on additional sidewalk length.
28. Community Facilities Implementation Priorities – correct strategies 3h and 3j – they
are the same.
29. Community Facilities Implementation Priorities – clarify that 2c near the bottom of
the page relates to the Police Department.
Actions:
Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CPA-2013-00001 Comp Plan Update for Southern
and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan, by a vote of 7:0, as recommended by staff
with the changes shown in Attachment 1.
Implementation – Chapter 13
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CPA-2013-00001 Comp Plan Update for Chapter 13
Implementation, by a vote of 7:0, as recommended by staff with the changes shown in
Attachment 1.
Summary Section
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CPA-2013-00001 Comp Plan Update for the
Summary, by a vote of 4:3, (Dotson, Morris and Lafferty voted nay) using the short
version plus paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 from Attachment C in the staff information and with
reference to the Virginia Code sections applicable to the Comprehensive Plan.
Conclusions and Directions to Staff
The Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval is to be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors to be heard at a date to be determined.