HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-12-14Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
DECEMBER 14, 2011
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
3:00 P.M. – ROOM 241
1. Call to Order.
2. Work Session: Five Year Financial Plan (continued from December 7, 2011).
3. 3:30 p.m. - Closed Meeting.
4. Certify Closed Meeting.
5. 4:00 p.m. - Joint Meeting with School Board
a. Capital Improvements Program.
b. Access Albemarle Update.
6. Closed Meeting.
6:00 P.M. - AUDITORIUM
7. Call to Order.
8. Certify Closed Meeting.
9. Pledge of Allegiance.
10. Moment of Silence.
11. Adoption of Final Agenda.
12. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
13. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
14. Future Pantops Fire Rescue Station Site. To consider the approval of a lease-back
lease for a portion of property being acquired by the County located at 656 Peter Jefferson Parkway
(TMP 78-31) between the County and Worrell Land & Development Company LC.
15. SP-2010-00034. Glenn A. Hall (Signs 76&76). PROPOSED: Request for one
additional development right for the creation of a new parcel for a family member. ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); SECTION: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of land as
provided in section 10.5.2.1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas -
preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/
density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: 4399 Braxton
Road, approximately 430 feet from the intersection with Gilbert Station Road (Route 640). TAX MAP/
PARCEL: Tax Map 34 Parcel 74B. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
16. ZMA-2010-00010. Peter Jefferson Overlook and SP-2010-00039. Peter
Jefferson Overlook Offices. (Signs #82&83). PROPOSALS: Rezone 2.09 acres from
Pantops Place PRD Planned Residential District - residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited
commercial uses to PRD Planned Residential District residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited
commercial uses and Special Use Permit for commercial offices. No residential units are proposed.
SECTION FOR SP: 19.3.2.9 which allows offices by special use. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20111214/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/7/2020 5:50:30 PM]
Tentative
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and
service uses in Pantops Neighborhood. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: NE Corner of
Route 250/Pantops Mountain Road. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800-00-00-055A7. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Rivanna.
17. ZMA-2011-0001. Fontana Trails Proffer Amendment. PROPOSAL: Amend
proffer to remove obligation to build trail on 6.09 acres zoned R-4 Residential which allows 4 units
per acre. Proffer was made in conjunction with the ZMA2004-00018 which was a rezoning of 17.15
acres on TMP 078E00000000A0. No proposed change in density. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential which allows
residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other
small-scale non-residential uses in the Pantops Neighborhood ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: In open space behind Olympia Drive and Appian Way and also at the rear of lots on the
north side of Fontana Court in the Fontana Subdivision TAX MAP/PARCEL[S]: 078000000000A0,
78E00000000E0, 078E000000000D, 078E0000012800, 078E0000012900, 078E0000012700,
078E00000012600, 078E0000012500, 078E0000012400, 078E0000012300, 078E0000012200,
078E0000012100, 078E0000012000. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
18. ZMA-2011-00006. and SP-2011-00014. Albemarle Health and Rehab Center
(Sign #28). PROPOSAL: Rezone 5.38 acres from R-1 zoning district which allows residential
uses at a density of 1 unit per acre to PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial zoning
district which allows large-scale commercial uses; residential by special use permit at a density of
15 units/acre and special use permit under Section 24.2.2(7) of zoning ordinance for hospitals,
nursing homes, convalescent homes uses. No dwellings proposed. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: N.
PROFFERS: No. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Transitional – neighborhood-scale commercial uses,
offices, townhouses and apartments (6.01-34 units/acre) and Urban Density Residential –
residential (6.01-34 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial,
office, and service uses and located in Neighborhood 4 in the Development Area. LOCATION: 91
Galaxie Farm Lane. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09100000001200. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
19. ZMA-2010-00017. Redfields PRD (Sign # 90). PROPOSAL: Rezone 58.47 acres
from PRD (Open Space) - Planned Residential District zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34
units/acre) with limited commercial uses to PRD (Residential) - Planned Residential District zoning
district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses. Proposed number
of units is 126 for a density of 2.15 units/acre. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas- preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space,
and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: Located on west side of Old Lynchburg Road and accessed by
Sunset Avenue and Redfields Road. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 076R00000000E4 and 076R0000000100.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
20. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
21. Adjourn to December 15, 2011, 12:00 Noon, Room 241.
CONSENT AGENDA
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20111214/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/7/2020 5:50:30 PM]
Tentative
FOR APPROVAL:
13.1 Approval of Minutes: March 9(A), 2011.
13.2 Resolution of Support for The University Community Next Generation Innovation Project
(Gig.U).
13.3 Resolutions of Intent for Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments – Site Plan and
Subdivision Review Processes.
FOR INFORMATION:
13.4 Copy of letter dated December 5, 2011, from Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner, to Lee
Rasmussen, McCallum & Kudravetz, re: LOD-2011-0008 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF
PARCEL OF RECORD & DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 89, Parcel 65 (property of
Benjamin Pollard Alsop Warthen and Terry Gwyn Warthen) Samuel Miller District.
13.5 Copy of letter dated December 5, 2011, from Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner, to Lee
Rasmussen, McCallum & Kudravetz, re: LOD-2011-0009 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF
PARCEL OF RECORD & DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 89, Parcel 72 & 72A (property of
Benjamin Pollard Alsop Warthen and Terry Gwyn Warthen) Samuel Miller District.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20111214/00_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/7/2020 5:50:30 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
Members of the Albemarle County School Board
FROM: Lori Allshouse, Director of Budget and Performance Management
DATE: December 14, 2011
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting on CIP of the Board of Supervisors and School Board Meeting
This memo is to provide information regarding this year’s Capital Improvements Program
review process in advance of your joint discussion on Wednesday, December 14, 2011.
The Technical Review Committee (TRC) and the CIP Oversight Committee (OC) conducted
several meetings to prepare a proposed CIP at the current tax rate as well as several other tax rate
scenarios for the County Executive’s consideration. As you may recall, this is the first year of a
two-year cycle, meaning all project requests are considered.
The Committees were challenged again this year to develop a balanced plan that addresses the
County’s most critical needs within limited resources. In advancing the proposed plan, the OC
acknowledges that the County continues to have unfunded capital and infrastructure needs,
however, the plan does achieve the following:
Provides adequate funds to properly maintain our existing facilities;
Provides necessary funding to support technology systems and special equipment
replacements over the next five years;
Provides a reduced level of funding for apparatus replacements;
Includes school bus replacements and offsetting revenues ; and
Meets targeted reserve balances at the end of the CIP period.
Attached for your review are the following documents:
a) FY13-22 Project Summary of Requests
b) FY13 TRC Ranking Summary with Ranking Criteria
c) FY13-22 Capital Improvement Program Proposed Project Summary at Current Tax Rate
d) FY13-17 CIP Financial Summary at Current Tax Rate
e) FY13 Oversight CIP Recommendations by Tax Rate
f) FY13 Oversight Summary of Recommendations
Staff will review this information in detail at our meeting on Wednesday, including a discussion
of revenue assumptions, request adjustments, unfunded projects and recommendations regarding
apparatus replacement policies and maintenance funding.
Return to agenda
FY13 - FY22 Capital Improvements Program: FY13-17 Capital Improvement Plan FY13 REQUESTS SUBMITTED
Description/Project FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY13-17
01 Administration
A Finance Security Surveillance System 14,814 - - - - 14,814
B Voting Machine Replacement - - - - - -
Subtotal, Administration 14,814 - - - - 14,814
02 Courts & Judicial
A Court Square Maintenance/Replacement 245,001 162,328 450,474 86,480 109,728 1,054,011
B J & DR Court Maintenance/Replacement - 29,260 - - - 29,260
C Old Jail Facilities Maintenance 19,374 19,374 20,053 20,053 20,754 99,608
D Old Jail Restoration - - - - - -
E Sheriffs Office Maintenance/Replacement 18,810 20,900 22,990 22,990 28,215 113,905
Subtotal, Courts & Judicial 283,185 231,862 493,517 129,523 158,697 1,296,784
03 Public Safety
A Albemarle County Animal Shelter 10,450 - - - - 10,450
B ECC Emergency Telephone System 1,403,652 - - - - 1,403,652
C ECC Regional 800Mhz Communication System - - - - - -
D Fire Res Apparatus Replacement-County 296,258 1,500,050 412,785 170,017 - 2,379,110
E Fire Res Apparatus Replacement-Volunteer 914,898 3,040,051 2,046,601 2,497,922 4,497,199 12,996,671
F Fire Res Apparatus-Ivy Station 14 909,850 - - - - 909,850
G Fire Rescue Airpacks - - - 2,833,215 - 2,833,215
H Fire Rescue Cascade Systems - - - - 66,713 66,713
I Fire Rescue Lifepacks 421,113 - - - - 421,113
J Fire Rescue Mobile Data Computers-Maintenance/Replacement - - - 75,057 - 75,057
K Fire Rescue Mobile Data Computers-New - - - - - -
L Fire Rescue Records Technology 41,023 42,458 43,894 45,330 46,766 219,471
M Fire Rescue Wellness Fitness Equipment 6,297 - 32,426 33,487 - 72,210
N Fire Rescue-Pantops Station 13 - - - - 267,520 267,520
O Fire Rescue-Seminole Trail VFD CARS Building Replacement 2,164,770 - - - - 2,164,770
P Public Safety Training Facility 328,927 - - - 5,681,410 6,010,337
Q Public Safety Training Academy - - - - 47,652 47,652
R Firearms Range 1,153,421 - - - - 1,153,421
S County 800Mhz Radio Replacements 44,654 636,689 653,768 628,218 636,403 2,599,732
T Police Evidence and Specialty Vehicle Storage - - 364,181 463,045 - 827,226
U Police Forensic Unit Upgrade 36,575 - - 199,055 - 235,630
V Police Mobile Data Computers 125,400 179,322 134,178 591,575 339,521 1,369,996
W Police Patrol Video Cameras 138,912 144,468 148,636 168,877 158,359 759,252
Subtotal, Public Safety 7,996,200 5,543,038 3,836,469 7,705,798 11,741,543 36,823,048
FY13 - FY22 Capital Improvements Program: FY13-17 Capital Improvement Plan FY13 REQUESTS SUBMITTED
Description/Project FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY13-17
04 Public Works
A City-County Co-Owned Maintenance/Replacement 76,285 - 40,876 - - 117,161
B COB McIntire Window Replacement 322,226 1,864,767 717,219 - - 2,904,212
C COB Security Enhancements 132,185 203,413 184,830 176,083 721,050 1,417,561
D County E911 Road Sign Upgrade 115,820 115,820 115,820 115,820 115,820 579,100
E County Facilities Maintenance/Replacement 513,050 378,002 998,275 629,045 722,715 3,241,087
F Ivy Landfill Remediation 546,535 546,535 546,535 546,535 546,535 2,732,675
G Moores Creek Septage Receiving 114,366 114,366 114,366 114,366 114,366 571,830
H Old Crozet School Restoration 229,922 496,457 102,566 308,380 62,839 1,200,164
I Storage Facility Lease-General Government 62,000 65,000 67,000 70,000 73,500 337,500
J COB McIntire Brick-Mortar Repointing - - - - - -
Subtotal, Public Works 2,112,389 3,784,360 2,887,487 1,960,229 2,356,825 13,101,290
05 Community/Neighboorhood Development
A Neighborhood Plan Implementation Program - 652,080 697,015 722,095 740,905 2,812,095
B Sidewalk Construction Program 783,750 815,100 838,613 869,963 893,475 4,200,901
C Transportation Projects and Revenue Sharing 4,180,000 4,180,000 4,180,000 4,180,000 4,180,000 20,900,000
Subtotal, Community/Neighboorhood Development 4,963,750 5,647,180 5,715,628 5,772,058 5,814,380 -
06 Human Development
A DSS Document Management System 236,170 - - - - 236,170
B Health Department Maintenance/Replacement - 28,215 - 188,100 18,810 235,125
C PVCC Student Center Facility - - 72,001 72,001 72,001 216,003
D PVCC Workforce Center 48,000 48,000 48,000 48,000 - 192,000
Subtotal, Human Development 284,170 76,215 120,001 308,101 90,811 879,298
07 Parks, Recreation, & Culture
A Burley-Lane Field Poles Lighting - - - 541,697 - 541,697
B Community Center Mechanical Plant Study 20,900 - - - - 20,900
C Parks Maintenance/Replacement 333,355 387,653 436,591 326,552 380,025 1,864,176
D Crozet Growth Area Community Park Facilities - - 538,494 4,349,697 - 4,888,191
E Darden Towe Park Improvements - - - - 222,585 222,585
F Greenway Program 52,250 52,250 52,250 52,250 52,250 261,250
G Hedgerow Property Trail Park - - - 71,657 477,711 549,368
H Northern Urban Area Community Park - - - - 340,148 340,148
I Park Enhancements 31,350 100,320 84,979 192,656 167,200 576,505
J Park System Redesign - - 188,100 - - 188,100
K Parks and Recreation Security Study - - - 86,996 - 86,996
L River and Lake Access Improvements - 36,575 36,575 36,575 36,575 146,300
M Walnut Creek Park Improvements - - - - 118,085 118,085
Subtotal, Parks, Recreation, & Culture 437,855 576,798 1,336,989 5,116,383 1,794,579 9,262,604
FY13 - FY22 Capital Improvements Program: FY13-17 Capital Improvement Plan FY13 REQUESTS SUBMITTED
Description/Project FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY13-17
08 Libraries
A City-County Branch Library Repair/Maintenance 214,225 182,875 - - - 397,100
B County Library Facilities Repair/Maintenance 25,080 - - - - 25,080
C Central Library - - 495,840 7,252,684 - 7,748,524
D Crozet Library 6,853,633 - - - - 6,853,633
E Northern Albemarle Library - 869,440 11,523,654 1,631,709 - 14,024,803
F Scottsville Library Renovation-Expansion - - - - - -
G Southern Urban Area Library Facility - - - 553,544 7,710,178 8,263,722
Subtotal, Libraries 7,092,938 1,052,315 12,019,494 9,437,937 7,710,178 37,312,862
09 Technology & GIS
A County Server Infrastructure Upgrade 423,225 440,154 452,851 469,780 482,477 2,268,487
B Increased Redudant Internet Services 19,751 - - - - 19,751
C Mobility Devices 109,725 - - - - 109,725
D PBX Replacement - - 522,500 - - 522,500
E Security 54,863 - - - - 54,863
F Virtual Desktop Solution Trial 104,500 - - - - 104,500
G VMWare Hardware-Software Disaster Recovery 104,500 - - - - 104,500
H Website Enhancements 109,725 - - - - 109,725
Subtotal, Technology & GIS 926,289 440,154 975,351 469,780 482,477 3,294,051
10 ACE
A ACE Program 1,572,232 1,595,878 1,639,741 1,690,465 1,748,173 8,246,489
Subtotal, ACE 1,572,232 1,595,878 1,639,741 1,690,465 1,748,173 8,246,489
General Government Projects Subtotal 25,683,822 18,947,800 29,024,677 33,131,971 31,897,663 138,685,933
FY13 - FY22 Capital Improvements Program: FY13-17 Capital Improvement Plan FY13 REQUESTS SUBMITTED
Description/Project FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY13-17
11 Stormwater
A Stormwater TMDL Maintenance 130,625 130,625 - - - 261,250
B Stormwater TMDL Utilities Project - - 313,500 470,250 540,788 1,324,538
Subtotal, Stormwater Projects 130,625 130,625 313,500 470,250 540,788 1,585,788
12 Schools
A Administrative Technology 191,235 191,235 272,745 272,745 272,745 1,200,705
B Instructional Technology 600,875 600,875 600,875 600,875 679,250 3,082,750
C Local Area Network Upgrade 731,500 522,500 - - - 1,254,000
D School Bus Replacement 1,489,125 1,541,244 1,593,364 1,703,075 1,816,435 8,143,243
E School Maintenance/Replacement 4,365,968 5,051,430 5,286,730 4,958,413 5,406,726 25,069,267
F State Technology Grant 821,370 821,370 821,370 821,370 821,370 4,106,850
G Storage Facility Lease-School Division 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000
H Wide Area Network Upgrade - 436,810 - - - 436,810
Subtotal, Schools Project 8,350,073 9,315,464 8,725,084 8,506,478 9,146,526 44,043,625
TOTAL PROJECTS 34,164,520 28,393,889 38,063,261 42,108,699 41,584,977 184,315,346
FY13 - FY22 Capital Improvements Program: FY18-22 Capital Needs Assessment FY13 REQUESTS SUBMITTED
Description/Project FY17/18 FY 18/19 FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22 FY18-22 10 - YR TOTAL
01 Administration
A Finance Security Surveillance System - - - - - - 14,814
B Voting Machine Replacement - - - - - - -
Subtotal, Administration - - - - - - 14,814
02 Courts & Judicial
A Court Square Maintenance/Replacement 150,387 506,788 104,550 403,114 134,791 1,299,630 2,353,641
B J & DR Court Maintenance/Replacement - - - - - - 29,260
C Old Jail Facilities Maintenance 20,754 21,480 21,480 22,232 22,232 108,178 207,786
D Old Jail Restoration 12,857 4,190 18,573 8,267 - 43,887 43,887
E Sheriffs Office Maintenance/Replacement 31,350 31,350 31,350 31,350 31,350 156,750 270,655
Subtotal, Courts & Judicial 215,348 563,808 175,953 464,963 188,373 1,608,445 2,905,229
03 Public Safety
A Albemarle County Animal Shelter - - - - - - 10,450
B ECC Emergency Telephone System - - - - - - 1,403,652
C ECC Regional 800Mhz Communication System 17,988,369 - - - - 17,988,369 17,988,369
D Fire Res Apparatus Replacement-County 379,210 - 1,601,272 - - 1,980,482 4,359,592
E Fire Res Apparatus Replacement-Volunteer 950,273 3,229,941 1,378,310 1,268,431 5,148,747 11,975,702 24,972,373
F Fire Res Apparatus-Ivy Station 14 - - - - - - 909,850
G Fire Rescue Airpacks - - - - - - 2,833,215
H Fire Rescue Cascade Systems - - - - - - 66,713
I Fire Rescue Lifepacks - - - - - - 421,113
J Fire Rescue Mobile Data Computers-Maintenance/Replacement - - - - - - 75,057
K Fire Rescue Mobile Data Computers-New - 126,445 130,103 133,760 - 390,308 390,308
L Fire Rescue Records Technology 627,444 278,179 286,226 294,272 302,319 1,788,440 2,007,911
M Fire Rescue Wellness Fitness Equipment - - - 40,300 233,786 274,086 346,296
N Fire Rescue-Pantops Station 13 4,017,648 358,472 - - - 4,376,120 4,643,640
O Fire Rescue-Seminole Trail VFD CARS Building Replacement - - - - - - 2,164,770
P Public Safety Training Facility - - - 8,881,163 5,017,077 13,898,240 19,908,577
Q Public Safety Training Academy 122,788 - 15,677,351 - - 15,800,139 15,847,791
R Firearms Range - - - - - - 1,153,421
S County 800Mhz Radio Replacements 658,734 675,481 - 728,660 751,430 2,814,305 5,414,037
T Police Evidence and Specialty Vehicle Storage - - - - - - 827,226
U Police Forensic Unit Upgrade - - - - - - 235,630
V Police Mobile Data Computers - 56,900 156,750 682,176 558,657 1,454,483 2,824,479
W Police Patrol Video Cameras 163,916 168,083 190,177 177,807 183,364 883,347 1,642,599
Subtotal, Public Safety 24,908,382 4,893,501 19,420,189 12,206,569 12,195,380 73,624,021 110,447,069
FY13 - FY22 Capital Improvements Program: FY18-22 Capital Needs Assessment FY13 REQUESTS SUBMITTED
Description/Project FY17/18 FY 18/19 FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22 FY18-22 10 - YR TOTAL
04 Public Works
A City-County Co-Owned Maintenance/Replacement - - - - - - 117,161
B COB McIntire Window Replacement - - - - - - 2,904,212
C COB Security Enhancements - - - - - - 1,417,561
D County E911 Road Sign Upgrade 115,820 - - - - 115,820 694,920
E County Facilities Maintenance/Replacement 653,272 1,083,256 418,790 966,788 550,326 3,672,432 6,913,519
F Ivy Landfill Remediation 546,535 546,535 546,535 546,535 546,535 2,732,675 5,465,350
G Moores Creek Septage Receiving 114,366 114,366 114,366 114,366 114,366 571,830 1,143,660
H Old Crozet School Restoration 62,839 379,197 65,038 401,045 430,456 1,338,575 2,538,739
I Storage Facility Lease-General Government 75,500 78,500 - - - 154,000 491,500
J COB McIntire Brick-Mortar Repointing - - - - - - -
Subtotal, Public Works 1,568,332 2,201,854 1,144,729 2,028,734 1,641,683 8,585,332 21,686,622
05 Community/Neighboorhood Development
A Neighborhood Plan Implementation Program 765,985 784,795 809,875 802,560 827,640 3,990,855 6,802,950
B Sidewalk Construction Program 924,825 948,338 979,688 1,003,200 1,034,550 4,890,601 9,091,502
C Transportation Projects and Revenue Sharing 4,180,000 4,180,000 4,180,000 4,180,000 4,180,000 20,900,000 41,800,000
Subtotal, Community/Neighboorhood Development 5,870,810 5,913,133 5,969,563 5,985,760 6,042,190 - -
06 Human Development
A DSS Document Management System - - - - - - 236,170
B Health Department Maintenance/Replacement - - - - - - 235,125
C PVCC Student Center Facility 72,001 - - - - 72,001 288,004
D PVCC Workforce Center - - - - - - 192,000
Subtotal, Human Development 72,001 - - - - 72,001 951,299
07 Parks, Recreation, & Culture
A Burley-Lane Field Poles Lighting - - - - - - 541,697
B Community Center Mechanical Plant Study - - - - - - 20,900
C Parks Maintenance/Replacement 319,373 253,298 273,006 212,678 481,829 1,540,184 3,404,360
D Crozet Growth Area Community Park Facilities - - - - - - 4,888,191
E Darden Towe Park Improvements 262,650 269,328 278,231 284,909 293,812 1,388,930 1,611,515
F Greenway Program 52,250 52,250 52,250 52,250 52,250 261,250 522,500
G Hedgerow Property Trail Park - - - - - - 549,368
H Northern Urban Area Community Park 2,494,438 - - - - 2,494,438 2,834,586
I Park Enhancements 210,045 - 182,875 184,965 184,965 762,850 1,339,355
J Park System Redesign - - - - - - 188,100
K Parks and Recreation Security Study - - - - - - 86,996
L River and Lake Access Improvements 36,575 36,575 36,575 36,575 36,575 182,875 329,175
M Walnut Creek Park Improvements 156,750 156,750 156,750 156,750 156,750 783,750 901,835
Subtotal, Parks, Recreation, & Culture 3,532,081 768,201 979,687 928,127 1,206,181 7,414,277 16,676,881
FY13 - FY22 Capital Improvements Program: FY18-22 Capital Needs Assessment FY13 REQUESTS SUBMITTED
Description/Project FY17/18 FY 18/19 FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22 FY18-22 10 - YR TOTAL
08 Libraries
A City-County Branch Library Repair/Maintenance - - - - - - 397,100
B County Library Facilities Repair/Maintenance - - - - - - 25,080
C Central Library - - - - - - 7,748,524
D Crozet Library - - - - - - 6,853,633
E Northern Albemarle Library - - - - - - 14,024,803
F Scottsville Library Renovation-Expansion 23,306 2,180,145 126,184 - - 2,329,635 2,329,635
G Southern Urban Area Library Facility 2,307,130 - - - - 2,307,130 10,570,852
Subtotal, Libraries 2,330,436 2,180,145 126,184 - - 4,636,765 41,949,627
09 Technology & GIS
A County Server Infrastructure Upgrade 499,406 512,102 529,031 541,728 558,657 2,640,924 4,909,411
B Increased Redudant Internet Services - - - - - - 19,751
C Mobility Devices - - - - - - 109,725
D PBX Replacement - - 522,500 - - 522,500 1,045,000
E Security - - - - - - 54,863
F Virtual Desktop Solution Trial - - - - - - 104,500
G VMWare Hardware-Software Disaster Recovery - - - - - - 104,500
H Website Enhancements - - - - - - 109,725
Subtotal, Technology & GIS 499,406 512,102 1,051,531 541,728 558,657 3,163,424 6,457,475
10 ACE
A ACE Program 1,776,500 1,856,443 1,939,983 2,027,282 2,118,510 9,718,718 17,965,207
Subtotal, ACE 1,776,500 1,856,443 1,939,983 2,027,282 2,118,510 9,718,718 17,965,207
General Government Projects Subtotal 40,773,296 18,889,187 30,807,819 24,183,163 23,950,974 138,604,439 277,290,372
FY13 - FY22 Capital Improvements Program: FY18-22 Capital Needs Assessment FY13 REQUESTS SUBMITTED
Description/Project FY17/18 FY 18/19 FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22 FY18-22 10 - YR TOTAL
11 Stormwater
A Stormwater TMDL Maintenance - - - - - - 261,250
B Stormwater TMDL Utilities Project 621,906 621,906 621,906 621,906 621,906 3,109,530 4,434,068
Subtotal, Stormwater Projects 621,906 621,906 621,906 621,906 621,906 3,109,530 4,695,318
12 Schools
A Administrative Technology 272,745 272,745 272,745 272,745 272,745 1,363,725 2,564,430
B Instructional Technology 679,250 679,250 679,250 679,250 679,250 3,396,250 6,479,000
C Local Area Network Upgrade 1,045,000 1,045,000 - - - 2,090,000 3,344,000
D School Bus Replacement 1,749,722 1,801,841 1,918,849 2,039,506 2,239,544 9,749,462 17,892,705
E School Maintenance/Replacement 6,046,579 6,761,082 5,805,693 5,872,358 6,021,221 30,506,933 55,576,200
F State Technology Grant 821,370 821,370 821,370 821,370 821,370 4,106,850 8,213,700
G Storage Facility Lease-School Division 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 - 600,000 1,350,000
H Wide Area Network Upgrade 418,000 - - 418,000 - 836,000 1,272,810
Subtotal, Schools Project 11,182,666 11,531,288 9,647,907 10,253,229 10,034,130 52,649,220 96,692,845
TOTAL PROJECTS 52,577,868 31,042,381 41,077,632 35,058,298 34,607,010 194,363,189 378,678,535
FY13 - FY22 Capital Improvements Program: FY13-17 Capital Improvement Plan Current Tax Rate (74.2 Cents)
Description/Project FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY13-17
01 Administration
A Finance Security Surveillance System - - - - - -
B Voting Machine Replacement - - - - - -
Subtotal, Administration - - - - - -
02 Courts & Judicial
A Court Square Maintenance/Replacement 245,001 162,328 450,474 86,480 109,728 1,054,011
B J & DR Court Maintenance/Replacement - 29,260 - - - 29,260
C Old Jail Facilities Maintenance 19,374 19,374 20,053 20,053 20,754 99,608
D Old Jail Restoration - - - - - -
E Sheriffs Office Maintenance/Replacement 18,810 20,900 22,990 22,990 28,215 113,905
Subtotal, Courts & Judicial 283,185 231,862 493,517 129,523 158,697 1,296,784
03 Public Safety
A Albemarle County Animal Shelter - - - - - -
B ECC Emergency Telephone System 1,403,652 - - - - 1,403,652
C ECC Regional 800Mhz Communication System - - - - - -
D Fire Res Apparatus Replacement-County 296,258 1,500,050 418,000 172,425 - 2,386,733
E Fire Res Apparatus Replacement-Volunteer 914,898 2,579,206 1,672,000 1,917,575 2,090,000 9,173,679
F Fire Res Apparatus-Ivy Station 14 - - - - - -
G Fire Rescue Airpacks - - - 2,833,215 - 2,833,215
H Fire Rescue Cascade Systems - - - - - -
I Fire Rescue Lifepacks 421,113 - - - - 421,113
J Fire Rescue Mobile Data Computers-Maintenance/Replacement - - - - 75,057 75,057
K Fire Rescue Mobile Data Computers-New - - - - - -
L Fire Rescue Records Technology - - - - - -
M Fire Rescue Wellness Fitness Equipment - - - - - -
N Fire Rescue-Pantops Station 13 - - - - - -
O Fire Rescue-Seminole Trail VFD CARS Building Replacement - - - - - -
P Public Safety Training Facility - - - - - -
Q Public Safety Training Academy - - - - - -
R Firearms Range - - - - - -
S County 800Mhz Radio Replacements 44,654 636,689 653,768 628,218 636,403 2,599,732
T Police Evidence and Specialty Vehicle Storage - - - - - -
U Police Forensic Unit Upgrade - - - - - -
V Police Mobile Data Computers 62,700 89,661 134,178 591,575 339,521 1,217,635
W Police Patrol Video Cameras - 138,912 144,468 148,636 168,877 600,893
Subtotal, Public Safety 3,143,275 4,944,518 3,022,414 6,291,644 3,309,858 20,711,709
FY13 - FY22 Capital Improvements Program: FY13-17 Capital Improvement Plan Current Tax Rate (74.2 Cents)
Description/Project FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY13-17
04 Public Works
A City-County Co-Owned Maintenance/Replacement 76,285 - 40,876 - - 117,161
B COB McIntire Window Replacement - - - - - -
C COB Security Enhancements - - - - - -
D County E911 Road Sign Upgrade - - - 579,102 - 579,102
E County Facilities Maintenance/Replacement 513,050 378,002 998,275 629,045 722,715 3,241,087
F Ivy Landfill Remediation 546,535 546,535 546,535 546,535 546,535 2,732,675
G Moores Creek Septage Receiving 114,366 114,366 114,366 114,366 114,366 571,830
H Old Crozet School Restoration - - - - - -
I Storage Facility Lease-General Government 62,000 67,000 - - - 129,000
J COB McIntire Brick-Mortar Repointing - - - - - -
Subtotal, Public Works 1,312,236 1,105,903 1,700,052 1,869,048 1,383,616 7,370,855
05 Community/Neighboorhood Development
A Neighborhood Plan Implementation Program - - - - - -
B Sidewalk Construction Program - - - - - -
C Transportation Projects and Revenue Sharing - - - - - -
Subtotal, Community/Neighboorhood Development - - - - - -
06 Human Development
A DSS Document Management System - - - - - -
B Health Department Maintenance/Replacement - 28,215 - 188,100 18,810 235,125
C PVCC Student Center Facility - - - - - -
D PVCC Workforce Center - - - - - -
Subtotal, Human Development - 28,215 - 188,100 18,810 235,125
07 Parks, Recreation, & Culture
A Burley-Lane Field Poles Lighting - - - - 541,697 541,697
B Community Center Mechanical Plant Study - - - - - -
C Parks Maintenance/Replacement 333,355 387,653 436,591 326,552 380,025 1,864,176
D Crozet Growth Area Community Park Facilities - - - - - -
E Darden Towe Park Improvements - - - - - -
F Greenway Program - - - - - -
G Hedgerow Property Trail Park - - - - - -
H Northern Urban Area Community Park - - - - - -
I Park Enhancements - - - - - -
J Park System Redesign - - - - - -
K Parks and Recreation Security Study - - - - - -
L River and Lake Access Improvements - - - - - -
M Walnut Creek Park Improvements - - - - - -
Subtotal, Parks, Recreation, & Culture 333,355 387,653 436,591 326,552 380,025 1,864,176
FY13 - FY22 Capital Improvements Program: FY13-17 Capital Improvement Plan Current Tax Rate (74.2 Cents)
Description/Project FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY13-17
08 Libraries
A City-County Branch Library Repair/Maintenance 214,225 182,875 - - - 397,100
B County Library Facilities Repair/Maintenance 25,080 - - - - 25,080
C Central Library - - - - - -
D Crozet Library - - - - - -
E Northern Albemarle Library - - - - - -
F Scottsville Library Renovation-Expansion - - - - - -
G Southern Urban Area Library Facility - - - - - -
Subtotal, Libraries 239,305 182,875 - - - 422,180
09 Technology & GIS
A County Server Infrastructure Upgrade 423,225 440,154 452,851 469,780 482,477 2,268,487
B Increased Redudant Internet Services - - - - - -
C Mobility Devices - - - - - -
D PBX Replacement - - - 522,500 - 522,500
E Security - - - - - -
F Virtual Desktop Solution Trial - - - - - -
G VMWare Hardware-Software Disaster Recovery - - - - - -
H Website Enhancements - - - - - -
Subtotal, Technology & GIS 423,225 440,154 452,851 992,280 482,477 2,790,987
10 ACE
A ACE Program - - - - - -
Subtotal, ACE - - - - - -
General Government Projects Subtotal 5,734,581 7,321,180 6,105,425 9,797,147 6,275,180 35,233,513
FY13 - FY22 Capital Improvements Program: FY13-17 Capital Improvement Plan Current Tax Rate (74.2 Cents)
Description/Project FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY13-17
11 Stormwater
A Stormwater TMDL Maintenance 130,625 130,625 - - - 261,250
B Stormwater TMDL Utilities Project - - - - - -
Subtotal, Stormwater Projects 130,625 130,625 - - - 261,250
12 Schools
A Administrative Technology 191,235 191,235 272,745 272,745 272,745 1,200,705
B Instructional Technology 600,875 600,875 600,875 600,875 679,250 3,082,750
C Local Area Network Upgrade 731,500 522,500 - - - 1,254,000
D School Bus Replacement 1,489,125 1,541,244 1,593,364 1,703,075 1,816,435 8,143,243
E School Maintenance/Replacement 4,365,968 5,051,430 5,286,730 4,958,413 5,406,726 25,069,267
F State Technology Grant 821,370 821,370 821,370 821,370 821,370 4,106,850
G Storage Facility Lease-School Division 150,000 150,000 - - - 300,000
H Wide Area Network Upgrade - 436,810 - - - 436,810
Subtotal, Schools Project 8,350,073 9,315,464 8,575,084 8,356,478 8,996,526 43,593,625
TOTAL PROJECTS 14,215,279 16,767,269 14,680,509 18,153,625 15,271,706 79,088,388
FY13 - FY22 Capital Improvements Program: FY18-22 Capital Needs Assessment Current Tax Rate (74.2 Cents)
Description/Project FY17/18 FY 18/19 FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22 FY18-22 10 - YR TOTAL
01 Administration
A Finance Security Surveillance System 14,814 - - - - 14,814 14,814
B Voting Machine Replacement - - - - - - -
Subtotal, Administration 14,814 - - - - 14,814 14,814
02 Courts & Judicial
A Court Square Maintenance/Replacement 150,387 506,788 104,550 403,114 134,791 1,299,630 2,353,641
B J & DR Court Maintenance/Replacement - - - - - - 29,260
C Old Jail Facilities Maintenance 20,754 21,480 21,480 22,232 22,232 108,178 207,786
D Old Jail Restoration 12,857 4,190 18,573 8,267 - 43,887 43,887
E Sheriffs Office Maintenance/Replacement 31,350 31,350 31,350 31,350 31,350 156,750 270,655
Subtotal, Courts & Judicial 215,348 563,808 175,953 464,963 188,373 1,608,445 2,905,229
03 Public Safety
A Albemarle County Animal Shelter 10,450 - - - - 10,450 10,450
B ECC Emergency Telephone System - - - - - - 1,403,652
C ECC Regional 800Mhz Communication System 17,988,369 - - - - 17,988,369 17,988,369
D Fire Res Apparatus Replacement-County - - - - - - 2,386,733
E Fire Res Apparatus Replacement-Volunteer - - - - - - 9,173,679
F Fire Res Apparatus-Ivy Station 14 909,850 - - - - 909,850 909,850
G Fire Rescue Airpacks - - - - - - 2,833,215
H Fire Rescue Cascade Systems 66,713 - - - - 66,713 66,713
I Fire Rescue Lifepacks - - - - - - 421,113
J Fire Rescue Mobile Data Computers-Maintenance/Replacement - - - - - - 75,057
K Fire Rescue Mobile Data Computers-New - 126,445 130,103 133,760 - 390,308 390,308
L Fire Rescue Records Technology 846,915 278,179 286,226 294,272 302,319 2,007,911 2,007,911
M Fire Rescue Wellness Fitness Equipment 72,211 - - 40,300 233,786 346,297 346,297
N Fire Rescue-Pantops Station 13 267,520 4,017,648 358,472 - - 4,643,640 4,643,640
O Fire Rescue-Seminole Trail VFD CARS Building Replacement 2,164,770 - - - - 2,164,770 2,164,770
P Public Safety Training Facility 328,927 5,681,410 - 8,881,163 5,017,077 19,908,577 19,908,577
Q Public Safety Training Academy 170,440 - 15,677,351 - - 15,847,791 15,847,791
R Firearms Range 1,153,421 - - - - 1,153,421 1,153,421
S County 800Mhz Radio Replacements 658,734 675,481 - 728,660 751,430 2,814,305 5,414,037
T Police Evidence and Specialty Vehicle Storage 364,181 463,045 - - - 827,226 827,226
U Police Forensic Unit Upgrade 36,575 - - 199,055 - 235,630 235,630
V Police Mobile Data Computers 339,521 56,900 156,750 682,176 558,657 1,794,004 3,011,639
W Police Patrol Video Cameras 163,916 168,083 190,177 177,807 183,364 883,347 1,484,240
Subtotal, Public Safety 25,542,513 11,467,191 16,799,079 11,137,193 7,046,633 71,992,609 92,704,318
FY13 - FY22 Capital Improvements Program: FY18-22 Capital Needs Assessment Current Tax Rate (74.2 Cents)
Description/Project FY17/18 FY 18/19 FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22 FY18-22 10 - YR TOTAL
04 Public Works
A City-County Co-Owned Maintenance/Replacement - - - - - - 117,161
B COB McIntire Window Replacement 322,226 1,864,767 717,219 - - 2,904,212 2,904,212
C COB Security Enhancements 132,185 203,413 184,830 176,083 721,050 1,417,561 1,417,561
D County E911 Road Sign Upgrade 115,820 - - - - 115,820 694,922
E County Facilities Maintenance/Replacement 653,272 1,083,256 418,790 966,788 550,326 3,672,432 6,913,519
F Ivy Landfill Remediation 546,535 546,535 546,535 546,535 546,535 2,732,675 5,465,350
G Moores Creek Septage Receiving 114,366 114,366 114,366 114,366 114,366 571,830 1,143,660
H Old Crozet School Restoration 292,761 875,654 167,603 709,424 493,295 2,538,737 2,538,737
I Storage Facility Lease-General Government - - - - - - 129,000
J COB McIntire Brick-Mortar Repointing - - - - - - -
Subtotal, Public Works 2,177,165 4,687,991 2,149,343 2,513,196 2,425,572 13,953,267 21,324,122
05 Community/Neighboorhood Development
A Neighborhood Plan Implementation Program 765,985 784,795 809,875 828,685 853,765 4,043,105 4,043,105
B Sidewalk Construction Program 924,825 948,338 979,688 1,003,200 1,034,550 4,890,601 4,890,601
C Transportation Projects and Revenue Sharing 4,180,000 4,180,000 4,180,000 4,180,000 4,180,000 20,900,000 20,900,000
Subtotal, Community/Neighboorhood Development 5,870,810 5,913,133 5,969,563 6,011,885 6,068,315 - -
06 Human Development
A DSS Document Management System 236,170 - - - - 236,170 236,170
B Health Department Maintenance/Replacement - - - - - - 235,125
C PVCC Student Center Facility 288,002 - - - - 288,002 288,002
D PVCC Workforce Center 192,000 - - - - 192,000 192,000
Subtotal, Human Development 716,172 - - - - 716,172 951,297
07 Parks, Recreation, & Culture
A Burley-Lane Field Poles Lighting - - - - - - 541,697
B Community Center Mechanical Plant Study 20,900 - - - - 20,900 20,900
C Parks Maintenance/Replacement 319,373 253,298 273,006 212,678 481,829 1,540,184 3,404,360
D Crozet Growth Area Community Park Facilities 538,494 4,349,697 - - - 4,888,191 4,888,191
E Darden Towe Park Improvements 421,449 228,124 233,923 241,656 247,456 1,372,608 1,372,608
F Greenway Program 52,250 52,250 52,250 52,250 52,250 261,250 261,250
G Hedgerow Property Trail Park 71,657 477,711 - - - 549,368 549,368
H Northern Urban Area Community Park 340,148 2,494,438 - - - 2,834,586 2,834,586
I Park Enhancements 576,506 210,045 182,875 184,965 184,965 1,339,356 1,339,356
J Park System Redesign 188,100 - - - - 188,100 188,100
K Parks and Recreation Security Study 86,996 - - - - 86,996 86,996
L River and Lake Access Improvements 182,875 36,575 36,575 36,575 36,575 329,175 329,175
M Walnut Creek Park Improvements 274,835 156,750 156,750 156,750 156,750 901,835 901,835
Subtotal, Parks, Recreation, & Culture 3,073,583 8,258,888 935,379 884,874 1,159,825 14,312,549 16,176,725
FY13 - FY22 Capital Improvements Program: FY18-22 Capital Needs Assessment Current Tax Rate (74.2 Cents)
Description/Project FY17/18 FY 18/19 FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22 FY18-22 10 - YR TOTAL
08 Libraries
A City-County Branch Library Repair/Maintenance - - - - - - 397,100
B County Library Facilities Repair/Maintenance - - - - - - 25,080
C Central Library 495,840 7,252,684 - - - 7,748,524 7,748,524
D Crozet Library 6,853,633 - - - - 6,853,633 6,853,633
E Northern Albemarle Library 869,440 11,523,654 1,631,709 - - 14,024,803 14,024,803
F Scottsville Library Renovation-Expansion 23,306 2,180,145 126,184 - - 2,329,635 2,329,635
G Southern Urban Area Library Facility 2,307,130 - - - - 2,307,130 2,307,130
Subtotal, Libraries 10,549,349 20,956,483 1,757,893 - - 33,263,725 33,685,905
09 Technology & GIS
A County Server Infrastructure Upgrade 499,406 512,102 529,031 541,728 558,657 2,640,924 4,909,411
B Increased Redudant Internet Services 19,751 - - - - 19,751 19,751
C Mobility Devices 109,725 - - - - 109,725 109,725
D PBX Replacement - - 522,500 - - 522,500 1,045,000
E Security 54,863 - - - - 54,863 54,863
F Virtual Desktop Solution Trial 104,500 - - - - 104,500 104,500
G VMWare Hardware-Software Disaster Recovery 104,500 - - - - 104,500 104,500
H Website Enhancements 109,725 - - - - 109,725 109,725
Subtotal, Technology & GIS 1,002,470 512,102 1,051,531 541,728 558,657 3,666,488 6,457,475
10 ACE
A ACE Program 1,776,500 1,856,443 1,939,983 2,027,282 2,118,510 9,718,718 9,718,718
Subtotal, ACE 1,776,500 1,856,443 1,939,983 2,027,282 2,118,510 9,718,718 9,718,718
General Government Projects Subtotal 50,938,724 54,216,039 30,778,724 23,581,121 19,565,885 179,080,493 214,314,006
FY13 - FY22 Capital Improvements Program: FY18-22 Capital Needs Assessment Current Tax Rate (74.2 Cents)
Description/Project FY17/18 FY 18/19 FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22 FY18-22 10 - YR TOTAL
11 Stormwater
A Stormwater TMDL Maintenance - - - - - - 261,250
B Stormwater TMDL Utilities Project 621,906 621,906 621,906 621,906 621,906 3,109,530 3,109,530
Subtotal, Stormwater Projects 621,906 621,906 621,906 621,906 621,906 3,109,530 3,370,780
12 Schools
A Administrative Technology 272,745 272,745 272,745 272,745 272,745 1,363,725 2,564,430
B Instructional Technology 679,250 679,250 679,250 679,250 679,250 3,396,250 6,479,000
C Local Area Network Upgrade 1,045,000 1,045,000 - - - 2,090,000 3,344,000
D School Bus Replacement 1,749,722 1,801,841 1,918,849 2,039,506 2,239,544 9,749,462 17,892,705
E School Maintenance/Replacement 6,046,579 6,761,082 5,805,693 5,872,358 6,021,221 30,506,933 55,576,200
F State Technology Grant 821,370 821,370 821,370 821,370 821,370 4,106,850 8,213,700
G Storage Facility Lease-School Division 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 - 300,000 600,000
H Wide Area Network Upgrade 418,000 - - 418,000 - 836,000 1,272,810
Subtotal, Schools Project 11,107,666 11,456,288 9,572,907 10,178,229 10,034,130 52,349,220 95,942,845
TOTAL PROJECTS 62,668,296 66,294,233 40,973,537 34,381,256 30,221,921 234,539,243 313,627,631
FY FY FY FY FY TOTAL
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 FIVE YEARS
GROWTH FORMULA 17,143,427 17,352,390 17,754,890 18,289,920 18,843,615 89,384,242
NET DEBT REQUIREMENT 15,461,296 15,814,084 17,753,508 17,066,975 18,769,294 84,865,157
BALANCE TRSFR TO CIP 1,682,131 1,538,306 1,382 1,222,945 74,321 4,519,085
CURRENT REVENUES 4,221,213 2,922,715 3,460,415 3,656,766 3,685,650 17,946,759
NET TRSFR TO CIP 1,682,131 1,538,306 1,382 1,222,945 74,321 4,519,085
LOAN PROCEEDS-Local Gov't 2,523,740 4,723,467 3,564,434 7,674,916 4,320,296 22,806,853
LOAN PROCEEDS-Schools 3,667,960 4,782,904 4,836,572 4,522,393 4,988,900 22,798,729
TOTAL REVENUES 12,095,044 13,967,392 11,862,803 17,077,020 13,069,167 68,071,426
FUND BALANCE 12,959,854 10,839,619 8,079,992 5,262,286 4,256,726
AVAILABLE REVENUE 25,054,898 24,807,011 19,942,795 22,339,306 17,325,893
PROJECT REQUESTS/PM FEE 14,215,279 16,727,019 14,680,509 18,082,580 15,271,706 78,977,093
RESERVE BALANCE 10,839,619 8,079,992 5,262,286 4,256,726 2,054,187
FY13 OC Recommendation
(Current Tax Rate)
GROWTH FORMULA ALLOCATION TO DEBT
CAPITAL PROGRAM REVIEW
FY13-17 CIP Financial Summary
FY13 CIP OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED PROJECT SUMMARY BY TAX RATE
Current Tax Rate: 74.2 Cent
Projects by Functional Area Funding Level/Timing CIP 5-YR Total ($)
Court Square Maintenance/Replacement Requested 1,054,011
J & DR Court Maintenance/Replacement Requested 29,260
Old Jail Facilities Maintenance Requested 99,608
Sheriffs Office Maintenance/Replacement Requested 113,905
ECC Emergency Telephone System Requested 1,403,652
Fire Res Apparatus Replacement-County Reduced $ 2,386,733
Fire Res Apparatus Replacement-Volunteer Reduced $ 9,173,679
Fire Rescue Airpacks Requested 2,833,215
Fire Rescue Lifepacks Requested 421,113
Fire Rescue Mobile Data Computers-Maintenance/Repl Delayed Timing 75,057
County 800Mhz Radio Replacements Requested 2,599,732
Police Mobile Data Computers Reduced 1,217,635
Police Patrol Video Cameras Delayed Timing 600,893
City-County Co-Owned Maintenance/Replacement Requested 117,161
County E911 Road Sign Upgrade Requested 579,102
County Facilities Maintenance/Replacement Requested 3,241,087
Ivy Landfill Remediation Requested 2,732,675
Moores Creek Septage Receiving Requested 571,830
Storage Facility Lease-General Government Reduced 129,000
Health Department Maintenance/Replacement Requested 235,125
Burley-Lane Field Poles Lighting Delayed Timing 541,697
Parks Maintenance/Replacement Requested 1,864,176
City-County Branch Library Repair/Maintenance Requested 397,100
County Library Facilities Repair/Maintenance Requested 25,080
County Server Infrastructure Upgrade Requested 2,268,487
PBX Replacement Delayed Timing 522,500
Stormwater TMDL Maintenance Requested 261,250
Administrative Technology Requested 1,200,705
Instructional Technology Requested 3,082,750
Local Area Network Upgrade Requested 1,254,000
School Bus Replacement* Requested 8,143,243
School Maintenance/Replacement Requested 25,069,267
State Technology Grant Requested 4,106,850
Storage Facility Lease-School Division Reduced 300,000
Wide Area Network Upgrade Requested 436,810
FY13-17 Project Total at Current Tax Rate: 74.2 Cent 79,088,388
Note: *Funding for the School Bus Replacements is assumed in this summary and not as yet specifically identified or
resolved.
FY13 CIP OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED PROJECT SUMMARY BY TAX RATE
(Continued)
Equalized Tax Rate (76.5 Cents) w/ 0.5 Cent Dedicated to CIP
Projects by Functional Area Funding Level/Timing Incremental Total ($)
Fire Rescue Mobile Data Computers-Maintenance/Repl Restored 0
Police Mobile Data Computers Restored 152,361
Police Patrol Video Cameras Restored 158,359
Fire Res Apparatus-Ivy Station 14 Requested 909,850
Firearms Range Requested 1,153,421
Burley-Lane Field Poles Lighting Restored 0
Crozet Library* Requested 6,853,633
PBX Replacement* Restored 0
Project Reserve Remainder 2,300,000
FY13-17 Project Total at Equalized Tax Rate (76.5 Cents) w/ 0.5 Cent Dedicated to CIP 90,616,012
Notes: *The Oversight Committee recommends the County consider ways to reduce the cost of construction for the
Crozet Library.
**The Oversight Committee recommends setting some of the project reserve aside for transportation revenue
sharing and/or other transportation projects
Current Tax Rate (74.2 Cents) + 1 Cent Dedicated to CIP
Projects by Functional Area Funding Level/Timing Incremental Total ($)
Fire Rescue-Seminole Trail VFD CARS Building Replacement Phased Req 2,164,770
Transportation Projects and Revenue Sharing Reduced 2,194,500
FY13-17 Project Total at Current Tax Rate (74.2 Cents) + 1 Cent Dedicated to CIP 94,975,282
FY13 CIP OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED PROJECT SUMMARY BY TAX RATE
(Continued)
Current Tax Rate (74.2 Cents) + 2 Cents Dedicated to CIP
Projects by Functional Area Funding Level/Timing Incremental Total ($)
Public Safety Training Facility Requested 6,010,337
Public Safety Training Academy Requested 47,652
Sidewalk Construction Program Requested 2,100,450
Transportation Projects and Revenue Sharing Reduced 8,778,000
PVCC Workforce Center Requested 192,000
Community Center Mechanical Plant Study Requested 20,900
Crozet Growth Area Community Park Facilities Requested 4,888,191
Northern Albemarle Library Delayed Timing 12,393,094
Project Reserve Remainder 450,000
FY13-17 Project Total at Current Tax Rate (74.2 Cents) + 2 Cents Dedicated to CIP 129,855,906
Note: The projects identified in this scenario are more general in nature. The Committee recognizes that the School
Division is anticipated to provide additional submissions after this year’s School Facility Study is completed and
there may be other significant public safety related projects which could alter the list of recommended projects.
1
Summary of CIP Oversight Committees’ Recommendations
November 2011
Apparatus funding should be adjusted to reflect requested funding for FY 13 and 14, but then
leveled at $2 million per year thereafter, until such time as a more formal evaluation of
replacement criteria and rotation policy is provided to the Technical Review Team as requested in
previous years. The Committee stressed that this “set aside” for FY 15 - 17 is for financial
planning purposes only and that all future apparatus requests must be based on revised
replacement and rotation policies. This adjusted funding is reflected in the base (current tax rate)
scenario. Continued discussions regarding apparatus rotation should occur within the year.
The Committee agrees that School Bus Replacements are appropriately classified as capital
expenses and may be properly included and ranked as qualifying CIP submissions; however, the
Committee acknowledges that school buses have historically been considered and treated as an
operational expense of the schools. The Oversight Committee recognizes that funding for the
buses is assumed and not as yet specifically identified or resolved.
o Any modification or departure from established practices with respect to bus funding
must be approved by the Board of Supervisors. The Committee recommends that this
matter be discussed at the next scheduled joint meeting of the Boards and that formal
action by the Board of Supervisors be made in advance of the adoption of its budget in
April.
Consistent with sound financial policies and best practices, the Committee recommends that
Fire/Rescue apparatus, special equipment and buses be funded all or in part with cash whenever
possible. Where debt funding is required, apparatus and buses should be financed for not move
than ten-year terms.
For future CIPs, the Committee recommends there should be more clarity in the definition of
“capital” as opposed to “operating” expenses. In particular, expenditures that are routine,
reoccurring and below certain thresholds should be classified as operating expenses whenever
possible.
The County should consider strategically selling surplus, unneeded properties (or even to donate
property) in accordance with a long-range plan for land acquisition/disposal and based on a
cost/benefit analysis of the on-going maintenance costs of the property/facility or reuse options
The Maintenance category should include the following sub-categories in future CIP submissions.
1. Critical Maintenance/repair
2. Energy and Environmental Improvements
3. Infrastructure Upgrades and Improvements
Community Development staff should be encouraged to ensure that projects with identified and
associated proffers (especially any with sunset clauses) be submitted as part of the submittal
process.
2
The County should plan for the design of new CIP projects with a greater focus on the cost of
construction.
Next year, the Oversight Committee should hold a meeting with members of the Technical Review
Committee during one of their first meetings to obtain more details regarding the TRC’s rankings.
They would also like to have more information provided about the ranking criteria.
In concurrence with the TRT, the Committee has identified the following large and, as yet, unfunded
projects or efforts as Watch List items for future consideration:
Watch List:
Window Replacements for the County Office Building – McIntire – recommend more
cost/benefit analysis be conducted
Schools submitted maintenance only requests to date–we anticipate additional submissions in
the future after this year’s ongoing school facilities study is completed. (TRC)
The Stormwater-related Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) mandate may have a potentially
significant impact on CIP in future years (TRC). For example, the CIP and the CNA requests
included in this year’s submittal to address this mandate totaled $4.4 Million.
The potential devolution of roads by VDOT could have a serious potential impact on CIP in
future years (TRC)
Courts Plan could have a serious impact in the future. (TRC)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
The University Community Next Generation Innovation
Project (Gig.U)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution of Support for The University Community Next
Generation Innovation Project (Gig.U)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Culp; and Ms. Catlin
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 14, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The University Community Next Generation Innovation Project (“Gig.U”) is an initiative driven by a broad-based group
of over 30 leading research universities from across the United States. Drawing on America’s rich history of
community-led innovation in research and entrepreneurship, Gig.U seeks to accelerate the deployment of ultra high-
speed networks to leading U.S. universities and their surrounding communities. Such network improvements drive
economic growth and stimulate a new generation of innovations that can address critical needs, such as health care
and education. The University of Virginia is a founding member of Gig.U and seeks the County’s expression of support
as a community partner in advancing the Gig.U mission.
DISCUSSION:
Gig.U’s mission is to accelerate the deployment of world-leading, next generation networks in the United States in a
way that provides an opportunity to lead in the next generation of ultra high speed network services and applications.
Through a Request for Information process, Gig.U will work with current and potential network service providers, as
well as others, to create a critical mass of next generation test beds by accelerating the offering of ultra high-speed
network services to their communities. While economic hurdles impede upgrading networks in all communities, those
hurdles are smaller in university communities since those communities enjoy characteristics that both lower the cost of
deployment and increase demand, making them the most attractive targets for initial next generation network
deployments. Gig.U will create a focused conversation between the demand side (universities and their communities)
and the supply side (service providers and other enterprises interested in an upgrade) to determine if there are ways to
bridge the gap sufficiently to induce private risk capital investment in whatever network assets and service functions
are necessary to bring an upgrade to university communities.
The Project will build on foundation stones already in place, such as organizing done through the Google Community
Fiber initiative, to create an environment in which private risk capital has sufficient incentives to provide next-
generation services. This effort will focus business leadership and policy makers on a critical but often overlooked
point, which is that from both an economic and a policy perspective, a small amount of financial capital and political
capital focused on upgrading university communities can yield major gains for both the future of Am erica’s leadership
in research and for the American economic leadership. The attached resolution (Attachment A) expresses that the
Board supports Gig.U and its mission to work with high-speed service providers to bring high speed networks to our
country’s research communities.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact to the County related to this Resolution of Support.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution of Support (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS
A – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, developing world-leading networks and applications are vital to America’s
global leadership and such developments spur economic growth, investment and job creation
while stimulating a new generation of innovations to address critical needs, such as health care,
energy and education; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world in ultra-high speed Internet
access as other nations move towards gigabit connectivity and the next generation of
broadband based innovations; and
WHEREAS, the University Community Next Generation Innovation Project (“Gig. U”) is a
project of broad-based group of universities and communities across the country working
together to accelerate the deployment of world-leading, next generation networks and services
in the United States; and
WHEREAS, Gig. U universities and their surrounding communities have the most
favorable conditions for a market-based, ultra high-speed broadband strategy, including dense
populations and high demand; and
WHEREAS, these communities are the communities most likely to use networks and
applications in ways that create a new generation of opportunities for t he American economy;
and
WHEREAS, these communities are already hubs of innovation and discovery, but to
continue to lead the country – and the world – they must have access to the next generation
networks and services; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County and its surrounding region, together with the University of
Virginia, one of the nation’s leading research universities, is perfectly positioned to play a
leading role in next generation opportunities and discoveries, provided the community has the
necessary communications resources.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County hereby acknowledges the importance of deploying leading edge networks and services
for economic growth, investment and job creation and supports the University Community Next
Generation Innovation Project, known as Gig. U.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of
a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote
of to , as recorded below, at a meeting held on _____________________.
________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ___ ___
Mr. Dorrier ___ ___
Ms. Mallek ___ ___
Mr. Rooker ___ ___
Mr. Thomas ___ ___
Mr. Snow ___ ___
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance Amendments – Site Plan and
Subdivision Review Processes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Resolutions of
Intent
STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Graham, Cilimberg,
Davis, Kamptner, Fritz
AGENDA DATE:
December 14, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND: On August 3, 2011, the Board of Supervisors met jointly with the Planning Commission and
Architectural Review Board to receive staff information and discuss the legislative, site plan and subdivision review
processes. At the conclusion of the work session, the Board provided consensus direction re garding changes to
these processes. On November 29, 2011, Resolutions of Intent to bring forward ordinance amendments providing for
these process changes were considered by the Planning Commission. The Commission unanimously approved the
Resolution of Intent for amendments to the zoning ordinance to address legislative process changes. However, by
unanimous vote, the Commission referred the Resolutions of Intent for amendments to the zoning and subdivision
ordinance to address ministerial process changes without recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
DISCUSSION: At the August 3, 2011 joint work session, the consensus of the Board regarding the site plan and
subdivision processes was as follows:
Plats and plans should be subject to agent approval instead of Planning Commission approval with no right for
them to be called up for review by the Planning Commission. The Architectural Review Board should review
projects in Entrance Corridor Districts prior to preliminary approval. In addition, the Board agreed with the
following regarding process:
A. Pre-application submittal with review in 10 days to determine main issues and required waivers.
B. Reduced plan content to minimum necessary for review.
C. Public notified of Site Review Meeting and asked to attend and provide comment.
D. Establish clearer submittal requirements for the final site plan.
E. Establish that any comment not responded to within 6 months deems the project withdrawn.
F. Allow the issuance of grading permits with the approval of the initial (prelim inary site plan).
Before the Planning Commission took action regarding the Resolutions of Intent on November 29, 2011 one
Commissioner expressed opposition to removing from the ordinances the allowance for site plans and subdivisions to
be called up for review by the Planning Commission. Another Commissioner expressed concern that the August 3rd
work session was abbreviated due to other Board agenda matters and questioned whether all Board members fully
understood the consensus reached by the Board. In its action referring these Resolutions of Intent to the Board, the
Commission expressed its preference that the Board act on these resolutions since the direction set out in the Board’s
consensus was a Board initiative.
As staff noted with the Planning Commission, the resolutions in and of themselves do not pre -determine any particular
outcome for these ordinance amendments, but are simply necessary to initiate the amendment process.
Nevertheless, the basis of the amendments that staff will propose will reflect the consensus the Board reached on
August 3rd. The amendments as proposed will be the subject of public hearings, Planning Commission
recommendations and ultimate Board decisions. Therefore, staff is asking the Board to adopt the Resolutions of Intent
to specifically cover consideration of changes to these provisions.
2
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Resolutions of Intent (Attachments A and B) and direct staff to proceed to
an initial work session with the Planning Commission in early 2012.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Zoning Ordinance Resolution of Intent – Site Plan Reviews
B - Subdivision Ordinance Resolution of Intent
PC minutes
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance includes regulations pertaining to the
procedures for the review of applications for site plans; and
WHEREAS, in order to improve quality and efficiency in the application and review processes
for site plans, it may be desirable to amend the regulations in the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the
application requirements and the review procedures for preliminary (initial) and final site plans, to allow
grading permits to be issued upon approval of the initial (preliminary) site plan, and to provide for
dormant applications to be deemed withdrawn.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby adopts a resolution of intent to consider amending Albemarle County Code §§ 18-30.6, Entrance
Corridor Overlay District, and 18-32, Site Plans, and any other sections of the Zoning Ordinance deemed
to be appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on
the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations
to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution dul y
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
_____________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Snow ____ ____
Mr. Thomas ____ ____
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance includes regulations pertaining to the
procedures for the review of applications for subdivision plats; and
WHEREAS, in order to improve quality and efficiency in the application and review processes
for subdivision plats, it may be desirable to amend the regulations in the Subdivision Ordinance
pertaining to the application requirements and the review procedures for preliminary and final subdivision
plats and to provide for dormant applications to be deemed withdrawn.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good land development practices, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Albemarle County Code §§ 14-209 et seq. and
14-213 et seq. and any other sections of the Subdivision Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the
purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on
the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations
to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
_____________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Snow ____ ____
Mr. Thomas ____ ____
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 1
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – CONSENT AGENDA SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISION PLAT PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
Albemarle County Planning Commission
November 29, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, November 29, 2011, at 6:00
p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, Don Franco,
and Calvin Morris, Vice-Chair. Commissioners absent was Duane Zobrist, Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were: Susan Stimart, Economic Development Facilitator; Lee Catlin, Assistant to
the County Executive for Community and Business Partnerships; Amelia McCulley, Zoning
Administrator/Director of Zoning; J.T. Newberry, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Andy
Sorrel, Senior Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy 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.
Consent Agenda:
a. Approval of Minutes – May 10, 2011 & June 21, 2011
b. Resolutions of Intent – Urban Development Areas – Streetscapes:
1. Zoning Ordinance, and
2. Subdivision Ordinance
(Wayne Cilimberg)
c. Resolution of Intent – Phase III Industrial Uses (ZTA201000004)
(Wayne Cilimberg)
d. Resolutions of Intent – Process improvements for:
1. Zoning map amendments and special use permits,
2. Review of applications for site plans, and
3. Review of applications for subdivision plats
(Wayne Cilimberg)
Mr. Morris asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda for further
review.
Mr. Lafferty asked for clarification on item d. process improvements. He asked what happens if the fee is
not paid and if staff could indefinitely hold an application.
Mr. Cilimberg replied as regards to fee payments under the legislative process change proposals . He
noted under the concept agreed to by the Board that re -zonings and special use permit applications
would be reviewed first and cleared for processing before the fee is paid. But nothing is being proposed
tonight that specifically makes those changes as what is before the Commission is only a Resolution of
Intent to proceed with changes reflecting what the B oard concurred with which the Commission also saw
at the joint work session with the Board and ARB.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out he noticed if the applicant does not reply to the comment within six months, then
the application is voided.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that was on the ministerial process side, which was a little different process.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the request would just sit there or was there some priority of applications.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 2
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – CONSENT AGENDA SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISION PLAT PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
Mr. Cilimberg replied site plans are treated a little differently becau se they are following the requirements
of the zoning ordinance for a specific inclusion of information. So if there is no response to staff review
comments after 6 months and/or the fee is not paid, then the application would have to be resubmitted
and a new fee at that time would be paid.
Mr. Lafferty noted he did not read that the application would have to be resubmitted.
Mr. Franco requested that item d. be pulled from the consent agenda for further discussion.
Mr. Loach questioned the background of the urban development areas. It says in 2007 the General
Assembly adopted a requirement that all localities with a population of between 20,000 and 130,000 and
a growth rate of 15% or more designate urban development areas (UDAs) in their comprehensive plan.
He asked if the 15% is over a decade.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it is over a decade. That was the same legislation under which the Commission
reviewed the two UDA’s ultimately amended into the comp plan. It is under this same legislation that staff
would also be bringing forward some changes in the zoning.
Ms. Porterfield noted Mr. Franco took care of her request.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded for approval of the consent agenda items a,
b,1., b.2. and c.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0).
Mr. Morris noted the consent agenda items a., b.1., b.2. and c. were approved. He invited discussion on
item d. He asked for staff’s interpretation.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff has brought to the Commission a resolution of intent that reflected what the Board
concluded based on the minutes and the actions of the joint work session of the Commission, Board and
Architectural Review Board in August of this year. Staff reflected directly what was the conclusion of the
Board, Commission and ARB work session and are asking for resolutions of intent that would allow staff
to move forward with the actual work on ordinance provisions, which would not be enacted until they go
through a public hearing process with the Planning Commission and then with the Board of Supervisors.
This is simply the first step towards that ultimately taking place. Staff typically has brought resolutions of
intent to the Commission because they meet more often than the Board and it allows those things to get
started in the pipeline with the understanding that nothing is obligating them to approve anything in
particular. However, the ordinance work would be based on the outcome of that Board meeting, which
would come to the Planning Commission for discussion in public hearing.
Mr. Franco pointed out his concern is the resolutions basically are the bottom line of the consensus of the
Board regarding the process. If they recall that joint meeting was started 45 minutes late . There was a
heavy discussion that took place. In discussions he had with some of the Board members he was not
sure it was fully vetted amongst the Board. Since this is really an action that the Board has initiated his
preference would be that they act on the resolution. He has concerns of wh ether this really represents
consensus. He would hate for staff to take their resolution and move forward with a process that maybe
the Board has not fully vetted.
Ms. Porterfield agreed with Mr. Franco because if the Commission acts on this they are e ssentially
removing the Planning Commission from the items that are going to be taken care of here. That is the
basic philosophy that was presented to them . The Planning Commission is not going to be part of this
anymore. She was not sure that all Commissioners agree they should be removed. If the Board wants to
remove the Commission, then that is up to them.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that passing the resolution does not actually enact that removal being referred
to. It would lead staff to write provisions that would do that if enacted. However, again it comes through
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 3
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – CONSENT AGENDA SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISION PLAT PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
the public hearing process with the Planning Commission. He noted that what Ms. Porterfield just
mentioned applies to the site plan and subdivision process.
Ms. Porterfield noted unfortunately staff is recommending option one with the six items that go with that.
Option one is that the site plans or subdivision plats will never be called up for review by the Planning
Commission. The Commission would essentially be removing themselves. She thought that was
something not vetted by the Planning Commission at all as to whether they agree with that.
Mr. Kamptner clarified that the resolution does not remove the Commission from anything.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the philosophy behind it does.
Mr. Kamptner noted the Commission is not obligated to even recommend whatever ordinance comes out
of this resolution.
Ms. Porterfield said she did not agree with the resolution of intent based on what has been presented.
Mr. Kamptner asked to be clear that would be items d.2. and d.3. He asked if that was correct.
Ms. Porterfield replied that was correct. She supported what Mr. Franco had suggested as the way to go.
Mr. Franco said he understands the Commission is not approving anything other than the resolution. He
did not think they should devote effort to something if it is not the Board’s wishes. Having them actually
confirm that this is their consensus would be helpful.
Mr. Morris said recalling that session it was extremely hurried a nd almost at the last minute they had to go
back into session and said let’s do something.
Mr. Franco agreed with Mr. Morris. He did not agree with the whole direction they were going. However,
he was not arguing that at this point. He would like the Board to confirm that there was consensus along
these lines.
Mr. Morris asked for motions.
Mr. Kamptner asked for a couple of motions. What he was hearing is that none of the Commissioners
have a concern with the resolution dealing with the legislative process d.1. That is just to work on the
processes for zoning map amendments and special use permits. By statute and ordinance those will
always come through the Planning Commission anyway. Therefore, the process in that regard is not
being changed.
Mr. Morris asked if he wanted d.1. separated and voted on separately, and Mr. Kamptner replied yes.
Mr. Franco said he was comfortable with that.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded for approval of the resolution of intent for
consent item d.1.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0).
Mr. Morris asked for a motion on consent agenda items d.2. and d.3.
Mr. Franco asked if they could just simply not take an action or do they need to vote this down in order to
get it to the Board.
Mr. Kamptner suggested the motion could be to direct staff to present it to the Board of Supervisors for
their consideration.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 4
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – CONSENT AGENDA SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISION PLAT PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to direct staff to refer consent agenda items d.2.
and d.3. to the Board of Supervisors without recommendation for their action.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0).
Mr. Morris noted the consent agenda was approved.
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources September 7, 2011
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
500 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources September 7, 2011
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
500 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources September 15, 2011
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
500 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources September 15, 2011
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
500 ft
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Future Pantops Fire Rescue Station Site
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Acceptance of proposed Pantops Fire/Rescue Station site
on Peter Jefferson Parkway and public hearing on lease-
back of a portion of that property
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Herrick, and Lilley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 14, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Several studies, including the 2007 Regional Fire and Rescue Study and the adopted Pantops Master Plan, have
identified the need to establish a fire rescue station in the Pantops development area.
Although funding for the construction of this fire station is not currently included in the County’s adopted Capital
Improvement Program, staff has worked with Worrell Land & Development Company, L.C. (“Worrell Land”), the
developers of Peter Jefferson Place, to secure the donation of a 1.283-acre parcel off of Peter Jefferson Parkway as
the site of a future fire/rescue station. The proposed site currently houses the maintenance shed for the Peter
Jefferson Place office park.
The proposed site has already received significant review and approvals:
On September 15, 2009, the Planning Commission unanimously found that the placement of a fire station at
this location is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (CCP-2009-1)
On November 19, 2010, the Planning Commission approved a critical slopes waiver, with no conditions, as
part of the approved Preliminary Site Plan SDP-2010-00067.
A “clean” Phase I Environmental Assessment was completed in January 2011.
DISCUSSION:
The conveyance of the proposed fire/rescue station site would require the approval of a deed, lease, and private
street access agreement:
1. Deed – Pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1803, the County’s acceptance of property requires approval of the
deed. The parties have negotiated the attached deed for the Board’s consideration. A term of the deed
requires the County’s continued use of the property as a fire/rescue station, and includes a reversion clause
in the event the property is no longer used as a fire/rescue station.
2. Lease -- Worrell Land would like to continue using this location to house the maintenance shed for the Peter
Jefferson Place office park. Subject to Board approval of the negotiated lease, the parties have agreed to
Worrell Land’s continued use of the site. Prior to construction of the new fire/rescue station, Worrell Land
would simply continue using its existing structure under the County’s new ownership of the site. Once
construction of the proposed station began, the County would be responsible for providing a suitable
temporary substitute during construction. Ultimately, a permanent replacement maintenance shed would be
constructed as a separate part of the new fire/rescue station building. The parties’ proposed lease addresses
Worrell Land’s continued use of its maintenance shed before, during, and after construction. Though the
lease has a fixed initial term, it may be renewed indefinitely at Worrell Land’s option. Virginia Code § 15.2-
1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to leasing any County-owned property.
3. Private Access Easement Agreement -- The proposed fire/rescue station site requires the subdivision of a
larger parcel to create the new 1.283 acre parcel. The new parcel will be served by a private street access.
Subject to Board approval, staff has negotiated a private access easement agreement to provide legal access
to the site.
AGENDA TITLE: Future Pantops Fire Rescue Station Site
December 14, 2011
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
None of the proposed documents place a deadline on the construction or initial staffing of the proposed station.
Therefore, the conveyance of the property itself has little or no immediate fiscal impact. However, the preliminary
construction budget for the proposed fire/rescue station is presently estimated to be $2.6 Million.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board accept the conveyance of the proposed fire/rescue station site. After the public
hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) to authorize the County
Executive to execute the proposed deed, lease, and private access easement agreement (Attachments B, C and D) in
a form approved by the County Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Resolution
B – Proposed Deed
C – Proposed Lease
D – Proposed Private Access Easement Agreement
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to accept certain properties within
the County by gift from Worrell Land & Development Company, L.C. (“Worrell Land”)
for the purpose of providing a fire rescue station site; and
WHEREAS, all necessary agreements for the acquisition of said property have
been made and presented to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Executive to execute the following Agreements
and all other documents, all in a form approved by the County Attorney, necessary to
acquire Tax Map Parcel 78-31 in the County of Albemarle:
1. Deed of Dedication from Worrell Land to the County of Albemarle, Virginia
conveying Tax Map Parcel 78-31 in the County of Albemarle;
2. Agreement of Lease between the County of Albemarle and Worrell Land for
Worrell Land’s continued use of a portion of Tax Map Parcel 78-31 in the County
of Albemarle;
3. Private Access Easement Agreement between PJP Building Six, L.C. and PJP
Building Seven, L.C., Grantors, and the County of Albemarle, Grantee, granting
the County a private, non-exclusive access easement from Peter Jefferson Parkway
to the fire rescue station across Tax Map Parcels 78-31J and 78-31K in the County
of Albemarle.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy
of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of
____ to ____, as recorded below, at a meeting held on December 14, 2011.
_________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____
Mr. Dorrier ____
Ms. Mallek ____
Mr. Rooker ____
Mr. Snow ____
Mr. Thomas ____
ATTACHMENT B
THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY: CONSIDERATION: $0
Paul H. Davenport, Esquire
Hirschler Fleischer, A Professional Corporation
2100 E. Cary Street
Richmond, VA 23223
GPIN # 07800-00-00-03100
DEED OF DEDICATION
THIS DEED OF DEDICATION is made as of the ______ day of ______________,
2011, by and between WORRELL LAND & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.C., a Virginia
limited liability company (“Grantor”) and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
(“Grantee”) whose address is 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.
WITNESSETH:
THAT for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand paid by
Grantee to Grantor, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, Grantor does hereby dedicate, grant, bargain, sell and convey,
with general warranty and English covenants of title, unto Grantee, a tract or parcel of land
consisting of approximately 1.283 acres, more ore less, together with all improvements thereon
and appurtenances thereto belonging (the “Fire Station Site”), and more particularly described
as “Parcel F 1.283 ac.” on a certain plat by Lincoln Surveying dated February 7, 2011, last
revised August 16, 2011, entitled “Subdivision Plat of Parcel F - Being a Portion of Tax Map 78
Parcel 31 Located on Peter Jefferson Parkway Rivanna Magisterial District Albemarle County,
Virginia” (the “Plat”), a copy of which Plat is recorded in the Clerk’s Office, Circuit Court,
Albemarle County, Virginia, herewith, and to which Plat reference is hereby made for a more
particular description of property conveyed.
EASEMENTS
In addition, Grantor hereby dedicates, grants and conveys to Grantee the following
easements (collectively, the “Easements”), subject to the General Easement Conditions and the
Restrictions set forth herein below:
(i) A non-exclusive, permanent easement in the location more particularly described on
the Plat as “New 30’ Private Street”, reference to the Plat being made for a more
particular description of the location of the easement (the “Access Easement”), for
vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress to and from the Fire Station Site from and to
an existing variable width access easement located on land currently owned by PJP
Building Six, L.C., which access easement is recorded in the Clerk’s Office in Deed
Book 3192, page 343; and
(ii) A non-exclusive, permanent easement for storm water drainage from the Fire Station
Site in the location shown on the Plat as “New Drainage Easement Hereby Dedicated to
Public Use”, reference to the Plat being made for a more particular description of the
location of the easement (the “Site Drainage Easement”).
2
The Easements shall be subject to the General Easement Conditions and the Restrictions set forth
below.
GENERAL EASEMENT CONDITIONS
1. Construction of Improvements. Any improvements constructed within the Access
Easement and Site Drainage Easement shall require prior review and approval of all plans,
landscape plans and specifications by Grantor, pursuant to Article V of the Declaration of
Covenants of Peter Jefferson Place recorded in the Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 1673, page 600,
on February 5, 1998 (as amended, the “Covenants”). All construction of any improvements and
facilities within the Easements shall be completed in a good and workmanlike manner, free of
any mechanics’ or materialmen’s liens. Except as otherwise approved in writing by Grantor, all
facilities to be installed within the Easements, other than roadways, manholes or other facilities
which by their nature are required to be aboveground, shall be installed underground, unless
otherwise authorized in writing by Grantor. Upon completion of any construction, installation,
maintenance, repair or replacement of the improvements or facilities installed within any of the
Easements, the party performing such construction, installation, maintenance, repair or
replacement shall be obligated to repair any damage caused by such activities and to restore or
replace the surface of the land to substantially the same condition existing immediately prior to
such construction, installation, maintenance, repair or replacement. All such work shall be
completed in accordance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations. Grantor shall have the
right to use the area subject to the Easements in any manner which is not inconsistent with the
rights granted to Grantee in this Deed.
2. Maintenance of Road and Drainage Improvements. Grantee agrees to maintain
any road or improvements now or hereafter located within the Access Easement and any
drainage facilities now or hereafter located within the Site Drainage Easement in good condition
and repair, at Grantee’s sole cost and expense. Grantee shall maintain any road improvements in
such a condition as to be passable by fire and emergency vehicles that will make use of the
proposed fire station and by vehicles used for maintenance within the Peter Jefferson Place office
park. If Grantee fails to maintain the road and other improvements or drainage facilities in good
condition and repair as required by this Deed, Grantor may provide written notice of such failure
to Grantee. If Grantee fails to cure such default within thirty (30) days after receipt of such
notice, Grantor may perform such maintenance work on behalf of Grantee, and Grantee shall
reimburse Grantor for the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Grantor within thirty (30)
days after written demand, accompanied by copies of paid invoices for such work.
RESTRICTIONS.
The conveyance of the Fire Station Site and the Easements is made subject to the
restrictive covenants set forth below and made a part hereof (the “Restrictions”) for the benefit
of all real property owned by the Grantor and located within the Peter Jefferson Place office park
(the “Benefited Property”):
1. Approval of Plans. The design of the proposed fire station to be built on the Fire
Station Site shall require prior review and approval by Grantor of all plans, landscape plans and
specifications by Grantor pursuant to Article V of Covenants.
3
2. Waiver of Assessments. Grantee agrees that the Fire Station Site shall be subject
to all applicable restrictions and covenants of record, including, but not limited to, the
Covenants, notwithstanding the exclusion of government-owned property from the definition of
a “Site” under the Covenants; provided, however, that the Fire Station Site shall not be subject to
property owner’s assessments under Section 8.9 of the Covenants. Grantee agrees to execute,
acknowledge and deliver to Grantor any document or instrument reasonably requested by
Grantor, in recordable form, for the purpose of confirming that the Fire Station Site is subject to
all provisions of the Covenants other than the obligation to pay property owner’s assessments.
3. Maintenance Costs. All costs and expenses of designing, constructing and
maintaining the proposed fire station on the Fire Station Site shall be the sole responsibility of
Grantee.
4. Use Restriction. Grantee acknowledges and agrees that Grantor is conveying the
property to Grantee, without consideration, for the sole purpose of use as a fire and/or rescue
station, or other public use appropriate for a Class A office park that would not generate
significant incoming public traffic, and no other use whatsoever. If Grantee proposes to use the
Fire Station Site for any use other than a fire and/or rescue station, Grantee shall first provide
notice in writing to Grantor of the proposed use for approval by Grantor, which approval shall
not be unreasonably withheld provided that the proposed use is appropriate for a Class A office
park and will not generate significant incoming public traffic. In the event that (i) the Fire
Station Site is used as a location of a fire and/or rescue station or other public use approved in
writing by Grantor pursuant to the provisions of this Paragraph 4, and thereafter ceases to be
used for such purposes, or (ii) the Fire Station Site is used for any purpose other than as a
location of a fire and/or rescue station or another public use approved by Grantor as set forth
above, title to the Fire Station Site shall revert to Grantor.
The Restrictions are a material part of the consideration for the conveyance of the Fire
Station Site and the Easements by Grantor to Grantee, shall be a covenant running with the
Benefited Property, and Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the Restrictions shall be
specifically enforceable by Grantor and its successors in title or assigns. Grantor may, at its sole
option, assign its rights to enforce the Restrictions and the General Easement Conditions to the
owner or owners of any real property located within the Peter Jefferson Place office park, or to
the PJP Owners Association, by recording a written assignment of such rights in the Clerk’s
Office, Circuit Court, Albemarle County, Virginia. In the absence of such a recorded
assignment, at such time, if any, as Grantor no longer owns any of the Benefited Property, the
PJP Owners Association shall thereafter have the right to enforce the Restrictions and the
General Easement Conditions.
GENERAL
1. This conveyance is made subject to the easements and the restrictions as set forth
above, and all other restrictions, covenants, conditions and easements of record, insofar as they
legally affect the property hereby conveyed.
2. Authority to accept conveyance. The Grantee, acting by and through its County
Executive, duly authorized by resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, accepts the conveyance of this property pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-
1803, as evidenced by the County Executive’s signature hereto and the recordation of this Deed.
4
WITNESS THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES AND SEALS:
GRANTOR: WORRELL LAND & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
L.C., a Virginia limited liability company
By:
Anne R. Worrell
Manager
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF ________________, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________,
2011, by Anne R. Worrell, Manager of Worrell Land & Development Company, L.C., a Virginia
limited liability company, on behalf of said limited liability company.
My commission expires:
Notary Registration No.:
Notary Public
5
GRANTEE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By:
Thomas C. Foley, County Executive
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF ________________, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________,
2011, by Thomas C. Foley, County Executive of the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
My commission expires:
Notary Registration No.:
Notary Public
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
County Attorney
#3929832 v5 032014.00002
ATTACHMENT C
1
AGREEMENT OF LEASE
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made this ____ day of ________________, 2011 by and
between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Landlord, and WORRELL LAND &
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Tenant.
ARTICLE I. PREMISES AND IMPROVEMENTS
Section 1.1. Leased Premises. In consideration of the rents and covenants herein set
forth, Landlord hereby leases to Tenant, and Tenant hereby rents from Landlord, the premises
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof together with any and all
improvements thereon (the "Leased Premises”). The Leased Premises shall be occupied by the
Tenant.
Section 1.2. Existing Maintenance Shed. As of the execution of this Lease, the Tenant
has possession and use of an existing maintenance shed (the “Existing Shed”), more fully
described in Exhibit A attached hereto. Tenant shall continue to have full possession and use of
said Existing Shed as the Leased Premises until a replacement maintenance shed (the
“Replacement Shed”) is constructed.
Section 1.3. Replacement Maintenance Shed. At such time as Landlord makes any
improvements that require the removal and/or demolition of the Existing Shed, the Landlord
shall construct, at its cost and expense, a Replacement Shed for Tenant’s sole possession and use.
The Replacement Shed shall have a doublewide garage door and bays, include a small office and
bathroom, be heated and supplied with electric power, natural gas, telephone cabling and a
telephone jack, water and sewer utilities to serve the bathroom, and otherwise be comparable to
the Existing Shed. Before commencing construction of the Replacement Shed, Landlord shall
provide plans for the Replacement Shed to Tenant for review and approval by Tenant, such
approval not to be unreasonably withheld. During the construction (or re-construction) of said
Replacement Shed, Landlord shall provide, at its cost and expense, temporary on-site storage for
the benefit of and in consultation with Tenant. Upon the completion of said Replacement Shed,
Tenant shall have possession and use of said Replacement Shed as the Leased Premises
hereunder in lieu of the Existing Shed.
ARTICLE II. TITLE: QUIET ENJOYMENT
So long as Tenant is not in default hereunder, Tenant shall have peaceful and quiet
enjoyment, use and possession of the Leased Premises without hindrance on the part of the
Landlord or anyone claiming by, through, or under Landlord.
ARTICLE III. TERM
Section 3.1. Commencement and Expiration. The initial term of this Lease shall be 50
years, commencing on __________________________ (the "Date of Commencement") and
expiring ________________________, unless renewed thereafter as provided in Section 3.2
ATTACHMENT C
2
below. All references to the “term” of this Lease shall, unless the context indicates a different
meaning, be deemed to be a reference to the term described herein.
Section 3.2. Renewal. Upon the expiration of the initial term, this Lease shall
automatically be renewed annually for successive one-year terms, unless Tenant provides to
Landlord at least thirty (30) days’ advance written notice of termination, pursuant to Section 18.3
herein, in which case this Lease shall terminate upon the expiration of said notice period.
ARTICLE IV. RENT
Commencing upon the Date of Commencement, during each term of this Lease, Tenant
agrees to pay to Landlord annual rent of one dollar ($1.00), payable on the first day of each year
during each term hereof.
ARTICLE V. UTILITIES AND SERVICES
Upon construction of the Replacement Shed, Landlord shall provide heat, water, sewer
and electricity at no additional cost to Tenant. If Tenant elects to use telephone service, all
charges made by the telephone company shall be Tenant’s sole cost and expense. Tenant shall
provide any and all other services.
ARTICLE VI. USE OF PROPERTY
Section 6.1. Permitted Use. Tenant shall have use of the Leased Premises for a
maintenance shed serving the Peter Jefferson Place office park.
Section 6.2. Parking. Tenant shall be entitled to the use of two (2) parking spaces in
the parking lot, and space to park outside a tractor, a trailer and a water tank (which may be
located behind the fire station building rather than within a designated parking area), and an
access easement to the Leased Premises.
ARTICLE VII. ALTERATIONS, IMPROVEMENTS, FIXTURES AND SIGNS
Section 7.1. Installation by Tenant.
(a) Tenant may, from time to time, make or cause to be made any interior
non-structural alterations, additions or improvements which do not damage or alter the Leased
Premises, provided that Landlord's consent shall have first been obtained in writing, and
provided that Tenant shall obtain all required governmental permits for such alterations,
additions or improvements.
(b) Tenant may, from time to time, make interior structural alterations,
additions or improvements, only with Landlord's prior written consent to plans and specifications
therefor, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Upon the expiration or sooner
termination of this Lease, Landlord shall have the option (exercisable upon sixty (60) days notice
to Tenant except in the case of a termination of this Lease due to a default by Tenant, in which
ATTACHMENT C
3
case no such notice shall be required) to require Tenant to remove at Tenant's sole co st and
expense any and all improvements made by Tenant to the Leased Premises or to elect to keep
such improvement as Landlord's property. In the event Tenant is required to remove any
improvements, (i) Tenant shall be responsible for the repair of all damage caused by the
installation or removal thereof, and (ii) if Tenant fails to properly remove such improvements or
provide for the repair of the Leased Premises, Landlord may perform the same at Tenant's cost
and expense.
Section 7.2. Signs. Tenant shall have the right to place signs on the interior or exterior
of the Leased Premises with the prior written approval of Landlord.
ARTICLE VIII. MAINTENANCE OF LEASED PREMISES
Section 8.1. Maintenance. Landlord shall be responsible for all repairs and
maintenance for the Replacement Shed, whether ordinary or extraordinary, structural or non-
structural, foreseen or unforeseen. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Tenant shall be responsible
for all maintenance and repairs necessitated by the negligence of T enant, its employees and
invitees.
Section 8.2. Right of Entry. Landlord reserves the right for itself, its agents and
employees to enter upon the Leased Premises at any reasonable time to make repairs, alterations
or improvements; provided, however, that such repairs, alterations, or improvements shall not
unreasonably interfere with Tenant's operations. Such right to enter shall also include the right
to enter upon the Leased Premises for the purposes of inspection.
Section 8.3. Surrender of Leased Premises. At the expiration of the tenancy hereby
created, Tenant shall surrender the Leased Premises and all keys for the Leased Premises to
Landlord at the place then fixed for the delivery of notices. At such time, the Leased Premises
shall be broom clean and in good condition and repair, commensurate with its age. If Tenant
leaves any of Tenant's personal property in the Leased Premises, Landlord, at its option, may
remove and store any or all of such property at Tenant's expense or may deem the same
abandoned and, in such event, the property deemed abandoned shall become the property of
Landlord.
ARTICLE IX. INSURANCE
Section 9.1. Liability Insurance of Tenant. Tenant covenants and agrees that it will, at
all times during the term of this Lease, keep in full force and effect a policy of public liability
and property damage insurance with respect to the Leased Premises and the business operated by
Tenant on the Leased Premises in which the limits of public liability for bodily injury and
property damage shall not be less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident, combined
single limit. The policy shall name the Landlord as an additional insured. The policy shall
provide that the insurance thereunder shall not be cancelled until thirty (30) days after written
notice thereof to all named insureds.
ATTACHMENT C
4
Section 9.2. Fire and Extended Coverage. Landlord agrees that it will, during the
initial and any renewal term of this Lease, insure and keep insured, for the benefit of Landlord
and its respective successors in interest, the Replacement Shed, or any portion thereof then in
being. Such policy shall contain coverage against loss, damage or destruction by fire and such
other hazards as are covered and protected against, at standard rates unde r policies of insurance
commonly referred to and known as "extended coverage," as the same may exist from time to
time. Landlord agrees to name Tenant as an additional insured on such policy, as its interest may
appear.
Section 9.3. Evidence of Insurance. Copies of policies of insurance (or certificates of
the insurers) for insurance required to be maintained by Tenant and Landlord pursuant to
Sections 9.1 and 9.2 shall be delivered by Landlord or Tenant, as the case may be, to the other
upon the issuance of such insurance and thereafter not less than thirty (30) days prior to the
expiration dates thereof.
Section 9.4. Waiver of Subrogation. Landlord and Tenant each hereby releases the
other from any and all liability or responsibility to the releasing party or anyone claiming
through or under the releasing party, by way of subrogation or otherwise, from any loss or
damage to property caused by any peril insured under the releasing party’s policies of insurance
covering such property (but only to the extent of the insurance proceeds payable under such
policies), even if such loss or damage is attributable to the fault or negligence of the party being
released, or anyone for whom the party being released may be responsible; provided, however,
that this release shall be applicable and in force and effect only with respect to loss or damage
occurring during such time as any such release shall not adversely affect or impair the releasing
party's policies of insurance or prejudice the right of the releasing party to recover thereunder.
ARTICLE X. WASTE, NUISANCE, COMPLIANCE WITH
GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS
Section 10.1. Waste or Nuisance. Tenant shall not commit or suffer to be committed
any waste or any nuisance upon the Leased Premises.
Section 10.2. Governmental Regulations. During the term of this Lease, Tenant shall, at
Tenant's sole cost and expense, comply with all of the requirements of all county, municipal,
state, federal and other applicable governmental authorities, now in force, or which may
hereafter be in force, pertaining to the Leased Premises or Tenant’s use and occupancy thereof.
ARTICLE XI. FIRE OR OTHER CASUALTY
If the Replacement Shed shall be damaged by fire or other casualty, Landlord shall
promptly repair the Replacement Shed, at Landlord’s sole cost and expense.
ARTICLE XII. CONDEMNATION
Intentionally Deleted.
ATTACHMENT C
5
ARTICLE XIII. DEFAULT OF TENANT
In the event of any default or breach of the provisions of this Lease by Tenant, other than
the non-payment of rent, that continues uncured for a period of thirty (30) days after written
notice thereof, Landlord shall have the right (in addition to all other rights and remedies provided
by law) to terminate this Lease or to re-enter and take possession of the Leased Premises,
peaceably or by force, and to remove any property therein without liability for damage to and
without obligation to store such property, but may store the same at Tenant's expense; provided,
however, that if the nature of Tenant’s default is such that the default cannot be cured within
thirty (30) days after written notice thereof, Tenant shall not be in default hereunder if Tenant
commences the cure within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from Landlord, and
thereafter continuously and diligently prosecutes the cure to completion.
ARTICLE XIV. HOLDING OVER, ASSIGNS, SUCCESSORS
Section 14.1. Holding Over. Any holding over after the expiration of the term hereof,
with the consent of Landlord, shall be construed to be a tenancy from month-to-month at the
same rent herein specified and shall otherwise be on the terms and conditions herein specified as
far as applicable. If Tenant remains in possession without Landlord's consent after expiration of
the term of this Lease Agreement or its termination, the Tenant shall pay to Landlord its
damages, reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in any action for possession.
Section 14.2. Successors. All rights and liabilities herein given to, or imposed upon the
respective parties hereto, shall extend to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors
and permitted assigns of the parties. All covenants, representations and agreements of Landlord
shall be deemed the covenants, representations and agreements of the fee owner from time to
time of the Leased Premises and Landlord shall be automatically released of all liability under
this Lease from and after the date of any sale by Landlord of the Leased Premises. All
covenants, representations and agreements of Tenant shall be deemed the covenants,
representations, and agreements of the occupant or occupants of the Leased Premises.
ARTICLE XV. BROKER’S FEES
Tenant and Landlord hereby warrant that there are no brokerage commissions due in
connection with this Lease.
ARTICLE XVI. NO ASSIGNMENT
Tenant shall not assign this Lease or sublet all or any portion of the Leased Premises,
either directly or indirectly, without the prior written consent of Landlord; provided, however,
that Tenant may, without Landlord’s consent, assign this Lease or sublet all or any portion of the
Leased Premises to PJP Owners Association, Inc. (the “Owners Association”). If Tenant assigns
this Lease or sublets all or any portion of the Leased Premises to the Owners Association, Tenant
shall provide written notice and a copy of such assignment to Landlord within ten (10) days after
such assignment. No assignment, sublease or transfer of this Lease by Tenant shall (i) be
effective unless and until the assignee, subtenant or transferee expressly assumes in writing
ATTACHMENT C
6
Tenant's obligations under this Lease, or (ii) relieve Tenant of its obligations hereunder, and
Tenant shall thereafter remain liable for the obligations of the Tenant under this Lease whether
arising before or after such assignment, sublease or transfer; provided, however, that if Tenant
assigns this Lease to the Owners Association, Tenant shall be released from all obligations of the
Tenant under this Lease arising after the date of such assignment.
ARTICLE XVII. SUBORDINATION OF LEASE
Intentionally Deleted.
ARTICLE XVIII. MISCELLANEOUS
Section 18.1. Waiver. The waiver by Landlord or Tenant of any breach of any term,
covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term,
covenant, or condition or any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or
condition contained herein. The subsequent acceptance or payment of rent hereunder by
Landlord or Tenant, respectively, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any breach by Tenant or
Landlord, respectively, of any term, covenant or condition of this Lease regardless of knowledge
of such breach at the time of acceptance or payment of such rent. No covenant, term, or
condition of this Lease shall be deemed to have been waived by Tenant or Landlord unless the
waiver be in writing signed by the party to be charged thereby.
Section 18.2. Entire Agreement. This Lease, and the Exhibits attached hereto and
forming a part hereof, set forth all the covenants, promises, agreements, conditions and
understandings between Landlord and Tenant concerning the Leased Premises; and there are no
covenants, promises, agreements, conditions or understandings, either oral or written, between
them other than as herein set forth. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent
alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Lease shall be binding upon Landlord or
Tenant unless reduced in writing and signed by them.
Section 18.3. Notices. Any notice, demand, request or other instrument which may be,
or is required to be given under this Lease, shall be in writing and delivered in person or by
United States certified mail, postage prepaid, and shall be addressed:
(a) if to Landlord, at
County of Albemarle
County Executive’s Office
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
or at such other address as Landlord may designate by written notice;
(b) if to Tenant, at
Worrell Land & Development Company, L.C.
P.O. Box 5386
Charlottesville, Virginia 22905
or at such other address as Tenant shall designate by written notice.
ATTACHMENT C
7
Section 18.4. Captions and Section Numbers. The captions and section numbers
appearing in this Lease are inserted only as a matter of convenience and in no way define, limit,
construe or describe the scope or intent of such sections of this Lease nor in any way d o they
affect this Lease.
Section 18.5. Partial Invalidity. If any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, or the
application thereof, to any person or circumstance shall to any extent be invalid or
unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease, or the application of such term, covenant, or
condition to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or
unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each term, covenant, or condition of this Lease
shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.
Section 18.6. Recording. Upon request of either party, a memorandum of lease will be
executed and recorded. Such memorandum shall contain any provisions of this Lease which
either party requests except for the provisions of Article IV, which shall not be included. The
cost of recording such memorandum of lease or a short form hereof shall be borne by the party
requesting such recordation.
Section 18.7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Section 18.8. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two or
more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument.
ATTACHMENT C
8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of the
day and year first above written.
TENANT
WORRELL LAND & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.C.
By:
Anne R. Worrell, Manager
LANDLORD
This Lease is executed on behalf of the County of Albemarle by Thomas C. Foley,
County Executive, following a duly-held public hearing, and pursuant to a Resolution of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By:
Thomas C. Foley, County Executive
Approved as to form:
_______________________________
Albemarle County Attorney
ATTACHMENT C
9
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF LEASED PREMISES
Prior to Construction of Replacement Shed
All that certain structure shown as “1 Story Frame Building” on Sheet 2 of that certain
Preliminary Site Plan for the Pantops Fire Station, dated August 18, 2010, and prepared by DJG,
Inc.
Following Construction of Replacement Shed
All that certain space, measuring approximately 28 feet by 41.5 feet, shown as “Maintenance
Shed” on Sheet 3 of that certain Preliminary Site Plan for the Pantops Fire Station, dated August
18, 2010, and prepared by DJG, Inc, with the improvements to be constructed thereon in
accordance with the provisions of Section 1.3 of the Lease.
#4011522 v3 032014.00002
ATTACHMENT D
PREPARED BY:
HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
P. O. BOX 500
RICHMOND, VA 23218-0500
TAX PARCEL Nos. 78-31J
PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made this
____ day of December, 2011, by and between PJP BUILDING SIX, L.C., a Virginia limited
liability company (“Grantor”); THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (“Grantee”);
PJP BUILDING SEVEN, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company (“PJP Seven”) [index as
additional grantor]; THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
individually and as agent for First Penn – Pacific Life Insurance Company (the “Lender”); and
STANLEY J. WROBEL, as trustee under that certain Deed of Trust (as defined below) (the
“Trustee”) [index as an additional grantor].
RECITALS
A. Grantor is the owner of a parcel or tract of land being Lot 12 of Peter Jefferson
Place, more particularly shown and described on a subdivision plat prepared by Jordan
Consulting Engineers, P.C., dated March 30, 2006, entitled “Subdivision Plat Showing Lots 12
& 13 and Common Areas 2 & 3, Peter Jefferson Place, a Division of Tax Nos. 78-31 and 32,
Rivanna Magisterial District, Albemarle County, Virginia” (the “Plat”), which Plat has been
recorded in the Clerk’s Office, Circuit Court, Albemarle County, Virginia (the “Clerk’s
Office”), in Deed Book 3189, page 227, and according to which Plat Lot 12 contains 8.007
acres. Lot 12 is referred to herein as “PJP Six”.
B. Grantee is the owner of a parcel of land containing 1.283 acres, more particularly
shown and described on a subdivision plat prepared dated February 7, 2011, last revised
_____________, 2011, by Lincoln Surveying, entitled “Subdivision Plat of Parcel F – Being a
Portion of Tax Map 78 Parcel 31 located on Peter Jefferson Parkway Rivanna Magisterial
District, Albemarle County, Virginia” (the “Fire Station Plat”), which plat is recorded in the
Clerk’s Office in Deed Book ______, page ______ (the “Fire Station Parcel”).
C. A private access road has been constructed on PJP Six in the location described in
a certain Declaration of Cross Access Easement dated April 10, 2006, recorded in the Clerk’s
Office in Deed Book 3192, page 343 (the “Cross Access Agreement”), a portion which is
shown on the Fire Station Plat (the “PJP Six Access Road”).
D. Grantee has been granted an access easement by Worrell Land and Development
Company, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, from the PJP Six Access Road to the Fire
Station Parcel over a 30’ private street in the location reflected as “New 30’ Private Street” on
the Fire Station Plat. Such access road is referred to herein as the “Fire Station Driveway”.
2
E. PJP Seven is a party to the Cross Access Agreement, as the PJP Six Access Road
provides access to certain property owned by PJP Seven. PJP Seven joins herein for the sole
purposes of consenting to this Agreement and the Access Easement granted herein, and
acknowledging the increased burden which this Agreement may impose on PJP Seven with
respect to its obligations under the Cross Access Agreement.
F. PJP Six is encumbered by a certain Deed of Trust, Security Agreement and
Fixture Filing from Grantor to Trustee for the benefit of the Lender, dated March 14, 2008, and
recorded in the Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 3566, page 1 (the “Deed of Trust”).
G. Grantee has requested, and Grantor has agreed, to grant a non-exclusive, private
access easement over the portion of the PJP Six Access Road between Peter Jefferson Parkway
and the Fire Station Driveway for the purpose of facilitating access from Peter Jefferson Parkway
to and from the Fire Station Parcel, all on the terms and conditions set forth herein.
AGREEMENT
In consideration of Ten Dollars cash in hand paid by Grantee to Grantor, and other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is mutually acknowledged, Grantor and Grantee
hereby agree as follows:
1. Access Easement.
(a) Grant. Grantor hereby grants and conveys to Grantee a private, non-
exclusive easement for the benefit of Grantee, its successors in title and assigns, and their
respective guests, invitees, tenants and employees, for the purpose of pedestrian and vehicular
ingress and egress to and from Peter Jefferson Parkway from and to the Fire Station Driveway, to
facilitate access to and from the Fire Station Parcel from and to Peter Jefferson Parkway. The
easement granted in this subparagraph is hereinafter referred to as the “Access Easement” and
the portion of the PJP Six Access Road subject to the Access Easement (being the portion of the
PJP Six Access Road lying between Peter Jefferson Parkway and the southern boundary of the
Fire Station Driveway) shall be referred to herein as the “Access Easement Area”. The road
now or hereafter located within the Access Easement Area shall be referred to herein as the
“Driveway”.
(b) Relocation. Grantor reserves the right to relocate, from time to time, any
portion of the Driveway, provided that the Fire Station Parcel shall continue to be reasonably
served for its intended purposes by the relocated Driveway.
(c) Use. The right is hereby reserved for the Grantor to use the Access
Easement Area for any purpose not inconsistent with the rights granted to the Grantee in this
Agreement, provided such use does not unreasonably interfere with use of such Access Easement
Area by the Grantee for its intended purposes.
2. Temporary Construction Easement. In addition, Grantor hereby grants to
Grantee a private, non-exclusive, temporary construction easement over the Access Easement
3
Area for the benefit of Grantee, its successors in title and assigns, and their respective
contractors, for the purpose of performing the work necessary to transition from the PJP Six
Access Road to the Fire Station Driveway (the “Construction Easement”). The Construction
Easement is granted subject to the following terms and conditions:
(a) Approval of Plans. All plans for any construction work (the “Work”)
shall be prepared by Grantee (the “Plans”). Grantee shall deliver two sets of the Plans to
Grantor for review and approval by Grantor at least thirty (30) days prior to the projected date
for commencement of the Work, with such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. Grantor
shall review the Plans and either approve them in writing, or provide comments in writing to
Grantee, within fifteen (15) days after Grantor’s receipt of the Plans. The reasonable cost of
review of the Plans by Grantor’s professionals shall be paid by Grantee or reimbursed by
Grantee to Grantor. No Work may be performed until such time as the Plans have been finally
approved in writing by Grantor and all applicable governmental authorities.
(b) Permits. Grantee shall be responsible to satisfy any and all governmental
requirements and obtain all applicable governmental permits required in connection with
performance of the Work.
(c) Costs. All costs and expenses of performing the Work, including, without
limitation, the cost to prepare the Plans and all permit costs, shall be paid by Grantee.
(d) Interference. The Work may not increase the costs or diminish the
capacity or benefits of any underground utilities located within the Access Easement Area or
otherwise on PJP Six or the rights of any other utility easement holders. Grantee shall use
commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that an adequate means of ingress and egress is
maintained into and out of PJP Six and any other property served by the PJP Six Access Road so
as not to adversely impact any business conducted on such parcels. Grantee shall provide at least
five (5) days notice to Grantor prior to commencement of the Work. A representative of Grantee
shall meet with a representative of Grantor at a pre-construction meeting at Grantor’s office prior
to commencement of the Work to review any anticipated lane restrictions or closures. If any
closure of the PJP Six Access Road is required, Grantee shall conduct a partial closure when
possible and maintain ingress and egress on one side of the PJP Six Access Road. Unless
otherwise agreed by Grantor, any full closure shall be limited to between the hours of 10 p.m.
and 4 a.m. The work site shall be kept reasonably clean and free of debris. Any mud from
construction tracked onto the PJP Six Access Road shall be washed down as necessary on a daily
basis.
(e) Restoration. Upon completion of the Work, Grantee shall restore the PJP
Six Access Road and any other property in the vicinity that is damaged during the course of the
Work to substantially the same condition it was in prior to commencement of the Work, such
restoration to be completed promptly after completion of the Work.
(f) Mechanic’s Liens. The Work shall be completed in a good and
workmanlike manner, free of all mechanics’ and materialmen’s liens.
4
(g) Termination. Upon completion of the Work and restoration of any
damage to the PJP Six Access Road and any surrounding property caused by the Work, this
Construction Easement shall automatically terminate. Upon the request of Grantor, Grantee shall
execute and deliver to Grantor, at Grantee’s sole cost and expense, an instrument reasonably
satisfactory to Grantor and Grantee, in recordable form, confirming the termination of the
Construction Easement.
3. Maintenance. Grantor shall repair ordinary wear and tear and maintain the
Driveway in an attractive, usable, clean and orderly condition reasonably clear of water, debris,
ice and snow. If replacement of the surface of any portion of the Driveway is required, Grantor
shall replace the surface to an equal or greater standard than originally installed.
4. Damage or Destruction. If the Driveway is destroyed or damaged, the following
provisions shall apply:
(a) No Fault. If the Driveway is destroyed or damaged by casualty or
accident, the cause of which is not attributable to Grantee, then Grantor shall be responsible for
repairing and reconstructing the Driveway.
(b) Construction Vehicles. If the Driveway is destroyed or damaged by
construction vehicles employed or contracted for by or on behalf of Grantee, Grantee shall be
responsible for repairing and reconstructing the Driveway and shall bear the costs of repairing
the Driveway.
(c) Owner at Fault. If the Driveway is damaged or destroyed by casualty or
other causes attributable to the negligent or willful act or omission of Grantee, then Grantee shall
be responsible for repairing and reconstructing the Driveway and shall bear the full costs of
repair and restoration of the Driveway.
(d) Remedies for Failure to Repair or Reconstruct. If Grantee is obligated
to repair or reconstruct the Driveway, pursuant to Subparagraph (b) or (c) above, and fails to
commence to repair and restore the Driveway within thirty (30) days after receiving written
notice of the need for such Work from Grantor, and thereafter diligently prosecute such repair
and restoration to completion, then Grantor may effect such repair and restoration and either
charge the cost of the same to Grantee or be entitled to reimbursement of the same within fifteen
(15) days after written demand Grantor to Grantee, which demand shall include paid receipts or
invoices for the amount due. The costs incurred by Grantor shall constitute both the personal
obligation and debt of Grantee.
5. Private Rights. The Access Easement Area is private and shall be maintained
exclusively by Grantor. As improvements on the Fire Station Parcel are intended for public use,
members of the general public shall be allowed to use the Access Easement as a means of ingress
to and egress from the Fire Station Parcel. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as or
deemed to create any other rights for the benefit of the general public in the Access Easement
Area or any other improvements now or hereafter located on any portion of PJP Six.
5
6. Matters of Record. The conveyances made and rights granted in this Agreement
are made subject to all applicable easements, restrictions, covenants and conditions of record in
the chain of title to PJP Six.
7. Successors and Assigns. The terms and provisions of this Agreement shall be
deemed to be covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon and shall inure to the
benefit of the owners of PJP Six and the Fire Station Parcel and their respective successors,
grantees, devisees and assigns and any person claiming by, through or under them. Any
obligations contained herein shall be construed as covenants and not as conditions and a
violation of any said covenants shall not result in a forfeiture or reversion of title to the Access
Easement.
8. Interpretation. When the context in which words are used in this Agreement
indicates that such is the intent, words in the singular member shall include the plural, and vice
versa, and words in the masculine gender shall include the feminine and neuter genders, and vice
versa. If either PJP Six or the Fire Station Parcel is owned by two or more persons or entities at
any one time, all of such Owners shall be jointly and severally liable for all of the obligations
imposed on the owner of such parcel pursuant to this Agreement.
9. Title and Headings; References. Titles and headings to sections herein are
inserted for convenience of reference only, and are not intended to be a part of or to affect the
meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. All paragraph references in this Agreement are to
the paragraphs of this Agreement unless expressly stated to the contrary.
10. Modification. This Agreement shall not be amended or modified and no waiver
of any provision hereof shall be effective unless set forth in a written instrument executed with
the same formality as this Agreement.
11. Enforceability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be unenforceable in
whole or in part, such provision shall be limited to the extent necessary to render the same valid,
or shall be excised from this Agreement, as circumstances require, and this Agreement shall be
construed as if such provision had been incorporated herein as so limited or as if such provision
had not been included herein, as the case may be.
12. Authority to accept easement. The Grantee, acting by and through its County
Executive, duly authorized by resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, accepts the conveyance of this property pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-
1803, as evidenced by the County Executive’s signature hereto and the recordation of this Deed.
13. PJP Seven Consent and Acknowledgment. By execution of this Agreement,
PJP Seven consents to this Agreement and the Access Easement granted herein, and
acknowledges that this Agreement may impose an increased burden on PJP Seven with respect to
its obligations under the Cross Access Easement.
14. Subordination. Lender executes this Agreement for the sole purpose of
subordinating the lien of the Deed of Trust to this Agreement. Trustee executes this Agreement,
at the direction of Lender, for the sole purpose of subordinating the lien of the Deed of Trust to
this Agreement.
6
PJP BUILDING SIX, L.C.,
a Virginia limited liability company
By: Brandywine Charlottesville, LLC,
a Virginia limited liability company
Its: Development Manager
By: Brandywine Operating Partnership, LP,
a Delaware limited partnership
Its: Sole Member
By: Brandywine Realty Trust,
a Maryland real estate investment trust
Its: General Partner
By:
H. Leon Shadowen,
President of Development
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF _________________, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of __________,
201__, by H. Leon Shadowen, President of Development of Brandywine Realty Trust, a
Maryland real estate investment trust, in its capacity as General Partner of Brandywine Operating
Partnership, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, in its capacity as Sole Member of Brandywine
Charlottesville, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, in its capacity as Development
Manager of PJP Building Six, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, on behalf of the
company.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Notary Registration no.:
7
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
__________________________________________
By: Thomas C. Foley
Title: County Executive
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF _________________, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of __________,
201__, by Thomas C. Foley, County Executive of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, on behalf
of the County.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Notary Registration no.:
Approved as to Form:
______________________________
County Attorney
8
PJP BUILDING SEVEN, L.C.,
a Virginia limited liability company
By: Brandywine Charlottesville, LLC,
a Virginia limited liability company
Its: Development Manager
By: Brandywine Operating Partnership, LP,
a Delaware limited partnership
Its: Sole Member
By: Brandywine Realty Trust,
a Maryland real estate investment trust
Its: General Partner
By:
H. Leon Shadowen,
President of Development
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF _________________, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of __________,
201__, by H. Leon Shadowen, President of Development of Brandywine Realty Trust, a
Maryland real estate investment trust, in its capacity as General Partner of Brandywine Operating
Partnership, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, in its capacity as Sole Member of Brandywine
Charlottesville, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, in its capacity as Development
Manager of PJP Building Seven, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, on behalf of the
company.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Notary Registration no.:
9
THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
By:
Name:
Title:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF GUILFORD, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of __________,
201__, by _________________, in his/her capacity as ___________________ of The Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Notary Registration no.:
10
Stanley J. Wrobel
Trustee
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF _________________, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of __________,
201__, by Stanley J. Wrobel, Trustee.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Notary Registration no.:
#3873271 v5 032014.00002
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
November 7, 2011
Glenn A. Hall
4399 Braxton Rd.
Barboursville, Va 22923
RE: SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 34 Parcel 74B
Dear Mr. Hall:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 18, 2011, by a vote of 7:0
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 34, Parcel 74B shall only be permitted as a “family
subdivision” as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code.
2. The family division period to retain the property shall be extended to ten (10) years.
The Commission noted that its decision was based upon the health and welfare of a family
member.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on December 14, 2011.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
Planning Division
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
PC October 18, 2011
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
October 18, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
TBA
Owner: Glenn Hall Applicant: Glenn Hall
Acreage: 6 acres Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of
land as provided in section 10.5.2.1.
TMP: Tax Map 34 Parcel 74B
Location: 4399 Braxton Road, approximately
430 feet from the intersection with Gilbert
Station Road (Route 640)
Existing Zoning and By-right use:
RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre
in development)
Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions: No
DA (Development Area):
RA (Rural Areas): X
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 1
Proposal: Request for additional
development right
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural
Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre)
Character of Property: Wooded residential
parcel
Use of Surrounding Properties: Most
nearby land is in large farm and forest
parcels, with some residential parcels along
the roads.
Factors Favorable:
1. If the request is approved, the parcel has
the necessary buildable space to
accommodate the additional dwelling
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The requested dwelling unit would
increase development in the Rural Areas,
which is contrary to the County’s land-use
goals as expressed in the Comprehensive
Plan
2. Approval of the request would not be
consistent with previous actions on requests
for additional development rights in the
Rural Areas.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of this Special Use Permit.
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
PC October 18, 2011
Staff Report Page 2
Petition:
PROPOSED: Request for one additional development right for the creation of a
new parcel for a family member.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural,
forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots);
SECTION: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 4399 Braxton Road, approximately 430 feet from the intersection
with Gilbert Station Road (Route 640).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 34 Parcel 74B
Character of the Area: The surrounding area is largely made of up large farm
and forest parcels, but also has some small-lot residential development.
Specifics of the Proposal: The parcel does not have any additional development
rights. The applicant is requesting an additional development right in order to be
able to transfer a portion of the parcel to his daughter so that she can build a
home there.
Planning and Zoning History: In August, 1983, Mr. Hall purchased the subject
parcel from the previous owner, who had divided a 23.5-acre parcel into four
lots. On the same date, relatives of Mr. Hall purchased the other three resulting
lots, which are adjacent to his property, to the north, south, and east. Neither Mr.
Hall nor other members of his family had owned this land prior to the
subdivision. The only remaining development right from the division was
assigned to Tax Map 34 Parcel 74D. The applicant has stated that that remaining
development right is not available for transfer to the subject parcel.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: Comprehensive Plan designates the
subject properties as Rural Areas, emphasizing the preservation and protection of
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources as
land use options.
The Rural Areas chapter of the Plan states that:
“To be consistent with the Guiding Principles, the County's land
development policies must be changed to stop the ongoing trend toward
fragmentation and loss of rural character.”
And that the County should:
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
PC October 18, 2011
Staff Report Page 3
“Reduce the level and rate of residential development in the Rural Areas,
and minimize the impacts of permitted development.”
Approval of this request would be contrary to these policies.
Past decisions by the Board of Supervisors on similar requests for additional
development rights in the Rural Areas have followed a consistent pattern. The
requests have generally been approved in cases where all the development rights
on a parcel have been used to provide parcels for family members and there are
more family members to be accommodated. Requests of any other type have
generally been denied. In this case, the land was subdivided by a previous
landowner before purchase of the lots by Mr. Hall and members of his family.
Approval of an additional development right in this case would therefore be
inconsistent with past decisions.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff addresses each provision of Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.6.1 Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a
finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property,
Residential uses are permitted by right in the Rural Areas zoning district, and the
additional lot would be adjacent to existing residential parcels. Addition of a
dwelling could lead to a small increase in impacts generated by increased
population density (water demands, septic capacity, traffic, etc.).
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The addition of one house to the existing grouping of homes would not
significantly change the pattern of land use in immediate surroundings. However,
it would contribute to the incremental fragmentation of land and loss of rural
character referred to in the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. It
would also cause a small increase in density in a district not primarily intended
for residential development.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Section 10.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, “Intent,” states that:
Residential development not related to bona fide agricultural/forestal use
shall be encouraged to locate in the urban area, communities and villages
as designated in the comprehensive plan where services and utilities are
available and where such development will not conflict with the
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
PC October 18, 2011
Staff Report Page 4
agricultural/forestal or other rural objective. Where development does
occur, rural residents should expect to receive a lower level of service
delivery than will be provided to residential developments in designated
growth areas. In relation to residential development, agricultural/forestal
activities shall be regulated only to the extent necessary to protect public
health and safety.
This request would not be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the District.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Residential development is a by-right use in the Rural Areas district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no supplemental regulations in section 5 for this use. However, section
10.5.2 requires the following analysis for special use permits requesting
additional development rights in the Rural Areas zoning district:
10.5.2 WHERE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT 10.5.2.1 The
board of supervisors may authorize the issuance of a special use permit
for more lots than the total number permitted under section 10.3.1 and
section 10.3.2; provided that no such permit shall be issued for property
within the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water
supply impoundment, and further provided that no such permit shall be
issued to allow more development lots within a proposed rural
preservation development than that permitted by right under section
10.3.3.3(b). (Added 11-8-89; Amended 5-5-04 effective 7-1-04)
The board of supervisors shall determine that such division is compatible
with the neighborhood as set forth in section 31.2.4.1 of this chapter with
reference to the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan relating
to rural areas including the type of division proposed and specifically, as
to this section only, with reference to the following: (Amended 11-8-89)
1. The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in
relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestal production as
evaluated by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry.
The property is unusually small for most agricultural or forestal
production typical for this area.
2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production
as the same shall be shown on the most recent published maps of the
United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
PC October 18, 2011
Staff Report Page 5
other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation
Service.
The majority of the soils on the parcel are listed as “Locally Important”
in the Comprehensive Plan, and a small area is listed as “Prime.”
3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property
since 1950, to the extent that is reasonably available.
Aerial photos show that the land was forested and undeveloped in 1957,
1966, and 1974. By 1980, some forest had been cleared for a house site
on or just adjacent to the property. By 1990 the subject parcel had been
developed to its present state, with one dwelling.
4. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the
proposed development on the character of the area. For the purposes of
this section, a property shall be deemed to be in an agricultural or
forestal area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile
of the border of such property has been in commercial agricultural or
forestal use within five (5) years of the date of the application for special
use permit. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams
and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an
area shall be considered.
Aerial photographs show that significantly more than fifty percent of the
land within one mile of the subject parcel is either in forest or in large
pastures, so this should be considered an “agricultural and forestal area.”
The proposed development would split an already developed residential
parcel, and so would not create a major change in land-use patterns at the
mile-radius scale.
5. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas.
For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be located
in a developed rural area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within
one (1) mile of the boundary of such property was in parcels of record of
five (5) acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In making
this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical
barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be
considered.
This property is not in a “developed rural area.”
6. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed
population centers, services and employment centers. A property within
areas described below shall be deemed in proximity to the area or use
described:
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
PC October 18, 2011
Staff Report Page 6
a. Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary as
described in the comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89)
The property is not within one mile of an urban area boundary.
b. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a community boundary as
described in the comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89)
The property is not within one-half mile of a community boundary.
c. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a village as described in the
comprehensive plan.
(Amended 11-8-89)
The property is not within one-half mile of a village boundary.
7. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital
improvements programming in regard to increased provision of services.
The addition of one lot to this area of existing family lots is not expected
to require any significant increase in service provision. However,
increases in residential development potential are not consistent with the
Rural Areas policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the
opinion of the Virginia Department of Transportation: (Amended 11-8-
89)
a. Occasion the need for road improvement; b. Cause a tolerable road to
become a nontolerable road; c. Increase traffic on an existing
nontolerable road.
This proposal is not expected to change traffic patterns or occasion the
need for road improvements.
9. With respect to applications for special use permits for land lying
wholly or partially within the boundaries for the watershed of any public
drinking water impoundment, the following additional factors shall be
considered:
This section does not apply, as the property is not in the watershed of a
public water-supply impoundment.
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
PC October 18, 2011
Staff Report Page 7
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
No significant impacts on health, safety, or welfare are expected from the
development of a single lot, provided that the lot is designed in such a way to
have sufficient groundwater supply and septic capacity. Staff has no information
suggesting any limitations on these capacities. Water-supply and septic-field
requirements are enforced by the Health Department and would apply to the
proposed division.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. If the request is approved, the parcel has the necessary buildable
space to accommodate the additional dwelling
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. The requested dwelling unit would increase
development in the Rural Areas, which is contrary to the County’s land-use
goals as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan
2. Approval of the request would not be consistent with previous actions
on requests for additional development rights in the Rural Areas.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends denial of
SP2010-00034 Glenn A. Hall.
However, if the Planning Commission decides to recommend that the Board of
Supervisors approve this request, staff recommends that the following condition,
which has been used in previous approval, be applied in this case:
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 34 Parcel 74B shall only be
permitted as a “family subdivision” as provided by Chapter 14 of the
Albemarle County Code.
This condition would make the division subject to section 14-212 of the
subdivision ordinance, which requires that land transferred by a family division
remain under the ownership of the family member for at least four years.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use
permit:
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
PC October 18, 2011
Staff Report Page 8
Move to recommend approval of SP 2010-00034 Glenn A. Hall subject to the
condition recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use
permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP 2010-00034 Glenn A. Hall. Should a
commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s)
for recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Area Map
Attachment B – Site Map
Return to PC actions letter
STO N Y PO IN T R D
GILBERT STATION RD
DOCTORS XINGT
U
R
K
E
Y S
A
G
R
DBROCKS LNJ
ESSI
ES
L
NMERRIE MEADOWS LNSP201000034 Glenn A. Hall 0 0.5 10.25 Miles¯
Attachment A
GALLUP RDGBRAXTON RDGIL
B
E
R
T S
T
A
TIO
N R
D
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall 0 125 25062.5 Feet¯
Attachment B
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 18, 2011
Public Hearing Items:
SP-2010-00034 Glenn A. Hall
PROPOSED: Request for one additional development right for the creation of a new parcel for a family member.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density
(0.5 unit/acre in development lots);
SECTION: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space,
and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: 4399 Braxton Road, approximately 430 feet from the intersection with Gilbert
Station Road (Route 640).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 34 Parcel 74B (Scott Clark)
Mr. Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request.
Specifics of the Proposal: The parcel does not have any additional development rights. The applicant is requesting an
additional development right in order to be able to transfer a portion of the parcel to his daughter so that she can build a home
there.
Planning and Zoning History: In August, 1983, Mr. Hall purchased the subject parcel from the previous owner, who had
divided a 23.5-acre parcel into four lots. On the same date, relatives of Mr. Hall purchased the other three resulting lots,
which are adjacent to his property, to the north, south, and east. Neither Mr. Hall nor other members of his family had owned
this land prior to the subdivision.
Policy History:
Past decisions by the Board of Supervisors on requests for additional development rights in the Rural Areas have followed a
consistent pattern.
• Applications for family-owned parcels whose development rights have been exhausted through family subdivisions
have generally been approved.
• Other applications have generally been denied.
In this case, the land was subdivided by a previous landowner before purchase of the lots by Mr. Hall and members of his
family. Approval of an additional development right in this case would therefore be inconsistent with past decisions.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: Comprehensive Plan designates the subject properties as Rural Areas,
emphasizing the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources as
land use options.
The Rural Areas chapter of the Plan states that:
“To be consistent with the Guiding Principles, the County's land development policies must b e changed to stop the ongoing
trend toward fragmentation and loss of rural character.”
And that the County should:
“Reduce the level and rate of residential development in the Rural Areas, and minimize the impacts of permitted
development.”
Approval of this request would be contrary to these policies.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
2
1. If the request is approved, the parcel has the necessary buildable space to accommodate the additional dwelling
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. The requested dwelling unit would increase development in the Rural Areas, which is contrary to the County’s land -use
goals as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan
2. Approval of the request would not be consistent with previous actions on requests for additional development rights in the
Rural Areas.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends denial of SP-2010-00034 Glenn A. Hall.
However, if the Planning Commission decides to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve this request, staff
recommends that the following condition, which has been used in previous approval, be applied in this case:
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 34 Parcel 74B shall only be per mitted as a “family subdivision” as provided by
Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code.
This condition would make the division subject to section 14 -212 of the subdivision ordinance, which requires that land
transferred by a family division remain under the ownership of the family member for at least four years.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out that the Commission had approved similar requests for family divisions with an increased holding
period of ten years.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Tiffany Taylor spoke on behalf of her father, the applicant. She noted that the division is for herself due to her handicapped
daughter. To upgrade their house is a huge amount of money. Her daughter was confined to a wheel chair and needed
handicapped facilities because she was now able to come home from the hospital. The house needs to be handicapped
accessible. She asked that the request be approved.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Porterfield asked the applicant if they were willing to accept a motion that would make this a family division and that
they would have to maintain and own the property for at least ten years.
Ms. Taylor agreed that they would accept that condition.
Mr. Smith asked about the driveway and how many acres the parcel would be.
Ms. Taylor replied that the County requires a certain amount of square feet.
Mr. Clark noted that it was a six acre parcel and currently it would be a minimum of two acres. They measured the existing
parcel and determined that can work.
Ms. Taylor noted that there was adequate space for this.
There being no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. There being no public comment the
public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Morris agreed with staff completely that it is against the comprehensive plan. However, the Commission has been quite
consistent if it is a family subdivision and if the applicant was willing to accept the stipulation that it will remain in the family
for a minimum of ten years, then he was for it completely. Therefore he supported the approval of the request.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
3
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of SP-2010-00034 Glenn A. Hall with the
condition that it be a minimum of two acres, that it be treated as a family subdivision, and it is retained in ownership by a
member of the intermediate family for ten years.
Ms. Porterfield suggested they put something in about it being a unique circumstance because of the health and welfare of a
family member that really needs to have this happen.
Mr. Zobrist added that they were making this decision based upon the health and wel fare of a family member.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that SP-2010-00034, Glenn A. Hall would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a
recommendation for approval to be heard on a date to be determined with the followi ng conditions.
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 34, Parcel 74B shall only be permitted as a “family subdivision” as provided
by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code.
2. The family division period to retain the property shall be extended to ten (10) years.
The Commission noted that its decision was based upon the health and welfare of a family member.
ZMA 2010-010 and SP 2010-039
BOS December 14, 2011
Executive Summary Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA201000010 and SP201000039, Peter Jefferson
Overlook Offices
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Amend the application plan adopted with the original
rezoning to Planned Residential Development (PRD)
to show offices and is requesting approval of a
special use permit to allow those offices in a PRD
district.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Benish, Grant
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
December 14, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On September 13, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Peter Jefferson Overlook rezoning and special
use permit requests. The Commission, by votes of 4:0, recommended denial of both ZMA201000010 and SP201000039 based
on the following:
• The proposed office use is not in compliance with the Pantops Master Plan and no compelling justification has been
provided for developing office, rather than residential uses on the property.
• The proposal for the site is so overdeveloped that the design requires street trees to be planted in the VDOT right-of-
way along U.S. 250 and grading/construction easements will be necessary to construct the retaining wall along the
north side of the property.
• The applicant has requested a 10 percent reduction in the amount of required parking spaces, but has provided no
explanation or justification for the request.
• The applicant has not applied for a critical slopes waiver, so staff has not analyzed whether such a waiver should be
recommended. If such a waiver cannot be granted later in the site plan process, the applicant will be left with an
unbuildable project.
DISCUSSION:
The proffers submitted during the Planning Commission public hearing were not technically and legally acceptable.
The applicant has since revised and clarified the proffers, which are now acceptable. (See Attachment II) These
proffers do not delete allowed uses, but instead defer to the application plan which stipulates use of the buildings as
offices and the number and location of parking spaces. The proffers also do not stipulate a maintenance agreement
with VDOT for maintenance of landscaping within their right of way on the property’s frontage as this is already a
requirement of VDOT. Finally, the proffers commit to adhering to the architectural elements of the “Monticello
Viewshed Guidelines for Developers”.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend denial of ZMA 201000010 and SP 201000039 for the reasons noted above
and contained in the staff report.
Should the Board want to approve this re-zoning as proposed, the proffers are technically and legally acceptable.
Should the Board want to approve the special use permit, no conditions are necessary.
ATTACHMENTS:
View PC actions letter
Attachment I: Planning Commission staff report, dated September 13, 2011
Attachment II: Revised proffers, dated November 21, 2011
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176
September 23, 2011
Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering P.C.
P.O. Box 1113
Troy, Va 22974
RE: ZMA201000010 Peter Jefferson Overlook and SP201000039 Peter Jefferson Overlook
Offices
Tax Map Parcel: 07800-00-00-055A7
Dear Mr. Shimp:
On September 13, 2011, the Albemarle County Planning Commission, by a vote of 4:0 approved a motion
to recommend denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. This recommendation of
denial was based on the following staff recommendations:
The Planning Commission recommends denial of ZMA201000010 and SP20100039 Peter Jefferson
Overlook as recommended by staff for the reasons noted below.
• The proposed office use is not in compliance with the Pantops Master Plan and no compelling
justification has been provided for developing office, rather than residential uses on the property.
• The proposal for the site is so overdeveloped that the design requires street trees to be planted in the
VDOT right-of-way along U.S. 250 and grading/construction easements will be necessary to construct
the retaining wall along the north side of the property.
• The applicant has requested a 10 percent reduction in the amount of required parking spaces, but
has provided no explanation or justification for the request.
• The applicant has not applied for a critical slopes waiver, so staff has not analyzed whether such a
waiver should be recommended. If such a waiver cannot be granted later in the site plan process, the
applicant will be left with an unbuildable project.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting to be determined. It is the Board of Supervisor’s preference that a public
hearing not be advertised until all of the final materials for a zoning application have been received by the
County and are available for public review.
Return to exec summary
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Cc: Peter Jefferson Overlook LLC C/O David S Witmer
912 East High St
Charlottesville Va 22902
ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010-00039, Offices
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011
Staff Report, Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson
Overlook and SP 2010-00039, Peter Jefferson
Overlook Offices
Staff: Claudette Grant
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
September 13, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
To be Determined
Owner(s): Peter Jefferson Overlook, LLC, c/o
David S. Witmer
Applicant: Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering, P.C.,
representing the owner.
Acreage: 2.089 acres Rezone from: Planned Residential Development
(PRD) - residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited
commercial uses to PRD Planned Residential District
residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial
uses and Special Use Permit for commercial offices.
No residential units are proposed.
TMP: TMP 078000000055A7
Location: In the eastern corner of Pantops
Mountain Road and U.S. 250 in the Community of
Pantops. (Attachment A)
By-right use: Residential (3 – 34 units/acre) with
limited commercial uses
Magisterial District: Rivanna Proffers: Yes
Proposal: The applicant proposes to amend the
application plan adopted with the original rezoning
to Planned Residential Development (PRD) to show
offices and is requesting approval of a special use
permit to allow those offices in a PRD district.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: None
DA (Development Area): Pantops Community
Pantops Master Plan Designation: Urban Density
Residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in the Pantops
Development Area. (Attachment B)
Character of Property: The property is currently
vacant, with a significant number of trees and other
shrubs. The ground slopes towards U.S. 250, with a
steep slope along the right-of-way.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The property to the
east is vacant and zoned residential (Glenorchy). The
property to the north is residential. The property
directly to the west on the opposite side of Pantops
Mountain Road is offices. The property to the south on
the opposite site of U.S. 250 is commercial, with a
hotel and restaurant closest to the road.
Factors Favorable:
1. Development of the property as
professional offices will include another use
in the Pantops Place PRD, thereby
increasing the mix of uses.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposed office use is not in compliance with
the Pantops Master Plan and no compelling
justification has been provided for developing
office, rather than residential uses on the property.
2. The proposal for the site is so overdeveloped that
the design requires street trees to be planted in
the VDOT right-of-way along U.S. 250 and
grading/construction easements will be necessary
to construct the retaining wall along the north side
of the property.
3. The applicant has requested a 10 percent
reduction in the amount of required parking
spaces, but has provided no explanation or
justification for the request.
4. The applicant has not applied for a critical slopes
waiver, so staff has not analyzed whether such a
waiver should be recommended. If such a waiver
ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010-00039, Offices
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011
Staff Report, Page 2
cannot be granted later in the site plan process,
the applicant will be left with an unbuildable
project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook because the office use proposed is
not in compliance with the Pantops Master Plan land use designation and all by-right uses in the PRD district
have been proffered out.
Staff recommends denial of SP 2010-00039, Offices because the office use proposed is not in compliance
with the Pantops Master Plan land use designation.
Should the Commission determine that the office use is appropriate, the items listed under
“Recommendation” at the end of this staff report need to be addressed prior to approval of the zoning map
amendment and special use permit.
ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010-00039, Offices
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011
Staff Report, Page 3
STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION: September 13, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook
SP 2010-00039, Peter Jefferson Overlook Offices
PETITION
ZMA201000010 Peter Jefferson Overlook and SP201000039 Peter Jefferson Overlook Offices.
PROPOSALS: Rezone 2.09 acres from Pantops Place PRD Planned Residential District -
residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to PRD Planned Residential District
residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses and Special Use Permit for commercial
offices. No residential units are proposed.
SECTION FOR SP: 19.3.2.9 which allows offices by special use.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential -
residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools,
commercial, office and service uses in Pantops Neighborhood.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: NE Corner of Route 250/Pantops Mountain Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800-00-00-055A7.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The subject property is located north of and fronts on U.S. 250 in the Pantops Development Area.
The area to the east is the Glenorchy subdivision, which currently has several residences on it and
more planned. The property to the north is also residential, including the Jefferson Heights Senior
Living units and the Westminster Canterbury facility. The property directly to the west on the
opposite side of Pantops Mountain Road contains smaller office buildings similar to those proposed
as part of this rezoning and special use permit request. The property to the south on the opposite
side of U.S. 250 is commercial, with a hotel and restaurant.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant proposes to construct two professional office buildings: one, two story building with
10,518 square feet and another two story building with 22,848 square feet, totaling 33,366 square
feet of office space. Surface parking that will serve the office buildings is also proposed. The
applicant has requested a ten percent reduction in the number of required parking spaces. (See
Attachment C: Application Plan)
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant wishes to replace the residential units that were originally approved for this parcel
when it was rezoned to Planned Residential Development (PRD) with “neighborhood scale office
buildings.” In the application, the applicant states the following:
“In growth areas, the comprehensive plan recommends neighborhood services in scale
appropriate structures to offer convenient services in residential areas. This site is unique in
that it is both part of a residential area and on a main commercial corridor with close
proximity to the relocating Martha Jefferson Hospital. This rezoning allows for a convenient
location for professional services to the residents of Westminster Canterbury and for a
commercial presence along the route 250 corridor.”
ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010-00039, Offices
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011
Staff Report, Page 4
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
With the comprehensive rezoning in 1980, this property was rezoned to Planned Industrial Park.
Since then, several rezonings have been approved that have included the subject parcel or a
portion of it:
ZMA 1988-00017, approved February 15, 1989, rezoned a larger area from R-1, Residential to R-
10, Residential.
ZMA 1997-00003, approved August 13, 1997, rezoned a larger area from R-10, R-1, and R-6,
Residential, to allow for the expansion of the established retirement community and to allow
professional offices.
ZMA 1999-00001, approved January 12, 2000, rezoned an area from R-1, R-6, and R-10 to PRD to
allow up to 130 dwelling units in a retirement village.
ZMA 1999-00009, approved December 8, 1999, to amend ZMA 1997-00003 to allow for additional
independent professional office buildings along the frontage of Rt. 250E. These buildings have
been built west of Pantops Mountain Road.
ZMA 2001-00011, approved October 3, 2001, to amend the proffers approved with ZMA 1999-
00001.
ZMA 2004-00009, approved April 20, 2005, to rezone an additional adjacent parcel from R-1,
Residential to Planned Residential Development (PRD), with proffers.
CCP 2010-00001. On May 4, 2010, the Commission held a worksession to consider whether a
rezoning of this parcel from PRD to Commercial Office would be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. Specifically, the Commission was asked to determine if a commercial office and bank with
drive-thru lanes would be appropriate at this site. The Commission advised that in lieu of residential
uses at this location, nonresidential uses could be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
provided that they provided services oriented to the surrounding residential neighborhoods on that
side of Rt 250. The Commission asked that the applicant work with the surrounding neighborhoods
in identifying appropriate uses and the design for the site.
ZMA 2010-00010/SP 2010-00039. On January 18, 2011, the Commission held a worksession on
these companion projects. The Commission considered four questions, as proposed by staff. Staff
will comment on how well the current proposal meets the Commission’s direction in the “Staff
Comments” section, found later in this report.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Pantops Master Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Plan, does not
recommend office uses at this location. Instead, it designates this area for primarily residential uses
with some related neighborhood services. This area is described in the Pantops Master Plan as
Luxor/Westminster Canterbury it is “located on the north side of Route 250, west of the Glenorchy
development and includes Luxor, Rite Aid Pharmacy, Westminster Canterbury, the American
Legion, and the Montessori Community School. The edge of this neighborhood is formed by natural
features, with a stream to the east and the power line to the north. The Neighborhood has been
shown separate from Rivanna Ridge on the south side of Route 250, since Route 250 forms an
edge condition and this area has mixed commercial land use characteristics. Connections for bikes
and pedestrians from the north side of Route 250 to Rivanna Ridge will be critical regardless of
ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010-00039, Offices
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011
Staff Report, Page 5
Place-Type designations. Most of this neighborhood has a plan of development approved or under
review, except for several properties that front on Route 250, including Aunt Sarah’s and the
frontage properties of Westminster Canterbury. Residential use is expected with the Pavilions
townhouse project, which includes over 300 townhouses behind Rite Aid and between Westminster
Canterbury and south of Fontana.”
The Pantops Master Plan recommends the following for this neighborhood in Pantops:
The Luxor commercial development and Rite Aid pharmacy area represent an
emerging Community Center.
New residential development should respect existing residential developments and
the school use adjacent to the Community Center.
The American Legion Hall and Montessori Community School provide a transition to
the commercial corridor on the north side of Route 250. They should be retained as
supporting uses to the residential uses nearby.
Create and preserve a vegetated buffer along Route 250 from Glenorchy Drive to
Pantops Mountain Road to help retain the rural/residential character of this part of
Pantops. From Pantops Mountain Road heading west, create an urban character
with building orientation to Route 250.
Staff’s comments below address how well the proposal conforms to the Pantops Master Plan. Then,
staff addresses how well the proposal conforms to the Neighborhood Model. Finally, staff
addresses how well the proposal meets the guidelines in the Economic Vitality Action Plan. Specific
requirements or recommendations in this section are in bold italics.
Pantops Master Plan:
Limit “strip development” of
Route 250
Although the proposed offices continue a strip development
characteristic along Route 250, offices are better than “strip
commercial” buildings. Additional vegetation is needed to
further prevent the appearance of “strip” development if an
office use is approved. (recommendation)
Create and preserve a
vegetated buffer along Route
250 from Glenorchy Drive to
Pantops Mountain Road to help
retain the rural residential
character. From Pantops
Mountain Road heading west,
create an urban character with
building orientation to Route
250.
The recommended vegetated buffer shown on the application
plan will not meet ARB requirements. So staff cannot be certain
that, if the rezoning is approved, the applicant will be able to
meet ARB requirements without a variation or another rezoning
to amend the plan. The landscaping shown on the application
plan should meet ARB requirements. (recommendation)
Since this proposal was first considered by the Planning
Commission at a worksession on May 4, 2010, the proffered
hedgerow and fieldstone wall have been retained.
Connections for bikes and
pedestrians from the north side
of Route 250 to Rivanna Ridge
are identified as critical in the
master plan.
A sidewalk along Route 250 is provided. However, there is no
connection to the building entrances, unless a pedestrian follows
the sidewalk to Pantops Mountain Road, turns up the road and
walks into the site along the entrance drive. A public sidewalk
along Route 250 is anticipated by the Master Plan to provide
pedestrian access to the buildings, as well as access to
other uses along Route 250. Staff believes that steps or a
similar connection should be provided. (recommendation)
Property recommended for
Urban Density Residential Use;
Neighborhood Service uses
Some neighborhood service uses can be accommodated in
areas shown for Urban Density Residential if they serve
neighboring residential areas. The application doesn’t indicate
ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010-00039, Offices
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011
Staff Report, Page 6
can be accommodated in these
areas
the type of offices proposed to see whether there is a
relationship to the neighboring residential areas. Office and
neighborhood service uses are already available nearby. This
information is needed. (requirement)
Professional Offices should
have building footprints of not
greater than 10,000 square feet
and building area should be no
greater than 20,000 square
feet.
Over 33,000 square feet is proposed and one building has
almost 23,000 sq. ft. The amount of square footage requested
may or may not be problematic. What will be problematic is
how the proposed design can meet existing proffers,
Entrance Corridor Guidelines, and site plan requirements.
These issues are further explained later in this staff report.
The Neighborhood Model: Staff’s analysis below indicates how well the proposed development
meets the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model:
Pedestrian Orientation A sidewalk is shown along Route 250 and other sidewalks
are shown internal to the development. A connection, such
as a set of stairs, should be provided between the
sidewalk and the entrances to the buildings along Route
250. (recommendation)
Neighborhood Friendly
Streets and Paths
In order to make the external and internal streets
neighborhood friendly, street trees should be provided
between the back of the curb and the sidewalk. While the
“clear zone” required by VDOT would not allow street trees
between the sidewalk and street along the easternmost
stretch of U.S. 250, as soon as the taper begins for the
right turn lane, the street trees could be placed between
the curb and the sidewalk. (recommendation)
The front yard, between the sidewalk and the building, should
have trees and shrubs that meet Entrance Corridor
Guidelines. Staff recommends that along U.S. 250, both the
tree lawn and the sidewalk be 8 feet in width. Along Pantops
Mountain Road, a minimum tree lawn of 6’ and a
sidewalk of 5’ are recommended, along with a minimum
front yard of 4’ for a total of 15’ from the pavement along
Pantops Mountain Road. (recommendation)
Interconnected Streets and
Transportation Networks
The application plan now shows U.S. 250 as an urban
section across the frontage of the site. Pantops Mountain
Road is a private street owned by Westminster Canterbury.
While an access easement has been provided across the
property at this location from Pantops Mountain Road, it
is our understanding that Westminster Canterbury
controls the amount of activity that can be served by the
easement. Please provide evidence that the access
easement can be used for the intended purpose.
(recommendation)
Relegated Parking Parking is appropriately relegated with this design.
Parks and Open Space No additional open space is required for the PRD. The
application plan now reflects a 15-foot buffer adjacent to
Glenorchy and maintains the existing mature hedgerow and
fieldstone wall.
Neighborhood Centers This site is near the Rivanna Ridge shopping center. The
Luxor Place rezoning was approved in part, on the basis that
ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010-00039, Offices
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011
Staff Report, Page 7
it provided a neighborhood service area/center serving the
north side of Route 250. The Pantops Master Plan does not
recommend additional centers for this property.
Buildings and Spaces of
Human Scale
No building elevations have been provided with the rezoning,
as discussed later in this staff report. Two-story buildings are
appropriate at this location. However, a pedestrian
connection from the sidewalk to the buildings from U.S. 250
is needed. No such connection is shown on the plan. In
addition, the applicant should work with Monticello to
determine if any impacts to the viewshed exist and
should be mitigated. (recommendation)
Mixture of Uses The addition of offices to the PRD will help create an
appropriate mixture of uses in the district.
Mixture of Housing Types
and Affordability
No mixture of housing types is proposed with this rezoning.
The Pantops Place PRD provides housing for senior living,
and a mixture of housing types is provided on the adjacent
Westminster Canterbury property.
Redevelopment This principle is not applicable.
Site Planning that Respects
Terrain
The site rises to 20 feet above U.S. 250 and contains critical
slopes, some of which were created with construction of U.S.
250 and Pantops Mountain Road. The applicant has been
advised to apply for a critical slopes waiver. However, this
was not done, so an analysis of the critical slopes has not
been done. Staff recommends that these waivers be applied
for along with the rezoning so the applicant isn’t left with an
approved application plan and no way to develop the project.
It is recognized that grading will be needed on this property,
but the prior development proposal worked more closely with
the terrain than this proposal. This proposal will require
easements for grading and possibly construction from
adjacent property owners. No evidence of these easements
has been included on the plan or in supporting material.
Without such evidence, staff cannot be certain whether the
proposed design can be constructed. The applicant should
provide evidence that adjacent owners will provide the
necessary easements. (recommendation)
Clear Boundaries with the
Rural Areas
This principle is not applicable because the property is
located entirely within the Pantops Development Area.
Economic Vitality Action Plan
The primary goal of the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan is to:
Increase the County’s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by
expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local
residents. This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local
residents and existing local businesses.
The proposed Peter Jefferson Overlook office development would support the Plan by providing
additional professional office space. However, additional office space, if necessary, could be
provided in areas that are designated for office space, rather than in areas designated residential.
Developing office space in an area designated for it would be more in compliance with all parts of
the Comprehensive Plan.
ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010-00039, Offices
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011
Staff Report, Page 8
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district: The following section is an excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance:
PRD districts may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map in accordance
with the provisions set forth generally for PD districts in sections 8.0 and 33.0, and with
densities and in locations in accordance with the comprehensive plan.
The PRD is intended to encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and
toward impact on the surrounding area in land development. More specifically, the PRD is
intended to promote economical and efficient land use, an improved level of amenities,
appropriate and harmonious physical development, and creative design consistent with the best
interest of the county and the area in which it is located.
To these ends, the PRD provides for flexibility and variety of development for residential
purposes and uses ancillary thereto. Open space may serve such varied uses as recreation,
protection of areas sensitive to development, buffering between dissimilar uses and
preservation of agricultural activity.
While a PRD approach is recommended for developments of any density, it is recommended
but not required that the PRD be employed in areas where the comprehensive plan
recommends densities in excess of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre, in recognition that
development at such densities generally requires careful planning with respect to impact.
(Amended 8-14-85)
Staff believes that the proposal does not meet the intent of the Planned Residential Development
(PRD) district because it is not sensitive to the natural characteristics of the site. The proposed
development of the site appears to be overdeveloped as evidenced by the following:
Off-site grading and construction easements, which are needed to construct a retaining wall;
The site design shows the requirement of street trees planted in the right-of-way, and;
A parking reduction is needed.
Staff does not believe this proposal is an example of “appropriate and harmonious physical
development” or “creative design.”
Planning Commission Worksession on January 18, 2011:
The Commission held a worksession on these projects on January 18, 2011. The Commission
considered four questions raised by staff and provided direction, as noted below. Following the
question and statement of the Commission’s direction, staff comments on how well the current
proposal meets that direction:
1. Is the proposed office use in conformity with the Land Use Plan?
The general consensus of the Commission was that the proposed office use does not
comply with the Land Use Plan, although they felt that there could be an office use that
conforms to the Plan. Some Commissioners felt the proposal was acceptable. Other
Commissioners thought that there needs to be a tighter relationship between the office use
and whatever use is with the surrounding neighborhoods. The Commission stressed the
importance of getting community input, in particular from the Pantops CAC. (Action Memo
January 18, 2011, Attachment D)
ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010-00039, Offices
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011
Staff Report, Page 9
The Pantops CAC discussed this rezoning on January 24, 2011. The members were split
over whether more offices were necessary in the area. They also expressed concern
whether residential would be an appropriate use for this site and about traffic concerns from
both office and residential uses. A list of their comments is included as Attachment E.
Staff notes that both the Commission and the CAC were split on whether the office use
could be in compliance with the Pantops Master Plan. Staff also notes that:
1) The Pantops Master Plan recommended limited strip development (non-residential)
westward along Route 250;
2) Neighborhood serving commercial/office areas already exist nearby (just to the south
and east of this site, and;
3) The current proposed office use only is an improvement over the previous office
commercial (bank) proposal.
2. Are the scale and design of the development appropriate?
The Commission was open to a nonresidential use if it complimented the residential uses in
the vicinity. Some Commissioners felt that residential uses might not be optimum on this
corner because of traffic volume on U.S. 250. One Commissioner said that the applicant
would have to present a compelling case for a nonresidential use to get his support.
Staff notes that the proposed design is similar in scale to the nearest residential buildings.
However, staff does not believe a compelling case has been presented for a nonresidential
use on this parcel.
Staff also notes that so much development is proposed on this site—building square footage
and parking—that landscaping required by the ARB will be in the right-of-way for U.S. 250
and the retaining wall in the rear will require a grading and possibly construction easement
from the adjacent property owner.
3. Should the remains of the stone wall and hedgerow on the easternmost side of the
property be preserved and retained?
The Commission wanted input from the Pantops CAC before making a recommendation on
the wall and hedgerow. These two features may have an impact on scale and design of the
proposal. There were comments that the applicant may be proposing too much building and
parking for the site. Input on these items was also requested from the Pantops CAC.
The Pantops CAC noted on the matter of the stone wall and hedgerow that, unless there is
some historic significance, the hedgerow can be disturbed. Staff notes that the current
proposal shows the stone wall and hedgerow in place, cleaned up, and some of the stones
possibly used to form the low retaining wall on that side of the property.
4. What type of frontage characteristics should be provided along Route 250 East?
A sidewalk in or adjacent to the right-of-way is essential and is called for in the Pantops
Master Plan. A separation between the sidewalk and the fast-moving traffic on U.S. 250 is
needed, according to the Master Plan. The sidewalk should not be right up against the
building. If it is possible to place trees in the landscaped strip between the travel lanes and
the sidewalk, they would be welcomed.
Staff notes that the sidewalk has been placed adjacent to U.S. 250, but there is no
connectivity between these sidewalks and the front entrances of the proposed buildings.
Also, the street trees are located within the right-of-way on U.S. 250, not on the subject
ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010-00039, Offices
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011
Staff Report, Page 10
property. The street trees could be placed between the sidewalk and the right turn lane once
the taper begins.
Public need and justification for the change:
Staff does not believe there is any public need or justification for changing the use proposed for this
site from residential to office, and the applicant has not provided sufficient justification. As
previously mentioned in this report, neighborhood serving offices and commercial space is already
available nearby. This proposal continues to extend existing office/commercial type development
further east on Route 250, which is discouraged in the Pantops Master Plan.
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources:
The design of the proposed office development does not work with the site as well as the previously
proposed residential use did. This proposal will require grading, and possibly construction, on
adjacent property and planting of trees in the VDOT right-of-way, rather than on the subject
property. Easements/permission to allow this needed activity has not been provided by the
applicant.
There are no cultural or historic resources on the site.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services:
Streets: VDOT has indicated that:
The right turn lane and taper will need to be extended, as will the left turn lane and taper
from U.S. 250 into Pantops Mountain Road.
The installation of the sidewalk will require removal of the ditch and installation of a closed
storm sewer system. The sidewalk will need to be on a 2% cross slope and the location
where the sidewalk is placed near the intersection at Pantops Mountain Road is in a ditch
section between 3 culvert outlets.
Street trees cannot be placed on 2:1 slopes. They need to be on relatively flat areas. (See
Attachment F).
Schools: No residential units are proposed, so no impacts are expected on the schools.
Fire and Rescue: The Monticello Fire/Rescue Station off Mill Creek Drive is the nearest station.
Utilities:
The site will be serviced by public water and sewer. No immediate or significant service capacity
issues have been identified by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA):
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) comments are attached (Attachment G).
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties:
The primary impact anticipated on surrounding properties is an increase in traffic once the office
buildings are constructed and occupied.
PROFFERS
Attachment H contains the current draft proffers. Staff suggests that the applicant consult an
attorney or other qualified professional to make sure that: a) all of the proffers that were part of the
previous rezonings that included this property have either been satisfied or are listed as proffers in
this rezoning, and b) that all proffers are stated in the appropriate language. Individual proffers are
described below:
ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010-00039, Offices
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011
Staff Report, Page 11
Proffer 1: This proffer removes from the Planned Residential Development district all of the by-
right uses allowed in this district.
Staff does not support this proffer, as written. The applicant has removed all by-right uses that
might be located on the site, leaving no potential uses for the site unless either a special use permit
is approved or the property is rezoned again. The applicant has included an SP for office uses,
since that is the use proposed. Further, the County Attorney is not satisfied with the wording of this
proffer, so it needs to be revised.
Proffer 2: This proffer requires the applicant to provide sidewalks as shown on the plan and
indicates that the owner shall maintain those sidewalks not within the VDOT right-of-way.
Staff and the County Attorney note that this proffer should include a schedule for when the
improvements will be installed.
Proffer 3: This proffer states that the owner shall enter into a maintenance agreement with VDOT
for maintenance of landscaping within the right-of-way along the frontage of the property.
The County Attorney notes that VDOT would probably require such an agreement as a condition of
allowing the landscaping in the right-of-way. However, as stated above, staff believes that the
landscaping should be located on the property rather than the right-of-way because it is an
Entrance Corridor requirement. If it is located in the right-of-way, VDOT could remove the trees and
other landscaping, if VDOT determined it to be necessary. Staff does not support this proffer.
Proffer 4: Prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy for any building on the parcel,
the owner shall complete the improvements to the turn lanes on U.S. 250 as shown on the
application plan.
Staff notes that these turn lane improvements are not actually shown on the application plan; they
are referred to in text statements. This is not the same as showing the actual design on the plan.
Second, the notes contain a reference to “…recommended by AASHTO standards for a 35 mph
design speed.” This should be for “a 45 mph design speed.”
Staff and the County Attorney recommend that this proffer be triggered by the first, not any building
and the language should be revised to require the extension of the turn lanes since they are there
already. The standards referenced should be VDOT’s, unless VDOT specifically refers to the
AASHTO standards. The County Attorney and staff have provided sample language:
Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy on the Property, the Owner shall
complete construction of the extension of the existing right turn lane and taper, the existing
left turn lane and taper, and any additional related improvements required by the Virginia
Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) (collectively, the “extension improvements”). The
extension improvements shall be constructed to VDOT standards. For the purposes of this
proffer, construction of the extension improvements shall be deemed complete when it is
constructed in conformance with the plans approved by VDOT, and the County Engineer
has determined that they are safe and convenient for vehicular travel.
Proffer 5: The treatment of the fieldstone/hedgerow on the eastern side of the property shall be
consistent with the notes as shown on the proffered Application Plan.
Staff has several problems with this proffer. First, treatments shown on the application plan do not
have to be proffered. Second, there should be a time by which the treatment would be completed.
ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010-00039, Offices
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011
Staff Report, Page 12
Third, there may need to be a maintenance agreement proffered to ensure that the fieldstone wall
and the hedgerow are kept in good condition.
Staff Comment on SP 2010-00039-Request for Professional Office Uses in the PRD
Planned Residential Development District
Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
No detriment to adjacent properties is anticipated from the requested office use.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The character of the zoning district could change and become more commercial in character than
the residential intent of the PRD district. The proposed addition of two new, office buildings begins
to create a slow change in character of this portion of the Route 250 corridor, which was intended to
provide more residential uses with perhaps smaller scale commercial uses that compliment the
residential areas in the neighborhood. The proposed addition of offices to this district along with the
existing adjacent offices and commercial uses across Route 250 begins to create a district that
appears to be more commercial in nature.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
The PRD district has characteristics that tend to be more residential in nature than
commercial. However, professional office uses are permitted in the PRD district with a
special use permit. The applicant is proffering out all the by-right uses in the PRD district,
leaving only the commercial office use to be allowed in this district. Staff does not believe
that having this use serve only as a commercial office building makes it in harmony with the
purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. It becomes more of a commercial use.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
As previously mentioned, professional office uses are allowed in the PRD district with a
special use permit. Depending on the scale and intensity of the proposed office use it could
be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district. The applicant has not
provided much detail regarding the proposed uses in the building, so it is difficult to
definitively determine if this use will be in harmony with the uses permitted by-right in the
PRD district.
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance?
There are no additional regulations.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is
approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through the
special use permit process which assures that the proposed use is appropriate in the
location requested. There are no safety concerns with the proposed professional office use.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. Development of the property as professional offices will include another use in the
Pantops Place PRD, thereby increasing the mix of uses.
Staff has found the following factors unfavorable to this rezoning:
ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010-00039, Offices
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011
Staff Report, Page 13
1. The proposed office use is not in compliance with the Pantops Master Plan and no
compelling justification has been provided for developing office, rather than residential,
uses on the property.
2. The proposal for the site is so overdeveloped that the design requires street trees to be
planted in the VDOT right-of-way along U.S. 250 and grading/construction easements
will be necessary to construct the retaining wall along the north side of the property.
3. The applicant has requested a 10 percent reduction in the amount of required parking
spaces, but has provided no explanation or justification for the request.
4. The applicant has not applied for a Critical Slopes Waiver, so staff has not analyzed
whether such a waiver should be recommended. If such a waiver cannot be granted
later in the site plan process, the applicant will be left with an unbuildable project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook because the office use
proposed is not in compliance with the Pantops Master Plan land use designation and all other by-
right uses have been proffered out by the applicant.
Staff recommends denial of SP 2010-00039, Offices because the office use proposed is not in
compliance with the Pantops Master Plan land use designation.
Should the Commission determine that the office use is appropriate, the items listed below should
be addressed prior to approval of the zoning map amendment and special use permit:
1. The applicant is showing too much development for the site; the square footage of the
building(s) should be reduced so that the buildings, sufficient parking to meet ordinance
requirements, and landscaping can be accommodated on the parcel itself. If any
easements are necessary from adjacent property owners, the applicant should show
that the adjacent owners are willing to grant these easement(s) in order to demonstrate
that he will have a developable project.
2. The applicant needs to show a pedestrian connection between the sidewalk along U.S.
250 and the building entrances.
3. The landscaping shown on the application plan should meet ARB guidelines.
4. The applicant should apply for a critical slopes waiver.
5. All of the by-right uses listed in a Planned Residential Development district should not
be “proffered out.” Some should be retained to allow flexibility in development.
6. The proffers need to be rewritten to address staff’s concerns, as noted above under the
description of each proffer.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Zoning Map Amendment:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook with the proffers
provided.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, based on the
recommendation of staff. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should
state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook, SP 2010-00039, Offices
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011
Staff Report, Page 14
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Special Use Permit:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP 2010-00039, Offices.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP 2010-00039, Offices, based on the recommendation of
staff. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for
recommending denial.
ATTACHMENT A: Location Map
ATTACHMENT B: Pantops Master Plan Land Use Map
ATTACHMENT C: Application Plan, dated August 1, 2011
ATTACHMENT D: January 18, 2011 Action Memo
ATTACHMENT E: Pantops Community Advisory Council comments, January 24, 2011
ATTACHMENT F: Electronic Mail from Joel DeNunzio, dated July 14, 2011
ATTACHMENT G: Electronic Mail from Gary Whelan, dated April 8, 2010
ATTACHMENT H: Draft Proffers
ATTACHMENT I: Approval Letter with approved proffers and plan, dated April 28, 2005
Return to exec summary
RICHMOND RD
S TONY POINT RDOLYM P I A D R
SOUTH P
A
N
T
OPS
D
R
¡769
}ÿ53
§¨¦64
Prepared by Albemarle County
Office of Geographic Data Services (GDS).
Map created by Elise Hackett, September 2011.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and
are not to be construed or used as a legal description.
This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2009 Commonwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through
December 31, 2010
0 600 1,200300
Feet
ZMA 2010-010SP 2010-39Peter Jefferson Overlook
Roads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcel of Interest
City Boundary
78-55A7
±
City ofCharlottesville
ATTACHMENT A
WORRELL D R
PETER JEFFE R S ON PKWY
P
A
N
T
O
PS MOUNTAIN P LPANT
O
P
S
M
OUNTAIN RD
RICHMOND RD
£¤250
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, September 2011.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2009 Commonwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2010
0 100 20050Feet
ZMA 2010-010SP 2010-39Peter Jefferson Overlook
Roads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcel of Interest
78-
5
5
A
7
±Pantops Masterplan Landuse
Neighborhood Density
Urban Density
Urban Mixed Use
Institutional
Employment District
Employment Mixed Use
Commercial Mixed Use
Parks
Greenspace
River Corridor
Rural Area
ATTACHMENT B
APPLICATION PLAN FORPETER JEFFERSON OVERLOOKTAX MAP 78, PARCEL 55A7RIVANNA DISTRICT, ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIASHEET INDEXC1 - COVER SHEETC2 - REGIONAL CONTEXT MAPC3 - EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANC4 - APPLICATION PLANVICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=1,000'IMAGE PROVIDED BY GOOGLE MAPSSITECOVER SHEET ATTACHMENT C
REGIONAL CONTEXT MAP SITEJEFFERSONHEIGHTS SENIOR LIVINGLIMITS OF PRD DISTRICTSUBJECT TO PROPOSEDZONINGTHE COTTAGES ATJEFFERSON HEIGHTSPANTOPS PLACE PRDOPEN SPACELEFT TURN LANE ON 250SHALL BE MODIFIED TOPROVIDE TURN AND TAPERLENGTHS AS RECOMMENDEDBY AASHTO GUIDELINES FORA 35 MPH DESIGN SPEED.RIGHT TURN AND TAPERSHALL BE EXTENDED ASRECOMMENDED BY AASHTOSTANDARDS FOR A 35 MPHDESIGN SPEED.ATTACHMENT C
EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN ATTACHMENT C
APPLICATION PLAN Parking Calculations:Required Office Use Parking: 1 Space per 200 Interior Net SF32,339 SF Gross Interior SF x 0.8 = 25,871 SF Net Interior Office Area(Completion Based On Interior Square Footage)25,871 SF / 200 = 130 Spaces130 x .9 (10% Reduction Requested) = 117 RequiredNote: A Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) bus stop is approximately 500'West at the Social SecurityAdministration Office.Provided Office Use Parking:4 Van Accessible Handicap Spaces2 Regular Handicap Spaces111 Parking Spaces = 117 Spaces ProvidedStorm Water Management:Storm water quality for this site shall be addressed by integratedbio-filters supplemented with filterra's or similar structural measures toaddress the required pollutant removal from this site.Storm water quantity shall be addressed using underground detention.Existing stone hedgewall shall be rebuilt alongproperty line using stones from parcel 55A7LEFT TURN LANE ON 250SHALL BE MODIFIED TOPROVIDE TURN AND TAPERLENGTHS AS RECOMMENDEDBY AASHTO GUIDELINES FORA 35 MPH DESIGN SPEED.RIGHT TURN AND TAPERSHALL BE EXTENDED ASRECOMMENDED BY AASHTOSTANDARDS FOR A 35 MPHDESIGN SPEED.ATTACHMENT C
1
FINAL ACTIONS
Planning Commission Meeting of January 18, 2011
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
FOLLOW-UP ACTION
1. Call to Order.
· Meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
by Mr. Zobrist. PC members present
were Mr. Loach, Ms. Porterfield, Mr.
Franco, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Zobrist,
Chair. Members absent were Mr.
Lafferty and Mr. Morris, Vice Chair. Ms.
Monteith was present.
· Staff present were Elaine Echols,
Amelia McCulley, J.T. Newberry,
Trevor Henry, Lindsay Harris, David
Benish, Sharon Taylor, Glenn Brooks,
John Jones, and Greg Kamptner.
2. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for
Public Hearing on the Agenda.
· None
Clerk:
· No Action Required
3. Work Sessions:
Capital Improvements Plan Presentation
- FY 12-16 Capital Improvements
Program Amendment Year:
Trevor Henry, Manager of Office of Facilities
Development, presented a Power-Point
presentation to explain the Oversight’s
Committee recommendations for this year’s
CIP. No formal action taken.
Clerk:
· No Action Necessary
6. ZTA-2010-00008 Farm Winery
Outdoor/Amplified Noise Regulations
Discuss Farm Winery Regulations Relating
to Outdoor Amplified Music.
(Amelia McCulley)
The Planning Commission held a work
session. The Commission received staff’s
presentation, took public comment, and
discussed the issues. Staff was asked to
come back with additional information as
noted in Attachment 1. No formal action
taken.
Staff:
· The Commission asked staff to postpone
scheduling a public hearing on February 8 so staff
can further study the concerns/issues raised as
outlined by the Commission, meet with the
wineries for input, and bring back information to
the Commission for another work session prior to
drafting ordinance. No public hearing date set at
this time. (Attachment 1)
The Planning Commission took a ten
minute break at 7:36 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 7:46 p.m.
7. ZMA-2010-00009 Republic Capital
PROPOSED: Rezoning of 20.54 acres from
Light Industrial which allows industrial,
office, and limited commercial uses (no
residential use) to Light Industrial which
allows industrial, office, and limited
commercial uses (no residential use) to
Staff:
Action Letter – Staff to work with applicant to address
concerns and questions. (Attachment 2 – Planning
Commission Comments)
ATTACHMENT D
2
amend proffers. No residential units are
proposed.
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND
USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service -
warehousing, light industry, heavy industry,
research, office uses, regional scale
research, limited production and marketing
activities, supporting commercial, lodging
and conference facilities, and residential
(6.01-34 units/acre)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Located on west side of Route
29N, at the intersection with Northside Drive
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03200000002200
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Eryn Brennan)
A work session was held to discuss the
issues related to the proposed zoning map
amendment. The Commission received a
presentation from staff and the applicant,
took public comment, and provided input
and direction on the questions posed by
staff as noted in Attachment 2. No formal
action was taken.
The Planning Commission took a break
at 9:24 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:28 p.m.
8. ZMA-2010-00010 Peter Jefferson
Overlook & SP-2010-00039 Peter
Jefferson Overlook Offices.
PROPOSALS: Rezone 2.09 acres from
Pantops Place PRD Planned Residential
District - residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with
limited commercial uses to PRD Planned
Residential District residential (3 - 34
units/acre) with limited commercial uses and
Special Use Permit for commercial offices.
No residential units are proposed.
SECTION FOR SP: 19.3.2.9 which allows
offices by special use. PROFFERS: NO.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND
USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential
- residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and
supporting uses such as religious
institutions, schools, commercial, office and
service uses in Pantops Neighborhood.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION:
NE Corner of Route 250/Pantops Mountain
Road. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800-00-00-
055A7. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Elaine Echols)
The Commission held a work session on the
proposal to amend the Pantops Place PRD
for the development commonly known as
Jefferson Heights on Route 250 East in
Staff:
· The applicant needs to work with the adjacent
neighborhood residents. Staff to take the request
to the PCAP for input.
ATTACHMENT D
3
Pantops, which was submitted in November
2010. The Commission received a
presentation from staff and the applicant,
asked questions, took public comment, and
made comments as noted in Attachment 3.
No formal action was taken.
9. Old Business
· None
Secretary:
· None
10. New Business
· Staff to present training on
parliamentary procedures at an
upcoming meeting. Mr. Morris and Mr.
Lafferty have some input from a recent
seminar.
11. Adjourn to January 25, 2011, 6:00 p.m.,
Auditorium, Second Floor, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
· The meeting was adjourned at 10:06
p.m.
Attachment 1 – ZTA-2010-00008 Farm Winery Outdoor/Amplified Noise Regulations – Planning
Commission Work Session Comments
Attachment 2 – ZMA-2010-00009 Republic Capital – Planning Commission Work Session Comments
Attachment 3 – ZMA-2010-00010 Peter Jefferson Overlook & SP-2010-00039 Peter Jefferson Overlook
Offices – Work Session Comments.
ATTACHMENT D
4
ATTACHMENT 1
ZTA-2010-00008 Farm Winery Outdoor/Amplified Noise Regulations
Work Session – Discuss Farm Winery Regulations Relating to Outdoor/Amplified Noise Regulations.
A work session was held to discuss the farm winery regulations relating to Outdoor Amplified Music.
Staff presented a PowerPoint presentation
Public comment was taken from the following persons:
· Bert Page, neighbor of Keswick Vineyards
· Philip Strother, attorney for Schornburgs
· Al Schornberg, owner of Keswick Vineyards
· Cindy Schornberg, owner of Keswick Vineyards
· Art Beltone, adjoining landowner
· John Henry Jordan, adjoining landowner
· Sissy Spacek, nearby landowner
· Nanette Derkac, adjoining landowner
· Stephen Barnard, winemaker at Keswick Vineyards
· Kathleen Jump
· Barbara Lundgren of Keswick Vineyards
· Pierce Derkac
· Judith Sommer, nearby landowner
· Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council
· Tim Hulbert of the Chamber of Commerce
· Joe Hall of Albemarle County
· Kris Schornberg of Keswick Vineyards
· Charlotte Shelton of Albemarle Ciderworks
The Planning Commission requested staff to bring back additional information to address the following
basic concerns regarding outdoor amplified music noise levels before drafting the ordinance language or
scheduling the public hearing:
1. The need for better enforcement or more direct enforcement opportunities;
2. The fact that there appeared to only be a noise problem with one County winery; and
3. The appropriate measurement level.
Other suggestions made that would be helpful include the following:
ATTACHMENT D
5
· bring in the County Engineer;
· have staff find out exactly what the police can and cannot do;
· try to do exactly what Ms. Monteith has been saying concerning the timeliness of enforcement,
i.e. when somebody calls with a complaint how do they get it looked at right then and not a week
or month later when another event comes up; and
· other pieces of that type of information.
· Staff to investigate what lower decibel reading would be and then get input from the wineries to
see if enforcing that lower decibel level would be seen as something that they would object to in
being treated differently and what the result of that would be.
No formal action was taken.
ATTACHMENT D
6
ATTACHMENT 2
ZMA-2010-00009 Republic Capital – Planning Commission Work Session Comments
The Planning Commission held a work session to review the proposal to amend and consolidate those
proffers associated with the development on the subject parcel approved on February 18, 1988. The
proposed amendments pertain primarily to consolidating the proffers regarding the buffer area adjacent to
Airport Acres and reducing the depth of the buffer. The applicant submitted a request on November 15,
2010 to reduce the buffer area to 50’ and impose a building setback of 75’ (instead of the required 50’)
from the adjoining residential district.
Both staff and the applicant presented PowerPoint presentations. The Planning Commission held a
discussion, asked questions, took public comment, and provided suggestions.
The Planning Commission provided guidance for the applicant’s next submittal and responded to the
questions posed in the staff report, as follows:
Issue 1: Buffer Reduction
Question: Should the buffer be set at 50’ and setback be set at 75’ as proposed by the applicant in the
proffer amendment, or should the buffer and setback comply with buffer and setback requirements in the
Zoning Ordinance?
The conclusions were:
Buffer: Two of the three abutting neighbors had been contacted and were okay with what was being
proposed. The third neighbor came to the meeting and wanted a higher berm. A 10’ high berm at 3:1 on
either side that is not part of the 50’ buffer makes for a 110’ wide area in which no buildings or parking
would be allowed. The PC expressed general support for this alternative proposal. Mr. Franco was okay
with a reduced buffer if the neighbors can be convinced to go along with what the ordinance requires. He
would also prefer parking not to be located along the edge of the Airport Acres properties, and would like
a cross-section through the site to understand what the neighbors would see with a reduced buffer.
Question: Should the applicant provide for a future interconnecting road between US Route 29 and
Lewis & Clark Drive as provided in the UVA Research Park proffers and as shown on the Places 29
Master Plan?
The conclusions were:
Road Connection: Regarding the road connection, the Planning Commission instructed the applicant to
explore the feasibility of an interconnection. Nothing has to be built right now. The goal is to make sure
the opportunity for the connection is not precluded in the future. The first step is to see whether a road
can be achieved topographically on this site. The Planning Commission also expressed general support
for allowing a 35’ building height.
No formal action taken.
ATTACHMENT D
7
ATTACHMENT 3
ZMA-2010-00010 Peter Jefferson Overlook & SP-2010-00039 Peter Jefferson Overlook Offices –
Work Session Comments.
The Commission held a work session to review a proposal to amend the Pantops Place PRD for the
development commonly known as Jefferson Heights on Route 250 East in Pantops, which was submitted
in November 2010. The applicant wishes to have offices on the frontage of Route 250 rather than
residential units. A rezoning and special use permit are required for this change.
Staff presented a PowerPoint presentation. The Planning Commission held a discussion, asked
questions, and took public comment. The Planning Commission provided guidance for the applicant’s
next submittal and responded to the questions posed in the staff report, as follows:
Is the proposed office use in conformity with the Land Use Plan?
It was the general consensus of the Planning Commission that the proposed office use does not comply
with the Land Use Plan. There could be an office use that conforms to the land use plans. Some
Commissioners think what has been shown is fine. Other Commissioners think there needs to be a
tighter relationship between the office use and whatever use is there with the surrounding neighborhoods.
One of the biggest pieces was the importance of getting community input, in particular from the PCAC.
Are the scale and design of the development appropriate?
The Commission was open to a non-residential use if it is complementary of the residential uses. A few
of the Commissioners said that the corner in question might not at this time be optimum for residential
use due to the traffic volume on Rte. 250. Don Franco said strongly that the applicant would have to
present a compelling case for a non-residential use to get his support.
Should the remains of the stone wall and hedgerow on the easternmost side of the property be
preserved and retained?
Regarding the hedgerow and stonewall the Commission needs input from the PCAC and/or surrounding
neighborhood residents. Depending on the importance of these features to the neighborhood and PCAC,
the applicant might be able to remove the hedgerow and stone wall, but use stones as a feature of a
retaining wall.
What happens to the hedgerow and stonewall will likely impact scale and design issues. There were
comments about too much building square footage and parking proposed for the site; however, it was
also said that the applicant may be showing more parking spaces than are required. Input on these items
was requested of the PCAC/surrounding neighborhood residents.
Input from the Historic Preservation Committee was requested by Ms. Porterfield, the Planning
Commission representative to that committee.
What type of frontage characteristics should be provided along Route 250 East?
Regarding the frontage treatment, a sidewalk in or adjacent to the right-of-way is essential. There is a
need for a separation between the sidewalk and the fast moving traffic on Route 250. That is what the
master plan is saying. If they can get it they need to have that separation so that the people are not right
up on 250. The sidewalk should not be up next to the building. If there is a way to separate the sidewalk
from the traffic with a landscape strip, it should be done. If if is possible to place trees in a landscape
strip, i.e., if VDOT will approve them, then they would welcome the trees.
ATTACHMENT D
Judith Wiegand
From:DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [Joel.DeNunzio@VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent:Thursday, July 14, 2011 2:25 PM
To:Judith Wiegand
Cc:Glenn Brooks
Subject:ZMA-2010-00010 Peter Jefferson Overlook
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Judy,
I have reviewed the application plan and have the following comments:
1. An eastbound left turn analysis was submitted to VDOT as requested that identified the queuing at the intersection
of Route 250 with Pantops Mountain Road. The 95th percentile queue is 149 feet. AASHTO recommends that an
auxiliary lane contain components for deceleration and storage. It is acceptable to allow a speed differential of 10 mph to
occur within the through and taper lanes. The recommended taper length is 100 feet and deceleration and storage length
is 424 feet. The existing left turn lane has 100 feet of taper and 225 feet of deceleration and storage. It appears that the
deceleration and storage lane could be increased by approximately 200 feet before there is a conflict with the dual left turn
lanes for State Farm Blvd.
2. The right turn lane according to the same recommendation should have a 100 foot taper and a 305 foot deceleration
and storage lane.
3. The installation of the sidewalk will require removal of the ditch and installation of a closed storm sewer system. The
sidewalk will need to be on a 2% cross slope and the location where the sidewalk is placed near the intersection at
Pantops Mountain Road is in a ditch section between 3 culvert outlets.
4. Street trees cannot be placed on 2:1 slopes. They need to be on relatively flat areas.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks
Joel
! "#
$%&&
ATTACHMENT F
1
Original Proffers _____ ___
Amendment ____X____
Amendment to ZMA 200400009
PROFFER STATEMENT
ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook
Tax Map and Parcel Number: 07800-00-00-055A7
Owner of Record: Peter Jefferson Overlook, LLC
Date of Rezoning Action: _____________, 2011
2.089 acres to be rezoned from Planned Residential Development (PRD) to Planned Residential
Development (PRD)
___________________ is the owner (the “Owner”) for Peter Jefferson Overlook, LLC, the owner of
Tax Map and Parcel Number: 07800-00-00-055A7 (the “Property”) which is the subject of rezoning
application ZMA No. 2010-00010, a project known as “Peter Jefferson Overlook” (the “Project”).
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby voluntarily
proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the Property if it is rezoned to the zoning
district identified above. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and the
Owner acknowledges that the conditions are reasonable.
1. The uses of the Property permitted by right shall be none of those uses allowed by right under
Section 19.3.1 of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, as that section is in effect on
__________, 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment A.
The owner shall have no right to establish or maintain a use that is subsequently amended or
deleted from Section 19.3.1 unless the owner establishes that its right to engage in or maintain that
use has vested.
2. Sidewalks shown on the Application Plan shall be installed by the owner to the standards of VDOT
and the County of Albemarle. Sidewalks not within the US 250 right-of-way shall be maintained
by the owner in accordance with County standards.
3. The owner shall enter into a maintenance agreement with VDOT for the maintenance of
landscaping within the right-of-way along the frontage of the property.
4. Prior to issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy for any building on the parcel, the owner shall
complete the improvements to the turn lanes on US 250 as shown on the application plan.
5. The treatment of the fieldstone/hedgerow on the eastern side of the property shall be consistent
with the notes as shown on the proffered Application Plan
ATTACHMENT H
2
OWNER
______________________________________________________________________________________
[insert name], Owner Date Signed
ATTACHMENT H
3
19.3.1 BY RIGHT
The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance:
1. Detached single-family dwellings.
2. Semi-detached and attached single-family dwellings such as duplexes, triplexes, quadraplexes,
townhouses, atrium houses and patio houses provided that density is maintained, and provided
further that buildings are located so that each unit could be provided with a lot meeting all other
requirements for detached single-family dwellings except for side yards at the common wall.
3. Multiple-family dwellings.
4. (Repealed 9-2-81)
5. Parks, playgrounds, community centers and noncommercial recreational and cultural facilities
such as tennis courts, swimming pools, game rooms, libraries and the like.
6. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles,
lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and
owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines,
pumping stations, and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service
Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage
systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law.
(Amended 5-12-93)
7. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices,
parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies
(reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment
facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89)
8. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
9. Accessory uses and structures including home occupation, Class A (reference 5.2) and storage
buildings.
10. Homes for developmentally disabled persons (reference 5.1.7).
11. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat.
(Added 10-9-02)
12. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
(§ 20-19.3.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-1-89; 5-12-93; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT H
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REVIEW
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 13, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, September 13, 2011, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room #241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Duane Zobrist, Don Franco, Russell (Mac) Lafferty and Calvin Morris, Vice
Chair. Commission members absent were Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, and Ed Smith. Julia
Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Steward Wright, Permits Planner; Ron
Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; David Benish, Chief of Zoning; Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA-2010-00010 Peter Jefferson Overlook (Sign # 82 & 83)
PROPOSALS: Rezone 2.09 acres from Pantops Place PRD Planned Residential District - residential (3 -
34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to PRD Planned Residential District residential (3 - 34
units/acre) with limited commercial uses and Special Use Permit for commercial offices. No residential
units are proposed.
SECTION FOR SP: 19.3.2.9 which allows offices by special use.
PROFFERS: Yes.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential - residential
(6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and
service uses in Pantops Neighborhood.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: NE Corner of Route 250/Pantops Mountain Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800-00-00-055A7.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Claudette Grant)
AND
SP-2010-00039 Peter Jefferson Overlook Offices (Sign # 82 & 83).
PROPOSALS: Rezone 2.09 acres from Pantops Place PRD Planned Residential District - residential (3 -
34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to PRD Planned Residential District residential (3 - 34
units/acre) with limited commercial uses and Special Use Permit for commercial offices. No residential
units are proposed.
SECTION FOR SP: 19.3.2.9 which allows offices by special use.
PROFFERS: Yes.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential - residential
(6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and
service uses in Pantops Neighborhood.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: NE Corner of Route 250/Pantops Mountain Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800-00-00-055A7.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. (See Staff Report for
Details)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REVIEW
2
Purpose of Hearing: To amend the application plan adopted with the original rezoning to Planned
Residential Development (PRD) to show offices and to request approval of a special use permit to allow
those offices in a PRD district.
The plan shows two professional office buildings, one two-story building with 10,518 square feet and
another two-story building with 22,848 square feet. There is also surface parking throughout the site.
The Land Use Plan Map shows this area designated as Urban Residential.
This project was submitted to the Planning Commission in a w ork session held in January, 2011. The
Planning Commission and Pantops Advisory Committee reviewed the proposal and weighed in on it.
Both groups were split on whether the off ice use could be in compliance with the Pantops Master Plan. In
regards to the scale and the design of the development being appropriate the Commission was open to a
non-residential use if it complimented the non-residential uses in the vicinity. Although the proposed
design is similar in scale to the nearest residential buildings the site is somewhat overdeveloped resulting
in a request for less parking than required, building sizes that are slightly larger than the master plan
goals for this area, landscaping in the right-of-way of Route 250, and the retaining wall at the rear at the
rear of the site possibly requiring grading and construction easements from the adjacent property owner.
Staff is not sure if they will agree with these easements. It is no t clear if the proposed uses for these
buildings will compliment the residential uses in this area. Should the remains of the stone wall and
hedgerow on the eastern most side of the property be preserved and retained. The current proposal
shows the stone wall and hedgerow in place and cleaned up and some of the stones used to perform the
low retaining wall on the side of the property. The last question of the work session was what type of
frontage characteristics should be provided along Route 250 East. While sidewalks are proposed
adjacent to Route 250 there is no connection between the sidewalks and the front entrances of the
proposed buildings. The street trees are located within the right-of-way on Route 250 and not on the
subject property. The staff report suggests alternatives for this particular issue.
Factors Favorable:
• Development of the property as professional offices will include another use in the Pantops Place
PRD, thereby increasing the mix of uses.
Factors Unfavorable:
• The proposed office use is not in compliance with the Pantops Master Plan and no compelling
justification has been provided for developing office, rather than residential uses on the property.
• The proposal for the site is so overdeveloped that the design requires street trees to be planted in
the VDOT right-of-way along U.S. 250 and grading/construction easements will be necessary to
construct the retaining wall along the north side of the property.
• The applicant has requested a 10 percent reduction in the amount of required parking spaces, but
has provided no explanation or justification for the request.
• The applicant has not applied for a critical slopes waiver, so staff has not analyzed whether such
a waiver should be recommended. If such a waiver cannot be granted later in the site plan
process, the applicant will be left with an unbuildable project.
Staff Recommendation:
• Staff recommends denial of ZMA 2010-00010, Peter Jefferson Overlook because the office use
proposed is not in compliance with the Pantops Master Plan land use designation and all by-right
uses in the PRD district have been proffered out.
• Staff recommends denial of SP 2010-00039, Offices because the office use proposed is not in
compliance with the Pantops Master Plan land use designation.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Mr. Morris asked if they approve what is being proposed will the requirements remain in place such as
easements and so forth. He understood that it was originally and now zoned for additional cottages that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REVIEW
3
would tie in from Jefferson Heights although the cottages in Jefferson Heights are two different entities.
He asked if everything in there, such as an easement for sewage, connecting the two properties would
remain in effect.
Ms. Grant replied based on the plan provided they would need to get easements for the work shown to
happen on the site.
Mr. Morris noted that he was referring to existing easements. The reason he asked this is the
management company located in Annapolis, Maryland he talked to today and that was one of their
concerns if it were rezoned would the requirements remain in place. He assumed that it would since an
easement is an easement.
Mr. Kamptner noted that zoning changes wouldn’t affect any existing easements. If those easements
conflict with the zoning approval the applicant would need to work around that somehow.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Justin Shimp, with Shimp Engineering representing the owner, explained the proposal as follows:
Regarding easement, certainly all the access easements remain. There are utility easements,
which were all subject to Service Authority requirements and things like that for public easements.
The easement being affected the most, which is address ed by a private covenant, is the Pantops
Mountain Road access. There is a covenant whereby if they change their use they have to pay a
pro-rata share portion for maintenance as figured by a traffic study. That is not something they
need to worry about since it is in the covenants with Westminster.
As Claudette mentioned there is quite a lot of history from the work session and the Pantops
Advisory Committee. They never got a straight answer on what the land use should be here.
That is why he is here tonight for that answer basically.
A couple features of the development are, as follows:
- Neighborhood scale buildings located on the frontage with parking relegated in the back.
- On the traffic study they have identified that the right and left turn lanes into the Pantops
Mountain Road are adequate for their traffic, but not per a current design. They have agreed to
update it to the current design of VDOT.
- The sidewalk will be provided on 250 consistent basically with the rest of Pantops project. It has
a 6’ landscape strip with a 5’sidewalk. It is a reasonable sidewalk in the front. They agree to add
the connection from their buildings to the sidewalk in the front.
- On the overdeveloped statement he had a couple of thoughts on that. They are seeking a request
for the parking reduction based on the fact that the parking as required is too much parking.
Otherwise, they are going to have to comply with every ARB requirement and rezoning
requirement. They are not asking for any other waivers of those. They are showing a maximum
footprint on the site. The odds are it will end up smaller after they do all of the engineering. It is
all going to be subject to site plan regulations. It does not seem fair to say overdeveloped when
really they are just saying here is a commercial spot and it will be developed much like this to
meet all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
- Street trees are somewhat the same. He has talked with VDOT and they will approve the street
trees subject to maintenance agreement. It has been discussed. Typically the street trees are
even close to the street and in the right-of-way. In this case the trees are in the other side of the
sidewalk because of the clear zone requirements. They can have those in the right -of-way with a
maintenance agreement.
- Density Wise – the Luxor offices building are a good comparison. Those are 24,000 square feet
on 1.35 acres, which is 17,500 square feet per acre built. They are proposing a maximum of
16,000 square feet per acre. They are less than the density on that project.
- Parking – The justification for the parking is that he looks around Pantops and sees full buildings
and parking spaces open all the time. They don’t need to create more parking than necessary.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REVIEW
4
- They are also on the bus line. It is a convenient place for people to stop by bus. They hope there
are some users from Westminster and Jefferson Heights that can use shuttle buses or walk. That
is justification for the ten percent reduction.
- The land use issue is the critical thing. Previously a bank was proposed. The property has been
for sale for quite some time. He has received calls from all kinds of uses that all want to be on
Pantops. All the time he has said that professional office space is the appropriate use here. That
is the most compatible of all the non-residential uses with the neighboring properties. The office
use being a 9 to 5 kind of use, which makes this compatible with this kind of residential
development.
- There is an argument for office space, but why not residential. This currently is approved for
cottage use. He did not think this was a neighborhood street for residential use. They have no
interest in competing with Jefferson Heights and that sort of style. He could not imagine the
scenario of an apartment building with children running in and out all day. Those are non-logical
reasons for having residential.
- Office use is a more appropriate use of the site. Regarding neighborhood services, there
certainly are some doctors and offices already available in the neighborhood. This will likely be
more of the same. He did not see a problem with too much of that.
- They are asking for a 10 percent parking reduction, which they feel is a reasonable request. They
feel a professional office space is a reasonable use at this location and hoped they agree.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the owner had received the PRD designation and if his client owned the property at
the time of the Pantops Master Plan process.
Mr. Shimp replied that the owner bought the property in 2007 after the PRD designation. He did not
participate in the Pantops Master Plan.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
G. Theresa Thomas, representative for Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge, noted one of their
concerns is that they want to make sure that if approved it will be limited to professional offices and not to
a general commercial. They are really concerned that they want professional offices in that area.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing and the matter before the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Morris said this was a very interesting situation. What he would like to try to do is to keep it on the
large scale and not look at the plan per say, but to ask is it ap propriate. Listening to the lady from
Westminster Canterbury it sounds like they think it is appropriate. Having queried the people at Jefferson
Heights and talking with the individuals from Annapolis, Maryland who are the management folks for the
Cottages at Jefferson Heights, they think it is appropriate.
- To get to that property whether it is going to be residential or office space they are going to have
to come into the turn off going up the hill towards Westminster Canterbury and take a right into
almost a hairpin turn down into the property. Regardless to what is there that is the way they
were going to have to come in.
- In looking at the map that is a nightmare intersection. Number one, Westminster Canterbury
owns that road. As they see where any traffic that is going to go to whatever is on that property is
at a juncture where they could turn left and go to social security or one of three other office
buildings. Or, they could take a right and go into Jefferson Heights Cottages or swing around to
the property in question. He did not know what they could do to that. The applicant has said let’s
come in off 250, which has been shot down by VDOT. There is a problem no matter what goes in
there.
- Looking at it realistic he has not seen anyone come up with a proposal to put in residential in that
area. If they look at development already there actually having office buildings in that area would
be in keeping with what is already there. The thing that bothers him the most is that it is not in
keeping with the Pantops Master Plan. Virtually everything that has been brought before the
Commission for Pantops is eating away nibble by nibble on the master plan. Looking at logically
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REVIEW
5
this could be a very good use of the property. They have not heard a nything come before them
asking for residential. It is not an easy question and there are definitely pluses and minuses.
However, the plan is not consistent with the master plan.
Mr. Franco said to follow up on those comments he took a micro view. He felt this is really a comp plan
issue and supported upholding the Pantops Master Plan. If they bring offices or uses that would serve
these residents it would be great. However, he could see them being general offices that support the use
across the street versus the neighborhood.
Mr. Lafferty noted the entrance they were stuck with regardless of what use is put there. He had a
problem with ignoring the master plans because so much work went into those. He would hate to see a
strip mall go in all the way down 250 to Richmond. He questioned if the Commission could restrict the
use since it seemed that professional offices would be the best use of the land.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out the Commission’s recommendation could include the addition of a proffer from
the owner that would agree to restrict it to a specific use.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that it was noted in the report if the Commission was inclined to recommend
approval of the rezoning and special use permit; there were things that should be addressed before the
Board meeting. It would be good to get their input on that so staff would understand how that would
move forward. It included the six items noted on page 13.
- Regarding number one, if things are discovered in the site plan process that did not enable them
to develop all of the building area or restrict what their parking can be, that those things certainly
can downsize the development that would not be permitted by the rezoning. The applicant would
have to stick within the form that the rezoning shows.
- Then there was also the question of getting a parking reduction. That is not for the Commission
to grant tonight. That would be for the zoning administrator ultimately to grant. He suggested the
Commission not deal with that at this point in time. This assumes a parking reduction. If the
applicant cannot get it, then their building size gets affected. That is another matter that is
beyond this approval.
- There are things raised regarding the uses. They don’t think it should remove all the by right
uses. That is no typical. Normally the by right uses stay in case there is a need to develop it
ultimately and alternatively from what was proposed. They would want to address the special use
permit uses that could be allowed. It has been raised office only. The applicant could certainly
speak to that.
- The critical slopes waiver could mean a difference in terms of how much of the development can
be undertaken. The Commission does not have that analysis tonight. Therefore, there is no way
to grant that.
Mr. Lafferty said that he looked at this and after hearing the applicant he felt it is somewhat of a
conceptual plan and not very specific. He asked if he misinterpreted that.
Mr. Franco replied that he thought it was the confusion of years of what they were looking at. In the past
some people have been able to say they vested that size building and have been able to keep that. He
thought they need to make that as part of their approval that the concept and layout is what they are
approving and that no waivers to that might be necessary in the future to achieve that.
Mr. Lafferty said he would be very reluctant to give a critical slopes waiver. He did not think they c ould do
that.
Mr. Morris noted it was exactly what it says. It is asking for the map amendment and so on keeping it on
the larger scale.
Mr. Franco agreed the parking should be dealt with. During the site plan process there is a process
reducing parking requirements providing studies and information to the zoning dep artment.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REVIEW
6
Mr. Kamptner said to clarify the Planned Development (PD) regulations do allow the requirements in
Section 4, which would include the parking and critical slopes to be done as part of the rezoning process.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be separate. However, in this case they don’t have any information that
would allow the Commission to make a recommendation on those issues.
Mr. Franco agreed and that he would not be comfortable doing that at this point.
Mr. Zobrist said he was not in favor of this.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend denial of ZMA-2010-00010 Peter
Jefferson Overlook based upon the recommendation of the staff.
Mr. Zobrist invited further discussion.
Mr. Franco said the only question he would ask is does the applicant want to move forward with the
request having heard all of the discussion.
Mr. Morris noted that the applicant has a five minute rebuttal time.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the applicant wanted to give a rebuttal prior to the vote.
Justin Shimp asked to make one statement, which would probably not change their opinions. He
understands what they are basing it on. There were a couple of things discussed that he would like to
address. One, it was his intention to restrict the use only to professional offices. That was based on his
opinion. Also he had spent a lot of time talking with the neighbors about what felt like a reasonable use
for the site. Concerning the intersection one of the big problems there is it is not striped at all. There are
three lanes and room for a turn lane. One of the things they have agreed to develop this plan is to
restripe that working with the county engineer and with Westminster on a plan mutually agreeable. He
could not say it is not in the neighborhood zone or neighborhood comp plan area because it is. After
dealing with this project for six months, talking with the neighbors, and looking at what is realistic to the
site he did not feel it should be residential uses. At this point he would ask them to vote their opinion on
that.
The motion for the recommendation of denial for ZMA-2010-00010 Peter Jefferson Overlook passed by a
vote of 4:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that a second motion was need ed on SP-2010-000039.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend denial of SP-2010-00039 Jefferson
Overlook Offices based on the recommendation of staff.
The motion for denial passed by a vote of 4:0.
Mr. Kamptner asked based on the wording of the motion to deny the request could staff assum e that the
Commission recommends when this goes to the Board that those changes identified in the staff report to
the proffers should be made. The motion was for the reasons stated in the staff report and part of that
was staff’s recommendation that all of the proffers need to be addressed.
Mr. Morris and Mr. Franco agreed with Mr. Kamptner.
Mr. Zobrist noted SP-2010-00039, Peter Jefferson Overlook Offices and ZMA-2010-00010 Peter
Jefferson Overlook would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for denial as
recommended by staff for the reasons noted below.
• The proposed office use is not in compliance with the Pantops Master Plan and no compelling
justification has been provided for developing office, rather than residential uses on the property.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REVIEW
7
• The proposal for the site is so overdeveloped that the design requires street trees to be planted in
the VDOT right-of-way along U.S. 250 and grading/construction easements will be necessary to
construct the retaining wall along the north side of the property.
• The applicant has requested a 10 percent reduction in the amount of required parking spaces, but
has provided no explanation or justification for the request.
• The applicant has not applied for a critical slopes waiver, so staff has not analyzed whether such
a waiver should be recommended. If such a waiver cannot be granted later in the site plan
process, the applicant will be left with an unbuildable project.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
November 18, 2011
Steve Driver - Terra Engineering & Land Solutions
2374 Stuarts Draft Highway
Stuarts Draft, Va 24477
RE: ZMA 201100001 Fontana Trail Proffer
TAX MAP/PARCEL[S]: 078E0-00-00-00A00, 78E000000000E, 078E000000000D,
078E00000128, 078E00000127, 078E0000012600, 078E0000012500, 078E0000012400,
78E0000012300, 078E0000012200, 078E0000012100, 078E0000012000
Dear Mr. Driver:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 8, 2011, by a vote of 6:0,
recommended approval to delete the path behind houses on Fontana Court and provide a marked grass
path way in the open space east and west of Appian Way to the Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment on their December 14, 2011 meeting.
View November 8 staff report w/attachments
November 8 PC minutes
April 19 PC actions letter
April 19 staff report w/attachments
April 19 PC minutes
Return to agenda
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Principal Planner
Planning Division
cc: Fontana Owners Association Inc
111 Fontana Court
Charlottesville Va 22911
ZMA 2011-00001
PC Nov, 8, 2011
Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Revised October 21, 2011
Project Name: ZMA 2011-00001 Staff: Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
November 8, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
December 14, 2011
Owners: Fontana Land Trust, Fontana
Owners Association
Applicant: A.M. Nichols and Stan Rose with
Terra Engineering and Land Solutions as
consulting engineer
Acreage: 6.09 Acres Rezoning Request: Amend proffers associated
with ZMA 2004-14 Fontana Phase 4C to
eliminate obligation to build sections of trail
TMP:
078E0-00-00-000A0, 078E0-00-00-000E0,
078E0-00-00-000D0, 078E0-00-00-12800,
078E0-00-00-12700, 078E0-00-00-12600,
078E0-00-00-12500, 078E0-00-00-12400,
078E0-0-000-12300, 078E0-00-00-12200,
078E0-00-00-12100, 078E0-00-00-12000
Location:– In open space behind Olympia Drive
and Appian Way and also at the rear of lots on
the north side of Fontana Court in the Fontana
Subdivision
Magisterial District: Rivanna Proffers: Yes
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood
Three - Pantops
Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood
Density Residential
Character of Property: Cleared and
wooded areas, some steep terrain
Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential
(Fontana Subdivision)
Factors Favorable:
1. Many residents of the neighborhood and
the Owners Association desire
elimination of the paths and believe that
elimination of the paths will have a
positive impact on the neighborhood.
2. To date, property owners on the north
side of Fontana Court have been
unwilling to provide easements to
construct a path.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Elimination of paths as interconnections is
contrary to the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan, in particular the
Neighborhood Model and the Pantops
Master Plan.
2. Paths throughout neighborhoods enable
pedestrians to move safely and conveniently
through a neighborhood without having to
walk in the street.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the current proffer amendment to delete
the path behind houses on Fontana Court, and provide a marked grass pathway in the open
space east and west of Appian Way.
ZMA 2011-00001
PC Nov, 8, 2011
Page 2
STAFF PERSON: ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
PLANNING COMMISSION: NOVEMBER 8, 2011
ZMA 2011-00001 FONTANA TRAIL PROFFER AMENDMENT
Background: This request was heard by the Planning Commission on April 19, 2011. At
the time, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this ZMA change subject to
the conditions as set forth in the staff report, amended as follows:
1. Trail segments A & B (identified in the staff) report be retained; however they should
be kept as grass and marked;
2. Trail segment C (identified in the staff report) be deleted;
3. The trail system for Fontana Phases 1, 2, 3, 4, 4a, and 4b be completed by May 1,
2012
4. An up to date map showing the constructed and proposed trails be provided to
accompany the proffers
It is being re-heard by the Commission due to an advertising error. Since the
Commission’s meeting, the applicant has made some modifications to the proffers.
Changes to the original report to reflect the correct legal ad and updated information are
identified in italics.
Applicant’s Proposal: The Fontana Owner’s Association and the developer of the
Fontana Subdivision are asking to remove an obligation for the developer to build a portion
of trails in the Fontana development. The revised proffers are provided as Attachment A.
Petition:
PROJECT: ZMA 2011-00001 Fontana Trail Proffer Amendment
REQUEST: Amend proffer applicable to TMP 078E00000000A0 to remove obligation to
build trail on 6.09 acres zoned R-4 Residential which allows 4 units per acre. Proffer was
made in conjunction with the ZMA2004-00018 which was a rezoning of 17.15 acres on
TMP 078E00000000A0. No proposed change in density.
PROFFERS: Yes.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density
Residential which allows residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious
institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses in the Pantops
Neighborhood.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: The trail would have been off-site of TMP 078E00000000A0 in open space
behind Olympia Drive and Appian Way and also at the rear of lots on the north side of
Fontana Court in the Fontana Subdivision (TMPs 078E00000000E0, 078E000000000D,
078E0000012800, 078E0000012900, 078E0000012700, 078E00000012600,
078E0000012500, 078E0000012400, 078E0000012300, 078E0000012200,
078E0000012100, 078E0000012000)
Character of the Area: The neighborhood is comprised of single-family homes. North of
the existing development, construction is taking place for the Hyland Ridge development.
Multi-family units have been constructed south of the development. Open space within the
ZMA 2011-00001
PC Nov, 8, 2011
Page 3
development is hilly and flat, cleared and wooded, depending on the location. The area is
hilly and wooded behind the houses which front on Fontana Court.
Specifics of the Proposal: Issues relating to the path system go back to early 1997. W hen
the developer submitted the first subdivision plat for Fontana, he asked to use a path
system in open space at the backs of the lots instead of providing sidewalks. Ultimately,
the substitution of paths for sidewalks was approved for the development in late 1997.
From 1997 to 2007, only a few of the paths were actually installed. Paths that were
installed were viewed by a number of the residents as unsafe, unusable, or difficult to
maintain.
In 2007 and 2008, when the developer asked to upzone the remaining land in the Fontana
development, a number of homeowners petitioned the Board of Supervisors to compel the
developer to complete the path system. As a result, the developer proffered to complete
the path system in accordance with the plan shown on the following page.
As the developer has
worked to complete the
system, he has
encountered resistance
from the Owners
Association for a path
through property owned
by the Owners
Association. He has also
been unable to gain
permission to put the
path in a sewer
easement owned by the
homeowners whose
houses face Fontana
Court. For these reasons,
he has requested the ability to be relieved of the obligation to provide these paths. The
path in purple is the one which the developer would like to eliminate from the plan. The
path in blue is one which will be built with Fontana Phase 4C. The path in black is the one
which the developer wishes to provide as a grass path with a trail marker. These changes
are consistent with the recommendations of the Planning Commission on April 19, 2011.
Applicant’s Justification for the Request: The applicant has indicated that the
amendment, if approved, will eliminate unwanted paths. He has said that trees will be
preserved, mostly behind Fontana Court.
Planning and Zoning History:
ZMA 94-06 Upper Pantops Land Trust - rezoned 108.2 from R1 and R15 to R6; 62 acres
were rezoned from RA to R4, and 154 acres were rezoned from RA to R1.
SUB 97-036 was the Fontana preliminary subdivision plat which was approved in 1997.
The preliminary plat expired in 2003 and individual sections of Fontana came in as
separate preliminary and final plats.
ZMA 2011-00001
PC Nov, 8, 2011
Page 4
ZMA 2004-18 was submitted in 2004 and approved in March 2008 for R-4 across the
entirety of the Fontana development. The rezoning was approved for 34 single-family
units. Included with the rezoning was the proffer to construct the pedestrian paths in the
earlier sections of Fontana. (See Attachment B for existing proffers for ZMA 2004-018.)
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan
The residential use conforms to Pantops Master Plan. Recommendations for pedestrian
paths are:
Interconnect greenspace, where trails lead to parks, neighborhood centers, or the Rivanna
River providing pedestrian and bike facilities.
An improved trail system (See Parks and Green Systems Map) within Pantops will provide
pedestrian and bicycle connections and an alternative to automobiles.
The proffered trails in Fontana are not shown on the County’s Parks and Green Systems
Map because they are neighborhood trails. When built, though, the system of trails would
allow for access to public sidewalks that lead to public trails.
The three Neighborhood Model principles which apply to this request are: Pedestrian
Orientation, Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks, and Parks and Open
Space. Provision of the paths would allow for better pedestrian access within the
development which would facilitate interconnections. In addition, better use of common
open areas could be made.
Staff Comment
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested
zoning district: No change in zoning district is requested.
Public need and justification for the change: Staff finds no public benefit by elimination
of the paved paths; however, staff acknowledges that there is little, if any ability to obtain
easements from the owners of the lots which face Fontana Court. In addition, with signage
of pedestrian areas, residents will know that they are allowed to make use of the space.
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources – No environmental,
cultural, or historic resources identified in the Master Plan will be affected by the provision
or deletion paths.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services – No impact is expected.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties – A number of homeowners
have contacted the County over the last ten years concerning the provision or lack of paths.
Some of the homeowners have asked that all paths be eliminated because they believe the
paths are intrusive to their back and side yards. Some of the homeowners, particularly the
ones who came and spoke to the Board of Supervisors on August 8, 2007, were adamant
that the paths be provided. These owners view the paths as an amenity and part of their
expectation for the development when purchasing their homes. Since that time, however,
ZMA 2011-00001
PC Nov, 8, 2011
Page 5
the Owners Association has ascertained that little support exists for constructing any
additional trails in the development.
Proffers
Only one proffer change is proposed for ZMA 2004 -00018. This proffer is provided as
Attachment A. The proffer references a revised/updated map which shows the paths as
they are currently built and which identifies the path that will be marked with signage.
A few of the trails need to be repaired or modified to pass the County Engineer’s
inspection. At the Commission’s April meeting, Commissioners asked the applicant if he
would be willing to proffer a completion date of May 1 , 2012 for the trails. The applicant’s
representative told the Commission that completion by that date would not be problematic.
The applicant has since decided not to proffer a completion date for finishing the trails.
However, staff believes this is not an issue as there are bonds on the trails. The County
Engineer believes that, if the trails are not finished, he can call the bond and have the
County finish the trails at any time. This arrangement appears to be satisfactory to the
Owners Association.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. Some residents of the neighborhood and the Owners Association desire elimination of
the paths and believe that elimination of the paths will have a positive impact on the
neighborhood.
2. To date, property owners on the north side of Fontana Court have been unwilling to
provide easements to construct a path.
Staff has found the following f actors unfavorable to this rezoning:
1. Elimination of paths as interconnections is contrary to the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Neighborhood Model and the Pantops Master
Plan.
2. Paths throughout neighborhoods enable pedestrians to move safely and conveniently
through a neighborhood without having to walk in the street.
RECOMMENDATION
Although elimination of paths and connections is contrary to the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan, staff believes the proposed system is an adequate compromise
which will allow for pedestrian access with the development. Without support for the
additional paths, it appears that the neighborhood believes that the pedestrian access
currently provided is sufficient. For this reason, staff recommends approval of the request
to eliminate one path altogether and to provide for signage to mark grassy trails in the other
two places shown on the proffered plan.
ZMA 2011-00001
PC Nov, 8, 2011
Page 6
Planning Commission Motion:
For approval:
Motion to recommend approval of the proffer amendment request and accompanying
plan.
For denial:
Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning for the following reasons (please state the
reasons).
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: Proposed Proffer Change - Fontana Phase 4C dated 10-19-11
ATTACHMENT B: Existing Proffers for Fontana 4C – Approved March 19, 2008
Return to PC actions letter
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 11, 2011 DRAFT MINUTES PAGE 1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
November 8, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, November 8, 2011, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Thomas Loach, Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Ed Smith, Calvin Morris, Vice-Chair; Don
Franco and Duane Zobrist, Chair. Commissioners absent were Linda Porterfield. Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were W ayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner;
Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Committee Reports
Mr. Zobrist asked for committee reports from the Commissioners.
Mr. Franco reported the CIP Technical Committee met today. The CIP program should come to the
Planning Commission in January for a work session.
Mr. Lafferty reported the CHART committee met and he was elected chairman.
There being no further committee reports, the meeting moved to the next item.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Zobrist invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being no ne,
the meeting moved to the next item.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting – November 2, 2011.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 2, 2011.
Consent Agenda:
Approval of Minutes: June 7, 2011
Mr. Zobrist asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Franco seconded for approval of the consent agenda.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the consent agenda was approved.
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA-2011-00001 Fontana Trail Proffer Amendment
PROJECT: ZMA 2011-00001 Fontana Trail Proffer
PROPOSAL: Amend proffer to remove obligation to build trail on 6.09 acres zoned R -4 Residential which
allows 4 units per acre. Proffer was made in conjunction with the ZMA -2004-00018 which was a rezoning
of 17.15 acres on TMP 078E00000000A0. No proposed change in density.
PROFFERS: Yes
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 11, 2011 DRAFT MINUTES PAGE 2
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential which
allows residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other
small-scale non-residential uses in the Pantops Neighborhood
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: In open space behind Olympia Drive and Appian Way and also at the rear of lots on the
north side of Fontana Court in the Fontana Subdivision
TAX MAP/PARCEL[S]: 078000000000A0, 078E00000000E0, 078E000000000D, 078E0000012800,
078E0000012900, 078E0000012700, 078E00000012600, 078E0000012500, 078E0000012400,
078E0000012300, 078E0000012200, 078E0000012100, 078E0000012000
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
DUE TO AN ADVERTISING ERROR THIS APPLICATION IS BEING REHEARD BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
(Elaine Echols)
Mr. Zobrist noted that ZMA-2011-00001 was before the Commission before and they made a decision.
The request is back before them because it was improperly advertised.
Ms. Echols presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This request was before the Planning Commission in April. When this came before the Commission there
were three sections of trail that were requested to be removed. When the Commissio n heard it they were
in agreement that the section as shown in purple should be removed. The trail shown in black was
requested to be removed and the Commission came up with a compromise with the applicant that it
should be marked as a grassed trail. The applicant has changed his proffer and proffered this plan. The
Commission had asked for an updated plan. The plan shows where the existing trails are with the
grassed trail marked and no trail where there formerly was one shown on a plan.
Outstanding Issue from PC Recommendation of April 19, 2011
• Commission asked for a proffer of completion of repairs to trails by May 1, 2012 for the trails.
• Applicant has declined to proffer the date
• County is holding a bond and can call it to repair the trails, if necessary
There was only one outstanding issue from the April 19, 2011 meeting. The Commission asked for a
completion date of repairs to the trails by May 1, 2012. The applicant has declined to proffer the date.
However, the County is holding a bond and can call it to repair the trails if necessary. Staff believes that
is sufficient to be able to correct the outstanding issues. Staff is not concerned that there is not a date in
here. The Commission may prefer a date, but staff is okay with it without that .
Factors Unfavorable
• Elimination of paths is contrary to Comprehensive Plan, Neighborhood Model, and Pantops
Master Plan
• Paths throughout neighborhoods enable pedestrians to move safely and conveniently through a
neighborhood without having to walk in the street
Factors Favorable
• Most residents desire elimination of the proposed paths and believe that this will have a positive
impact on the neighborhood.
• To date, property owners on north side of Fontana C ourt have been unwilling to provide
easements for path
• The unsurfaced paths will have signage that will indicate that neighborhood access is available
through the open space
• The County holds a bond for completion of repairs to the paths that are in need of repair
Recommendation:
The favorable factors outweigh the factors unfavorable. Most of the residents in the neighborhood have
asked that these paths be removed. The owners on the north have been unwilling to provide the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 11, 2011 DRAFT MINUTES PAGE 3
easements. The unsurfaced paths will have signage. A bond is being held for th e repairs. Therefore,
staff recommends approval of the rezoning with the proffers and revised plan.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff. He asked if the bond would not be released until it was done.
Ms. Echols replied that was correct.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant
to address the Commission.
Anthony Matthew Nichols, applicant, said that Fontana is a subdivision which he felt was very attractive.
However, it has two pathways. One path would be very difficult to utilize because of the steep slopes. It
would be mostly steps rather than a walking trail. In a picture of Fontana Court it shows lot 28 has two
basements with a low and upper level because the topography is so steep. In fact, between lots 121 and
122 there is a ½ acre parcel which is too steep to build on. That pathway is totally out of question for
somebody to utilize. The other path goes down between lot 12 towards Avemore, which is around 250’
away. Basically, if a person is closer to Olympia Drive or Miranda Lane they would easily be able to go
there rather than to use the one in the middle. Basically that is the whole issue. He was unsure if there
was anyone present concerning the right-of-way that is in contention at this time.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Lynwood Bell, resident of Fontana for ten years, said he has walked these trails for the past ten years off
and on. The trail behind Fontana Court is not usable. Regarding the trails on Avian W ay, the people in
that area can get on a trail either from their front or rear door or at a cul-de-sac that is very seldom used
by anyone except the people in that cul-de-sac. So people can navigate the area and get to wherever
they want to be including Giant or Darden Towe Park. He urged the Commission to support Mr. Nichols
because as a community they certainly do.
Stan Rose, President of the Homeowners Association for Fontana, said the Fontana Homeowner’s
Association Board of Directors whole heartedly supports the proffer amendment before the Commission.
Basically it is for the reasons given on Fontana Court, which is a moot subject because there is no
easement to build on. Also, from the aesthetic point of view the pie ce on Avian W ay is the only flat area
in Fontana which is solid grass. They think a gravel trail will ruin the aesthetics of that. As a walking trail
with grass it serves the purpose they are looking for. The Board still supports this request.
Michael Powers, resident of Fontana Court, asked to briefly refresh a point they made at the last hearing
on this subject. In August, 2009 ten homeowners on Fontana Court wrote a letter to both the developer
and the County Attorney advising that the proffer as d esigned included a section of trail that was within
their private property and that there was no easement for that construction. The homeowners also
advised that they intend not to grant any such easement in the future. They are concerned that if this
amendment is not approved that there will be a limbo situation in which the developer will have an
obligation to construct a trail and yet not any ability to obtain easements to construct that and the situation
will languish for a long time because of that conflict. There also has been a little bit of talk as part of the
staff notes that the county if they are concerned about the timing could eventually pull the bond and then
proceed to construction themselves with those funds. If this waiver is not approv ed, then the county itself
would be in this limbo situation of having an obligation to construct the path for which no easements were
possible. He asked that the Commission consider that point in their deliberations.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning
Commission.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approval of the proffer amendment
request for ZMA-2011-00001 Fontana Trail Proffer Amendment and the accompanying plan.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 11, 2011 DRAFT MINUTES PAGE 4
Mr. Zobrist noted ZMA-2011-00001 Fontana Proffer Amendment to delete the path behind houses on
Fontana Court and provide a marked grass pathway in the open space east and west of Appian Way was
recommended for approval with the accompanying plan. ZMA-2011-00001 Fontana Trail Proffer
Amendment would go to the Board of Supervisors on December 14, 2011 with a recommendation for
approval.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
June 3, 2011
Steve Driver - Terra Engineering & Land Solutions
2374 Stuarts Draft Highway
Stuarts Draft, Va 24477
RE: ZMA 201100001 Fontana Trail Proffer
TAX MAP/PARCEL[S]: 78E000000000E, 078E000000000D, 078E00000128, 078E00000127,
078E0000012600, 078E0000012500, 078E0000012400, 78E0000012300, 078E0000012200,
078E0000012100, 078E0000012000
Dear Mr. Driver:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 19, 2011, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
This approval was based on the following conditions:
1. Trail segments A & B (identified in the staff) report be retained; however they should be kept as
grass and marked;
2. Trail segment C (identified in the staff report) be deleted;
3. The trail system for Fontana Phases 1, 2, 3, 4, 4a, and 4b be completed by May 1, 2012
4. An up to date map showing the constructed and proposed trails be provided to accompany the
proffers.
Return to PC Nov 8 actions letter
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at a date to be determined.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Principal Planner
Planning Division
cc: Fontana Owners Association Inc
111 Fontana Court
Charlottesville Va 22911
ZMA 2011-00001
PC April 19, 2011
Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 2011-00001 Staff: Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
April 19, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
TBD
Owners: Fontana Land Trust, Fontana
Owners Association
Applicant: A.M. Nichols and Stan Rose with
Terra Engineering and Land Solutions as
consulting engineer
Acreage: 6.09 Acres Rezoning Request: Amend proffers associated
with ZMA 2004-14 Fontana Phase 4C to
eliminate obligation to build 3 sections of trail
TMP:
78E000000000E,078E000000000D,
078E0000012800, 078E0000012700,
078E0000012600, 078E0000012500,
078E0000012400, 078E0000012300,
078E0000012200, 078E0000012100,
078E0000012000
Location:– In open space behind Olympia Drive
and Appian Way and also at the rear of lots on
the north side of Fontana Court in the Fontana
Subdivision
Magisterial District: Rivanna Proffers: Yes
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood
Three - Pantops
Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood
Density Residential
Character of Property: Cleared and
wooded areas, some steep terrain
Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential
(Fontana Subdivision)
Factors Favorable:
1. To date, property owners on the north
side of Fontana Court have been
unwilling to provide easements to
construct a path.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Elimination of paths as interconnections is
contrary to the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan, in particular the
Neighborhood Model and the Pantops Master
Plan.
2. Paths throughout neighborhoods enable
pedestrians to move safely and conveniently
through a neighborhood without having to
walk in the street.
3.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proffer amendment to delete the
path behind houses on Fontana Court only. Staff does not recommend approval of deleting
the other two paths.
ZMA 2011-00001
PC April 19, 2011
Page 2
STAFF PERSON: ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
PLANNING COMMISSION: APRIL 19, 2011
ZMA 2011-00001 FONTANA TRAIL PROFFER AMENDMENT
Applicant’s Proposal: The Fontana Owner’s Association and the developer of the
Fontana Subdivision are asking to remove an obligation for the developer to build a portion
of trails in the Fontana development. The proffer change is provided as Attachment A.
Petition:
PROJECT: ZMA 2011-00001 Fontana Trail Proffer Amendment
PROPOSAL: Amend proffers to remove obligation to build trail on 6.09 acres zoned R -4
Residential which allows 4 units per acre. No proposed change in density.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density
Residential which allows residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious
institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses in the Pantops
Neighborhood.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: In open space behind Olympia Drive and Appian W ay and also at the rear of
lots on the north side of Fontana Court in the Fontana Subdivision
TAX MAP/PARCEL[S]: 78E000000000E, 078E000000000D, 078E00000128,
078E00000127, 78E0000012600, 078E0000012500, 078E0000012400, 78E0000012300,
078E0000012200, 078E0000012100, 078E0000012000
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
Character of the Area: The neighborhood is entirely made up of single-family homes.
North of the existing development, construction is taking place for the Hyland Ridge
development. Multi-family units have been constructed south of the development. Open
space within the development is hilly and flat, cleared and wooded, depending on the
location. The area is hilly and wooded behind the houses which front on Fontana Co urt.
Specifics of the Proposal: Issues relating to the path system go back to early 1997. W hen
the developer submitted the first subdivision plat for Fontana, he asked to use a path
system in open space at the backs of the lots instead of providing sidewa lks. Ultimately,
the substitution of paths for sidewalks was approved for the development in late 1997.
From 1997 to 2007, only a few of the paths were actually installed. Paths that were
installed were viewed by a number of the residents as unsafe, unusable, or difficult to
maintain.
In 2007 and 2008, when the developer asked to upzone the remaining land in the Fontana
development, a number of homeowners petitioned the Board of Supervisors to compel the
developer to complete the path system. As a result, the developer proffered to complete
the path system in accordance with the plan shown on the following page.
ZMA 2011-00001
PC April 19, 2011
Page 3
This plan generally was developed by the County Engineer because the developer declined
to create an updated plan. The proffers and plan with ZMA 2004-00018 set the
construction standards
needed for the remaining
parts of the trail system.
Minor changes in the field
were expected.
Construction bonds could
not be released until the
trail system was
completed.
Since approval of the
rezoning in 2008, the
developer has installed
many of the paths shown
on the plan to the right.
Some field changes have
occurred that seem to
complete all of the systems, except for the three segments under review for deletion
(shown above in purple) and the trail in Fontana Phase 4C (shown above in light blue).
Fontana Phase 4C has not been built yet but, the trail on the plan is expected to be
constructed with that section of Fontana. To date, the applicant has not provided a plan
showing where field changes have occurred although staff has a general idea of where the
system exists. County resources have prevented staff from providing an up-to-date plan.
Staff believes the applicant should provide a plan showing constructed paths and plans to
be provided before this project goes to the Board of Supervisors.
As the developer has worked to complete the system, he has encountered resistance from
the Owners Association for a path through property owned by the Owners Association. He
has also been unable to gain permission to put the path in a sewer easement owned by the
homeowners whose houses face Fontana Court. For these reasons, he has requested the
ability to be relieved of the obligation to provide these paths. The paths the developer
would like to eliminate are indicated with this pattern:
Fontana Ct
Appian Way A
B
C
ZMA 2011-00001
PC April 19, 2011
Page 4
Applicant’s Justification for the Request: The applicant has indicated that the
amendment, if approved, will eliminate unwanted paths. He has said that trees will be
preserved, mostly behind Fontana Court.
Planning and Zoning History:
ZMA 94-06 Upper Pantops Land Trust - rezoned 108.2 from R1 and R15 to R6; 62 acres
were rezoned from RA to R4, and 154 acres were rezoned from RA to R1.
SUB 97-036 was the Fontana preliminary subdivision plat which was approved in 1997.
The preliminary plat expired in 2003 and individual sections of Fontana came in as
separate preliminary and final plats.
ZMA 2004-18 was submitted in 2004 and approved in March 2008 for R-4 across the
entirety of the Fontana development. The rezoning was approved for 34 single-family
units. Included with the rezoning was the proffer to construct the pedestrian paths in the
earlier sections of Fontana. (See Attachment B for existing proffers for ZMA 2004-018.)
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan
The residential use conforms to Pantops Master Plan. Recommendations for pedestrian
paths are:
Interconnect greenspace, where trails lead to parks, neighborhood centers, or the
Rivanna River providing pedestrian and bike facilities.
An improved trail system (See Parks and Green Systems Map) within Pantops will
provide pedestrian and bicycle connections and an alternative to automobiles.
The proffered trails in Fontana are not shown on the County’s Parks and Green Systems
Map because they are neighborhood trails. When built, though, the system of trails would
allow for access to public sidewalks that lead to public trails.
The three Neighborhood Model principles which apply to this request are: Pedestrian
Orientation, Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks, and Parks and Open
Space. Provision of the paths would allow for better pedestrian access within the
development which would facilitate interconnections. In addition, better use of common
open areas could be made.
Staff Comment
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested
zoning district: No change in zoning district is requested.
Public need and justification for the change: Staff finds no public benefit by elimination
of the paths; however, staff acknowledges that there is little, if any ability to obtain
easements from the owners of the lots which face Fontana Court.
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources – No environmental,
cultural, or historic resources identified in the Master Plan will be affected by the provision
or deletion paths.
ZMA 2011-00001
PC April 19, 2011
Page 5
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services – No impact is expected.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties – A number of homeowners
have contacted the County over the last ten years concerning the provision or lack of paths.
Some of the homeowners have asked that all paths be eliminated because they believe the
paths are intrusive to their back and side yards. Some of the homeowners, particularly the
ones who came and spoke to the Board of Supervisors on August 8, 2007, were adamant
that the paths be provided. These owners view the paths as an amenity and part of their
expectation for the development when pu rchasing their homes.
Staff believes that the provision of a path in
the open space shown to the left, which is
identified as “A” on the map on the previous
page would not be detrimental to the
development and would enhance
walkability within Fontana. Provision of a
path in area “B” would be more difficult
because area “B” is hilly and wooded. As
has occurred in other parts of the
development, solutions such as stairs and
switchbacks could be used to build the path
in area “B”. Both areas A & B are owned
by the Owners Association.
Staff believes that a path in area “C”, shown on the map on the previous page, would be
advantageous to complete the network. However, staff understands that obtaining the
necessary easements will likely preclude this option.
Proffers
Only one proffer change is proposed for ZMA 2004 -00018. This proffer is provided as
Attachment A. The proffer references a revised/updated map that does not show the paths
in areas A, B, and C. Staff believes the map should be changed to eliminate only the path
in area C shown on page 2 of this report.
If the Planning Commission disagrees, however, staff believes that, at a minimum, the path
plan should be revised to reflect where paths have actually been built and where remaining
paths are needed. The plan previously prepared by the County Engineer should be
updated by the applicant.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. Some residents of the neighborhood and the Owners Association desire elimination of
the paths and believe that elimination of the paths will have a positive impact on the
neighborhood.
2. To date, property owners on the north side of Fontana Court have been unwilling to
provide easements to construct a path.
ZMA 2011-00001
PC April 19, 2011
Page 6
Staff has found the following f actors unfavorable to this rezoning:
1. Elimination of paths as interconnections is contrary to the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Neighborhood Model and the Pantops Master
Plan.
2. Paths throughout neighborhoods enable pedestrians to move safely and conveniently
through a neighborhood without having to walk in the street.
3. To date, there does not appear to be unanimity in the neighborhood that the paths
should be eliminated.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff can support the request to eliminate the path behind houses on the north side of
Fontana Court but cannot support elimination of the other two paths.
Planning Commission Motion:
Should a Planning Commissioner move to recommend approval of the rezoning to
reflect removal of the path behind the houses north of Fontana Court only, staff
recommends that the applicant revise the map to accompany the proffer change to reflect
removal of the path in area C and update the map to show actual paths built and current
proposed paths..
Should a Planning Commissioner move to recommend approval of the rezoning in its
entirety, staff recommends that the applicant revise the map to accompany the proffer
change and update it to show actual paths built and current proposed paths.
Should a Planning Commissioner move to recommend denial of the rezoning, he or she
should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: Proposed Proffer Change - Fontana Phase 4C dated 2-22-11
ATTACHMENT B: Existing Proffers for Fontana 4C – Approved March 19, 2008
Return to Nov 8 PC actions letter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 19, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2011-00001 Fontana Trail Proffer Amendment
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 19, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 19, 2011, at 6:00 p.m., at the
County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Duane Zobrist, Chair; Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, Don Franco, Russell
(Mac) Lafferty, and Calvin Morris, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University
of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner; Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley,
Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; J.T. Newberry, Code Enforcement Officer; Sarah Baldwin, Senior
Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development; Wayne Cilimberg, Director
of Planning; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
ZMA-2011-00001 Fontana Trail Proffer Change
PROPOSAL: Amend proffers to remove obligation to build trail on 6.09 acres zoned R -4 Residential which allows
4 units per acre. No proposed change in density.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential which allows
residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small -scale non-
residential uses in the Pantops Neighborhood ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: In open space behind Olympia Drive and Appian Way and also at the rear of lots on the north side of
Fontana Court in the Fontana Subdivision
TAX MAP/PARCEL[S]: 78E000000000E,078E000000000D, 078E00000128, 078E00000127, 78E0000012600,
078E0000012500,078E0000012400, 78E0000012300, 078E0000012200, 078E0000012100, 078E0000012000
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Elaine Echols)
Ms. Echols presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. (See Staff Report for details.)
The Planning Commission reviewed the Fontana path system in 2006/2007. This is a challenging request because
there is a lot of history on the project. Staff reviewed the history of the project as outlined in the staff report. T he
applicant proffered to complete the path system. Staff has been working with the developer to complete the system.
Staff has a whole series of photographs that display both parts of the trails. Erosion and sediment control staff have
been working on this project in Fontana.
Staff has been working with the developer on this. There has been a lot of dissatisfaction with the quality of the
paths and some concerns with the proposed locations of the paths. There are people who are both for and against th is
particular proposal. For that reason staff finds the request challenging. It is supposed to be a neighborhood path
system and yet there are members of the neighborhood that don’t want it. She presented the PowerPoint presentation
to explain the proposal and the steepness of the slopes. There have been different things that have been done over
time to address the steepness issues. In some cases stairs have been put in and there are switch backs. There are
paths that have been put in at a number of different places where there are existing homes.
Staff finds that the comprehensive plan supports the path system. They look for pedestrian access, interconnectivity
and the ability to access parks and over space. This path originally came in as a subs titute for sidewalks. Staff
believes that it is important that there be paths in neighborhoods. The applicant wants to eliminate those paths and
some residents believe it will be a positive impact on the neighborhood. To date the owners on the north sid e of
Fontana Court have been unwilling to provide easements for the path. That would make it impossible to get paths in
there unless the county wanted to go in and do something, which generally they don’t do.
Factors Favorable
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 19, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2011-00001 Fontana Trail Proffer Amendment
2
• Some residents desire elimination of the proposed paths and believe that this will have a positive impact on
the neighborhood.
• To date, property owners on north side of Fontana Ct. have been unwilling to provide easements for path
Factors Unfavorable
• Elimination of paths as interconnections is contrary to Comprehensive Plan, Neighborhood Model, and
Pantops Master Plan.
• Paths throughout neighborhoods enable pedestrians to move safely and conveniently through a
neighborhood without having to walk in the street
• To date, there does not appear to be unanimity in the neighborhood that the paths should be eliminated.
Recommendation
• Staff does not recommend approval of the elimination of paths A and B because of lack of conformity with
the Comprehensive Plan.
• Staff recommends approval of the elimination of path C because, as of now, there is no willingness of
property owners to provide easements for the path.
• To accomplish this, the applicant needs to provide an updated plan and proffers.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
The Planning Commission held a discussion with staff about the history of the paths in Fontana and asked staff
questions concerning the proposal.
In response to Mr. Morris’ question, Ms. Echols pointed out the following:
One previous condition of approval was the owner shall not request that the county issue the ninth building
permit until the paths have been completed. They could start construction, but needed to get that path in
before they asked for the ninth building permit. There were the pedestrian path s that were to be constructed
according to the design requirements and then the other part was the owner shall construct pedestrian paths
in accordance with this plan and complete it to the satisfaction to the county engineer prior to grading in
phase 4C.
In response to Ms. Porterfield’s question about which paths have been completed, Ms. Echols replied that she did
not know because Mr. Brooks who was going to explain that was not present due to illness. However, Ms. Echols
pointed out that most of the paths had almost been completed. What had happened was that there may have been a
section in one area that was moved to another place.
Mark Graham, County Engineer, noted that the answer was that the areas to the left and the bottom of the major
utility easements, which was sections 1 and 2, had all been approved. Fontana Court obviously has not been done
because they are trying to eliminate it. The remaining sections, sections 3, 4, 4a and 4b are about 90 to 95 percent
done. There are some outstanding issues that the developer has not addressed. Therefore, the county is still holding
bonds on those sections.
In response to Ms. Porterfield’s question about some paths running through home owner’s association property, Ms.
Echols replied that the homeowner’s association is a party to the application. Ms. Echols noted that there was a
sewer easement, but no pedestrian path easement.
Mr. Zobrist noted that staff is recommending the deletion of C, but not A and B because it could not be built anyway
because they don’t have the easement.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Steve Driver, engineer representing the property owner and Fontana Homeowner’s Association presented a
PowerPoint presentation and explained the background of the proposal. He asked the Planning Commission to
consider these items and look favorably on eliminating the path. He pointed out that the steep slopes created a
problem creating the paths.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 19, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2011-00001 Fontana Trail Proffer Amendment
3
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Zobrist invited public comment.
Lynwood Bell, home owner in Fontana for 10 years, noted that this matter could be cleared up very easily. He was
part of the original trails committee and has walked all of these trails. Regarding the trails on Fontana Court there is
no easement there. It would do great harm to those folks. They can have access to the trails because Fontana Court
is a cul-de-sac. They have easy access to the trails along Fontana Drive and down to Wilton Ponds a nd Darden
Towe Park by simply going out of their back or front doors and through the Clubhouse parking lot. There is access
for them. Those trails would cause a lot of problems. He recommends that they support the developer and not build
those. With regard to the both trails on Appian ways there is an easement with regards to fiber optic lines. It is a
generally flat surface as described. What they would propose is a mode trail or path so when the owner of the fiber
optic line comes along and wants to dig those up they would not have to replace it with the gravel. For that reason
as a home owner he recommends to support this new change in the proposal. To do otherwise would cause undue
hardship to the owners on Fontana Court and provides no benefit to the folks along Appian Way.
Mr. Zobrist said basically he supports the proposal to eliminate the need as number c.
Mr. Bell pointed out it was a, b and c.
Mr. Zobrist noted that a and b are eliminated, but he wants them to be conditioned as a mode path as opposed to a
permeable surface. He asked if that was his recommendation.
Mr. Bell replied yes.
Mr. Loach asked if he could define what the undue problems would be for the home owners if the paths were there.
Mr. Bell replied that on Fontana Court there was no easement there to build those trails. Therefore, somebody is
going to have to prevail upon them to give up their property to build those trails. There is no easement along
Fontana Court to the north to build any of those trails.
Mr. Loach asked if the easement was the only problem it would cause if the trails were there , and Mr. Bell agreed.
Ms. Porterfield asked Mr. Bell since he was on the original committee if all of the other trails have been built and
connected where they are supposed to be.
Mr. Bell replied that he was not on the current committee, but as far as a home owner he was reasonably happy.
Tom Williams, resident of Appian Way, said Appian Way and Olympia Drive get a lot of traffic through there since
it is tied back to Route 250. A lot of people cut through that area. The narrow roads make it hard for both the
children and older folks to walk on the paved areas. To walk a dog one has no choice but fight the vehicles to walk
on the paved areas. He suggested that on Apian Way both a and b ought to be paved. They could go to the side of
the fiber optics. Anytime they look at morning dew or any time it rains it is going to be a very slick area down there.
They have already talked about the grades in that area. He did not think grass would suffice. He felt that it needs to
have a chip and seal through that area so that it would be maintained. Right now he has no guarantees that area
would be kept mowed. They have contracts that go year to year and things change in tha t. If it was chip and sealed,
then he felt it would have a better opportunity to be maintained. He asked that be considered as a safety measure to
the children and people who walk through that area. He has lived there from 10 to 12 years and he was promised
that there was going to be trails there. It has been a long battle to get trails. There has been talk about whether they
were satisfied. He did not think the trails are completely done all the way back in that upper section not to the
satisfaction of most people. The trails are completed to a point. However, a lot of the trails have been washed out
and the tar has not been done up to a standard. It has been very substandard and grass is already coming through.
There was a question about the imperviousness. There is already grass coming up through areas. He would like the
Commission to consider those things.
Stan Rose, President of the Fontana Homeowners Association, said the trails have been a contentious situation at
least when he moved there in 2006. He could not speak much about what transpired prior to that. But, they s tarted
out as grass trails. He tends to side with the developer’s representative for aesthetic view of the lovely swatch of
grass to walk on. However, the Board of Dire ctors, the elected representatives of the Association, in November
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 19, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2011-00001 Fontana Trail Proffer Amendment
4
voted to support the proffer amendment to eliminate those three sections of trails. Yes, it is not 100 percent.
However, as any society it was the elected representatives who voted to sup port that. He would like the
Commission to take that into consideration plus the fact that it is the owners who pay for the maintenance of those
trails as opposed to their neighbors who have VDOT paying for their sidewalks. Any trail that is not built is money
saved for the homeowners.
Michael Powers, resident of Fontana Court, noted in August, 2009 ten homeowners on Fontana Court wrote a letter
to both the developer and the County Attorney advising that the proffer as designed included a section of trai l that
was within their private property and that there was no easement for that construction. The homeowners also
advised that they intend not to grant any such easement in the future. They are concerned that if this amendment is
not approved that there will be a limbo situation in which the developer will have an obligation to construct a trail
and yet not any ability to obtain easements to construct that and the situation will languish for a long time because of
that conflict. There also has been a little bit of talk as part of the staff notes that the county if they are concerned
about the timing could eventually pull the bond and then proceed to construction themselves with those funds. If
this waiver is not approved, then the county itself would b e in this limbo situation of having an obligation to
construct the path for which no easements were possible. He asked that the Commission consider that point in their
deliberations.
Mary Malaski, homeowner of lot 19, asked that they maintain the nice grassy areas. As they look to remove the
applicant’s obligation to build a trail she asked that they be better maintained. She questioned if they need county
approval to deed the paths over to the home owner’s association. That is not entirely clear. The paths north of
Fontana Drive are really in disrepair with weeds on the slopes and slick walking in those areas.
Sally Picall, a homeowner, supported removing the obligation of trails. Lot 24 backs up to Apian Way and they are
one of the families that keep the slopes nice.
Ginny Anderson, owner of lot 151, asked the Planning Commission to approve eliminating the trails. She noted that
they just got a note from the fiber optic company that they are goi ng to be digging it up soon. The neighborhood
wants Mr. Nichols to be done with the paths.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out that the Commission was asking that the area where the fiber optic easement was to be left
grassy.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Planning Commission for discussion and action.
The Planning Commission discussed the proposal with staff.
Mr. Lafferty understood what the homeowner’s were saying and their frustrations. His problem was that he almost
felt like they are rewarding the developer for negligence in doing this. That bothers him. However, he thought that
the present homeowners take precedence as far as he was concerned.
Mr. Franco echoed those comments. What helped convince him when looking at lot C was he heard some of the
residents talk about the cul-de-sac that they have the ability of walking out their front door and along this cul -de-sac
with the limited traffic to the club to get to the system behind the club. He would imagine they could walk to the
end of the street to Fontana where the sidewalks starts. He becomes more comfortable with it due to that.
Mr. Loach agreed. His first feeling was that it would be a vote against the developer who he did not believe has met
his obligations. That said, he hoped that they put enough conditions in this to make it more palatable. Secondly, he
hoped that they had learned some good lessons that will be reflected in future decisions.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved for approval of ZMA-2011-00001 Fontana Trail Proffer Changes with a modification to
staff’s recommendation that recommends the deletion of the other two paths. He did not recommend the deletion of
the two paths, but maintain them as grass.
Mr. Zobrist asked if they would eliminate the condition for the seal ed impermeable base, and Mr. Morris replied that
was correct for those areas A and B.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 19, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2011-00001 Fontana Trail Proffer Amendment
5
Second: Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Mr. Zobrist invited further discussion.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they were going to do something about the proffer that was in existence right now. She
agreed with what Mr. Lafferty said. She did not want to reward the developer and let him get off with not building
this stuff. She wanted the developer to fix this and get it done so that these people can live in a place that i s fixed.
Mr. Loach noted that Mr. Kamptner said that would be available as a recommendation on the Commission’s part.
Mr. Kamptner agreed that would be included as part of the motion.
Ms. Porterfield agreed that it needs to be part of the motion.
Mr. Franco disagreed since he did not agree that it needs to be.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that the Commission put something in so that the Board will know that the Commission
has said that they ought to do this. She would love for the applicant to come up and say they accept that as a change
in the proffer and that they will complete these paths within a certain limit of time and not with the condition with
the nine houses.
Mr. Loach agreed it should be included as a recommendation since that is a feeling that the Commission that it does
not carry the weight of law that it has to be.
Mr. Morris said he had no objection to adding that. However, it has already been done when they looked at 4C.
Mr. Zobrist suggested that the Commission recommend that the bond not be renewed. The County can call the
bond, get money, and get it fixed if the developer does not do it. If they want to put some teeth in it, that is the
recommendation. It is a two year bond and the developer has to renew it every two years. If they don’t renew the
bond, the County calls it and they go get the money. He asked Mr. Graham how they can accelerate this. The
Commission is finding some discomfort with the disrepair they see on the mountain.
Mr. Graham noted that Mr. Kamptner asked a good question in where are they in that two year cycle. Frankly, he
did not know standing up here today. One of the problems is that there is not a bond, but several bonds because
there are several sections.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved for approval of ZMA-2011-00001 Fontana Trail Proffer Change to include the non-
deletion of A and B and keeping them as grass as a marked grassed path and that the trail system for sections 1, 2,
and 3 be completed by May 1, 2012.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that they were also recommending eliminating C.
Mr. Morris agreed that was included in the motion.
Mr. Kamptner clarified that it also needs to include the trails in 1, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B.
Mr. Morris agreed
Ms. Echols asked if he intends that the applicant would be providing this up to date map to go with the proffer.
Mr. Morris replied yes, absolutely.
Mr. Kamptner noted that also Trail C can be deleted.
Mr. Morris agreed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 19, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2011-00001 Fontana Trail Proffer Amendment
6
Mr. Zobrist noted that the applicant will provide an updated map to staff within a reasonable time.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that has to happen before it goes to the Board because the map has to be part of the
zoning action the Board ultimately takes. The Board cannot take an action on the rezoning without an amended
plan.
Ms. Porterfield asked how far in advance from that date do they need the plan submitted.
Ms. Echols replied that the request does not get scheduled for the Board until the applicant has completed
everything.
Mr. Morris said that this has been very confusing. He asked if it is fairly clear what he is proposing.
Mr. Driver replied that he believed that it is clear. The only new thing that has come up is the completion date of
May 1, 2012. He did not know how that coincides with the bond dates, but that is something Mr. Graham can
address.
Mr. Smith seconded the amendments to the motion.
Mr. Kamptner asked that the motion be restated.
Restated Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of ZMA -2011-00001,
Fontana Trail Proffer Change subject to the conditions as set forth in the staff report amended as follows:
1. Trail segments A & B (identified in the staff) report be retained; however they should be kept as grass and
marked;
2. Trail segment C (identified in the staff report) be deleted;
3. The trail system for Fontana Phases 1, 2, 3, 4, 4a, and 4b be completed by May 1, 2012
4. An up to date map showing the constructed and proposed trails be provided to accompany the proffers.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that a recommendation for approval on ZMA-2011-00001, Fontana Trail Proffer Change would be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to a date to be determined.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ZMA 2011-006 and SP 2011-014
BOS December 14, 2011
Executive Summary Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA201100006 and SP201100014 Albemarle Health and
Rehabilitation Center
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Rezone 5.38 acres from R-1 zoning district to PD-
MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial
zoning district. This proposal also includes one
concurrent special use permit. SP201100014 is
proposed under Section 24.2.2(7) of zoning
ordinance to allow hospitals, nursing homes,
convalescent homes uses. No dwellings proposed
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Benish, Grant
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
December 14, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On October 18, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Albemarle Health and Rehabilitation Center
rezoning and special use permit requests. The Commission, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of ZMA201100006 with
the proffers to be resolved to address the following before a Board of Supervisors’ public hearing:
Restrict the uses to only the use they are proposing plus wireless facilities, public utilities and public facilities;
Keep all improvements, including stormwater facilities and grading, on-site, or provide off-site easements, and reflect
accordingly on the application plan; and
Address the circulation past the fire station.
The Planning Commission, by a vote of 7:0, also recommended approval of SP201100014 with no conditions.
Also the Planning Commission, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of waivers of maximum parking allowance,
minimum yard requirements, maintenance of undisturbed buffer, and screening requirements based on affirmative findings
regarding Sections 4.12.2(C), 21.7(B), 21.7(C) and 8.2(B) of the Zoning Ordinance. (See Attachment VI for analysis of
these waiver requests)
DISCUSSION:
The attached proffers include clarification as to uses allowed by-right and by special use permit as recommended by
the Planning Commission. (Attachment II) While the proffers are technically and legally acceptable, staff notes the
following are remaining issues regarding the proposal:
The applicant is no longer proposing off-site grading, drainage and stormwater management on the school property.
The stormwater is now handled on-site. Staff suggests it would be preferable if grading was kept 5 feet off the property
line because it will be very difficult to stay on the property and grade to the property line. (Attachment III)
The applicant has provided signed copies of grading easements for Galaxie LLC and ACSA. (Attachment IV)
However, off-site grading easements will be required for the retaining walls and grading on the property line of
Dominion Crane and Rigging Inc. Staff believes it is not possible to construct on the property line without these
elements. If this permission is not obtained, a 5 foot minimum distance needs to be provided for safety and erosion
control measures.
While the applicant has provided a Declaration for private street maintenance on the Albemarle County property, this
agreement has not been signed and does not contain sufficient information regarding the proposed road section.
(Attachment V) A description for the type of road design expected and the sanitary sewer and water lines and
easements should consider the County’s long range plans for the property. Based on the previous comments from
staff, the easements do not include all off-site improvements nor do they address all of the grading on site.
ZMA 2011-006 and SP 2011-014
BOS December 14, 2011
Executive Summary Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Until the above listed issues are rectified, staff does not find that the expectations of the Planning Commission in
recommending approval have been fully addressed and does not recommend approval of ZMA201100006 and
SP201100014, Nursing Home with waivers for Waiver of Section 21.7 (b), Minimum Yard Requirement, Waiver of
Section 21.7 (c ), Required Buffers, Waiver of Section 32.7.9.8(c ), Required Screening, and Waiver of Section
4.12.4(a), Exceeding the maximum parking by more than 20%. Should the Board want to approve this re-zoning,
special use permit and waivers, staff recommends the following be addressed before the Board acts on this proposal:
1. Because a portion of a retaining wall will be located on the joint property line of the subject property and that of
Dominion Crane and Rigging, an indication of permission from the adjacent property owner to allow activity on
their property should be provided. Permission is also needed from Albemarle County in order to build the access
road.
2. The applicant has provided a private street maintenance agreement, but some type of provision needs to be made
regarding a description for the type of road design expected as the access road. Consideration also needs to be
made for the County’s long range plans regarding sanitary sewer and water lines on this property. The
maintenance agreement needs additional detail regarding the road design, sanitary sewer and water lines. The
agreement is also not signed.
ATTACHMENTS:
PC actions letter
Attachment I: Planning Commission staff report, dated October 18, 2011
Attachment II: Revised proffers, dated November 28, 2011
Attachment III: Revised Application Plan, dated October 28, 2011
Attachment IV: Temporary Access and Grading Easement (Galaxie, LLC) and Temporary Access and Grading Easement (Albemarle
County Service Authority)
Attachment V: Declaration (Private Street Maintenance Agreement)
Attachment VI: Waiver Findings
PC minutes
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
November 7, 2011
Justin Shimp - Shimp Engineering
P.O. Box 1113
Troy, Va 22974
RE: ZMA 201100006 and SP201100014 Albemarle Health and Rehab Center
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09100000001200
Dear Mr. Shimp:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission on Tuesday, October 18, 2011 took the following actions:
Rezoning:
The Planning Commission, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of ZMA-2011-00006, Albemarle Health
and Rehab Center with the proffers being resolved before it goes to the Board, as follows:.
to restrict the use to the nursing home facility that is being proposed plus wireless facilit ies, public
utilities and public facilities;
the application plan be amended for any off-site improvements;
to keep all of the grading on site or provide off-site easements; and
To address the circulation past the fire station.
Special Use Permit:
The Planning Commission, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of SP-2011-00014, Albemarle Health and
Rehab Center with no conditions.
Four Waivers:
The Planning Commission, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of waivers of maximum parking
allowance, minimum yard requirements, maintenance of undisturbed buffer, and screening requirements
based on affirmative findings regarding Sections 4.12.2(C), 21.7(B), 21.7(C) and 8.2(B) of the Zoning
Ordinance. The Commission requested staff to include the appropriate findings.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on a date December 14, 2011. Prior to the Board of Supervisor’s
public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing is needed in the
amount of $255.60 by November 18, 2011.
Return to exec summary
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Planning Division
cc: Mr. Bruce Hedrick - Albemarle Health Care Center, LLC
2917 Penn Forest Blvd.
Roanoke, Va 24018
Galaxie LLC
912 E High St
Charlottesville Va 22902
ZMA 2011-00006, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center, SP 2011-00014, Nursing Home
Planning Commission Public Hearing, October 18, 2011
Staff Report, Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 2011-00006, Albemarle
Health and Rehab Center and SP 2011-00014,
Albemarle Health and Rehab Center
Staff: Claudette Grant
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
October 18, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
To be Determined
Owner(s): Galaxie, LLC Applicant: Albemarle Health Care Center, LLC with
Bruce Hedrick as applicant contact. Contact: Justin
Shimp with Shimp Engineering.
Acreage: 5.38 acres Rezone from: R-1, residential zoning district to PD-
MC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial zoning
district. A special use permit is proposed under
Section 24.2.2(7) of zoning ordinance for hospitals,
nursing homes, convalescent homes uses.
TMP: TMP 09100000001200 (a portion of)
Location: 91 Galaxie Farm Lane (Attachment A)
By-right use: Residential uses at a density of 1 unit
per acre. (Attachment B)
Magisterial District: Scottsville Proffers: No
Proposal: Rezone 5.38 acres from R-1 zoning
district to PD-MC Planned Development Mixed
Commercial zoning district. A special use permit is
proposed under Section 24.2.2(7) of zoning
ordinance for hospitals, nursing homes,
convalescent homes uses. No dwellings proposed.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: None
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 4
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Transitional –
neighborhood-scale commercial uses, offices,
townhouses and apartments (6.01-34 units/acre) and
Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01-34
units/acre); supporting uses such as religious
institutions, schools, commercial, office, and service
uses. (Attachment C)
Character of Property: The property has a 2 story
house located on it. There are gentle slopes on the
property. A portion of the site is wooded.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The property
adjacent and to the north is primarily vacant and
zoned for residential use. The Monticello Fire/Rescue
Station is located to the north east of the subject
property. The property to the south is zoned
residential and is a portion of the subject parcel and
Cale Elementary school is located to the south and
west of the property. Mill Creek Drive is the proposed
access for this site. Monticello High School and a
shopping center are located nearby on Mill Creek Dr.
Factors Favorable:
1. Development of the property as a nursing home
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation.
2. This rezoning request provides a need and
service for the elderly in a portion of the County
that does not have a similar use.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposal for the site is so overdeveloped that
the design requires grading, and easements, on
the adjacent properties for retaining walls, access
road, and stormwater management.
2. No permission has been received from adjacent
property allowing permission for the necessary
grading/easements on the subject property.
Without permission this project will not be able to
be developed as proposed.
3. The applicant is requesting a waiver to provide
over 20 percent more parking on the site than
what is required by the Zoning Ordinance.
ZMA 2011-00006, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center, SP 2011-00014, Nursing Home
Planning Commission Public Hearing, October 18, 2011
Staff Report, Page 2
4. Multiple waiver requests for buffer, landscape and
minimum yard requirements (along with off-site
stormwater management and grading indicates
the proposal overdevelops the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of ZMA 2011-00006 and SP 2011-00014, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center with
waivers, based on the factors noted in this report as unfavorable.
ZMA 2011-00006, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center, SP 2011-00014, Nursing Home
Planning Commission Public Hearing, October 18, 2011
Staff Report, Page 3
STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION: October 18, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
ZMA 2011-00006, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center
SP 2011-00014, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center
With waiver requests of Section 21.7(b) of Zoning Ordinance for Minimum Yard Requirements;
Section 21.7 (c) for Required Buffers; Section 32.7.9.8 (c) for Required Screening; and Section
4.12.4(a) for Exceeding the maximum parking by more than 20%
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA 201100006 and SP201100014 Albemarle Health and Rehab Center
PROPOSAL: Rezone 5.38 acres from R-1 zoning district which allows residential uses at a density
of 1 unit per acre to PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial zoning district which allows
large-scale commercial uses; residential by special use permit at a density of 15 units/acre and
special use permit under Section 24.2.2(7) of zoning ordinance for hospitals, nursing homes,
convalescent homes uses. No dwellings proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
PROFFERS: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Transitional – neighborhood-scale commercial uses, offices,
townhouses and apartments (6.01-34 units/acre) and Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01-
34 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office, and
service uses and located in Neighborhood 4 in the Development Area.
LOCATION: 91 Galaxie Farm Lane
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09100000001200
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The proposed access for the subject property is Mill Creek Drive, which is located to the north of
this property. The property has an existing two story house on it, but is otherwise vacant and
wooded with trees and shrubs. It is located in the Development Area and surrounded by a
significant amount of development. The Monticello Fire/Rescue Station is located to the north east
of the subject property. The residual parcel proposed to be subdivided from the subject property is
vacant and zoned for residential use. It is located to the south of the site. Cale Elementary school is
located to the west of the property. Monticello High School, Tandem Friends School and a shopping
center are also located nearby on Mill Creek Dr.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant proposes to rezone 5.38 acres, which is a portion of tax map parcel 091-00-00-01200
from R-1, residential to PD-MC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial to allow a 120-bed
nursing home facility. A special use permit is requested to allow the nursing home facility. The
project will be developed in two phases; Phase 1 will include 90 beds. The applicant proposes a
single story nursing home in an approximately 57,655 square foot building. Approximately 90 full
and part-time employees will be employed, providing nursing and rehabilitative care 24 hours per
day. (See Attachment D: Application Plan)
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant states that there is a need for health care services in Albemarle County that will
continue to increase as the elderly population continues to expand. Furthermore, the applicant
states that he has applied for a certificate of public need to build the proposed 90-bed nursing home
and that its issuance validates the need for more nursing home and rehabilitative services in this
portion of the County.
ZMA 2011-00006, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center, SP 2011-00014, Nursing Home
Planning Commission Public Hearing, October 18, 2011
Staff Report, Page 4
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
There is an existing 2 story house, built in 1939 located on the property. There is no zoning history
on this property.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Land Use Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan shows this area primarily as Transitional and a smaller area is
designated Urban Density Residential in Neighborhood 4. The purpose/intent of the Transitional
designation is to provide for neighborhood-scale commercial uses, offices, townhouses and
apartments (6.01-34 units/acre). Urban Density Residential allows residential (6.01-34 units/acre);
and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office, and service uses.
Staff’s comments below address how well the proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. Then,
staff addresses how well the proposal conforms to the Neighborhood Model. Finally, staff
addresses how well the proposal meets the guidelines in the Economic Vitality Action Plan. Specific
requirements or recommendations in this section are in bold italics.
Staff believes the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this site.
The character of the surrounding neighborhood provides a variety of mixed uses. A nursing home
facility would not necessarily be out of character in this location.
The Neighborhood Model: Staff’s analysis below indicates how well the proposed development
meets the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model:
Pedestrian Orientation The application plan shows proposed sidewalks throughout
the site, and stairs are shown near the east corner of the
building. The stairs appear to be located within the sidewalk
area. It is not clear how the stairs and sidewalk will work. It is
also not clear if the entrance road from the fire/rescue station
to the site will have sidewalks? Additional information is
needed in order to know if this principle is addressed.
(recommendation?)
Neighborhood Friendly
Streets and Paths
The street is not really a street, but a travelway and parking
area. This principle is not addressed.
Interconnected Streets and
Transportation Networks
This site has one access. It appears the existing access to
the site will be closed off. Access easements will need to be
provided from adjacent property owner with regards to the
proposed road. Since this is the only access shown to the
property, it is vital that the applicant provides evidence that
easements will be provided by the adjacent property owners.
This principle needs to be addressed. No access is being
provided to adjacent properties (property to the north).
Evidence needs to be provided that shows an access
easement will be used for the intended purpose. Provide
additional access to the site. (recommendation?)
Relegated Parking The parking as shown on the plan is not relegated. The
parking is located on the periphery of the building and as
shown will be one of the first things one sees when entering
the site. A redesign of the site and layout could improve
this. (recommendation?)
Parks and Open Space This plan does not show open space for use by residents
ZMA 2011-00006, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center, SP 2011-00014, Nursing Home
Planning Commission Public Hearing, October 18, 2011
Staff Report, Page 5
and/or employees. This principle needs to be addressed.
(recommendation?)
Neighborhood Centers There is a shopping center, several schools, and the
fire/rescue station located in the vicinity with office/meeting
space. Not applicable.
Buildings and Spaces of
Human Scale
No building elevations have been provided with the rezoning.
However, one-story buildings are appropriate for this type of
facility/use. It is not clear whether the proposed building and
spaces are of human scale. The square footage of the
building takes up the entire site, requiring off-site grading,
retaining walls, and stormwater management. The proposed
site design appears to be overbuilt. Revising the size of
the building to be smaller could allow the applicant to
build on the property without needing permission for
grading and other easements from adjacent property
owners. (recommendation?)
Mixture of Uses There are no mixture of uses within this property. However,
with the proximity of other commercial and residential uses in
close proximity to this property, staff does not see this as a
major issue.
Mixture of Housing Types
and Affordability
This is not applicable, given the type of facility proposed.
Redevelopment This principle is not applicable.
Site Planning that Respects
Terrain
A fair amount of grading is proposed to the adjacent parcels,
not owned by the applicant in order to complete the proposed
development. Retaining walls are also proposed on the site.
As previously stated, the building footprint takes up most of
the property. Staff suggests minimizing the development
on the site in order to reduce the need for disturbances
on adjacent properties. Minimal disturbance to the
terrain is suggested. (recommendation)
Clear Boundaries with the
Rural Areas
This principle is not applicable.
Economic Vitality Action Plan
The primary goal of the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan is to:
Increase the County’s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by
expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local
residents. This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local
residents and existing local businesses.
The proposed Albemarle Health and Rehab Center (nursing home facility) would support the Plan
by providing additional employment, and housing and rehabilitative services for the elderly
population in the area.
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district: The following section is an excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance:
PD-MC districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment of the
zoning map to permit development of large-scale commercial areas with a broad range of
ZMA 2011-00006, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center, SP 2011-00014, Nursing Home
Planning Commission Public Hearing, October 18, 2011
Staff Report, Page 6
commercial uses under a unified planned approach. It is intended that PD-MC districts be
established on major highways in the urban area and communities in the comprehensive
plan. In recognition that such large-scale development may substantially reduce the
functional integrity and safety of public roads if permitted with unplanned access, it is
intended that multiple access to existing public roads be discouraged and that development
and access be oriented toward an internal road system having carefully planned
intersections with existing public roads.
This property is zoned R-1, which allows residential uses at a density of 1 unit per acre. Large-scale
commercial uses; and residential by special use permit at a density of 15 units/acre are allowed in
the PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial zoning district. A special use permit under
Section 24.2.2(7) of zoning ordinance for hospitals, nursing homes, and convalescent homes uses
is needed for the nursing home facility.
Staff believes with revisions, the proposal could meet the intent of the Planned Development Mixed
Commercial (PD-MC) district; however, the existing proposal leaves several unanswered questions.
The applicant has not addressed the following key elements needed in order to determine the
appropriateness of this proposal at this location:
The proposed development of the site appears to be overdeveloped as evidenced by the following:
Off-site grading and construction easements, which are needed to construct a retaining wall,
access road, and stormwater management; the applicant has not provided evidence from
the adjacent property owners giving permission to allow grading and easements on their
property.
The applicant is requesting a waiver for the minimum yard requirements, and required
buffers and landscaping.
In addition to the various site constraints previously listed, the applicant wishes to exceed
the allowed maximum parking by more than 20%.
Staff does not believe this proposal is an example of “appropriate and harmonious physical
development” or “creative design.”
Public need and justification for the change:
The proposed addition of a nursing home facility in this portion of the County would be beneficial for
the growing elderly population. A nursing home facility in this location is justifiable since there is no
other similar facility in this portion of the County. However, the proposal depicts a site that is
overbuilt. A revised design and layout of the site could make this facility more appropriate at this
location.
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources:
There is no impact on cultural or historic resources. There are no significant environmental features
impacted by this development. However the intensive development of the site is requiring other
land on other properties to be impacted. W ith appropriate scaling the level of development on this
site would avoid these impacts.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services:
Streets:
Off-site grading and access easements will be required for the grading on adjacent property owned
by Albemarle County (Cale Elementary and Monticello Fire-Rescue Station road/site). It is
recommended that the applicant obtain the appropriate agreements from adjacent property owners
to allow the improvements that would occur on their property. It is also recommended that the plan
be revised to show design of the ultimate road section in this location, from Mill Creek Drive to the
ZMA 2011-00006, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center, SP 2011-00014, Nursing Home
Planning Commission Public Hearing, October 18, 2011
Staff Report, Page 7
development entrance. This road section was shown on the Fire Station plans and prior county
planning documents.
Staff is recommending that the road be built to state standards and reserved for future dedication
upon demand of the county. The applicant has not addressed either the road design to state
standards or reservation of right of way at this time.
Staff has recommended that the applicant consider providing access to at least one other adjacent
site.
See Attachment E for VDOT comment.
Schools: No residential units are proposed, so no impacts are expected on the schools. See
Attachment F for school comments. School representatives have noted that the applicant has not
contacted the Schools and Education Department regarding the needed grading easements.
Fire and Rescue: The Monticello Fire/Rescue Station off Mill Creek Drive is the nearest station and
is located just north to this site.
Utilities:
The sanitary sewer and water lines and easements should consider the county’s long range plans
for the property.
The site will be serviced by public water and sewer. No immediate or significant service capacity
issues have been identified by Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority (RWSA). (See Attachment G )
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) comments are attached (Attachment H).
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties:
As previously mentioned in this report, this proposal anticipates grading and easements on adjacent
properties. A stormwater facility is proposed on the adjacent school property. Access onto this
property needs to be provided via the existing fire/rescue property. Permission or agreements from
the adjacent property owners have not been provided verifying that these activities will be allowed.
An additional impact anticipated on the surrounding properties is an increase in traffic once the
nursing home facility is constructed and occupied.
PROFFERS
The applicant has not provided proffers. Staff believes there are opportunities for appropriate
proffers that should be included with this rezoning application request. For example, some
permitted uses could be proffered out, site design revisions, supporting facilities, access, etc.
Waivers
Waiver of Section 21.7 (b), Minimum Yard Requirements:
The applicant is requesting a waiver of Chapter 18, Section 21.7 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance, which
requires that no portion of any structure in a commercial district be located closer than 50 feet to
any residential or rural area district.
Because the proposed building takes up most of the site, there are areas where the building will
encroach on an adjacent residential district. An area where this occurs is the adjacent residual
parcel subdivided from the subject. It is unknown what will occur with this parcel. If this waiver is to
be granted, some form of a buffer should occur in this portion of the site to provide privacy and
noise attenuation from a potential residence that could be developed on the adjacent parcel (TMP:
ZMA 2011-00006, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center, SP 2011-00014, Nursing Home
Planning Commission Public Hearing, October 18, 2011
Staff Report, Page 8
91-12). Parcel 91-1, owned by the Albemarle County Service Authority, also has a portion of
undeveloped land that is zoned R-1.
The applicant states that not having an actual residence on the adjacent parcels even though they
are located in residential districts justifies the encroachment. Staff believes that in this instance the
encroachment relates to a parcel that is vacant and could develop with a residential use.
Furthermore staff questions the intent of the adjacent residual parcel, which the applicant is
proposing to subdivide from the parcel, particularly since this portion of the property could be used
to help accommodate the proposed development and eliminate or reduce the need for off-site
grading, construction, stormwater and waivers of buffers, landscaping and yard requirements.
(See Attachment I)
Staff does not recommend approval of the waiver. Redesign of the site and/or a smaller building
size could help relieve this issue.
Waiver of Section 21.7 (C), Required Buffers:
The applicant is requesting a waiver of Chapter 18, Section 21.7 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance,
which requires the maintenance of a 20 foot undisturbed buffer between residential and commercial
properties in order to provide privacy and noise attenuation for residences from the activity of
commercial uses.
The proposed design layout of the site is such that the travelway which is right up against the
property line will encroach 15 feet in what should be a 20 foot buffer. With the exception of the
Dominion Crane and Rigging Inc. (TMP: 91-1D) site, which is zoned Light Industrial, all other
adjacent properties are zoned for residential uses, but do not actually have residential uses on
them.
The applicant justifies his request for a waiver because even though the adjacent properties are
zoned for residential uses, none of them actually have residential uses on them. Staff believes
some type of buffer or condition for a future buffer needs to be in place in case any or all of the
adjacent properties develop or redevelop with residential uses. Also, all the adjacent properties
except for the Dominion Crane and Rigging Inc. property are zoned for residential use. The
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan also designates all adjacent properties for residential uses with
the exception of a small portion of the Dominion Crane and Rigging Inc. property and the Cale
Elementary School property which are designated for Institutional uses. Fencing or landscaping
could be provided in order to provide privacy and noise attenuation for the adjacent properties. A re-
design of the layout of this site could help the fact that the applicant is overdeveloping on the parcel.
Staff does not recommend approval of the waiver. The applicant needs to provide some form of
buffer or the ability to provide a buffer should the need for a buffer become an issue.
Waiver of Section 32.7.9.8 (c ) Required Screening
The applicant is requesting a waiver of Chapter 18, Section 32.7.9.8 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance,
which requires screening of commercial uses from adjacent residential and rural areas districts. The
Zoning Ordinance requires parking lots consisting of four (4) spaces or more be screened from
adjacent residential and rural areas districts.
The applicant states that waiving the required screening will promote efficient land use, permit a
unique site to be developed with a unique use at a unique location. The applicant describes the
adjacent school and utility uses as not accessible to the public from the subject property due to
topography of the land. While this may be accurate, screening not only protects the residential and
ZMA 2011-00006, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center, SP 2011-00014, Nursing Home
Planning Commission Public Hearing, October 18, 2011
Staff Report, Page 9
rural areas from the disturbances of a commercial use, but can be advantageous from a visual
standpoint for adjacent properties.
Again staff believes that some level of screening would be helpful, particularly with adjacent
properties that could be developed. If the site design were revised and parking was relegated some
of these issues on the subject parcel could be resolved or at least the impact might not be as
extensive with regards to the adjacent parcels.
Staff cannot recommend approval of the waiver at this time. Redesign of the site and a smaller
building could help relieve some of the issues that the applicant is requesting be waived. It appears
this site is too small. Creative design of the site and building could be helpful to accommodate the
level of use proposed in this application. While staff does not believe full screening of the nursing
home use is needed, some level of screening would be beneficial given the intensive level of
development and the proximity of parking to the property lines. Appropriate conditions for the
special use permit could also help address this concern.
Waiver of Section 4.12.4(a), Exceeding the maximum parking by more than 20%
The applicant is requesting a waiver of Chapter 18, Section 4.12.4(a) of the Zoning Ordinance,
which requires that the amount of parking spaces in a parking area not exceed the number of
spaces required by more than twenty (20) percent.
The applicant feels that the proposed use will need more parking than the required amount. The
information provided in the waiver request is not clear and staff needs additional information in
order to complete the review of this waiver request; therefore, staff cannot recommend approval of
this waiver at this time. (See Attachment J)
Staff Comment on SP 2011-00014-Request for Nursing Home Facility Use in the PD-
MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial District
Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
No substantial detriment to adjacent properties is anticipated from the requested nursing
home and rehabilitative services use. However, the plan shows off-site improvements and
no agreements have been secured from any adjacent owners for this off-site work.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The character of the zoning district could change and become more commercial in character than
the residential intent of the R-1, residential district. However, staff does not believe the proposed
use will be detrimental to the area, since there is a true mix of uses in the vicinity already, and the
proposed use and zoning district is generally in keeping with the surrounding character of the
neighborhood.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
The PD-MC district has characteristics that tend to be more large scale commercial in
nature than residential. However, nursing home facility uses are permitted in the PD-MC
district with a special use permit. Although at a smaller scale, the proposed nursing home
facility is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
This area contains a wide mix of existing uses; some public facilities, small scale strip
commercial development and some residential uses. Nursing home uses are allowed in the
ZMA 2011-00006, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center, SP 2011-00014, Nursing Home
Planning Commission Public Hearing, October 18, 2011
Staff Report, Page 10
PD-MC district with a special use permit. With the appropriate buffers, the nursing home
use seems appropriate with the permitted by right uses in the district.
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance?
Section 5.1.13 Rest Home, Nursing Home, Convalescent Home, Orphanage is applicable
to the proposed nursing home use and each regulation is addressed below
a. Such uses shall be provided in locations where the physical surroundings are
compatible to the particular area;
The proposed use is located in the Development Area.
b. No such use shall be established in any area either by right or by special use
permit until the Albemarle County fire official has determined that adequate
fire protection is available to such use;
The proposed use is located adjacent to the Monticello fire/rescue facility.
c. Generally such uses should be located in proximity to or in short response
time to emergency medical and fire protection facilities. Uses for the elderly
and handicapped should be convenient to shopping, social, education and
cultural uses;
The proposed use is adjacent to the Monticello fire/rescue station. Across Mill Creek
Drive, which is the access road for the proposed site, is a shopping center.
Downtown Charlottesville, PVCC, Monticello High school, Cale Elementary school,
and Tandem Friends School are all located fairly nearby.
d. No such use shall be operated without approval and, where appropriate,
licensing by such agencies as the Virginia Department of Welfare, the Virginia
Department of Health, and other such appropriate local, state and federal
agencies as may have authority in a particular case.
The appropriate approval and licensing will be completed by the applicant.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is
approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through the
special use permit process which assures that the proposed use is appropriate in the
location requested. There are no safety concerns with the proposed nursing home use.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. Development of the property as a nursing home is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan designation.
2. This rezoning request provides a need and service for the elderly in a portion of the
County that does not have a similar use.
Staff has found the following factors unfavorable to this rezoning:
1. The proposal for the site is so overdeveloped that the design requires grading, and
easements, on the adjacent properties for retaining walls, access road, and stormwater
management.
ZMA 2011-00006, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center, SP 2011-00014, Nursing Home
Planning Commission Public Hearing, October 18, 2011
Staff Report, Page 11
2. No permission has been received from adjacent property allowing permission for the
necessary grading/easements on the subject property. Without permission this project
will not be able to be developed as proposed.
3. The applicant is requesting a waiver to provide over 20 percent more parking on the site
than what is required by the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Multiple waiver requests for buffer, landscape and minimum yard requirements (along
with off-site stormwater management and grading indicates the proposal overdevelops
the site.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes that a nursing home facility proposal could be made in this location that would be in
keeping with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. However, based on the factors noted as
unfavorable in this report, staff recommends denial of this rezoning.
Staff recommends denial of SP 2011-00014, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center based on the
factors noted as unfavorable in this report.
Should the Commission determine that the nursing home use is appropriate; the items listed below
should be addressed prior to approval of the zoning map amendment and special use permit:
1. The applicant is showing too much development for the site; the square footage of the
building should be reduced so that the building and sufficient parking meet ordinance
requirements. If any easements are necessary from adjacent property owners, the
applicant should show that the adjacent owners are willing to grant these easement(s) in
order to demonstrate that he will have a developable project.
2. Details regarding the road from the fire/rescue station to the direct entrance to the site need
to be worked out with the County. Will there be a reservation for future dedication and built
to state standards? If this is a private road a maintenance agreement will need to be worked
out.
3. Provide information from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation confirming that this project is
not visible from Monticello.
4. Provide clarification regarding the parking waiver request.
5. Based on existing facilities similar to the proposed use, JAUNT would expect to make
frequent trips to serve residents. JAUNT’s preference is to have a designated building
entrance for JAUNT to use, with a covered (11 ft min vertical clearance), accessible bus
loading area. Please provide this detail on your plan.
WAIVERS
Staff recommends denial of waiver requests of Section 21.7(b) of Zoning Ordinance for Minimum
Yard Requirements; Section 21.7 (C) for Required Buffers; Section 32.7.9.8 (c ) for Required
Screening; and Section 4.12.4(a for Exceeding the maximum parking by more than 20% based on
the factors noted as unfavorable in this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Zoning Map Amendment:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map
amendment with waivers:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2011-00006, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center with
waivers.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map
amendment with waivers:
ZMA 2011-00006, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center, SP 2011-00014, Nursing Home
Planning Commission Public Hearing, October 18, 2011
Staff Report, Page 12
Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2011-00006, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center with
waivers, based on the recommendation of staff. Should a commissioner motion to recommend
denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Special Use Permit:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit
with waivers:
Move to recommend approval of SP 2011-00014, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center with
waivers.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit with
waivers:
Move to recommend denial of SP 2011-00014, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center with
waivers based on the recommendation of staff. Should a commissioner motion to recommend
denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
ATTACHMENT A: Location Map
ATTACHMENT B: Zoning Map
ATTACHMENT C: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map
ATTACHMENT D: Application Plan, dated June 20, 2011
ATTACHMENT E: Electronic Mail from Joel DeNunzio, dated July 28, 2011
ATTACHMENT F: Memo from Joseph P. Letteri, dated July 14, 2011
ATTACHMENT G: Electronic Mail from Victoria Fort, dated July 14, 2011
ATTACHMENT H: Electronic Mail from Alex Morrison, dated July 15, 2011
ATTACHMENT I: Letter and waiver requests from Justin Shimp, dated August 30, 2011
ATTACHMENT J: Memo from Francis MacCall, dated September 30, 2011
Return to exec summary
SCOTTSVILLE RDAVON STREET EXT5 T H ST}ÿ20
§¨¦64
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, September 2011.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2009 Commonwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2010
0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
ZMA 2011-006 / SP 2011-014Albemarle Health and Rehabilitation Center
Roads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcel of Interest
City Boundary
91-12
±
City ofCharlottesville
ATTACHMENT A
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________GAL
A
X
IE FA
R
M
L
N
M
I
L
L
CREEK
D
R
AVON STREET EXTAVINITY LOOP
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, September 2011.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2009 Commonwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2010
0 100 20050Feet
ZMA 2011-006 / SP 2011-014Albemarle Health and Rehabilitation Center
Roads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcel of Interest
91-12
±____Entrance Corridors
Zoning Overlay
Natural Resource Extraction Overlay
Rural Areas
Village Residential
R1 Residential
R2 Residential
R4 Residential
R6 Residential
R10 Residential
R15 Residential
Planned Unit Development
Planned Residential Development
Neighborhood Model District
Monticello Historic District
C1 Commercial
Commercial Office
Highway Commercial
Planned Development Shopping Center
Planned Development Mixed Commercial
Downtown Crozet District
Light Industry
Heavy Industry
Planned Development Industrial Park
Town of Scottsville
ATTACHMENT B
GAL
A
X
IE FA
R
M
L
N
M
I
L
L
CREEK
D
R
AVON STREET EXTAVINITY LOOP
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, September 2011.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2009 Commonwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2010
0 100 20050Feet
ZMA 2011-006 / SP 2011-014Albemarle Health and Rehabilitation Center
Roads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcel of Interest
91-12
±
Compplan Landuse
Community Service
Industrial Service
Institutional
Neighborhood Density
Neighborhood Service
Office Service
Office/Regional Service
Parks and Greenways
Regional Service
Town/Village Center
Transitional
Urban Density
Rural Area
See Development Area Text
Master Plan Areas
ATTACHMENT C
SP-2011-00014, ZMA-2011-00006 Albemarle Health and Rehabilitation Center
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [Joel.
DeNunzio@VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 2:19 PM
To: Claudette Grant
Subject: SP-2011-00014, ZMA-2011-00006
Albemarle Health and Rehabilitation Center
SP-2011-00014, ZMA-2011-00006 Albemarle Health and Rehabilitation Center
Claudette,
I have reviewed the referenced application and have no comments.
Thanks
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
VDOT Culpeper
Land Development
434-589-5871
joel.denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov
file:////Cob-dts01/CityViewLnk/Docs/2011/ZMA/ZMA201100...-11-6_&_SP-11-14_Albemarle_Rehab_Attach_E_10-18-11.htm10/13/2011 11:06:58 AM
ATTACHMENT E
SP201100014 & ZMA201100006 Albemarle Health and Rehabilitation Center
From: Victoria Fort [vfort@rivanna.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 12:37 PM
To: Claudette Grant
Subject: SP201100014 & ZMA201100006
Albemarle Health and Rehabilitation Center
Claudette,
RWSA has reviewed applications SP201100014 & ZMA201100006 for the Albemarle Health and Rehabilitation Center. Below is
a completed copy of the form that was provided to us by Elaine Echols for SP and ZMA Applications. Please let me know if you
have any questions or concerns.
Best,
Victoria
To be filled out by RWSA for ZMA's and SP's
SP201100014 & ZMA201100006
1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known
2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification Yes X No
3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known
4. "Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known
Victoria Fort, EIT
Civil Engineer
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone: 434.977.2970 ext. 205
Fax: 434.295.1146
file:////Cob-dts01/CityViewLnk/Docs/2011/ZMA/ZMA201100...-11-6_&_SP-11-14_Albemarle_Rehab_Attach_G_10-18-11.htm10/13/2011 11:07:23 AM
ATTACHMENT G
file:////Cob-dts01/CityViewLnk/Docs/2011/ZMA/ZMA201100006%20Albe...1100006%20Albemarle%20Health%20and%20Rehabilitation%20Center.txt
From: Alex Morrison [amorrison@serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 2:51 PM
To: Claudette Grant
Subject: SP201100014 & ZMA201100006: Albemarle Health and Rehabilitation
Center
Attachments: image001.jpg; SP201100014 & ZMA201100006 - Albemarle Health and
Rehabilitation Center.doc; SP201100014 & ZMA201100006 - Albemarle
Health and Rehabilitation Center.pdf
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Dear Claudette :
The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has received and reviewed the
plan/document/project described above. Attached is the ACSA comment sheet with
any relevant comments and concerns we may have regarding the
plan/document/project.
Please feel free to contact me at the number below with any comments or
questions you may have about the attached ACSA comment sheet.
Thank you.
file:////Cob-dts01/CityViewLnk/Docs/2011/ZMA/ZMA201...emarle%20Health%20and%20Rehabilitation%20Center.txt (1 of 2)10/12/2011 12:02:52 PM
ATTACHMENT H
file:////Cob-dts01/CityViewLnk/Docs/2011/ZMA/ZMA201100006%20Albe...1100006%20Albemarle%20Health%20and%20Rehabilitation%20Center.txt
Alexander J. Morrison
Civil Engineer
Description: Description: Description: Description:
C:\Users\lbreeden\Documents\Logo\ACSA logos\24 bit Logo.BMP
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Office: (434) 977 - 4511 EXT: 116
Cell: (434) 531 - 7434
This email may contain confidential information that should not be shared with
anyone other than its intended recipient(s).
file:////Cob-dts01/CityViewLnk/Docs/2011/ZMA/ZMA201...emarle%20Health%20and%20Rehabilitation%20Center.txt (2 of 2)10/12/2011 12:02:52 PM
ATTACHMENT H
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 18, 2011
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA-2011-00006 Albemarle Health and Rehab Center
PROPOSAL: Rezone 5.38 acres from R-1 zoning district which allows residential uses at a density of 1 unit per acre to PD -
MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial zoning district which allows large -scale commercial uses; residential by
special use permit at a density of 15 units/acre and special use permit under Section 24.2.2(7) of zoning ordinance for
hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent homes uses. No dwellings proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
PROFFERS: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Transitional – neighborhood-scale commercial uses, offices, townhouses and apartments (6.01 -
34 units/acre) and Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01-34 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools, commercial, office, and service uses and located in Neighborhood 4 in the Development Area.
LOCATION: 91 Galaxie Farm Lane
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09100000001200
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
AND
SP-2011-00014 Albemarle Health and Rehab Center
PROPOSAL: Rezone 5.38 acres from R-1 zoning district which allows residential uses at a density of 1 unit per acre to PD -
MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial zoning district which allows large-scale commercial uses; residential by
special use permit at a density of 15 units/acre and special use permit under Section 24.2.2(7) of zoning ordinance for
hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent homes uses. No dwellings proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
PROFFERS: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Transitional – neighborhood-scale commercial uses, offices, townhouses and apartments (6.01 -
34 units/acre) and Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01-34 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools, commercial, office, and service uses and located in Neighborhood 4 in the Development Area.
LOCATION: 91 Galaxie Farm Lane
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09100000001200
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
(Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request.
Purpose of Hearing:
To rezone 5.38 acres from R -1 zoning district to PDMC Planned Development Mixed Commercial zoning district and to
request approval of a special use permit to allow a nursing home facility. Staff described the proposed application plan and
the zoning of the site.
There are several outstanding issues as noted in the staff report. Some of the outstanding things are easements and proffer s.
The applicant has requested four waivers. With these outstanding issues staff conclusion at this time is that additional
information is needed to fully evaluate the waiver requests. Section 8.2 can be referred to for findings regarding the waive rs.
For clarification the applicant is requesting a rezoning in a planned district with a specific plan. However, once this is
rezoned a Planned Development Mixed Commercial unless specific uses are proffered out any of the permitted uses allowed
in this district could potentially go on this site. There may be site restrictions that make certain uses more difficult to work on
the site. But there are many possible uses that are allowed in the PD-MC District. One of the primary concerns is not so
much the proposed use on this site, but the fact that they have a plan sho wing the need for permission and agreements from
adjacent property owners for grading and easements and other issues as noted in the staff report. Staff has not seen any
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
2
permission to allow this from the neighboring properties. This is among many other concerns that are described in the staff
report.
Factors Favorable
• Development of the property as a nursing home is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation.
• This rezoning request provides a need and service for the elderly in a portion of the C ounty that does not have a
similar use.
Factors Unfavorable
• The proposal for the site is so overdeveloped that the design requires grading, and easements, on the adjacent
properties for retaining walls, access road, and storm water management.
• No permission has been received from adjacent property allowing permission for the necessary grading/easements
on the subject property. Without permission this project will not be able to be developed as proposed.
• The applicant is requesting a waiver to provide over 20 percent more parking on the site than what is required by the
Zoning Ordinance.
• Multiple waiver requests for buffer, landscape and minimum yard requirements (along with off -site storm water
management and grading indicates the proposal overdevelops the site.
Staff’s Recommendation
• Staff recommends denial of ZMA 2011-00006, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center based on the factors noted in
the staff report as unfavorable.
• Staff recommends denial of SP2011-00014, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center based on the factors noted in the
staff report as unfavorable.
• Staff recommends denial of waivers, based on the factors noted in the staff report as unfavorable.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commissi on.
Bruce Hedrick, Vice President of Development for Medical Facilities of America, said the company was a second generation
family owned business proudly celebrating its 40 th year of serving the elderly in Virginia. He made the following
presentation.
They currently have 41 centers in Virginia and North Carolina. Locally they have the Charlottesville Health and
Rehabilitation located on Rio Road. They purchased that facility three years ago and this past spring finished a 1.5
million dollar renovation to the center. Since their inception they realized that the greatest assets they have are their
people. To be successful tomorrow they need to invest today in terms of their professional development, work place
enhancements, as well as competitive wages and benefits. They come from a family culture of values that is doing
the right thing at the right time the right way and for the right reasons. They focus their attention on customer
service excellence, which is not just caring for their patients but more importantly caring about them. They are
leaders in their industry in terms of purposeful programming for their patients, cutting edge technology and
equipment, as well as culture changing building environment. They are active community members facilit ating
training and research opportunities in their facilities. As a for profit entity they are contributing to the local tax base
in term of current as well as future services. They donate locally to area charities.
The current age of their patients is approximately 82 or 83 years old. Some folks are there for a short term stay after
a hospital surgery or illness. The majority are long term residents. Overall, 70 percent of their patients will be
Medicaid or indigent care. Those are the retired teachers and fire fighters that unfortunately outlive their savings
and through our taxes we take care of those folks. The state, however, does not reimburse them for the total cost of
their care. But it is part of their principles and mission to care for t hose that are less unfortunate. Besides providing
quality care of loved ones to families and friends, one of the most important things they can do is provide accessible
care. They are all very busy in our lives and to have a facility that is close and eas y to get to ensures the continuity
of support that their patients need both in their short term recoveries as well as their long term care stays. It is also
important that they are part of that continuing of care services in being approximate to the other health care
providers in our community.
They have a recommendation from the State Department of Certificate of Public Need for a nursing home in
southern Albemarle County. The reasons for this are many including the last time that there were new beds a dded to
Albemarle County was in 1984. The 70 plus population in Albemarle County is going to increase 33 percent
between 2010 and 2020. There is a high occupancy in the existing facilities that limits access to care. Their
building will be completely dually certified providing equal access for all payer sources. One of the most important
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
3
criteria in selecting and approving their application was their location. Currently there are no nursing homes south
of Interstate 64. They like the accessibility they had to health care, but more importantly the community at large.
They are closed to Piedmont Community College, which is an opportunity for clinical rotations for their aspiring
nurses as well as future employers for their center. They are fortunate to have three schools in close proximity that
helps facilitate their intergenerational programs.
He would not go into the floor plan unless asked to do so. He pointed out there are actually four different
neighborhoods as part of their facility. Each one of those 30 bed neighborhoods has their own dining area and
activity area. Their certificate for need is for 90 beds. So they would not be developing one of those
neighborhoods as part of this first phase. One of the critical key points is that all of their patients will have a private
bedroom. That is unique in this area and in the state. There are many merits for this project. It is compatible and
complimentary to the existing nonresidential uses. It is an efficient use of the growth area land for job creation.
They will create 90 permanent jobs as well as over 200 construction related jobs. They have broad support from
many associations. They have a recommendation from the state to build a new nursing home.
Justin Shimp, with Shimp Engineering, said he was present to answer questions relating to site related items brought up in the
staff report.
There are four waivers with one for parking and three related to basically the same thing in that all the properties
around them are zoned R-1. It was zoned in 1980 as part of the county wide zoning. Surrounding properties include
Cale Elementary, Albemarle Service Authority, the rescue, county owned property thought about for a potential
school and several houses. They are basically building a light commercial use among a bunch of largely
institutional, industrial and utilities. As a matter of technicality because they have these residential properties there
are certain buffers required to those in the zoning ordinance. They feel as those uses are much more institutional or
commercial in nature those buffers, a screening fence with a 20’ setback are not appropriate between them and really
are not necessary. The waivers are there as a technicality of the zoning because of where they are rather t han such a
function of the development of the site. If the surrounding property was zoned commercial as it could be for these
uses, then they would not have these waivers at all.
The issue of the uses was brought up. That was his mistake since he thou ght the application plan said nursing care
facility. That was what they were going to build. That has always been the intention and nothing else has been
considered. They were happy to proffer out every other use to make sure that is clear.
As far as the easements he asked to put a little different perspective on this. They have one easement ready to sign
for the Service Authority, which is the lot in front of their property with the tank. It is sitting on the executive’s desk
for signature. The other two easements, which includes the main one along the school. That is not a necessary
easement. They have talked to the school and tried to work with them as far as storm water and grading. They are
still working on that and don’t know if they will get it. The fact is they are not actually showing grading there other
than the storm water pond. They have an on- site alternative that he supplied to the county just today to do
underground storage with bio-filters on site. They have crunched the calculation and it can be done. That is nothing
that limits the development of their parcel. It just has to be done a little differently, but still is in conformance with
the ordinance.
The other discussion that came out with some of the Commission members was the parking. From the standpoint of
Monticello he met with the Monticello’s Associate Director. This site could not be seen from Monticello. There is
a little bus loading area in front for JAUNT accessibility. The parking waiver requested was a func tion of a couple
of things. They find that the zoning ordinance requires way too little parking for a nursing care facility. As Mr.
Hedrick indicated they operate 41 facilities and are familiar with the parking needs for a facility. Based on that is
the generation of the 90 parking spaces proposed. On average they have 98 spaces for a 120 -bed facility for their
other homes throughout the state. One issue that came up was a question about the parking, which is mixed with
some in the front and rear, and could that be done differently. The answer is yes. They looked at adjusting it. He
would view this as in general accord of the application plan that is submitted. If the Commission feels it is
important to have the parking around to the front rather t han in the rear they would not object to a condition of
approval that required some percentage or number in the front if that was deemed to be appropriate.
The last issue is the access road and sort of the origin of where that comes from. He referred to t he approved plan
for the fire and rescue station. Around ten years ago it was conceived that a road would access the county owned
property for a potential school. It was called the middle school road. He did not know if that was still on the table.
They have proposed to take the center line alignment of that and follow it with their access road. For now it would
just be an access road going up to their property. They would do the grading, but build more of a travel way than a
true road to access it. T hat is more than adequate for their small parking and small traffic that they produce from off
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
4
site. Basically, they are starting work that the county conceived. He talked with the Facilities Development
Director about this and they did not have an objection. That is all of the items he had to discuss.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Lafferty asked how they are going to handle the run off going towards the fire station.
Mr. Shimp replied they would need to have some sort of storm sewer system along that road that would tie in the storm sewer
system that is down there. At the fire station there is a ravine off to the side where there is a big pipe that goes under M ill
Creek and on. That will all be addressed. Chapter 7 of the zoni ng ordinance requires the storm water and they will have to
comply with all of those things.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the property is under contract with the applicant and if so have permission from the owner to proceed.
Mr. Shimp replied that was correct and they had permission with the owner to proceed.
Mr. Zobrist asked what happens if the property gets rezoned and the applicant does not buy the property.
Mr. Benish replied that if the rezoning is approved it becomes the zoning on that property. The a pplication is valid.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the applicant can offer proffers. The applicant has suggested they will proffer away all uses except fo r
hospital.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the actual property owner would have to sign the proffers. A contract p urchaser with the consent of
the owner can be an applicant for a rezoning.
Mr. Benish noted they have a lawful application for the property. What staff has no evidence of is what is proposed on the
plan that those adjacent property owners are agreeable to those improvements.
Mr. Zobrist said they can make it a condition of the approval that they get the neighbors consent before they do anything.
Mr. Benish replied they can’t condition a rezoning request. They have to review the rezoning based on the i nformation
before them and act on that zoning. They can propose proffers that will address some of the issues that they have brought
forth. Staff would presume eventually they were going to proffer the application plan. If they are interested in a plan of
development for the site, then that is usually proffered as part of that plan.
Mr. Zobrist said the applicant just has not gotten that done yet.
Mr. Shimp pointed out that the special use permit application could be conditioned.
Mr. Zobrist invited other questions.
Ms. Monteith noted she did not understand how if they don’t have approval from your neighbors how the Commission was
supposed to act on this. If the proposal can’t be built without approval from the neighbors and they don’t have it, then there
is a problem.
Mr. Shimp replied that the approval they need is from the county because they have to go through the county property with
the road. The Planning Commission represents the County of Albemarle. The other entities they don’t need. They would like
to have them, but they can develop without their consent. The Service Authority is ready to sign the documents. The grading
plan does not show any grading on the school property. It was envisioned there as a matter of making it easier to constr uct.
It is not required to build the site the way they have it on the application plan.
Ms. Monteith asked staff to clarify.
Ms. Grant replied based on the plan before the Commission they would need approval from the neighboring properties. The
plan shows grading and easements on the adjacent properties.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
5
Mr. Kamptner noted the Commission can at least make a recommendation one way or the other without all of these issues
being tied down. Part of the recommendation could be that the Board not approved the project unless these conditions are
resolved by the time the Board takes action.
Mr. Franco asked Mr. Shimp what about the area along the property line they share with the adjacent residential units.
Mr. Shimp replied that there is an out parce l proposed between their property and the two houses. They are proposing to
purchase a portion of the property excluding the out parcel.
Mr. Franco asked if they are grading on that out parcel.
Mr. Shimp replied that they show a temporary grading easeme nt on that parcel as well.
Mr. Franco asked of the waivers requested for yard disturbance and screening do any of those apply to that property line.
Mr. Shimp replied that they would as it sits today. That remains zoned R -1. So if it was approved and they submit the site
plan without the waiver it would be a 20’ buffer from that line.
Mr. Franco asked from the out parcel line or from the adjacent property.
Mr. Shimp replied from the out parcel line unless the waiver is approved.
Mr. Franco asked if that buffer is left whether it is in his parcel or the out parcel to this adjacent property.
Mr. Shimp replied that it is left. There is a 20’ strip between their property line and the adjoining single -family home on the
out parcel.
Steve Blaine, attorney for the applicant, said they understand that the applicant would have to sign any proffers. That issue of
the uses really just came up the last day or so. They understand the owner has to join in that proffer as he did in the
application. The status of the easements is those are all still in negotiation, but they would accept a condition of the
Commission’s recommendation that those be put in place by the time there is final action. The proffers have to be reviewed
by Greg and signed before they go to the Board.
Mr. Benish noted that there are general public uses that they generally don’t proffer out.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the general ones would be the class of public uses and the class of public utilities. There may be a
couple of others staff routinely keeps in.
Mr. Blaine asked if they keep cell towers in.
Mr. Benish replied that he was not sure.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the public uses are compatible with being next to an elementary school.
Mr. Benish replied that public uses are subject to a compliance with a Comprehensive Plan review, which substitutes for a
legislative review. The Planning Commission determines whether the public use is appropriate for that site. There is another
review process. In terms of the proposed use and the l and use designation there may be other uses that may be appropriate as
well because it is shown as transitional use, which did call for some limited activities. So staff will look at other uses t hat
may be consistent with the comp plan that may be appropriate for the site. It does allow for Neighborhood Service type of
development as well.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out that this came up because she met with the applicant Friday and this came up. She contacted Ms.
Grant because she was not sure what the answer was. Ms. Grant said there were all these other uses that could go there. She
personally felt if they were going to adopt this to give them this change in the zoning that it be specific. The site is no t
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
6
terribly accessible because they were only building an access way and not a true road into this site. There is a huge list of
uses.
Mr. Zobrist noted that right now the applicant was proffering it all. It was staff suggesting the other uses. He was not go ing
to argue with the applicant.
Mr. Franco felt there were some uses on the site they ought to eliminate. There were ones that just don’t make sense.
However, he did not think they should be so restrictive. This is a rezoning and not a special use permit. The special use
permit will allow that one use. He did not think they should limit every other use in that category. He thought some of the
public utilities and some of those others would make sense and should not require a rezoning to allow those in the future.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the
matter brought before the Planning Commission for action.
Ms. Porterfield said she had some specific questions for Mr. Shimp due to her medical background and as the Planning
Commissioner for the district this is in. Some of what the applicant presented today came out of her meeting with them.
- Mr. Shimp showed another design which brought the parking forward. She thought for the use presented that is an
important thing. People park on the back side visiting during snow have difficulty getting around the building. She
thinks it was good they figured out a way to bring the parking forward. She hoped they would be able to allow them
to really work on that plan.
- She also mentioned to Mr. Shimp with the waiver being requested that one of the abutting neighbors has the
document and all it needs is a signature. That neighbor has agreed to it.
- The other ones he did present as far as the run off onto the elementary school was they could do it without the
easement. Their point that she understands is that if these were industrial uses around it these would not be required.
- What he has around the site happens to be primarily that type of thing and residentially zoned. So these waivers are
being required. The parking is their business model and they feel that 98 spaces are required. Obviously where this
is located there is no street parking available. There is no other parking available. Certainly they want to make sure
they have enough parking. If they can work it into the site, that is fine.
- Her biggest problem is that it is a little bit overdeveloped. She would prefer if it was 90 beds because they could
make it fit on the site better. The 120 bed facility is pushing the envelope. That is causing things to spill over. That
is the applicant’s business model, but they are not going to build it all at the beginning. She agreed with staff that
the site is overdeveloped and suggested that they pull it in a little bit. She was concerned with the travel way
accessibility instead of a real road. She suggested that it be built to a road standard because it would be better for
everybody.
Mr. Smith agreed with most of what Ms. Porterfield said and that i t is overbuilt. He asked Mr. Shimp about the access road
and if the county is not requiring them to build that to a higher standard than just a driveway. He questioned if the coun ty
was going to let them get away with that.
Mr. Shimp replied that was for the Commission and the Board of Supervisors to consider. His discussion with the county
folks has been that they need some access here to their property, but they don’t know what or when anything will be done
with it. They have very low traffic and can easily accommodate their folks on a 20’ to 24’ wide road with a shoulder. They
will grade that in and pave their 20’ to 24’. When the time comes that the county or the developer wants to build something
else in that area a discussion would come up again about the traffic impacts and whose fair share it is to pay for what. He
pointed out that they would be cutting in the road per a state road grade. So they were doing the cutting to the rock behind
the fire station. They are getting up to that spot a t no expense to the county. If that became a school the traffic in and out of
that would be 10 to 20 times what they would have. That is certainly something for them to discuss and consider. Their
perspective is they will go in and do their share. If someone comes in later, they will make it as easy as they can for them to
continue.
Mr. Smith said the road coming in actually is an exit for the trucks going out. So they were going against the flow of traffi c
where they go around that curve. It is reall y one way for the fire trucks now. In other words they enter the first road and
loop around.
Mr. Shimp replied that was correct.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
7
Mr. Smith said when that road was built they talked about if and when there was ever a road of if a school was built up ther e
that they would widen that entrance road. Right now when they come out of there they would be going against fire trucks
going only one way. That is just a question.
Mr. Shimp replied that having been out there that there is a lot of graded room off to the side. That is something he did not
see.
Mr. Smith said it was graded for future road.
Mr. Shimp said that when they get to the final design details now that he said this it would make perfect sense for them to
shift over a little bit in there to give them some more room. That is something that could get worked out with the county
engineer when the time came. He was sure that could be accommodated.
Mr. Smith questioned the parking. He liked it all the way around. He asked if they would be able to access the back of the
building with the visitors coming in.
Mr. Shimp replied that there are the two access points. He turned the question over to Mr. Hedrick.
Mr. Hedrick said the building was built as a single story building. From a safety perspect ive a single story building is the
best. In terms of safety and evacuation they wanted a single story building. The main entrance is at the front of the buil ding.
There are two rear entrances that are key padded, which allows for limited access with a code. Family members would have
the code or whatever type of card. Regarding the 90 bed versus the 120 bed facility concern, their intentions are to bring
additional beds to Albemarle County that is needed. He planned to and ultimately will build 120 be ds there. To limit it to 90
beds would make it difficult long term. The footprint is the way it is because they were going to be able to provide private
rooms everyone.
Mr. Franco asked if the road issue was only the width.
Ms. Monteith asked if the road has been designed to accommodate all type of vehicles including JAUNT vehicles with grades
included.
Mr. Benish replied that the application plan has not addressed the JAUNT issue. There is a particular type of entrance they
are interested in. It does accommodate JAUNT, but they have not addressed JAUNT’s recommendations.
Mr. Zobrist supported giving as many rooms as possible for Medicaid facilities. He was not concerned about overbuilding of
the space. He supported private rooms being available for all individuals. It was similar to affordable housing and he felt
they should approve it.
Mr. Morris agreed and thanked the applicant for bringing the proposal to Albemarle County.
Mr. Lafferty voiced concern about the document before them was not what they had been talking about. It almost seems
premature. It is a great idea, but there are too many questions. He thought that was the response that the county had.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the applicant was willing to defer to close all the loo pholes and then come back.
Mr. Zobrist questioned what they would get out of a deferral.
Ms. Porterfield said they would have a complete plan for consideration. The complete plan could be reviewed and then sent
on for Board review.
Mr. Franco said he was on the fence or border line about the deferral. He questioned if the 20’ buffer was preserved. It
appears that the 20’ buffer is left undisturbed and that 50’ yard is provided as well. He thinks it is okay in there. He wo uld
prefer seeing what the proffers would be as far as what is proffered in or out before moving forward. However, he did not
feel real strongly about it. It is something the applicant can address before it goes to the Board.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
8
Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Franco if they could craft t he language so it was acceptable enough that by the time it got to the
Board that those questions would be answered. The basic intent and plan is overbuilt, but he felt they could craft the
language.
Mr. Franco suggested moving the request forward as long as there was a certainty that the Commission was in support of the
plan basically as is with the refinements they are talking about. They need to delineate the deficiencies them, but don’t h ave
to craft a thing that this is what they have to do. Wha t he did not know is if time is of the essence and things like that. It
could possibly add two weeks to their schedule, but they are going to have to address these easements sooner or later.
Mr. Zobrist said it would take more time if the applicant had t o come back to the Commission.
Mr. Benish noted that the schedule would depend on how much time it would take the applicant to make the changes to the
application plan and bring it back. It would be two to four weeks to get it scheduled. He felt that th ey were looking for very
basic proffers that have to be reviewed by the county attorney that could be finalized before the Board meeting. Those are
straight forward. What their expectations are on the site they are either going to have to condition them as part of the special
use permit and be very specific about what those expectations are and give the applicant general guidance such that they can
adjust the application plan. Staff can then ensure that those issues are addressed.
Ms. Monteith said the other thing is the agreement from the neighbors. She did not understand it completely.
Mr. Benish replied that staff has not seen what the ultimate storm water detention method is. All staff can advise the
Commission on is the plan they had to review. They assume what the applicant is saying is true and there are other
alternative for those locations. But, that is something staff will have to follow up with the applicant and the adjacent pro perty
owners if none on-site improvements are still called for in that plan.
Mr. Franco noted that there are three actions to take that they need to craft an action on.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that it was the applicant’s job and they should defer to take care of it.
Mr. Lafferty agreed with Ms. Porterfield.
Mr. Blaine agreed that it was the applicant’s job and that they were prepared to address the things that they have heard
tonight. They propose the Commission take action in recommending approval subject to the easements being in place, which
they know they have to do. It is a legal matter. The urgency is that the applicant does not own the property and has it under
contract. They cannot indefinitely postpone. They have been in the process for six months. The urgency of the delivery of
the care is also a consideration. It is not like another residential development where they are being told they have an
oversupply of residential. This is an urgent need. They have a financial need for urgencies. These are all issues that can be
received by the Board in their recommendations. He was prepared to help them with that because he felt it was their
responsibility.
Ms. Porterfield noted that there was a lot of information needed and should be deferred.
Mr. Blaine questioned when the information was needed and what date it could come back.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the signed document was needed before it goes to the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg noted there is a resubmittal schedule. He suggested the Commission defer to a date certain, but give enough
time that the applicant can resubmit and then get the staff review necessary so the report can be done and come to the
Commission. There are two December dates.
Mr. Benish noted the next submittal was November 7th with the Commission hearing date on January 10th. December 13th
deadline was yesterday.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that it was the applicant’s choice whether to defer or not. He suggested not deferring any earlier
than the December 13th hearing date.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
9
Mr. Zobrist asked if the applicant was considering a deferring, and Mr. Blaine replied that they were considering one.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out the applicant needed to work out the proffers.
Mr. Kamptner said the understanding is that they do not have to have the owner’s signature on those proffers by the time it
comes back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Zobrist noted that was number 1, but it has to be done by the time it goes to the Board. Number 2 is that they need an
engineering plan that meets what the applicant has represented to them tonight.
Mr. Blaine asked if there was consensus for the front loading parking because he heard some differences.
Mr. Lafferty suggested that the applicant go with their best judgment there for up to 120 beds.
Mr. Zobrist asked what else they need. He noted they need the waivers.
Ms. Monteith said once they have the plan they are asking them to prepare that they would need to assess how it impacts
adjacent neighbors. If anything is impacting them directly on their property, they need to have an understanding t hat they
have accepted that.
Mr. Blaine noted it would require a signed easement.
Mr. Franco asked that they bring it back so there is no grading off site or bring the easements with them. On the site desig n
side the biggest question he would like to see worked out is the circulation past the fire station. He thought they said there
was plenty room to potentially expand there. He suggested they have a definite proposal for that area on what is going to
happen.
Mr. Blaine said that is only five things.
Mr. Franco said that with the modifications, they were comfortable with the parking, the yard, and the disturbance of the
buffer and the lack of screening to the adjacent properties. He asked if there were no changes that they were requiring there .
Mr. Zobrist said not from his standpoint and Mr. Morris agreed.
Ms. Porterfield asked that they still think about how the people in the back are going to get into this building. There are very
few medical buildings that people don’t come in through the main entrance simply for the security and safety of the people in
there. That is something they need to think about. She supported the majority of the spaces up front. She questioned
whether the entrance by the fire station would work with big service tr ucks coming in and out. The proposal needs to be put
together completely.
Mr. Franco said as they went through it they only identified four comments that don’t seem to be that complicated. He
suggested that they craft a motion.
Mr. Zobrist polled the Commission and the majority of the Commission was okay with 120 beds. Ms. Porterfield disagreed.
Motion on ZMA-2011-0006:
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of ZMA -2011-00006, Albemarle Health and
Rehab Center with the proffers being resolved before it goes to the Board to restrict the uses to the use they are proposing
plus wireless facilities, public utilities and public facilities.
Mr. Kamptner noted that all of the waivers have to be approved by the Board. So if there is consensus for approving all four
of the waivers, then the Commission can take care of them all together. If they think they need to break each one out, then
they can do so. There are four findings the Commission has to make under Section 8 becau se this is a Planned Development.
He pointed out the following:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
10
- The Board will need to find that the modification or waiver is consistent with the intent and purposes of the plan
development district under the particular circumstances and satisfies all other applicable requirements of Section 8.
- Number 2, that it is consistent with planned development design principles.
- Number 3, that the waiver or modification would not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare.
Number 4, in the case of a requested modification that the public purposes of the original regulation would be
satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by the modification in Section 8.2.b.
- For the parking waiver the finding that is required under Section 4 actually dup licates one of the findings he just
read. That is the Commission and ultimately the Board needs to find for the parking modification that the public
health, safety or welfare would be equally or better served by the modification or waiver and that the mod ification or
waiver would not otherwise be contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter. That is section 14.12.2.c.
- The last one deals with one of the buffer waiver. Under section 21.7.c for the buffer zone adjacent to residential and
rural area district the Commission may waive upon finding that: 1. Minimum screening requirements are met. 2.
Existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is substantially restored.
Mr. Kamptner continued that he would leave it to staff to fill in some of the blanks as to the facts that would support each of
those findings. A lot of this information is in the staff report.
Mr. Franco asked if he needed to do the waivers separately.
Mr. Kamptner said if there was consensus for approving all four waivers, then they can take care of them altogether. If they
need to break each one out, then do so.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested the first action being considered is whether to recommend the rezoning. That would be the starting
point for the action followed by the special use permit and then the waivers.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved to recommend approval of ZMA -2011-00006, Albemarle Health and Rehab Center with the
provision that the proffers are amended and the applicant work with staff to remove the undesirable uses within the PD-MC.
Ms. Porterfield asked who is going to determine what is undesirable.
Mr. Franco said he was happy that right now the applicant has said that they will proffer down to one use. Staff has said th at
they prefer to see some of the other uses, especially public uses and utilities uses allowed in there. He was comfortable with
those being allowed.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that he put in his motion that it is proffered down to the one use including the public uses and th e
utilities uses and that is it.
Mr. Franco accepted the amendment.
Mr. Kamptner noted one other particular use classification that comes to mind would be wireless facilities, which he thought
they typically allow.
Mr. Franco said those three general uses would be allowed along with the requested use. It is a motion for recommendation
of approval to the Board with the proffers being resolved before it goes to the Board to restrict the uses to the use they ar e
proposing plus wireless facilities, public utilities and public facilities.
Mr. Loach asked what would happen to the proposal if staff found that all of these conditions have not been met by the time
it goes to the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that their procedure was based on expectations because they are not passing conditions since there are
no conditions with a rezoning. They are making a motion with an expectation of certain things being satisfied. Staff
evaluates the resubmittal based on whether or not it satisfied those things they identify and then they report to the Board
based on that and then they take their action. That action could be to return it to the Planning Commission. However, it
would be in their hands at that point.
Mr. Loach said he just wanted to know what the process was.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
11
Mr. Morris seconded the motion on the floor.
Mr. Zobrist asked for a roll call vote.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of SP -2011-00014, Albemarle Health and
Rehab Center with the expectation that the access past the fire station will be resolved before it goes to the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if there were any conditions.
Mr. Kamptner noted there were no conditions stated in the staff report. This special use permit approves just this particular
use and there are not conditions.
Mr. Benish pointed out staff was relying on the rezoning, the proffer and the application plan to address those. If there ar e
specific expectations to the site the Commission could articulate those.
Mr. Franco said the only other expectation is the adjacent easements, which they have talked about needing before it goes
forward. His only expectation would be the grading easements.
Ms. Porterfield agreed with the need for the grading easements. However, it also should include the access road that the
applicant needs to work out with the County. They need to know whether there is a reservation for future dedication,
whether it is going to be built to state standards, if there is a private road maintenanc e agreement and how it is going to be
maintained. Those type of things need to be worked out.
Mr. Benish said the five issues that he thought they addressed have not shown up yet in any action so they would want to do
that with the special use permit.
Mr. Franco asked for help with those five conditions.
Ms. Porterfield said the parking conditions would be with the site plan.
Mr. Zobrist noted that was a waiver.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it needs to be shown.
Mr. Franco said the parking waiver is to allow extra parking. He was of the opinion that the design they were submitting
addresses the access concerns that they have identified. He thought that they know their business and he was comfortable
with them putting parking where they think it should be.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the parking waiver was for the 90 spaces.
Mr. Benish noted that they were not there yet.
Mr. Zobrist noted they were working on the special use permit.
Ms. Porterfield said it sounds like what they need is a site plan and they either have to have the agreements with the
neighbors or they have to, as Ms. Monteith said earlier, they have to show no off -site grading or anything like that on the site
plan turned in.
Mr. Benish noted it was to address the road by the fire station.
Mr. Franco agreed they need to address the road by the fire station. The rest of it he understood they have accommodated for
the future development or the widening of that road. Therefore, he was satisfied with the exception by the fire station. It is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
12
having the site plan amended to show grading kept on site or provide in the easement and address the access past the fire
station.
Mr. Kamptner said when he said site plan he was referring to the application plan.
Mr. Franco agreed it should refer to the application plan.
Mr. Kamptner suggested they go back to the rezoning part and clarify that to make that a recommendation as part of the
rezoning the application plan attaches to the rezoning.
Mr. Franco asked if the special use permit needed an application plan.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that there would not be a need for a plan with the special use permit if they had an application plan
with the rezoning.
Amended Motion: Mr. Franco said the Commission agreed with the two conditions: keep it on site or get the access
easements and fix the road around the fire station. He asked to amend the motion for the ZMA -2011-00006 to say that the
application plan needs to address those two aspects as well. He asked for reconsideration of ZMA-2011-0006.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
Mr. Cilimberg asked what the Commission was acting on.
Amended Motion to Reconsider: Mr. Kamptner said they were going back and correcting by reconsidering ZMA -2011-
00006. He would take Mr. Franco’s motion in effect a mot ion to reconsider. So they could get a voice vote on that to reopen
the ZMA.
Mr. Cilimberg asked for a voice vote first on the reconsideration of the ZMA.
The motion to reconsider ZMA-2011-00006 passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Kamptner noted the ZMA was back on the table. In addition to everything that was approved with the original ZMA
motion there is the additional matter that the application plan be amended.
Motion on ZMA-2011-0006
Mr. Franco agreed with Mr. Kamptner to reconsider ZMA-2011-00006 and added to keep all of the grading on site or provide
the off-site easements and to address the circulation past the fire station.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
Ms. Monteith noted that it was all grading and storm water mitigation.
Mr. Franco clarified that it was for any off-site improvements and Mr. Morris agreed.
Amended Motion for ZMA:
Amended Motion for ZMA: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of ZMA -2011-00006,
Albemarle Health and Rehab Center with the proffers being resolved before it goes to the Board of Supervisors, as follows:
to restrict the uses to the use they are proposing plus wireless facilities, public utilities and public facilities;
the application plan be amended for any off-site improvements;
to keep all of the grading on site or provide off -site easements; and
To address the circulation past the fire station.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
13
Motion for Special Use Permit:
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend ap proval of SP-2011-00014 Albemarle Health and
Rehab Center with no conditions.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion on the Waivers:
Mr. Franco noted that he would make a motion to include all the waivers at one time.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of the four requested waivers of maximum
parking allowance, minimum yard requirements, maintenance of undisturbed buffer, and screening requirements based on
affirmative findings regarding Sections 4.12.2(C), 21.7(B), 21.7(C) and 8.2(B) of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission
requested staff to include the appropriate findings.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the four waivers for ZMA -2011-00006 had been recommended for approved. ZMA-2011-00006, SP-
2010-00034 and the four waivers will go to the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for
approval.
ZMA 2010-017
BOS December 14, 2011
Executive Summary Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA201000017 Redfields PRD
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Rezone/amend the application plan and add proffers
on property zoned PRD (Open Space) to change to
PRD (Residential). Proposed number of units is 126
for a density of 2.15 units/acre.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Benish, Grant
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
December 14, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On September 27, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Redfields PRD rezoning request. The
Commission, by a vote of 6:0, recommended denial of ZMA201000017 based on staff findings contained in the staff report
(Attachment I). In summary, these findings were:
• Residential development is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates this site as Rural Areas.
• The request preceded comprehensive consideration of Development Area expansion. (It should be noted that since
the Commission’s public hearing for the Redfields re-zoning the Commission in a subsequent work session decided
not to further consider Development Area expansion for residential purposes as part of its review of the
Comprehensive Plan.)
• Some proffers need to be rewritten to be technically and legally acceptable.
• Development would result in loss of open space/trails that the community has been using.
• Development would result in an increase in traffic in the area.
• No commitment made to provide affordable housing.
It should also be noted that Redfields is currently approved for 656 residential units and 441 residential units have been
built. While this proposal would result in development of an area designated on the current application plan for open space
in Redfields, the overall number of residential units in Redfields that could result from development under this rezoning will
not increase over the total number permitted by current zoning. The approval of Redfields as it is currently zoned preceded
the enactment of the Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities (addressing impacts on transportation, libraries, parks,
schools and public safety) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The improvements proffered with this rezoning to address
the impacts to public facilities are internal to Redfields and limited to possible improvements to Fieldstone Road, the
primary access to Phase V, under Proffer 7, and the construction of a sidewalk along Fieldstone Road between Phase V
and Redfields Road, under Proffer 8. Nonetheless, because this rezoning does not increase the currently approved density
within Redfields, it has been evaluated under Section 6(c) of the Cash Proffer Policy, which provides:
c. No increase or small increase in density. In rezoning applications where there is a minimal increase in
density, a credit may be given for the number of residential units allowed under the existing zoning and the
cash proffer amount will be based only on the estimated density increase resulting from the rezoning. This
credit may be allowed only for those rezoning applications where the rezoning . . . seeks to amend a prior
rezoning with no increase in density. . . .
It is staff’s opinion that this rezoning is eligible for the credit provided in that section.
The Commission, also by a vote of 6:0, recommended denial of the critical slopes waiver based on the denial of
ZMA201000017 Redfields PRD because the result of that denial meant the Commission had nothing on which to base its
consideration of the waiver.
ZMA 2010-017
BOS December 14, 2011
Executive Summary Page 2
DISCUSSION:
Since the Commission’s action, the applicant submitted revised proffers dated October 12, 2011 for staff review and
comment. Staff submitted comments for these proffers on November 16, 2011 with the explanation that, in order to
meet the applicant’s wishes for a Board public hearing on December 14, 2011, the October 12th proffers needed to be
in a form that would be technically and legally acceptable and signed before the legal ad would run for this public
hearing (by November 21st). (Attachment II) The applicant was further advised that once the public hearing is
advertised staff would be unable to review any further revised proffers for consideration at a December 14th public
hearing and that Board policy is to not consider substantively revised proffers after public hearings are advertised. The
applicant subsequently submitted substantively revised proffers on November 21, 2011 and requested these proffers
be presented to the Board of Supervisors on December 14th for a public hearing. (Attachment III) Staff has not
reviewed these revised proffers.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend denial of ZMA 201000017 and the associated critical slopes waiver for the
reasons noted above and contained in the staff report.
Should the Board want to approve this re-zoning, such action should be deferred to allow review and acceptance of
technically and legally acceptable signed proffers.
ATTACHMENTS:
PC actions letter
Attachment I: Planning Commission staff report, dated September 27, 2011
Attachment II: Staff comment letter addressed to Marcia Joseph, dated November 16, 2011
Attachment III: Revised proffers, dated November 16, 2011
PC minutes
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176
October 18, 2011
Marcia Joseph
481 Clarks Tract
Keswick, Va 22947
RE: ZMA201000017/Redfields PRD
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76R/E4 and 76R/1
Dear Ms. Joseph:
On September 27, 2011, the Albemarle County Planning Commission, by a vote of 6:0 approved a motion
to recommend denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. This recommendation of
denial was based on the following staff recommendations:
• The proposed residential development is inconsistent with the Growth Management and Rural Areas
policies.
• The Land Use Plan Map in the Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Rural Area, which is not
recommended for this proposed scale of development.
• This rezoning request does not follow the process and direction the Planning Commission provided at
last year’s worksession. The Commission recommended future expansion areas be studied in a
comprehensive manner and that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA2010-001) currently
underway be studied with the comprehensive plan. These initial discussions are scheduled to begin
October 11, 2011 with the Planning Commission.
• Some proffers need to be rewritten to address staff’s concerns, as noted in the proffer section of the
staff report.
• The loss of open space/trails that the community has been using.
• An increase in traffic to the area.
• No commitment has been made to provide affordable housing.
The Planning Commission recommends denial of the critical slopes waiver based on the their denial of
ZMA-2010-00017 Redfields PRD because the result of that denial meant the Commission had nothing on
which to base its consideration of the waiver.
Should the Board of Supervisors recommend approval of the rezoning, the Planning Commission
recommends consideration of the following concerns and conditions. (See Minutes for Detailed
Comments)
- It is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. They need to take a look at that section of the
Comprehensive Plan so not to piece-meal things together.
- It was inconsistent with the density of the adjacent neighborhood.
- There are some safety issues. This plan did not seem consistent or in keeping with the charac ter of the
district and was totally out of character with the neighborhood.
- Proffers – could not support the request because of deficiencies in the proffers, especially on the
affordable housing side. The proffers are inadequate or inconsistent with County policy.
- It is not only the fact that there are safety issues, but there are also other impacts in terms of where the
location of the density is in the existing neighborhood.
- The larger question brought up was where are we, what is the inventory, and how great an impact should
that be in making the decision on these comprehensive plan amendments versus just looking at a V spot
therein and does it work. There was a broader context that has to be taken into consideration. They have
infrastructure projects that are not even on the long-term planning list and have to be paid for based on
development that has already been approved. They have to get to the point where that infrastructure
catches up to our Comprehensive Plan. One of the reasons they wanted to do master planning in the
beginning was to ensure there was concurrency of infrastructure for the growth area residents so there
was no degradation in the quality of life in our growth areas because development got too far ahead of the
infrastructure. That was where they are today.
- There are infrastructure issues with the small road to their amenity that has 16 parking spaces. There is
no place on the road to park. It is not easy to get to. There could be real problems with the roads that are
leading into the site. It is not the way they should go about adding density to our areas.
- The county needs to figure out how many residential lots they have in the development areas that have
not been built on. They need to decide how much more amenities, infrastructure the county could
provide. They need to make sure before they start bringing in more residential into the development
areas that they can handle what they already have. That includes our water situation.
- A hope was expressed that they would see in the future a master plan for the southern part of the County.
It may be the right development in the wrong place because there are some good things about it. There
is a place for density in the growth area as long as it is in the right place.
- One Commissioner felt disadvantaged of not having heard from staff the report they are expecting next
month regarding an evaluation of this with the Comp Plan. They have to get to a point in time where the
residents and the developers (the owner) have clear understanding of what the expectations are going to
be. Everybody is getting tired of coming here every couple of years and readdressing this situation. As
long as the developer owns the property, he has the right to request a rezoning. There was
disappointment expressed that the applicant could not wait until next month to hear what staff’s evaluation
of the property was before the Commission was required to take a vote.
- They should consider what conditions, if any, they would recommend for approval of this property when it
goes forward so that the Board has a basis for making a decision the other way.
- Provide an overview of where the county is going that give a synopsis of the build out and what is
available. The Commission gave clear direction last time that this should wait until the Comprehensive
Plan takes a look at this. They don’t have that study or evaluation in front of them. So they are being
required to make a decision.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting, to be determined. It is the Board of Supervisor’s preference that a public
hearing not be advertised until all of the final materials for a zoning application have been received by the
County and are available for public review.
Return to exec summary
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Planning Division
CC: Redfields Development Corporation
800 E Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, Va 22902
Redfields Development Corporation
Po Box 5347
Charlottesville, Va 22905
ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011
Staff Report, Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 2010-00017, Redfields
PRD
Staff: Claudette Grant
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
September 27, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
To Be Determined
Owner(s): Redfields Development Corporation Applicant: Redfields Development Corporation.
Contact: Marcia Joseph
Acreage: 58.47 acres Rezone from: Planned Residential District, PRD
(Open Space) to PRD (126 residential units
proposed)
TMP: 076R0000000100 & 076R00000000E4
(See Attachments A & B)
Location: Redfields parallels Interstate 64 and
is southeast of the I-64 and Route 29
interchange.
By-right use: Open space in a PRD district,
which allows residential with limited commercial
uses at a density of 3 – 34 units/acre. This
property does not currently have any
development potential under the PRD.
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Request to rezone/amend the
application plan and add proffers on property
zoned PRD (Open Space) which allows
residential with limited commercial uses at a
density of 3 – 34 units/acre to PRD
(Residential). Proposed number of units is 126
for a density of 2.15 units/acre.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 126
DA (Development Area): Not in the
Development Area
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas- preserve
and protect agricultural, forestal, open space,
and natural, historic and scenic resources/
density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots)
Character of Property: 58.472 acres of open
space. The property is undeveloped open
space/rural and wooded with a stream.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Open
Space/rural and residential
Factors Favorable:
1. In developing this site, the applicant is
proposing to minimize disturbance to the
critical slopes area.
2. The proposal involves a site that includes
existing PRD Zoning, is adjacent to the
Development Area and to PRD zoning.
3. The site is near major highway access and
is accessible to utilities.
4. The proposal could potentially add some
residential uses that were lost in the Biscuit
Run property becoming a state park, and
replaces it within the same general
southern urban area location.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposed residential development is
inconsistent with the Growth Management
Policy and Rural Areas policies.
2. The Land Use Plan Map in the
Comprehensive Plan designates this site as
Rural Area, which is not recommended for
this proposed scale of development.
3. This rezoning request does not follow the
process and direction the Planning
Commission provided at last year’s
worksession. The Commission recommended
future expansion areas be studied in a
comprehensive manner and that the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA2010-
ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011
Staff Report, Page 2
001) currently underway be studied with the
comprehensive plan. These initial discussions
are scheduled to begin October 11, 2011 with
the Planning Commission.
4. Some proffers need to be rewritten to address
staff’s concerns, as noted above under the
description of each proffer.
5. The loss of open space/trails that the
community has been using.
6. An increase in traffic to the area.
7. No commitment has been made to provide
affordable housing.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD because the
residential use proposed is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation.
ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011
Staff Report, Page 3
STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION: September 27, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS To Be Determined
ZMA 2010-00017, Redfields PRD
With waiver request of Section 4.2.5(a) of Zoning Ordinance for critical slopes
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA201000017/Redfields PRD
PROPOSAL: Rezone 58.47 acres from PRD (Open Space) - Planned Residential District zoning
district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to PRD (Residential)
- Planned Residential District zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited
commercial uses. Proposed number of units is 126 for a density of 2.15 units/acre.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas- preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre
in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: Located on west side of Old Lynchburg Road and accessed by Sunset Avenue and
Redfields Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 076R00000000E4 and 076R0000000100
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
Redfield’s phases 2-A, 2-B, 1-A and 1-B are located to the east of the subject area, which is phase
5 of Redfields. Phases 2-A, 2-B, 1-A and 1-B, located in the Development Area, are developed
primarily with single family residential units. Phase 5 is designated open space that is undeveloped,
and wooded with some hilly terrain. Route 29 and Interstate 64 are located to the northwest of
Redfields. Mosby Mountain, a residential development in the rural area is located to the south and
Sherwood Farms another residential development in the rural area is located to the northwest.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting to rezone/amend the application plan and add proffers on property
zoned PRD. The approved site is described as open space with no proposed development under
the current PRD district. The applicant proposes to develop the site with no limitations, inclusive of
126 residential units at a density of 2.15 units/acre. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site
as Rural Area allowing a density of 0.5 units/acre. (See Attachment C)
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant proposes an expansion of the existing Redfields development. As written in the
application, the applicant describes a shortage of residential units in this portion of the County due
in part, to the loss of the Biscuit Run development, which was approved with a potential of over
3,000 homes along with some commercial uses, and is now proposed to be a state park. The
applicant believes that requesting an expansion of the Redfields development and developing on
the existing open space property will provide some additional residential units in the southern end of
the County. The applicant requested this site be included in the Development Area last year, and
believes that this will make up for the loss of potential residential units with the Biscuit Run property
/development now owned by the State for future park use. The applicant also feels that the
following attributes makes this property ideal for additional development of residential use: close
proximity to utilities, other supporting infrastructure, employment, shopping, downtown
ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011
Staff Report, Page 4
Charlottesville and the consistency of the proposed development to existing surrounding
development.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
●The original rezoning for the Redfields Development (ZMA 89-18) rezoned 266 acres from R-1 to
PRD. It allowed for the development of 656 dwelling units on 266 acres. The original rezoning had 6
Phases and Phase 6 was located outside the Development Area and dedicated as open space. The
applicant wanted to retain the option to develop the open space and indicated that the boundary
may change in the future. Staff recommended the open space be permanent and acknowledged
that if the applicant wishes to build in the open space, he will have to go through the comprehensive
plan process and potential rezoning process.
●ZMA 91-07 allowed a boundary adjustment to allow for a more efficient use of land. This rezoning
also renamed Phase 6 to Phase 5 and showed Phase 5 only as open space.
●ZMA 98-08 allowed the developer to reduce the setback lines to zero on a single side lot line and
10-feet on the front setbacks in Phases 3 and 4. With this rezoning, the applicant mentions that he
wants Phase 5 to be a place for future rezoning approval.
●ZMA 01-01 allowed additional lots within Phase 4 of the development. However, the request for
additional lots within the open space was not approved.
●Letter of Determination from Jan Sprinkle dated October 25, 2005, specifically states that the
applicant will need to apply for a ZMA if he wishes to develop Phase 5 of the Redfields PRD.
● A letter referenced as “Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for Tax Map 76R, Parcel 1”
from David Benish dated June 4, 2008, confirms that the parcel is located in an area designated in
the Comprehensive Plan as Rural Area and that no action has been done since the initial rezoning
to change the land use designation of the parcel or the boundary of the designated Development
Area to include this parcel.
● Letter of Determination from Amelia McCulley dated May 15, 2009, states that there is nothing
that prevents this property from being sold to third parties and that tax map 76R, parcels 1 and E4
are not required open space that needs to be conveyed to the Redfields Homeowners’ Association.
Also included in this determination letter is the confirmation that prior to any future use of the
parcels, an amendment to the Redfields Planned Residential District (PRD) zoning must be
obtained. There is currently no designated use on the approved application plan.
● A Work Session was held with the Planning Commission on November 30, 2010 for
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2010-00001 to include tax map 76R, parcels 1 and E4 in
the Development Area and amend the Land Use Plan from Rural Area to Neighborhood Density-
residential (3-6 units/acre). The Commission directed that this CPA be studied with the
Comprehensive Plan, which is now underway. (See Attachment D)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan currently designates the subject property as Rural Areas and the Rural
Areas Plan places a strong emphasis on resource protection, through the preservation and
protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, biological, historic and scenic
resources, and farming and forestal activities. The “vision” for the Rural Area can be found in the
Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan (page 9 of the Rural Areas Plan).
ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011
Staff Report, Page 5
As previously mentioned in the Planning and Zoning History section of this staff report, there is a
pending Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA2010-001) requesting to expand the subject
parcels into the Development Area from the Rural Area. The Planning Commission requested
CPA2010-001 be reviewed with the update of the Comprehensive Plan in 2011. This review is
currently underway and scheduled for initial discussions to begin with the Planning Commission on
October 11, 2011. Decisions on whether to expand to the Development Area, how much expansion
is needed, and where locations of areas for expansion should be, need to be considered on a
comprehensive, county wide level, during the review and update of the Comprehensive Plan. These
decisions should not be made in a vacuum, based on review of an individual proposal.
The Open Space Plan shows this area has many critical slopes, all of which are wooded. The
applicant is minimizing disturbance of the critical slopes.
The Neighborhood Model: Staff’s analysis below indicates how well the proposed development
meets the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model:
Pedestrian
Orientation
There are sidewalks and trails shown throughout the proposed site. While
this principle is met, staff would like to see a connection made between the
trails on the proposed site with the existing trails in other portions of the
Redfields development.
Neighborhood
Friendly Streets
and Paths
The street sections on the plans show the provision of street trees and
sidewalks throughout the proposed site. This principle is met.
Interconnected
Streets and
Transportation
Networks
The proposed development will connect with the existing Refields
development via an extension of Fieldstone Road. There will only be one
way in and out of this portion of the development. Additional future
interconnections could be possible with the extension of Road B, as shown
on the plan, connecting to Ambrose Commons in the Mountain Valley
subdivision. This principle is met, but could be expanded to include
additional road interconnections.
Parks and Open
Space
The applicant is providing approximately 41 acres of open space, most of
which is located in areas with critical slopes. This principle is met.
Neighborhood
Centers
This proposed development would become part of the existing Redfields
subdivision. Redfields includes a community pool and center for residents.
However, this proposal would increase the number of residents living in
Redfields. It is not clear that the existing neighborhood centers can serve
and are adequate for the potential additional residents who may live in this
development. No additional center or expansion to the existing club is
proposed. More information is needed.
Buildings and
Spaces of Human
Scale
This proposal consists of single family houses and townhouses with a
maximum height of 35 feet. Although building elevations have not been
provided. Two to three story buildings are appropriate at this location and
will fit in with existing buildings in the Redfields Development. This principle
is met.
Relegated Parking This is not applicable.
Mixture of Uses
Redfields is an existing residential development with the subject proposal
of expanding the residential uses within the development. No mixture of
uses are proposed.
ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011
Staff Report, Page 6
Mixture of Housing
Types and
Affordability
The applicant is proposing single family and townhouse units. This is not a
strong mixture of housing types. No commitment has been made to
affordable units. This principle is not met.
Redevelopment This principle is not applicable.
Site Planning that
Respects Terrain
Approximately 1/3 of this site has critical slopes on it, some of which will be
disturbed. The applicant has shown most of the proposed development out
of the critical slopes.
The plan shows an undisturbed buffer along the western portion of the site,
but the applicant has provided a proffer allowing a variety of disturbances
within the buffer. This proffer is not consistent with the plan and should be
revised.
Trails are shown on critical slopes. Staff is concerned with the practical use
of the trails, if they are located on very steep slopes. The trails should be
adequate for a variety of residents to use. This information is not clearly
provided. For the most part this principle is met; however, the buffer issues
mentioned need revision and some clarity regarding the practical use of the
trails should be provided.
Clear Boundaries
with the Rural
Areas
This proposed site is currently open space with no development on it. It is
the boundary with the Rural Areas. Adding development to this site will
change the character of the area. A 100 foot buffer is proposed for the area
adjacent to the Sherwood Farms development and on the northeastern
portion of the property. The area adjacent to the Mountain Valley
subdivision does not include a buffer. The applicant used this portion of the
property for development in order to stay out of many of the critical slope
areas. The clear boundary in this general area has already been impacted
by the existence of “old zoning” in the Rural Area, and the ultimate
development of these properties (Mosby Mountain). This proposal further
impacts the clarity of the boundary.
Economic Vitality Action Plan
The primary goal of the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan is to:
Increase the County’s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by
expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local
residents. This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local
residents and existing local businesses.
The proposed expansion of the Redfields development is primarily intended for residential uses.
While this proposed expansion supports the local construction industry, this area is not intended for
business use.
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district: The following section is an excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance:
PRD districts may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map in accordance
with the provisions set forth generally for PD districts in sections 8.0 and 33.0, and with
densities and in locations in accordance with the comprehensive plan.
ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011
Staff Report, Page 7
The PRD is intended to encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and
toward impact on the surrounding area in land development. More specifically, the PRD is
intended to promote economical and efficient land use, an improved level of amenities,
appropriate and harmonious physical development, and creative design consistent with the best
interest of the county and the area in which it is located.
To these ends, the PRD provides for flexibility and variety of development for residential
purposes and uses ancillary thereto. Open space may serve such varied uses as recreation,
protection of areas sensitive to development, buffering between dissimilar uses and
preservation of agricultural activity.
While a PRD approach is recommended for developments of any density, it is recommended
but not required that the PRD be employed in areas where the comprehensive plan
recommends densities in excess of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre, in recognition that
development at such densities generally requires careful planning with respect to impact.
(Amended 8-14-85)
This proposal is unique because this property was zoned PRD with the original Redfields rezoning.
However, no development plan was associated with this property and it was designated open
space. Adding to this unique situation, the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Rural Area,
and it is not located in the Development Area, which is intended for higher density developments
similar to what the applicant is proposing. Typically, if this proposed development were located in
the Development Area, it would meet the intent of the Planned Residential Development,
particularly since the applicant has taken care to develop with low impacts to the areas with critical
slopes. Staff believes that the proposal does meet the intent of the Planned Residential
Development (PRD) district. However, staff does not support this request at this time because the
Comprehensive Plan does not designate this portion of the County as Development Area. It is
designated Rural Area which supports a much lower density than what is being requested.
The following engineering comments remain outstanding and need to be addressed:
As previously mentioned, it is recommended that delinquent bond work, related to other
sectors of Redfields, be completed before any approvals.
With narrow lots on a mountainside, an overall grading plan, as is already shown
conceptually, would be helpful. This plan would need to be approved before any grading
permits. The current conceptual plan would be inadequate in this regard. The overall lot
grading plan would need to follow general guidelines as have been formulated with other
rezonings, such as a limit on lot drainage such that it does not flow through more than three
lots. In addition, some parameters on the unit type, or on the extent of re-grading that
builders can do, would also be helpful. For example, rear and side loading garages could be
eliminated. These tend to cause the most problems with lot-to-lot grading by builders. See
the proffer section later in this report for suggested proffer language relating to proffer 5. Iv.
Public need and justification for the change:
With the recent change of the nearby Biscuit Run property going from large residential development
to a state park, the applicant sees a need for additional housing that is conveniently located in this
part of the County. The applicant feels the change of use from open space to additional residential
development will begin to make up for the loss of residential units when the Biscuit Run site
becomes a state park. However, the Land Use Plan map in the Comprehensive Plan designates
this area as Rural Area and more intensive urban development is not consistent with current County
policies and goals. While it is possible that this site might be appropriate for additional residential
units, as previously stated, there is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request underway. The
ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011
Staff Report, Page 8
ultimate need for any expansion to the Development Area, the amount of expansion and the best
location for that expansion is best determined during the Comprehensive Plan update process. This
is consistent with the Commission’s prior direction at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Worksession last year.
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources –
There are several critical slopes on this site. Some of the slopes will be disturbed, but the applicant
has taken care to minimize the disturbance to these slopes. A stream is located on this site;
however, a 100 foot buffer is shown to help protect the stream. The plan also shows a 100 foot
undisturbed buffer adjacent to several residents in the Sherwood Farms subdivision and in the
northeastern portion of the site. The proffers describe some potential disturbance to this
undisturbed buffer, leaving some inconsistency regarding the level of disturbance for the buffer.
Staff believes impacts on the environment are minimal and can be resolved with adequate
treatment of impacted critical slopes through the waiver review process and revisions to the
proffers.
There are no cultural or historic resources on the site.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services:
Streets: VDOT has indicated that:
In regards to crashes on Route 781 and Route 875, the County Board of Supervisors should
consider adding Route 781 as a proposed Secondary Road Project to the Secondary Six
Year Plan schedule to widen the travel way, add sidewalk, improve the intersection at Route
875 and improve drainage. An increase in traffic may occur along Route 781 from additional
development and the connector road to Stribling Avenue.
In order to bring the intersection of Redfields Road and Sunset Avenue Extended up to the
current VDOT intersection sight distance standard, some minor grading and trimming of
vegetation will be needed.
Staff Comment: Sunset Avenue (Route 781) is identified as a high priority improvement
project in the “County Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements” adopted by the Board
of Supervisors. However, due to limited state secondary road funding, the project is not
scheduled for design or improvements at this time.
The proposed sidewalk on the extension of Fieldstone Road should be extended along
existing Fieldstone road to connect with the existing crosswalk and trail system at the
intersection of Fieldstone Road and Redfields Road.
A connection to the existing Ambrose Commons Road would be beneficial from this
proposed development or a future development to allow residents of Mountain Valley
Subdivision a second connection besides Mosby Mountain. At this time because of the lot
divisions in Mountain Valley a connection appears to be unlikely. ( See Attachment E)
Schools – Students living in this area would attend Cale Elementary School, Burley Middle School,
and Monticello High School.
Fire and Rescue – The closest station for this area is located in the City of Charlottesville.
Utilities –This site is in the jurisdictional area for public water and sewer. Service would be provided
based on the approved PRD. No immediate or significant service capacity issues have been
identified. (See Attachment F for comments from the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA))
ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011
Staff Report, Page 9
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties: The primary impacts anticipated on
surrounding properties is an increase in traffic once the residential units are constructed and
occupied and the loss of open space and the natural environment many. Sunset Avenue is in need
of upgrade to existing and future development in the area.
PROFFERS
Attachment G contains the current proffers. Wording changes are expected prior to the Board of
Supervisor’s hearing to address non-substantive issues. Individual proffers are described below,
and followed by suggestions (in italics) from staff and the County Attorney:
Proffer 1: Describes the undisturbed buffer adjacent to Sherwood Farms properties and the
northeastern section of the proposed development, along with the possible disturbances.
The buffer area appears to be within the area designated as open space, so if that designation
remains, the buffer area needs to, at the very least, be subject to the use provisions in Zoning
Ordinance section 4.7 and not go beyond them; (b) in line 9, a second parenthesis should be
added at the end of “(whether now known or developed in the future))”; (c) at the end of the
proffer, the proffer should identify at what height the minimum 1 ½” caliper will be measured.
Staff suggests that for it to serve the purpose / intent of a buffer, limitations to encroachment
need to be included in the proffer. As an example, staff recommends limiting disturbance to
a) the location of public utilities when an alternative location is not practical and/or b)
removal of trees that are determined by an arborist to be diseased or dying. For the
replanting standard, please add that the 1 ½ inch caliper is as measured at six inches above
ground (Reference Section 4.3).
Proffer 2: States that land labeled on the Application Plan as trail, Open Space, scenic overlook, or
recreation area will be dedicated to the Redfields Community Association, Inc.
If the area designated as “Open Space” is open space within the meaning of Zoning
Ordinance 4.7, it is subject to the provisions in that section; the owner may want to clarify
that designation. The last sentence of the proffer should be deleted because it pertains to
private property rights and the residents’ right of access to this area, which the County will
not enforce. The last sentence may also conflict with the approved trail plan for Redfields.
Proffer 3: Describes the construction of a new class B type 1 primitive nature trail on this portion of
the site.
Proffer 4: States that upon the issuance of an occupancy permit for the sixty-fourth (64th) dwelling
unit the Owner shall construct a tot lot, a scenic area and a basketball half-court.
Proffer 5: Commits the Owner to submit an overall lot grading plan.
The second line of the proffer should state “before the first final subdivision plat is
approved”.
5(iv) The last clause of this proffer (“such finding not to be unreasonably withheld”) should
be eliminated. It is a given that any public officer or employee must act reasonably.
5(x) It is not clear if Phase V will be platted in phases or sections, but if it’s possible, the first
sentence should include the following underlined clause at the end to read “. . . a waiver
request with the preliminary or final plat for the phase or section within Phase V.”
5(xiii) We suggest that this paragraph be added so that Proffer 5 expressly states that all
grading in Phase V will comply with the approved Plan. Suggested language: “All grading
within Phase V shall comply with the Plan approved by the County Engineer.”
ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011
Staff Report, Page 10
Proffer 6: Attempts to limit the number of units within the Redfields PRD.
Since only Phase V is being rezoned, the scope of the proffers can’t amend the proffer
regarding density applicable to other parts of Redfields. Suggested language for Proffer 6:
“Phase V shall have not more than XX dwelling units, and these dwelling units shall count
toward the aggregate number of YYY dwelling units permitted in Redfields PRD as
established in ZMA ZZZZ-ZZZZZ.”
Proffer 7: Commits the Owner to provide a pavement analysis for the existing Fieldstone Road.
This proffer needs to include an action if the pavement analysis concludes that a pavement
overlay is required. Suggested language: “The Owner shall install a pavement overlay in
conjunction with the first final subdivision plat if it is recommended by the pavement analysis
and required by the Virginia Department of Transportation or the County Engineer.” This
may need more work.
WAIVERS
The applicant is requesting a critical slopes waiver, which staff recommends approval. (See
Attachment I for analysis of the critical slope modification. See Attachment H for the critical slope
waiver request)
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. In developing this site, the applicant is proposing to minimize disturbance to the critical slopes
area.
2. The proposal involves a site that includes existing PRD Zoning, is adjacent to the Development
Area and to PRD zoning.
3. The site is near major highway access and is accessible to utilities.
4. The proposal could potentially add some residential uses that were lost in the Biscuit Run
property becoming a state park, and replaces it within the same general southern urban area
location.
Staff has found the following factors unfavorable to this rezoning:
1. The proposed residential development is inconsistent with the Growth Management Policy and
Rural Areas policies.
2. The Land Use Plan Map in the Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Rural Area, which is
not recommended for this proposed scale of development.
3. This rezoning request does not follow the process and direction the Planning Commission
provided at last year’s work session. The Commission recommended future expansion areas be
studied in a comprehensive manner and that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA2010-
001) currently underway be studied with the Comprehensive Plan. These initial discussions are
scheduled to begin October 11, 2011 with the Planning Commission.
4. Some proffers need to be rewritten to address staff’s concerns, as noted above under the
description of each proffer.
5. The loss of open space/trails that the community has been using.
6. An increase in traffic to the area.
7. No commitment has been made to provide affordable housing.
ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011
Staff Report, Page 11
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD because the residential use proposed
is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation.
WAIVERS
Staff recommends approval of the modification to Section 4.2.5(a) of Zoning Ordinance for critical
slopes waiver.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Zoning Map Amendment:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2010-00017, Redfields, PRD with the proffers and
waiver provided.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2010-00017, Redfields, PRD, based on the
recommendation of staff. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should
state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
ATTACHMENT A: Location Map
ATTACHMENT B: Land Use Plan Map
ATTACHMENT C: Application Plan
ATTACHMENT D: Planning Commission Minutes, dated 11-30-10
ATTACHMENT E: VDOT Comment Letter from Joel DeNunzio, dated 8-17-11
ATTACHMENT F: Electronic Mail from Alex Morrison, dated 8-2-11
ATTACHMENT G: Proffers, dated July 18, 2011
ATTACHMENT H: Letter from Scott Collins, dated July 18, 2011
ATTACHMENT I: Critical Slopes Modification Analysis
Return to exec summary
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
GREGORY A. WHIRLEY
COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS
August 17th, 2011
Mr. Glenn Brooks, P.E.
Albemarle County Engineer
Community Development
401 McIntire Road
North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Subject: Redfields Phase 5 Chapter 527 TIA
Dear Mr. Brooks,
In accordance with §15.2-2222.1 of the Code of Virginia and the Virginia Traffic Impact Analysis
Regulations, 24 VAC 30-155, a traffic impact analysis was prepared by Engineering and Planning
Resources on the site plan for the proposed development project entitled Redfields Phase 5 by Collins
Engineering.
We have evaluated this traffic impact analysis and prepared a report that summarizes the key findings and
conclusions of the analysis. Our report is attached to assist the county in their decision making process
regarding the proposed development.
I am available at your convenience to meet and discuss VDOT’s finding if you need assistance. And
finally, I ask that you include VDOT’s key findings of the traffic analysis in the official public records on
the proposed project and have this letter, our report, and the traffic impact analysis placed in the case file
for this site plan. VDOT will make these documents available to the general public through various
methods including posting them on VDOT’s website.
Sincerely,
Joel DeNunzio
Area Land Use Engineer
ATTACHMENT E
Key Findings for Traffic Impact Analysis entitled Redfields Phase 5 Residential
Development
Albemarle County, VA
Project ID: ZMA-2010-00017
Prepared by Engineering and Planning Resources for Collins Engineering
Below are VDOT’s key findings for the TIA on the above project:
Errors and Omissions:
• No errors or omissions have been identified by the VDOT review of the traffic impact study.
Summary of Data:
• The study adequately addresses the Chapter 527 Traffic Impact Analysis regulations.
• The study does not identify any major impacts to the transportation network from the
development.
• The safety study indicates that the crashes on Route 781 and Route 875 are mainly due to the
two roads having narrow travel lanes with little to no shoulder from the travelway to the ditch. The
safety study also indicates that the steep approach grades contribute to crashes at the
intersection of Sunset Avenue Extended and Country Green Road during adverse weather
conditions. The data indicates that these crashes are minor in nature with only property damage.
• The sight distance section of the safety study indicates that minor grading and trimming of
vegetation will bring the intersection of Redfields Road and Sunset Avenue Extended up to the
current VDOT intersection sight distance standard. VDOT conducted a safety study at this
intersection in 2002 and installed intersection approach warning signs on Route 781 on each
approach to the intersection of Route 1270 due to limited stopping sight distance along 781 from
a crest vertical curve.
Study Recommendation:
• The County Board of Supervisors should consider adding Route 781 as a proposed Secondary
Road Project to the Secondary Six Year Plan schedule to widen the travel way, add sidewalk,
improve the intersection at Route 875 and improve drainage. An increase in traffic may occur
along Route 781 from additional development and the connector road to Stribling Avenue.
• The proposed sidewalk on the extension of Fieldstone Road should be extended along existing
Fieldstone road to connect with the existing crosswalk and trail system at the intersection of
Fieldstone Road and Redfields Road.
Other Items:
• A connection to the existing Ambrose Commons Road would be beneficial from this proposed
development or a future development to allow residents of Mountain Valley Subdivision a second
connection besides Mosby Mountain. At this time because of the lot divisions in Mountain Valley
a connection appears to be unlikely.
ATTACHMENT E
ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – Information from Service Providers
To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA’s and SP’s
1. Site is in jurisdictional area for __x__ water __x__ sewer _____ water to existing structures only
_____ not in jurisdictional area.
2. Distance to the closest water line if in the development area is (12” D.I.P. Line Runs Through Property)
feet.
Water pressure is with ______________________ gallons per minute at _______________________ psi.
3. Distance to the closest sewer line if in the development area is (8” D.I.P. Line Runs Through Property)
feet.
4. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal :
5. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification ____Yes _x__No
6. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Red flags” regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary)
ATTACHMENT F
1
Proffer Statement
Redfields PRD Application Plan Amendment
Date: July 18, 2011
Owner: Redfields Development Corporation
Property: Redfields Phase V, PIN 076R0-00-00-000E4 and PIN 07R0-00-00-00100
Application: ZMA-2010-00017, Amendment to Application Plan, Existing PRD Zoning,
(“Amendment Application”)
This Proffer Statement accompanies and relates to the Redfields Phase V, Amendment to
Application Plan, Existing PRD Zoning, dated June 6, 2011 ("Application Plan"). The Owner is
Redfields Development Corporation, a Virginia corporation, or its successors (the "Owner").
The Application Plan was submitted by the Owner as part of the Amendment Application.
The Application Plan applies to approximately 58.46 acres in the Redfields Planned Residential
District of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County") known as tax map parcels 076R0-00-00-
000E4 and 07R0-00-00-00100 ("Phase V"). Phase V is zoned Planned Residential Development
in accordance with Section 8 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the “Ordinance”).
Conditions. Pursuant to section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and subject to
the reservations and clarifications that follow, the Owner hereby voluntarily proffers the
conditions listed in this Proffer Statement, which shall be applied to Redfields Phase V if the
proposed Application Plan is approved by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County. If the
Application Plan is denied, these conditions shall be immediately null, void and of no effect.
These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested Amendment Application and it is agreed
that: (1) the uses described in the Amendment Application itself give rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the uses described in the
Amendment Application. The following shall be the sole conditions/proffers applicable to
Redfield Phase V.
1. Except as provided hereafter, the Owner will not disturb the area in Phase V that is within
one hundred feet (100’) of the property line adjoining the following lots in Sherwood Farms: tax
map parcel identification numbers 076N0-00-00-013A0, 076N0-00-00-01300, 076N0-01-00-
000E2, 076N0-00-00-01200, 076N-00-00-01100, and 076N0-00-00-008B1 as well as existing
lots in Redfields Phase 2-A and 2-B that are contiguous to Phase V, (the "Buffer"), as shown on
the Application Plan. Owner, or its successors may disturb the Buffer to provide, construct,
improve, realign, remove, replace, maintain and repair trails and utilities (including without
limitation electric power, water, sewer, telephone, cable, natural gas, internet and other similar
utility services (whether now known or developed in the future) to or for the benefit of the
owners in the Redfields PRD or others. The Owner may disturb the Buffer for forest
management and for public health and safety reasons. The Owner may disturb the Buffer for
other reasons approved by the County’s Zoning Administrator; provided however that in the
event that the Buffer is disturbed for any purpose allowed herein, such disturbance shall be
limited to that necessary to permit the allowed use, and to the extent practical, the disturbed area
shall be replanted with the same number of trees that have been removed. The replacement trees
shall measure a minimum of 1 ½” caliper and shall be a species indigenous to the area.
ATTACHMENT G
2
2. At the request of the Redfields Community Association, Inc., (the “Association”) but not
sooner than the issuance of an occupancy permit for the sixty-fourth (64th) dwelling unit within
Phase V, Redfields, the Owner shall dedicate to the Association, by deed of conveyance those
certain parcels of land in Phase V that are labeled on the Application Plan as "Open Space",
together with the improvements described below in paragraphs 3 and 4. The Owner reserves the
right to transfer any or all of the Open Space to Association at any time before the requirements
to transfer the Open Space are met. Notwithstanding anything contained herein, any and all
rights of the Association or residents of Redfields in Phase V (including without limitation any
area labeled trail, Open Space, scenic overlook or recreation area) shall only arise by deed
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia. The
Application Plan itself is not a conveyance and this Proffer Statement is not a conveyance.
Approval of either is not a conveyance and does not transfer any interest in the land or its use.
Unless and until a conveyance is made by deed, neither the Association nor any resident of
Redfields has a right by reason of the Application Plan or this Proffer Statement, or by approval
of either, to access or use any of this property including without limitation any area labeled trail
(whether existing or new), Open Space, scenic area or recreation area.
3. On or before the issuance of an occupancy permit for the sixty-fourth (64th) dwelling unit
within Phase V, Redfields, Owner shall construct new class B type 1 primitive nature trails (as
described in the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual, last updated February 12, 2010) in
the general locations shown on the Application Plan. The Owner reserves the right to include, at
its sole discretion, a parcourse as part of the trail or within the scenic area, as shown on the
Application Plan. A parcourse consists of a path or course equipped with obstacles or stations
distributed along its length for exercise.
4. On or before the issuance of an occupancy permit for the sixty-fourth (64th) dwelling unit
within Phase V, Redfields, the Owner shall construct a tot lot, a scenic area and a basketball half-
court in the approximate locations shown on the Application Plan. The scenic area shall contain
two (2) park benches. The Owner will construct the tot lot, scenic area and basketball half-court
before dedicating the Common Open Space to the Association. The Owner reserves the right to
construct the tot lot, scenic area and basketball half-court at any time before the requirements to
construct them are met.
5. The Owner will submit an overall lot grading plan meeting the requirements of this
paragraph 5 for Phase V (the "Plan") before a final subdivision plat is approved.
(i) The Plan will show all proposed streets, building sites, surface drainage, driveways, trails,
and other features the County Engineer determines are needed to verify that the Plan satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph 5.
(ii) The Plan shall be drawn to a scale not greater than one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet.
(iii) All proposed grading shall be shown with contour intervals not greater than two (2) feet.
All concentrated surface drainage over lots shall be clearly shown with the proposed grading.
All proposed grading shall be shown to assure that surface drainage can provide adequate relief
from the flooding of dwellings in the event a storm sewer fails.
ATTACHMENT G
3
(iv) Graded slopes on lots proposed to be planted with turf grasses (lawns) shall not exceed a
gradient of three (3) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (3:1).
Steeper slopes shall be vegetated with low maintenance vegetation as determined to be
appropriate by the County's program authority in its approval of an erosion and sediment control
Plan for the land disturbing activity. These steeper slopes shall not exceed a gradient of two (2)
feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fell (2:1), unless the County
Engineer finds that the grading recommendations for steeper slopes have adequately addressed
the impacts, such finding not to be unreasonably withheld.
(v) Surface drainage may flow across up to three (3) lots before being collected in a storm sewer
or directed to a drainage way outside of the lots.
(vi) No surface drainage across a residential lot shall have more than one-half (½) acre of land
draining to it.
(vii) All drainage from streets shall be carried across lots in a storm sewer to a point beyond the
buildable area.
(viii) The Plan shall demonstrate that driveways to lots will not be steeper than twenty (20%)
percent unless certified by an engineer that the driveway at the proposed steepness would be safe
and convenient for passenger and emergency vehicles to use, and shall include grading
transitions at the street that the agent determines will allow passenger vehicles to avoid scraping
the vehicle body on the driveway or the street. Additionally, the driveway grading shall provide
an area in front of the proposed garage, or an area proposed for vehicle parking where no garage
is proposed, that is not less than eighteen (18) feet in length that will be graded no steeper than
eight (8) percent
(ix) The Plan shall demonstrate that an area at least ten (10) feet in width, or to the lot line if it is
less than (10) feet, from the portion of the structure facing the street, has grades no steeper than
ten (10) percent adjacent to possible entrances to dwellings that will not be served by a stairway.
This graded area also shall extend from the entrances to the driveways or walkways connecting
the dwelling to the street.
(x) Any requirement of this condition may be waived by the County Engineer by submitting a
waiver request with the preliminary or final plat. If such a request is made, it shall include: (a) a
justification for the request contained in a certified engineer's report; (b) a vicinity map showing
a larger street network at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch equals six hundred (600) feet; (c) a
conceptual plan at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch equals two hundred (200) feet showing
surveyed boundaries of the property, (d) topography of the property at five (5) foot intervals for
the property being subdivided and on abutting lands to a distance of five hundred (500) feet from
the boundary line or a lesser distance determined to be sufficient by the agent; (e) the locations
of streams, stream buffers, steep slopes, floodplains, known wetlands; and (f) the proposed
layout of streets and lots, unit types, uses, and location of parking, as applicable. In reviewing a
waiver request, the County Engineer shall consider whether the alternative proposed by the
Owner generally satisfies the purpose of the requirement to be waived. The County Engineer
should also consider whether granting the waiver will result in substantial detriment to the public
health, safety or welfare.
ATTACHMENT G
4
(xi) The Owner may request that the Plan be amended at any time. All amendments shall be
subject to the review and approval by the County Engineer.
(xii) In the event that the County adopts overall lot grading regulations after the date the
Application Plan is approved, any requirement of those regulations that is less restrictive than
any requirement of this paragraph 5 that is imposed on the Owner shall automatically supersede
the corresponding requirement of this paragraph. Any requirement that is more restrictive in
such an ordinance will be superseded by the less restrictive requirement in this paragraph 5.
The following conditions/proffers shall be applicable to Redfields PRD generally.
6. The Redfields PRD shall include not more than 567 dwelling units.
7. Prior to approval of any road plans for Phase V, the Owner shall provide a pavement analysis
for the existing Fieldstone Road in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation
Engineering Guidelines (Chapter 6, entitled Pavement Design and Evaluation.)
ATTACHMENT G
CRITICAL SLOPES MODIFICATION
STAFF COMMENT:
I. CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER
The proposed development will require the disturbance of critical slopes. A modification to allow critical
slopes disturbance is necessary before the site plan can be approved by the Planning Commission. The
request for a modification has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the critical
slopes regulations. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth-disturbing activity on critical
slopes, while Section 4.2.5(a) allows the Planning Commission to waive this restriction. The applicant has
submitted a request and justification for the waiver (Attachment H), and staff has analyzed this request to
address the provisions of the Ordinance.
The critical slopes in the area of this request appear to be natural. Staff has reviewed this waiver request
with consideration for the concerns that are set forth in Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled
“Critical Slopes.” These concerns have been addressed directly through the analysis provided herein,
which is presented in two parts, based on the Section of the Ordinance each pertains to.
Section 4.2.5(a)
Review of the request by Current Development Engineering staff:
Engineering staff has reviewed this and finds there are no measurable impacts.
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
The critical slope disturbances are in the form of
Areas Acres
Total site area 58.46
Area of critical slopes
(man-made & natural)
Man-made = 0
Natural = 22.4
0% of development
38% of development
Total critical slopes area 22.4 38% of development
Total critical slopes disturbed 0.30 1% of critical slopes
The engineering analysis of the request follows:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
The critical slope areas contain natural critical slope areas. Please see the applicant’s waiver request for
details on these areas and the percentages of disturbance.
Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18-4.2 is addressed:
1. “rapid and/or large scale movement of soil and rock”:
2. “excessive stormwater run-off”:
3. “siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water”:
4. “loss of aesthetic resource”:
ATTACHMENT I
Based on the Open Space Plan and field observation, there are critical slopes located in this
area; however, these slopes are not shown to be significant.
5. “septic effluent”: This site will be served by public sewer.
No portion of this site plan is located inside the 100-year flood plain area according to FEMA Maps, dated
04 February 2005.
Based on the above review, the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the technical criteria for the
disturbance of critical slopes.
The critical slopes areas disturbed are not delineated as a significant resource on the Open Space and
Critical Resources Plan.
Review of the request by Current Development Planning staff:
Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2:
Section 4.2.5 establishes the review process and criteria for granting a waiver of Section 4.2.3. The
preceding comments by staff address the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a). Staff has included the provisions
of Section 4.2.5(a)(3) here, along with staff comment on the various provisions.
The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon finding
that:
A. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this
chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare;
This critical slopes waiver is unusual. The critical slopes impact is generated by the construction of
the trail system, road network, utilities and stormwater. The disturbance associated with road
network, utilities and stormwater is exempt from the critical slopes regulations and no wavier is
needed for that activity. The critical slopes disturbance associated with the construction of the trail
system may or may not be exempt depending on the timing of construction. The mechanics of the
ordinance would allow for the construction of the trails without a waiver if the trails are constructed
with the single family lots subdivision. However, if the trails are constructed with the multi-family site
plan a waiver is required. Even if this request for a waiver is denied the trails could still be
constructed as long as the construction occurs with the single family subdivision development. Staff
opinion is that denial of the waiver would not forward the purpose of the ordinance. Approval will
allow for passive recreation to be provided with minimal impact. It would allow the residents of this
development to take advantage of the large open space area being provided. It is likely that if formal
trails were not provided that the residents would establish informal trails that might have more
significant erosion risks than the formal trails proposed by the applicant.
B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of
section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree;
As stated above, the establishment of formal trails may result in less impact than would be generated
by the establishment of informal trails. Based on this staff opinion is that approval of this request
would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree.
C. Due to the property’s unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions,
excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance of
critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would
result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent properties; or
Denial of this request would not restrict the development of the property.
ATTACHMENT I
D. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be
served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived.
Approval of this request will provide recreational opportunities in a natural setting and allow for the use of
the significant open space area shown on the plan.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff review has resulted in both favorable and unfavorable findings:
Favorable factors:
1. Even if this waiver is denied the critical slopes may be impacted by-right as part of the
subdivision review.
2. Approval of formal trails may result in less impact than would be generated by informal
trails.
3. Approval of the request allows the residents to make effective use of provided open
space.
Unfavorable factors:
1. None identified.
After considering the favorable and unfavorable factors staff recommends approval of this
waiver.
ATTACHMENT I
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 1
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 27, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held regular meeting on Tuesday, September 27,
2011, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield,
Don Franco and Calvin Morris, Vice Chair. Duane Zobrist, Chair, was absent. Julia Monteith,
AICP, Senior Land Use Planner (UVA Architect – Ex-officio) for the University of Virginia,
was present.
Staff members present were Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning;
and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chairman, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
He noted that Duane Zobrist was absent and had recused himself.
Public Hearing Item:
ZMA-2010-00017/Redfields PRD
PROPOSAL: Rezone 58.47 acres from PRD (Open Space) - Planned Residential District zoning
district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to PRD
(Residential) - Planned Residential District zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34
units/acre) with limited commercial uses. Proposed number of units is 126 for a density of 2.15
units/acre.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: Located on west side of Old Lynchburg Road and accessed by Sunset Avenue and
Redfields Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 076R00000000E4 and 076R0000000100
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
(Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
The applicant proposes to amend the application plan adopted with the original rezoning and add
proffers on property zoned Planned Residential Development (PRD). The current zoning allows
open space on the property. The proposed amendment would allow development such as
residential uses with limited commercial uses on the property.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 2
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
Staff reviewed the application plan. The applicant proposes 126 residential units consisting of
single-family houses and townhouses. Staff pointed out the critical slopes and existing trails on
the property. The entrance to this property will be off of Fieldstone Road. This particular
portion of the development is shown as rural area on the comprehensive plan land use map. The
rural area is adjacent to area that is designated Neighborhood Density Residential. While this
property is zoned PRD the comp plan designates the area as rural area, which calls for less dense
and intensive uses than that allowed in the development areas. This particular open space does
not allow for any potential development at this time.
Almost a year ago a work session was held with the Commission regarding a comprehensive
plan amendment for this area. The applicant wanted the subject area to be amended from rural
area to the development area. The Commission recommended that this potential expansion area
be reviewed comprehensively with other possible expansion areas in the entire county when the
comprehensive plan is updated. Staff is currently working on this review and plans to begin
these discussions with the Commission in a couple of weeks. In the interest in time, the staff
report does note other areas of concern regarding this rezoning request that staff will not repeat.
Factors Favorable
• In developing this site, the applicant is proposing to minimize disturbance to the critical
slopes area.
• The proposal involves a site that includes the existing PRD Zoning, which is adjacent to
the Development Area and to PRD zoning.
• The site is near major highway access and is accessible to utilities.
• The proposal could potentially add some residential uses that were lost in the Biscuit Run
property becoming a state park, and replaces it within the same general southern urban
area location.
Factors Unfavorable
• The proposed residential development is inconsistent with the Growth Management
Policy and Rural Areas policies.
• The Land Use Plan Map in the Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Rural Area,
which is not recommended for this proposed scale of development.
• This rezoning request does not follow the process and direction the Planning Commission
provided at last year’s work session. The Commission recommended future expansion
areas be studied in a comprehensive manner and that the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA2010- 001) currently underway be studied with the comprehensive
plan. These initial discussions are scheduled to begin October 11, 2011 with the Planning
Commission.
• Some proffers need to be rewritten to address staff’s concerns, as noted in the proffer
section of the staff report.
• The loss of open space/trails that the community has been using.
• An increase in traffic to the area.
• No commitment has been made to provide affordable housing.
Staff Recommendation:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 3
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
Staff recommends denial of ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD because the residential use
proposed is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation.
WAIVER
Staff recommends approval of the modification to Section 4.2.5 (a) of Zoning Ordinance for
critical slopes waiver.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. There being no one, he opened the public hearing and
invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Steve Blaine, representative for the applicant Redfields Development Corporation, said he had
been working for the last couple of months with Marcia Joseph and Scott Collins, with Collins
Engineering. There are also principals here from the applicant. He would like to briefly go
through in depth an overview of the plan and the reasons why they think it is appropriate to
approve this plan at this time. He would leave time to answer questions. He made the following
comments.
- The Redfields PRD was approved in 1990 for 266 acres as shown on the plan for 656
dwelling units. There are currently 441 approved developed and platted lots. The
approved density was about 2.6 dwelling units per acre. What they proposed with the last
phase of this development is to plat and develop phase 5 of the PRD, which involves 126
dwelling units that would bring the density to about 2.1. It is a 13 percent reduction in
the density that was approved with this zoning in 1990, which was 20 years ago.
- This is a PRD and the reason they are before the Commission is because they are
amending the application plan. In the PRD zone the application plan dictates how the
development will proceed through the life of the project. This area known as phase 5 was
not depicted with residential lots. It has shown up in plans and master plans as open
space. They are not here for a rezoning. They are not changing the zoning map
designation, but are here because there is a process in section 8.6 of the zoning ordinance
that contemplates changes to application plans. That is why they are here tonight.
- The more detailed features of the plan involve townhouse units some of which they call
larger attached, which are townhouses but are more villa style and 39 single-family
dwelling units. This is the current end of Fieldstone Drive and the cul-de-sac will be
abandoned and the road will be extended to provide access to the units. The area shown
in green when subdivided will become common open space. They will resolve the use of
future use of this area by dedicating open space, which will be controlled, owned and
maintained by the homeowner’s association.
- They will replace any trail system that is in conflict with the development with a new trail
system. In the open space they will proffer a 100’ buffer area, which lays over an
additional restriction on the open space that vegetation trees cannot be cut except for
utilities and for the installation of the trail system in which case the trees have to be
replaced. He outlined the trail system. Contrary to the staff report there will actually be
a lengthier trail system when they complete the development. The current trails are about
1.4 acres. When they finish the development they will have 1.7 acres of trails. The trail
system will involve a class b primitive trail that will allow a more natural much like the
current trail today as opposed to an ADA accessible trail. The idea is to give trail users
options to do various loops. If they want to take the largest loop it will involve using the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 4
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
sidewalks. There will be sidewalks on both sides in this development as opposed to the
existing rural cross section they have in the old part of Redfields. This will be an urban
section with sidewalks on both sides with curb and gutter.
- They have met with the board of the homeowner’s association. They also met with a
group after that who was invited to hear about the plan. After those meetings they have
offered to extend a trail from the end of Fieldstone all the way to the main club house
where the pool is. That will be an asphalt trail much like the existing trails in the other
part of Redfields. As mentioned, some of the amenities they will add are a playground
area and a basketball court to provide additional amenities for this area.
- He pointed out the line boundary for the comp plan that designates the rural areas and
growth area. It crosses through the development. He pointed out the Whittington
property that went through an amendment to its PRD that was not required to go through
a comprehensive plan amendment for that. Similar to their request they were not
changing the rezoning and were not increasing the density.
- There are 58 residential units in Redfields that are in the rural areas just like the area in
phase 5. They cannot deny this request based on the comprehensive plan map designation
without treating these owners who are similarly situated differently from these owners.
He would repeat they cannot deny this request based on the staff’s recommendation
because they were treating these owners differently from the other situated owners.
- The Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area is shown for water and
sewer. This area is within the jurisdictional area. For 40 years they have had a policy
that directs growth in the areas that have been designated for water and sewer. Before
1990 this property was zoned R-1 and designated for utilities. They don’t feel there is
any need to go through a comprehensive plan amendment to recognize that the Board’s
actions over the years have been consistent with the future development of this area.
- When he got involved in this he heard about claims that there were representations to
existing homeowners that this area was to remain permanently open space. Frankly, that
concerned him. Before he got involved he researched the public records and the county
records and determined that consistently throughout starting with the approval of the
rezoning in 1990 it has been his client’s intent to develop this phase 5 area in the future.
They have repeatedly stated that intent. An example are the notes on the plats that have
been acknowledged by the county, which staff is aware of, that indicated in this area
there will be future development. The notes on the plats starting in 1995 contemplated
open space, single-family dwelling that was done on a later plat, and future development.
The plat in 1995 was recorded. The recording statutes place owners of property on notice
because these have been recorded in the Clerk’s Office. Again, it shows future
development on the 1995 recorded plats. There was a single-family lot platted in
1997and it continued to show in the plats that there would be future development. Again,
in 2001 after the platting of the single-family development a recorded plat indicating this
would be future development.
- The declaration of covenants and restrictions, which are also part of the public disclosure
documents to residents, are very clear that to become dedicated land the developer must
grant by deed or declaration a commitment or a dedication of open space. That has not
happened. That is consistent with what the zoning administrator said when certain
owners within Redfields asked the county to force the developer to grant them this area
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 5
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
as common open space. The zoning administrator was upheld by the BZA. She said that
open space is not permanent unless it is dedicated or deeded, which is has not occurred.
- They understand there has been an expectation that this remain open space. They have
seen the correspondence and heard the people. They may be mistaken expectations. They
maintain that the county cannot be bound by mistaken expectations. They propose a plan
that preserves in perpetuity for as long as the homeowners wish it to be so for permanent
open space. It will be 41 acres of permanent open space. This will then be dedicated
with the subdivision. They propose replacing those trails that will be interrupted by the
development so that the homeowners may enjoy the same or actually a lengthier trail
system than exists today. To mitigate the impact on adjoining lots they propose the
buffer area as shown before. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant. There being no questions Mr. Morris opened the
public hearing and invited public comment.
Ms. Monteith asked staff for clarification on page 4 of the staff report. In the planning and
zoning history in the actions taken over time for the rezoning in her view they were in direct
conflict with each other. In a number of them it was stated that the open space was to remain
open. She was hearing something different in what was presented by the applicant. This has
been consistent since it was the same when the Commission heard it last time. She would like to
understand that better before hearing the comments.
Ms. Grant replied as she understands it the open space originally was dedicated as open space on
the approved plan.
Mr. Kamptner noted that it would not have been dedicated because dedicated means it would
have been conveyed to the county for public use.
Ms. Grant noted that the application plan labeled it as open space. Over the years there was some
change she believed from the applicant that started to show the open space as future
development. It would say open space and then future development. However, when they go
through the minutes it is pretty clear that staff, the Board and Planning Commission have always
said that if there was ever a time for future development of this area that it would need to go
through a comprehensive plan amendment and a rezoning before any changes could occur to the
open space area, which is where they are.
Mr. Morris asked Ms. Monteith if that answered her question.
Ms. Monteith replied somewhat. However she finds it very confusing. She found it confusing
last year and continues to be confused. Obviously, a lot of the residents continue to be confused.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Rex Linville, resident of Redfields and staff member at the Piedmont Environmental Council
made the following remarks.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 6
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
- On January 17, 1990 Albemarle County approved ZMA-89-18 thereby creating the
Redfields neighborhood. Condition 8.3.d was to revise the land use notes to include
phase 6, which they all refer to as phase 5, as open space. Nothing has changed since that
approval by the Board of Supervisors to modify or release the applicant from that
condition. In fact, in a letter dated June 4, 2008 from David Benish to the applicant Mr.
Benish stated that this area was determined to be within the designated rural area and was
approved as open space by the Board of Supervisors.” In the same determination letter
Mr. Benish goes on to say there has been no intent or action since that time to change the
land use designation of this parcel. The applicant will tell you that they have always
wanted to develop this land. He agreed.
- Percy Montague is on record saying during the 1990 Planning Commission hearing that
they want to reserve the right to come back to you later and talk about future
development on that spot. They don’t want to indicate that land specifically as open
space. He believed they hoped that one day that land would be added to the growth area
along with Mountain Valley to the south. That has never happened. The land is still in
the rural area.
- Despite the applicant’s asserted desire to not specifically indicate that land as open space
this Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors approved the project under the
project under the condition that the land be designated as open space. During the same
1990 meeting Mr. Cilimberg summed up the county’s position pretty clearly when he
said if they want to market it as potential for future development that is fine, they can’t
control their marketing. What they are saying for the approved plan to be acted on
tonight and the Board will act on it is open space in phase 6 and that is it. Instead of
following Mr. Cilimberg’s recommendation to market the land for future development
the applicant chose to market the land as open space. They did this knowing full well
that land in proximity to open space commands a premium in value. The Redfield Sales
Office literature that they see before them presented the land as a pretty wooded area with
trails, trees, no lot lines and no roads. He referred to an overlay of the GIS from
Albemarle County that also shows where the lot lines exist today.
- To further bolster the assertion that this land was portrayed to the public as open space
with no future development during the public hearing for zma-2001-01 the developer’s
own agent is on the public record stating that they had gotten to the 440 lots that will
finish the development. Finally in zma-2006-20, which was ultimately withdrawn before
going to public hearing, Justin and Gayland Beights state in writing on the rezoning
application that the reason for the zoning request was because this portion of originally
approved PRD was designated as open space.
- If the above type of statements can’t be used as evidence upon which members of the
public can base and make informed decisions about the future of a neighborhood and how
to invest their dollars he was not sure what can. Please recommend denial of this request.
Ms. Cathy Cassidy noted that Charles Friel is doing surgery right and asked to reserves the right
for him to speak when he arrives.
Cathy Cassidy, resident of Redfields for ten years and on the Board of Directors for the past six
years, said she had been involved in protesting this development since it first came on the scene.
When they bought their house ten years ago she did her due diligence. She is a r egistered
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 7
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
architect and has a master in architecture from Harvard. She understands planning and building.
She asked that her realtors prove that the land behind her house, lot 4 on Laurel Glen, was in
open space before she bought it. She is adjacent to the upper parcel that is planned to have a
loop nature trail in this proposal. She obtained the plats and she read them. She refutes the
attorney’s interpretation of those plats. They all show parcel E that includes all the green area
they are proposing development. It includes two tax maps, being the upper one and the phase 5
one. Parcel E says open space and one single-family dwelling: future development. This single-
family home is a home built for the Millers. She understands they are family members of the
former owners and potential developers of the community. It was an easement within the
community. That is the interpretation of that quote. It does not mean future development of the
55 acres. She refutes that. All four of her plats show that they are recorded and signed by the
Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. Furthermore, her realtor called the agents
at the Redfield’s Development Corporation Sales Center of Redfield. They were also told that
land was open space. This is by employees o f Redfield’s Development Corporation. As
homeowners they have a right to expect that publicly filed documents that are in the courts and
public statements in PRD documents that all say that the space is open space that they should be
able to rely on these public documents as a homeowner and consumer. If they destroy this nature
trail by allowing this they not only destroy the nature trail, they destroy our trust in our public
institutions. She thought that would be a tragedy.
Mr. Freeman said he was a resident of 999 Kelsey Drive that abuts this area that is proposed for
development. While the house was built he had a discussion with Gayland Beights and he asked
about that area specifically. The reason they moved to Redfield was because it had high density
living, but it had the open space. The open space was critical. What Mr. Beights told him was
probably there would be no development. If there would be development it at most would be
something like one-half dozen houses on very large lots, they would never see them and would
have no impact. They relied on that information. The road going down to the proposed
development will destroy their quality of life on that road. He asked that the request not be
approved. He noted that his wife had written a letter of opposition.
Barry Condon, resident of Kelsey Drive, agreed with the previous speakers in that he brought his
property because of the open space next to his house. He asked that in order to protect his
investment that the Commission votes against this proposal. He trusted and relied on the
information he received from his realtor.
Mary Kay Brents, resident of 998 Kelsey Drive, said her resident was right next to the proposed
road. She had asked her realtor about the open space note on the plat and closed the deal because
she was told the open space would not be developed. She asked the Commission to do the right
thing for the taxpayers of Albemarle County and deny the request for development of phase 5 to
prevent this area from being overbuilt.
Scott Bender, teacher who lived in Redfield, spoke against the proposal. The aims of the
development seem to be deceptive. The result of the development would be an unsafe poorly
funded poorly planned neighborhood that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for
residential development. His family was told that the land behind their home was open space
and that it would not be developed. His realtor said that it was the open space itself that brought
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 8
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
the people to Redfields. He asked that the proposal be denied due to the density proposed. Most
of the land in the area is unusable because of the critical slopes in the area. The increased traffic
on the roads would create safety issues in Redfields because there are no sidewalks. The roads in
the area, Sunset and Country Green, are already too congested. He is one of nearly 600 residents
in the Samuel Miller District who have signed a petition requesting that the application for
development of phase 5 in Redfields be denied. To approve it is contrary both to what they were
assured as county residents and to the economic realities in the county. Please recommend that
the Board of Supervisors deny the request for development.
Tom Campbell asked to make three points based on what the attorney mentioned. One, he
referred to this new development as urban. This is completely different than anything else in
Redfields. This is completely out of character. It affects the value of the adjacent homes. It
affects the infrastructure of Redfields. In the snow storm in 2009 his wife had a life threatening
illness and had to be taken to the hospital. When they called 911 they were told that no
ambulance could get up into that area. The entrance at Sunset and Country Green was blocked.
They had to walk out to meet the rescue vehicle. The point is that there is only one way in and
out of Redfields through the awful intersection of Country Green/Sunset intersection. The road
is inadequate and the infrastructure should be taken into consideration before allowing additional
development.
Kristina Parker, resident of Redfields, said she had moved out but still owns a home in Redfields.
She noted safety issues if this development were to happen with the many young children that
ride school buses that walk to the bus stops. There are no sidewalks on Fieldstone. The trails
proposed are on critical slopes, which is a concern that it will be too steep to walk. She asked
that the request be denied and the open space reserved.
Carlos Armentrout, pediatrician and resident of Redfields, asked that the Planning Commission
deny the request. He was concerned with the nature trails. He has helped maintain the trails in
the entire neighborhood. The development of the land is not consistent with the comprehensive
planning of Albemarle County and he respectfully asks that the Commission deny the request.
Steve Wasserman asked the Commission to deny the request. He asked that they not connect the
proposed Mosby Mountain to their community. It is a bad plan because there are so many
critical slopes and the increased traffic that would be created through their neighborhood.
Jack Stoner, resident of 230 Chestnut Oak Lane in the Sherwood Farm Subdivision, spoke
against the request on behalf of himself and those in the neighborhood who signed the petition.
He supported the green buffer and the preservation of the open space that was outside the growth
area. His neighborhood supported the Redfields development due to the green buffer and asked
that it remain.
Charles Friel, resident of area, asked that the plane be denied to preserve the open space in phase
5. The residents have relied on the covenants of the subdivision and ask that the open space be
preserved.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 9
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
Charles Loesser, physician at UVA, spoke against the request since it will have a detrimental
effect to their quality of life. The people bought into Redfield relying on the message that the
open spaces are not intended to be developed. He had signed petitions from 600 residents
against the proposal and brochures promoting the development. He asked that the request be
denied because it was an ill conceived plan. The county does not have the funds to provide for
the infrastructure.
Bill Jones, resident, spoke against the proposal. He referred to pictures at the intersection of
Sunset Avenue and Country Green and the safety issues with the traffic access. It is impossible
for a school bus or truck to make that turn without going into the opposite lane.
Greg Meyer asked that the request be denied. When he bought his house he was told that the
open space would be preserved. He enjoys the use of the beautiful trails.
Adam King, resident of Redfield, echoed what has already been said and asked for denial of the
request. There needs to be some assurance that the sidewalk issue is addressed if anything is
given.
Bobby Albro, a Redfield resident, asked that the Commission follow the comp plan
recommendation, the open space condition, and determination of the assessment office to
recommend denial.
Joe Coughlin, a resident on Kelsey Drive, asked the Commission to vote no for the children’s
lifestyle
Jeff Werner, with Piedmont Environment Council, said the staff report spells it out very well.
Therefore, he recommends denial because the residential use is not in compliance with the land
use designation.
Robert Feranglen, a resident who lives off of Fieldstone, expressed concerns about where the
residents are going to walk to. Everyone needs a car and asked where the residents of that area
are going to park.
Stephanie Belock, resident of Redfield, asked that the applicant stick to the comprehensive plan
that the citizens and residents of Albemarle County have relied on. He hoped the Commission
would deny this development request.
Carlo Malando, resident of area, spoke in opposition to the request and asked that the open space
be preserved. This is an issue that affects all neighborhoods in Albemarle County because their
open space could be taken away. When something is dedicated as open space it sh ould stay that
way. It is a trust issue. Please deny the request.
The Planning Commission took a five minute break at 7:29 p.m. The meeting reconvened at
7:38 p.m.
Mr. Morris invited the applicant to come forward for rebuttal comments.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 10
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
Steve Blaine said he always likes to start with the things that they agree upon from with what
they have heard.
- In terms of the safety concerns about Fieldstone Drive they heard that when they met
with the neighbors. There should be a written proffer to extend the trail system and that
would be to extend the trail from Fieldstone to the swimming pool. That is their intent
and will be finalized before there is action on the plan.
- Certainly there is some confusion over what open space means. The developer 20 years
ago understood what it was and how the county used it and understood that was a
designation and not it will never ever be developed forever or ever. They don’t have a
zoning designation or a use that says it will be this and will never change. That is why
they are here tonight and they have an application plan amendment because they are
amending the description of that on the plan from open space to what they see here
tonight. Has there been a misunderstanding? There is no question about it.
- Does there need to be a major reeducation of their real estate agency about what that
means? He thinks they heard that tonight. He thinks though they had the developer who
proceeded in good faith on what that meant and made the announcements of their
intention that they may want to develop this and they wanted the flexibility. The
developers did what they could. The developers through the series of plat approvals
reserves for future development. The developer has brought various actions before panels
that have been rejected understandably, but has repeatedly said to get the investment to
yield anywhere near the 656 units this area has to be developed. They have already met
their open space requirement in the ordinance for PRD before this plan has been
submitted and they will continue to meet that open space requirement if it is approved.
- Just for clarification, when he refers to an urban section that is the design now that the
county prefers. They have the Neighborhood Model and the county directs them to curb
and gutter and sidewalks. He thought they have other legal documents that have been
misinterpreted by lay people that confused the matter such as referring to open space as
being restricted from no development. That is not what the covenants say. The covenants
talk about what exempt property is from assessments. Naturally open space would be
exempt from assessment. Throughout tonight it just breaks his heart that there are some
pieces of information that either innocently or with an agenda have been misinterpreted
and twisted to really rewrite history. He thought the record is clear. He was happy to
answer questions.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Porterfield clarified that she did not think open space is exempt from assessment. Open
space owned by a homeowner’s association is exempt from assessment.
Mr. Blaine agreed that is exactly right. He was assuming there was a misunderstanding of the
terms the developer has to follow as defined in the ordinance. The developer cannot have a
misunderstanding of those terms. He thinks that is the root of our problem. What they offer is a
compromise that every lot adjacent to phase 5 will be adjacent to open space as they are today
and it will be dedicated open space.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 11
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
Mr. Lafferty said he was not quite sure who produced the brochure that says one third of the land
will be dedicated to the community. He asked exactly what that means.
Mr. Blaine replied that it is the open space requirement under the ordinance that this
development means. All of the green areas adds up to over a third of the development, which
this development meets and will continue to meet if this is approved.
Mr. Morris noted there was a lot of information that had come before the Commission tonight.
He asked the county attorney to give some words of wisdom for guidance.
Mr. Kamptner said based on the staff report and what he heard tonight he could provide some
guidance.
- Some of the things will be of concern to the applicant and to members of the public. The
first thing to bear in mind is the decision should be based upon sound zoning principles.
Private matters are not directly or properly considered by the Planning Commission,
which includes such items as the promotional brochures.
- To get to the sound zoning principles that he referred to these should guide their decision
tonight. The first will be whether or not the application is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The Commission is well aware that is one of the fundamental
considerations with any application that is considered. Bear in mind that the
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan are not binding on the Commission. The
Commission may find that there are factors that warrant varying or not adhering to the
policies and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
- The Commission can also consider the character of the neighborhood. They have a
neighborhood that has been around for 20 years. It has developed in a particular pattern.
There is developed land and there is open land.
- The Commission can also consider the impacts or any detriments to abutting properties,
the suitability of the property for various purposes, and the character of the district
overall. This had already been covered for the existing use and character of the property.
Hopefully that puts the Commission on the course for their decision making process. He
would be happy to answer questions.
Mr. Morris invited questions. There being none, he asked for further Commission discussion.
Ms. Porterfield said personally she could not support this application. She told the applicant on
Friday she did not understand why they were back because they were very directly sent on a path
by this Commission about a year ago when they said it should be coming in with all of the other
applications that are sitting out there to expand the development area. She also cannot support it
because it is not currently consistent with Comp Plan. She did not think it is in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood as it has developed over 20 years. As she drove through the
property this afternoon and looked at it she found it was an old neighborhood. It has a certain
look. People are living there with what has been there 20 years. She believed if this was to be
built as presented she would have thought that the density that is being presented would have
been at the outset of the neighborhood as opposed to being way back. It is very difficult to get
to. She drove it a number of times. The road that would have to be used to get back there is not
very wide. It is obviously where the people go to get to their amenity, which is the pool and the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 12
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
small clubhouse; there are only about 16 parking spaces. That would lead her to believe that lots
of people walk. However, there is no place on the road to park. If they had that there would be
total gridlock. She was not as aware of the rest of that neighborhood leading in because it was
not in her district. It is not easy to get to. She sees that there could be real problems with the
roads that are leading into the site. It is not the way she feels that they should go about adding
density to our areas.
In addition, Ms. Porterfield said she is very concerned that the county needs to figure out how
many residential lots they have in the development areas that have not been built on. Secondly,
they need to decide how much more amenities and infrastructure the county should provide.
They have heard from other residents they need a library, more police protection, and a fire
station. They simply don’t have any of those in the plan to be built in the near future or to be
added to. She felt they need to make sure before they start bringing in more residential into the
development areas that they can handle what they already have. That includes our water
situation. Based on those reasons she would definitely not be able to support this request.
Motion:
Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommended denial of ZMA-2010-00017
Redfield PRD based on the recommendation of staff.
Mr. Smith said he had great concern about its noncompliance with the Comprehensive Plan; the
terrible traffic problems going through a residential area, and the homeowner’s grave
misunderstanding about what they were told.
Mr. Morris invited discussion.
Mr. Loach asked to clarify one important point this evening. Somebody came up to the
microphone and said they were the stewards for the land in the county. He noted that the people
were the stewards of the land for the county because they are the ones who vote for the Board of
Supervisors, appoint the Planning Commissioners, and give direction to the land use decisions.
They heard the county attorney say the Board of Supervisors can and very well may change land
use designations. That said, he agreed fully with Ms. Porterfield about the situation with
infrastructure. Coming from Crozet he can sympathize with them having been in this situation
when they had a master plan that they told them the population was 12,000 and then said they
changed their mind to 24,000. To some extent he could sympathize with the way they feel when
there is a change in the planning. He would hope that they would see in the future a master plan
for the southern part that they could all be involved as they were in Crozet. He would also say
there were some good points in this plan. As Mrs. Stoner said it may be the right development in
the wrong place because there are some good things about it. There is a place for density in the
growth area as long as it is in the right place. They have devel opment in Crozet like that, which
has worked out very well. It has been a plus to the community. With that said, he would also
not support this request.
Mr. Franco said it was clear where they were going tonight. There were a couple of things he
wanted to put on the table. One, he felt disadvantaged of not having heard from staff the report
they are expecting next month regarding an evaluation of this with the Comp Plan. He also feels
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 13
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
that they have to get to a point in time where the residents and the developers (the owner) have
clear understanding of what the expectations are going to be. Everybody is getting tired of
coming here every couple of years and readdressing this situation. As long as the developer owns
the property he has got the right to request a rezoning. Again, he is a little disappointed they
could not wait until next month to hear what staff’s evaluation of the property was before they
were required to take a vote. So separate from this motion he thought they should consider what
conditions, if any, they would recommend for approval of this property when it goes forward so
that the Board has a basis for making a decision the other way.
Mr. Morris said that was an entirely different question.
Mr. Lafferty said they talked about that last time. Sort of an overview of where the county is
going was in Jeff Werner’s comments the last time. It gives a synopsis of the build out and what
is available. He thought they gave clear direction last time that this should wait until the
Comprehensive Plan takes a look at this.
Mr. Franco agreed. All he was saying is they don’t have that study or evaluation in front of
them. So they are being required to make a decision. Recognizing that it is only a
recommendation to the Board he would at least have a second recommendation that it is clear
that they are going to deny it as proposed. If the Board would consider rezoning it, he would like
to place some conditions on which they would want them to consider if they were going that
route. It is like some of the other things they have done in the past where the Commission’s
recommendation has not been followed by the Board. He would not want the Commission to be
silent on this point. He would want them to speak as to some of the other concerns that they
have.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out his second was based on it not being in the Comprehensive Plan. They
need to take a look at that section of the Comprehensive Plan so not to piece-meal things
together. His second was also based on safety issues and that this plan did not seem consistent or
in keeping with the character of the district. It was totally out of character with the rest of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Franco said that it was inconsistent with the density of the adjacent neighborhood, and so me
safety issues need to be a concern. One of the other things they have not had a discussion on at
all has been the proffers. He cannot support it because of the proffers, especially on the
affordable housing side. He felt it was the Comp Plan, the density with being inconsistent with
the adjacent properties, and the proffers being inadequate or inconsistent with our policy.
Ms. Monteith said the one thing she would add to the safety issue is just the impacts that they
have heard about in terms of where the location of this density is in this already existing
neighborhood. It is not only the fact that there are safety issues, but there are also impacts.
Mr. Franco asked everybody to iterate if there are any other concerns besides those so the Board
can try to address those if they consider it otherwise.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 14
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
Mr. Loach said that it goes back to the larger question that Ms. Porterfield brought up, too, about
where are we, what is the inventory, and how great an impact should that be in making the
decision on these comprehensive plan amendments versus just looking at a V spot therein and
does it work. He felt there was a broader context that has to be taken into consideration. As Ms.
Porterfield mentioned they have infrastructure projects that are not even on the long term
planning and have to be paid for based on development that has already been approved. He
thought they have to get to the point where that infrastructure catches up to our Comprehensive
Plan. He thought they were a long way from ther e. One of the reasons they wanted to do master
planning in the beginning was to ensure that there was concurrency of infrastructure for the
growth area residents so that there was no degradation in the quality of life in our growth areas
because development got too far ahead of the infrastructure. He thought that was where they are
today.
Mr. Lafferty asked if it would be amendable to list his reasons that his motion for denial was
made are the ones they just talked about. It was safety issues.
Mr. Smith did not accept it as a part of the motion. He said it could be added as a side note.
Mr. Lafferty asked if his motion could be amended to add those reasons.
Mr. Smith said those are not his reasons.
Mr. Franco said at this point he thought they had probably had enough of the discussion. The
Board can read the minutes. He was just trying to get it on the record what their full concerns
were.
Ms. Porterfield said the only thing they need to make sure of when this goes to the Board is that
the minutes have to go with the staff report to the Board.
Mr. Franco agreed the staff report needs to identify this discussion.
The motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that ZMA-2010-00017 Redfields PRD would go to the Board of Supervisors
on a date to be determined with a recommendation for denial. He asked if the critical slopes
waiver needs to be addressed.
Mr. Kamptner said the Commission could make a recommendation on the critical slopes waiver
since it automatically goes to the Board of Supervisors because it is a Planned Development.
Motion for Critical Slopes:
Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to deny the critical slopes waiver based on the
fact that they recommended denial of ZMA-2010-00017 Redfields PRD because the
Commission has nothing to base it on.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 15
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
The motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that the critical slopes waiver request was denied. There was no date set for
the Board of Supervisors hearing at this time.
Mr. Benish pointed out on October 11th the Commission will begin the Comprehensive Plan
update. There will be inventory information provided at that time.
Old Business
Ms. Porterfield asked that all of the reasons that the various Commissioners indicated for their
denial be listed in the draft memo. That would keep them from having to get an entire set of
minutes done prior to the Board hearing. It could be direct and to the point.
Mr. Morris agreed that was needed because it was denied.
Mr. Franco said his main concern was the Commission has made recommendations to the Board,
such as the winery noise ordinance, that they took a different route, and the Commission really
did not discuss different alternatives. He just really wants to put out their reasons or if there are
compatible parts of it what they are or could live with so that they have a sound basis for their
decision.
Mr. Morris agreed it was a good point.
Mr. Lafferty noted if they are denying a motion they should always give reasons. H e thought it
was correct to bring out more about what people are thinking.
The Planning Commission agreed to the following. Separate from the motions, if the Board
would consider rezoning the property the Planning Commission asked to place some condition s
on which they would want them to consider if they were going that route. The Planning
Commission expressed the desire to provide the following guidance to the Board of Supervisors
in the event they approve the request. So separate from this motion they should consider what
conditions, if any, they would recommend for approval of this property when it goes forward so
that the Board has a basis for making a decision the other way.
There being no further old business, the meeting moved to the next item.