HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 22 2005 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
November 22, 2005
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, November
22, 2005, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Rodney Thomas, Pete Craddock, Jo
Higgins, Bill Edgerton, Chairman; Calvin Morris and Marcia Joseph, Vice -Chair. Absent was David J.
Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; David Benish, Chief of Planning;
Stephen Waller, Senior Planner; Sean Dougherty, Senior Planner; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner;
Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Amelia McCulley, Zoning and Current Development
Director/Zoning Administrator and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Edgerton called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Edgerton invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being
none, the meeting proceeded to the review of the consent agenda.
Consent Agenda:
a. SUB 2005-288 Rio East Office Park — Open Space Appropriateness. (Francis MacCall) (Tax
Map 061, Parcel 124A)
b. SUB 2005-289 Montgomery Ridge, Phase III — Open Space Appropriateness and Critical
Slopes Waiver request. (Francis MacCall) (Tax Map 046, Parcel A)
Ms. Higgins stated that she would not be able to vote on item a. because she recused herself from the
previous action. Therefore she asked the Commission to take separate actions.
Action on SUB 2005-289, Montgomery Ridge, Phase III:
Motion: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Morris seconded, that the consent agenda item b. SUB 2005-289,
Montgomery Ridge, Phase III, be approved.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Action on SUB 2005-288, Rio East Office Park:
Motion: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Morris seconded, that the consent agenda item a. SUB 2005-288, Rio
East Office Park, be approved.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Commissioner Higgins abstained.)
Item Requesting Deferral:
ZMA 2005-006 Logan, Clevester (Signs #10,11) - Request to rezone .545 acres from the R-2
(Residential) Zoning District to the R-4 (Residential) Zoning District to allow property boundary line
adjustments. The property is described as Tax Map 61, parcels 44A and 44A1 (portion of, 17,503 square
feet adjacent to Tax Map 61, parcel 44 including an existing dwelling) located at 2530 Hydraulic Road
(Route 743) at the intersection of Hydraulic Road and Turtle Creek Road in the Jack Jouett Magisterial
district. It is zoned R-2 (Residential) and EC (Entrance Corridor) Overlay. The Comprehensive Plan
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005
'i3
designates this property Urban Density in Neighborhood 1 and recommends 6.01-34 dwelling units per
acre. The R-4 Zoning District allows for up to 6 dwelling units per acre. (Rebecca Ragsdale)
APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO THE DECEMBER 20, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING.
Mr. Edgerton stated that this rezoning request was deferred from the September 20 meeting and the
applicant is requesting an additional deferral to the December 20 meeting. He opened the public hearing
since the request has been advertised and invited public comment. There being none, he closed the
public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for action.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Ms. Higgins seconded, to accept the applicant's request for deferral of ZMA-
2005-006, Logan, to December 20, 2005.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Regular Items:
SDP 2005-078 Verulam Farm Conservation Group LLC - Ntelos (CV601) - Request for approval of a
treetop personal wireless service facility with a wooden monopole that would be approximately 101 feet
tall (10 feet AMSL above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet), with ground equipment in a 160
square foot and 11-foot tall building. This application is being made in accordance with Section 10.1.22
of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for Tier II wireless facilities by right in the Rural Areas. The
property, described as Tax Map 74 Parcel 17, contains 356.26 acres, and is zoned RA, Rural Areas and
EC, Entrance Corridor. The site is located on Bloomfield Road (Route 677), approximately .75 miles
from the intersection of Route 637 and Route 677, in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 3. (Stephen Waller)
Mr. Waller summarized the staff report:
• This is a request to allow the installation of a Tier II personal wireless service facility on property
held under a conservation easement and owned by the Verulam Farm Conservation Group, LLC.
The facility would include a 101 foot tall wooden treetop monopole equipped with an array
containing three flush mounted panel antennas and also an 11 foot tall utility building that is 160
square feet in area.
• During a site visit staff observed that a red balloon that was floated at the proposed height of the
proposed monopole could be seen near the tops of the tree line from a location that was interior
to the site. From all other surrounding locations the balloon appeared to blend in well with the
trees. There is also an existing facility with another 101 foot tall monopole at this site. Staff
observed that brown monopole also blends in apparently well with the surrounding trees.
• Staff attempted to summarize the staff report with the executive summary that is provided at the
beginning. If the Commission has any further questions, he would be happy to answer them.
Also, Ntelos has a representative in attendance.
Mr. Edgerton stated that on page 4 of the staff report in the middle of the page staff referenced the
existing special use permit that is scheduled to expire on January, 2006. The condition of the special use
permit will only allow two monopoles. He asked staff to provide some background on what had happened
to that one. He asked what would happen if the applicant decided to use that special use permit.
Mr. Waller stated that if they were able to work out another agreement whereby the Nature Conservancy
would allow that other third facility to be installed as it was approved with the special use permit
previously, then there would be nothing preventing them from doing that. The zoning ordinance allows
three tree top monopoles within an area defined by a circle with a diameter of 200 feet. There is nothing
in the County regulations or by County policy that would prevent us from allowing them to install that
facility if they could meet those requirements and also do that in accordance with the approved
construction plans for that facility. Under the conditions of the easement as it stands right now, two
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 2
--33
facilities are allowed and those two facilities have to be encompassed within an 800 square foot area.
The facility that was previously approved by the special use permit for T Mobile would not meet that
+" requirement anyway. With the time that it took to negotiate this second facility there, he would doubt that
they would be able to do that within the time allowed. Also, if they were to change the construction plans
that were approved with the original special use permit, they would have to come back before the
Commission anyway as a by right Tier II because they would no longer be in general accord with those
plans.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the previous applicant was aware that they were about to lose their option.
Mr. Waller stated that the special use permit approval letter lets them know when it was set to expire and
they actually had a monopole that was at the site when they went to review the second facility that is
currently there. They actually pulled out of the area altogether. At that time when Nextel was pursuing
their application they sold their monopole to Nextel. T Mobile was the first to file an application at this
site. They stopped their work in the Charlottesville area and Nextel came along looking at this site and T
Mobile ended up selling the monopole that was already there on the site to Nextel. He felt that it would
take a lot of work for them to get a building permit approved and also to amend the easement language
within the next two months. It was something that he could not see happening. But, there is nothing in
the ordinance that would prohibit them from having three facilities on this site all with low visibility.
Ms. Joseph asked if T Mobile had filed for a building permit
Mr. Waller stated that they had received their preliminary zoning inspection for their building permit. But,
something happened at their corporate headquarters and they decided that it was not the right time to
proceed in this area.
Ms. Joseph asked if the building permit had been withdrawn or if it was still pending.
Mr. Fritz stated that the building permit had not actually been issued because they had not submitted all
of the necessary information. The actual construction would have had to have started in order for the
applicant to meet the special use permit deadline.
Mr. Waller pointed out that staff would not enforce the conditions of the easement. Staff would look to the
Nature Conservancy to do that. If Verulam Farm Conservation Group, LLC did allow T Mobile to go on
site and attempt to install that facility, they would then be in violation of their conservation easement. But,
as far as the site itself, staff reviewed all three sites and all three sites were determined to have low
visibility and also to be acceptable sites.
Mr. Fritz stated that the key issue for the Commission is that there is a special use permit out there that
could be exercised before January. If it is this would represent the third site and it would still be a Tier II
and staff would still be recommending approval of it.
Ms. Joseph asked where the T Mobile approved site was located in relationship to the other sites.
Mr. Waller stated that the T Mobile site would be to the right of the Nextel's site shown on the plan.
Ms. Joseph asked if all three sites would be clustered together, and Mr. Waller replied that the sites would
be clustered together and within the amount of distance allowed for the three treetop facilities.
Mr. Waller stated that the Nature Conservancy would have to approve to allow a third facility to be
allowed.
Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Jessie Wilmer, representative for Ntelos from Waynesboro, Virginia, spoke for the request. Also present
were Tony Edwards, who was their RF Manager, and Chris Nicholas, their engineer for this area. Ntelos
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 3
-13q
is requesting consideration for a personal wireless service facility located on the Verulam Farm property.
Ntelos is in the process of improving its existing coverage along the 1-64 Corridor. Right now they have
%4W coverage through 64, but they actually call this the Ivy hole because of the large amount of dropped calls
right within this area. Having this site would close that hole as well as provide additional coverage to the
surrounding residences. They will use an existing logging road to access this facility. They have provided
staff with a tree conservation report, which is in effect for, during and post construction of the facility. The
facility will be minimally visible from the Entrance Corridor. They did a balloon test with staff and found
because the facility is flush mounted and painted brown that it really will blend in with the tree. It was not
visible from a lot of different vantage points. The ground equipment was not visible at all. They contacted
the Virginia Department of Historic Resource and they have found their proposal has no adverse effects
on historic resources in this area. Regarding the conservation easement, the property owner has
voluntarily placed the property into a conservation easement with the Nature Conservancy. Initially when
that was done they put it in the conservation easement that they lease 800 square feet for one pole
thinking that it was a co -location pole. Therefore, there is 400 square feet for each carrier. But, with the
County's policy co -location is not an option because it is only 10 feet above the tallest tree. Therefore,
Ntelos has gone back to the Nature Conservancy and have worked with them for the past 8 months. The
Nature Conservancy has amended their easement to allow a second pole within the 800 square feet.
Therefore, Ntelos has leased 800 square feet from Verulam Farm Conservation Group and Nextel has
leased the other 400 square feet from Mr. McGuire. If T Mobile would come in right now they have leased
all of the property that is within the conservation easement. Therefore, they would have to go back and
work it out with the Nature Conservancy. She asked that the Commission approve their request.
Mr. Edgerton invited public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter
back before the Commission for action.
Motion: Ms. Joseph moved, Ms. Higgins seconded, that SDP-2005-078, Verulam Farm Conservation
Group LLC — Ntelos (CV601), be approved as proposed.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Edgerton stated that SDP-2005-078, Verulam Farm Conservation Group LLC — Ntelos (CV601), was
approved.
Public Hearing Items:
SP 2004-004 Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center (Signs #89,92,94) - Request for a special use permit to
allow establishment of the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia, in accordance with Zoning
Ordinance Sections 10.2.2.49 and 13.2.2.13, which allow for a historical center, and modification to
Section 5.1.42. In addition to a 15,000 square foot building, trails and constructed exhibits are proposed.
Special events and festivals may also be requested. The park property, Tax Map 62 Parcel 23, contains
a total of approx. 102 acres, and is zoned RA, Rural Areas, R-1, Residential and EC, Entrance Corridor,
and Flood Hazard Overlay. The proposed site is located on approximately 18 acres at the northern end of
Darden Towe Park, on the west side of Stony Point Road (Route 20 North), approximately one-half mile
north of the intersection with the Richmond Road (Route 250 East), in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
The Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan designates this area as Parks and Greenways, and
Neighborhood Density Residential (3 - 6 d.u. per acre) in Neighborhood Three. (Rebecca Ragsdale)
Mr. Edgerton stated that SP-2004-004, Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center, was deferred from their
October 4 meeting.
Ms. Ragsdale summarized the staff report. (See staff report.)
• This is a special use permit request that has been before the Planning Commission previously in
October. It is for an historical center for the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia, a
nonprofit organization. They would like to establish the historical center within Darden Towe
Park. The site is 18 acres on a leased acre by the County and City for the park land. The site is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 4
adjacent to Trevillians Creek. She referred to the map and explained the proposed location of the
building and trails.
% . The applicant is requesting to use the gravel road that exists in the park and have their entrance
reach the exploratory center by coming around and extending this gravel road.
• The site is zoned R-1 and RA. This part of the site is Parks and Greenways designated in the
Comprehensive Plan. The other area is Neighborhood Density in the plan.
• The site layout has been changed from the previous review with a slight reconfiguration of the
parking spaces and some additional spaces. Now the total number of parking spaces is 83. The
main change is that previously there was a new entrance on to Route 20 to serve the park and
now the preferred means of access through the park is now proposed along that access road.
• The expected visitation that staff has received from the applicant would be a maximum average
of 100 visitors per day to the site.
• Along with the proposal the applicant has requested modifications to the supplemental
regulations that are in the zoning ordinance for historical centers to allow a larger building.
Instead of 1,500 square feet, which is in the supplemental regulations, they would like 15,000
square feet. In the previously staff report, the applicant submitted their space needs justification
based on some of their larger items like the replica of the Keel Boat taking up space and how
they would like to devote that space.
• In addition, there is another supplemental regulation modification to allow more than 10 percent of
the floor area of that 15,000 square foot building to be devoted to accessory uses. The applicant
would also like to hold up to 12 special events and 4 festivals per year at this historic center.
• This was before the Planning Commission in October and the application was originally submitted
in 2004. It was deferred at the October meeting. The new staff report is to give the Commission
more information to address those issues that were raised by the Commission. After the October
meeting the applicant submitted a revised application plan, which showed one means of access
to the site through the access road around the eastern side of the park adjacent to the river. That
has been reviewed.
• The new access proposed for the historic center was reviewed by the engineering staff and water
resources. Engineering comments have been provided in the staff report. The access road is not
located within the stream buffer, but it is located with the floodplain. It may require a special use
permit once final engineered plans are reviewed because of fill in the floodplain. Also, the
engineering comments indicated that the alignment of the road does cross over some critical
slopes and would require a waiver. That was not identified in time for the full review of critical
slopes by staff in time for this meeting. The Planning Commission will review that along with the
special use permit. Engineering did suggest a site plan, which is a requirement of an historic
center. As mentioned with the floodplain there would be more engineering that would go along
with that. The applicant submitted a justification for the critical slopes waiver, which included their
approach to the design and upgrade of the proposed access road to the site. Staff feels that the
justification for the location of the road is very useful information.
• The alignment of the road is shown in a general location and is the only access shown to the
proposed building. So as a condition of approval it is recommended that the site be developed in
accord with the application plan. So any major changes or any new proposals for access would
have to be reviewed with the new special use permit action.
• Staff does not have any new information regarding the eastern connector. There is no new
information. There is a study that is getting under way in conjunction with the City and no
alignment is known at this point.
• Also, provided in the new staff report is additional information regarding historical and
interpretative themes for the historical center. Historical center is defined in the ordinance as
buildings, structures or facilities used for education and/or interpretative activities related to
natural, cultural or agricultural history open to the public and located at or adjacent to an historic
resource. The applicant has provided some more detailed information about how they meet that
definition. It was previously determined by the zoning administrator that it fit as an historical
center by special use permit.
• So staff has provided some recommended conditions of approval. Should the Planning
Commission wish to approve the SP 2004-004, the following conditions are recommended:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 5
—T � W
1. The site shall be developed in general accord with all sheets of the plan entitled "Lewis & Clark
Exploratory Center," revised October 18, 2005 and prepared by Nelson, Byrd, Woltz. Setbacks
indicated in the table on sheets L3.1 and L3.2 do not set increased minimum setbacks.
2. The top of the Lookout Tower, measured in elevation above mean sea level, shall not exceed
[AMSL + 35]. The approved height shall at no time be taller than the tallest tree within 25 feet of
the Lookout Tower, and shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above
the pre-existing natural ground elevation.
3. A maximum of 12 special events, in accordance with Section 5.1.42.i, are authorized per calendar
year.
4. A maximum of 4 festivals, in accordance with Section 5.1.42.j, are authorized per calendar year.
5. A lighting plan and a landscaping plan shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the
Architectural Review Board prior to final site plan development plan approval.
6. In accordance with Section 32.7.9.9, a 20% tree canopy shall be required for the site based on
the disturbed area for the historical center building, parking, and access road.
7. Prior to any grading or construction activity, the limits of the 100-year flood plain and stream
buffers, where adjacent to constructed proposed improvements including the amphitheater,
timber fort, lookout tower, entrance road and retaining wall, shall be flagged at 10-foot intervals by
a land surveyor to prevent encroachment land disturbing activity, storage of construction
equipment or materials, and actual construction of improvements during construction.
• Staff recommends approval of the modifications to Section 5.1.42:
Section 5.1.42.a new historical center structures:
Approval of a modification to allow the historical center structure to exceed the ordinance
provision that new buildings associated with historical centers not exceed 1,500 square feet in
floor area with the following condition:
,%W o The new historical center structure shall not exceed 15,000 square feet in floor area.
rn
Section 5.1.42.gAccessory Uses: Approval of a modification to allow the floor area of accessory
uses within the historical center building to exceed 10% of the total floor area of the structure with
the following condition:
o Accessory uses identified in Section 5.1.42(g) shall not exceed 20% of the floor area of
the building.
Mr. Edgerton asked on the last point if staff was recommending, because of this project, to modify those
sections of the ordinance.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that Section 5.0, Supplemental Regulations were set up so that in special
circumstances where it may be deemed appropriate that those regulations could be modified.
Mr. Edgerton asked if that would just be for this particular project.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that it was just for this particular application. Staffs recommendation for approval is
based on the fact that it is in the development area. Also, it is the uniqueness of their space needs with
the big keel boat and all of that.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that it was a ten fold increase in what is recommended, and Ms. Ragsdale agreed.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he was under the impression that there really was no clearly targeted Eastern
Connection route, but on page 11 of the site plan there is a nice dashed line coming off of Dorrier Drive
saying potential alignment of the Eastern Connector Road.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005
-M
M
Ms. Ragsdale stated that was strictly based on the applicant's submittal
Mr. Rieley stated that it was an alignment that has been proposed, but it does not have any special official
designation.
Mr. Edgerton stated that it at least shows us that it will not impair that.
Ms. Higgins stated that the Commission did previously ask the question on whether it could be
accommodated across the site in some form, which was potentially where that came from.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that the applicant had previously stated that they would accommodate it.
Mr. Morris noted that the applicant had put that in writing.
Ms. Higgins pointed out that she did not see a condition #2 that talks about the tower.
Ms. Ragsdale stated the conditions are shown on page 4 of the executive summary. She pointed out that
an error was made in the last sentence and should be corrected to read "tower" instead of "pole."
Mr. Thomas asked if the applicant has to do any filling in on the property if they will have to come back for
another permit.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that our engineer reviewed the plan and it looked like it may be designed so that fill
won't be required, but they have not gotten the engineering for the whole road. So it may be that there
will be some fill needed, and the applicant would have to return to the Commission.
Mr. Benish pointed out that it would require a special use permit for activity to fill in the floodplain.
Ms. Joseph asked if noise was something that was regulated for special events and the festivals.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that was addressed in the supplemental regulations.
Ms. Joseph stated that staff referenced Section 5.1.4.2.i and j and she thought that they talked about
things that would not be amplified.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that in the supplemental regulations it was 5.1.4.2.h, the operation shall be subject
to daily tours, normal hours opened to the public limited to daytime hours only and outdoor amplified
sound shall be prohibited at all times.
Ms. Joseph stated that they were assuming that with approval of this that there would never be amplified
sound outdoors. She pointed out that the city residents were very concerned about the noise when
someone was contemplating an amphitheater on the river.
Mr. Rieley asked if the last version of this had no amplified sound as a condition. He questioned whether
it was still included as a condition of approval.
Ms. McCulley stated that it was in the ordinance, but unless it was modified by the Commission it is a
prohibition.
Mr. Rieley stated that his view was that it would be beneficial to include it as a condition as they often do
even though it is a little redundant.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and asked the
applicant to come forward and address the Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 7
E9
Warren Byrd, principal of Nelson -Byrd Landscape Architects, stated that they have been working as the
site planners or landscape architects with the Lewis and Clark Discovery Center Board and
representatives for several years. He stated that he was present to discuss the design in a little more
detail, the design changes and again to answer any design questions that the Commission might have.
The plan that he was referring to was the one on the board. The most important thing is to realize that
the change in the last six weeks has been to move from an entrance that was off of Route 20, which was
considered problematic, to an entry road that comes through the park and goes by the lower fields and
comes back up the slope more of less paralleling where the existing cross country trail is. Essentially,
there is about 1,200 linear feet of road from the point that the gravel road ends to where it arrives at the
center plus the parking area. This change has allowed the center to come through the park, which they
feel is a good one, and takes the traffic off of Route 20. It has allowed them to fit the parking into the
grades a little more generously and less steeply. The maximum slope on the parking is now 3 percent
and they don't have any site walls as part of that grading, which they had before. The issue came up
about the fill in the entry road. They do need about 100 linear feet of fill as they see it now if they want
that road to stay at 10 percent or less, which they consider to be a good thing for obvious reasons. If one
is willing to allow the road to be steeper, then they don't need as much or any fill if they are allowed to let
the road go to 15 percent. So currently they have conceptually conceived it to be a 10 percent or less
entry road coming up to the drop off for the Discovery Center. They also included a much older section,
which is probably not in their report, but was located towards their right on the board. That was to make a
point about how the building is meant to sit into the grade. The building has not been designed in style
yet, but it will be tucked into the grade. There was an issue raised recently about the view from the river.
The idea is that it is a sight line to the river, but there will be existing trees on the river front as they can
see in that section will help filter or baffle that view, plus additional trees that they are planting. The whole
intent of this center is to fit in rather than to stand out, which was the point he was trying to make through
that section as well as in the site plan. The other thing that they have done is accommodated the cross
country trails fully in this site plan and also have kept the Rivanna Trail continuous through the property
and onto the adjacent property beyond. The only principle adjustment that they had to make of the
existing conditions was that the dog park had to be shifted slightly up hill 10 or 15 feet to allow the same
amount of square footage that they currently have.
Mr. Craddock asked if the proposed plan shaved off any portion of the Little League fields next to the
river, and Mr. Byrd replied that it stayed outside of that area.
Ms. Higgins asked if it would just follow the existing trail or was it going to be constructed as new
sections.
Mr. Byrd stated that it would probably be done for both. They are keeping the trails in their existing
location everywhere they can, but where there is interruption because of what they have done they would
be relocating it. Also, they did everything they could to avoid all steep slopes or critical slopes since that
was an issue.
Ms. Higgins asked if the plan has been worked out through the County's Parks and Recreation
Department that maintains this particular site.
Mr. Byrd stated yes, that it has been reviewed and discussed. In fact it was through their initiative that
they came to introduce this road through the park rather than off of Route 20. Up to this point until
several months ago they were not looking at that favorably, but now they are looking at that favorable.
There was a consideration on the part of engineering that because of the critical slope issue and the fill
issue that there was an alternative to come through the existing parking lot, but the Parks and Recreation
staff are not in favor of that for obvious reasons. He pointed out that a certain Master Plan had proposed
that a while back.
Mr. Rieley stated that the road way plan that showed the grades was very helpful. It shows a pretty
extensive area of disturbance because of the fact that the road is on a steep cross grade as steep as 27
percent. He asked what cross slope gradients they were using in order to catch up on the side slopes.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005
Mr. Byrd replied that typically they were aiming for 3:1 or broader.
Ms. Slaughter pointed out that the maximum was 3:1.
Mr. Rieley stated that particularly in a site that totes itself as being environmentally responsive and
environmentally educational as a part of its mission that he probably has some room to make the road a
littler steeper if they don't ask for a waiver to fill in the floodplains. From his perspective that would be a
reasonable tradeoff. He noted that he just wanted to put that on the table.
Mr. Morris agreed that it was a good point.
Mr. Rieley stated that the staff report talks about a retaining wall. He asked where that was located.
Mr. Byrd stated that they have taken all of the retaining walls off of the plan.
Ms. Joseph stated that she had a question about the letter which was the justification for considering this
as an historic site.
Mr. Byrd suggested that Fran Lawrence might be able to address that better.
Ms. Joseph stated that there were a couple of statements that talk about the fact that it is on the Rivanna
River and a site with archaeological and cultural remains. She asked if anyone has done any studies on
the site. She asked if there has been a Phase One Archaeological Study done on the site.
Fran Lawrence, resident of 1729 Chesapeake Street in the City of Charlottesville, stated that it was good
to be here again. As they move along with their plans he acknowledged that they would probably be back
before the Commission again. He pointed out that he had addressed Ms. Joseph's questions in an email.
He felt that they were legally connected to the Rivanna River in its entirety.
Ms. Joseph stated that they talked about the Rivanna River last time and that makes her very
uncomfortable. She acknowledged that they did not have to have this discussion here.
Mr. Lawrence stated that their interconnection with that is to some extent that they are both a Lewis and
Clark Center and an Exploratory Center. They think that the two are interconnected. They are about the
Virginia roots and also about rivers.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that his letter states that the site is at and includes the location of the Monocan
Village, a site with historic archaeological and cultural remains. She noted that the Commission has had
other projects come before them that have been residential and they have done Phase One
Archaeological Studies because they knew there were historic remains on there and they wanted to know
what the impact was on the historic archaeological remains on that particular property so that they would
not have problems in the future if they came upon an old grave or an old settlement or whatever. It was
for Belvedere so that they could go ahead and plan the development. So because they were basing this
on an historic site, she wondered if there had been done any Phase One or any sort of archaeological
studies or whether they have talked to anyone. She knew he had talked with Professor Meredise in his
letter, but she just wondered had anything been done. Regarding #4, has anything been done on that.
Mr. Lawrence stated that he would answer that in two parts. One is that Professor Hankman at the
University is satisfied that the Village was kind of moved in this area, which includes us. They know that
they found remains at South Fork, which was again up the river about a mile or a mile and a half in the
same Village and they think on the same site. But, no there has not been a study. And should there be a
study at Trevillians, for instance Trevillians Creek has some sort of concrete thing that shows it clearly
came much later than the 18th or 19th century, but was it a mill or bridge or something. That creek and
that bottom should be studied. But, they were not doing any construction in that. They certainly would be
willing to have those studies done before they do any construction in that area. But, the construction
ft would actually be in what would have been plowed fields for decades, if not centuries. But, do they think
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 9
-f4o
the bottom at Trevillians Creek is where Indians camped and stayed there? He would certainly think so.
They don't have any documentation at this time and should they do that? He replied yes. And should
they do that before there is any construction in the floodplain? He replied yes. If they wanted that to be a
condition, they would accept that.
Ms. Ragsdale asked to add that is also in the supplemental regulations that they put in for historic centers
and it went along with the site plan process for the site plan agent. In this case, they would envision that
the historic preservation planner would review and comment on these historical centers. As she stated it
would be part of the site plan requirement of the supplemental regulations that the applicant would submit
a Phase One Study if it was determined necessary to survey the areas of the site proposed for the
historical center use prior to final site plan approval.
Ms. Joseph stated that this was a little different in her mind because they needed to establish that this is
an historical site initially.
Ms. Ragsdale pointed out that she just wanted to point out that was in there.
Mr. Lawrence felt that regarding the issue of whether they were an historical site that he felt that they
were because they were part of that Village according to Profession Hankman. Also, they were because
of the connection with George Rogers's home place, their connection to the district of the Southwest
Mountains and to Monticello.
Ms. Joseph noted that he was not in the district and he was not really adjacent to the Southwest
Mountains Historic District.
Mr. Lawrence pointed out that in the ordinance that district is not really defined.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that there is a map included.
Mr. Lawrence stated that they were in the district that included Monticello, Shadwell and all of those
estates. He stated that he respected their view on this.
Mr. Rieley stated that #4 reads that the site is at and includes the location of the Monocan Village, which
is a site with historic archaeological and cultural remains. He pointed out that they did not know that and
whether that Village was actually located on this site since he had said he did not have any knowledge of
any archaeological information.
Mr. Lawrence stated that they know from Profession Hankman that the land that is on their site was part
of the extended Village. This Village ran from somewhere around Free Bridge to the North and South
Fork of the Rivanna River and that includes their site. So they are a part of that Village. Now whether
there are architectural remains next to them or on their 18 acres, they are not certain.
Mr. Rieley thanked him for his information.
Ms. Kay Slaughter stated that in reply to her question, they could certainly have the DHR look at it. But,
according to Jeff Hankman when the park was built there was no review at that time and there was no
Phase One Study. That is really when the roads were put in. Some of the roads were probably put in
before that when it was a farm. They were told then that the remains were not there. But, that the Village
is not as they think of Villages now where you say here is Rivanna or Milton, but it really was all along the
river and the river was the artery and the highway. Yes, they have found remains up at the soccer field,
but the way he described it to us and the literature they have consulted choose how it extended into
Fluvanna. So it is really a whole area, but he said that there were not any remains as far as he knew on
that site.
Ms. Joseph stated that it would really be nice to have some sort of written documentation with
somebody's signature on it that is an expert that has looked at this that will give up that. What she is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 10
-N
telling us is that someone told you something. This is the first one they have done and it is really
important that the County get it right.
Ms. Slaughter stated that there are extenuating circumstances so she could not have that document or
that letter from him. That is just the way it is. But, she did want to explain that to them. They can
definitely have DHR come and look and do the Phase One Study.
Mr. Lawrence asked to make a couple of quick observations. He thought that no matter what else that
was why they were there. They looked around as to where they ought to be and were delighted that
there was an opportunity to connect with the George Rogers Clark birthplace, which is truly an historical
property. He felt that was enough for what they were doing. George Rogers Clark was one of the early
explorers, and he and Thomas Walker are the guys who inspired Jefferson to do what he did when he
went to Kentucky and he conquered the Northwest Territory. He was the older brother and was asked to
do it first. The Lewis and Clark expedition started in Louisville when Lewis brought the boat down and
met William Clark, who was living with George Rogers Clark. That was a wonderful evening. He was sure
that they ate and drank into the evening and they left the next morning. So George Rogers Clark and the
Clark home place is the third best property in the County next to Monticello and Lewis' home both at Ivy
and also his home at Cloverhills. It is fourth in line in terms of historical significance. This has been a
great process. Even if they don't always agree on things, they have a better idea today and they think a
great idea based on their interchange with the Commission. It has been productive. On the plan the
critical slopes are shown in cross hatches. From the beginning of this process to today, except for the
cross hatches that are on the new road, they have moved all of their development off of the cross
hatches. They have also gotten rid of all of the retaining walls. It is a project really supported by the
County and City Park and Recreation people. They hope that the Commission will support it. Pat
Mullaney is here and can address the Darden Towe Committee's approval of the new access easement
and reaffirm with the Commission that our landlord is going to carefully watch the steps of our
development to make sure that if they should not succeed that the City and County would have a Darden
Towe Park infrastructure that they would love to have.
�w Kay Slaughter, of 1501 Short 18th Street Charlottesville, stated that she was happy to answer any
questions. She stated that they have been working on this project for about ten years now. The whole
theme was that the trip started here. The idea of that was because of the connections between Lewis
and Clark and Jefferson to this area and not just at Darden Towe Park or to the Rivanna, but to this area.
They wanted to have an exploratory center and not a museum where people would come and just look at
things, but where there could be some interaction. They looked at a number of sites in the City and
County and very seriously considered them. But, when they chose this site it was for several reasons.
One of which was the river because of the history of the river. The history in Jefferson's time and even
before that in what they were talking about earlier of it being the highway for Monocans or the Native
American Village of the Monocan Nation. The river was also important for another reason. They wanted
this to look at the east and what did they know of the east with the earlier explorers and think that they
were going to find in the west in really looking at the Rivanna River, the James River and then comparing
that. What was that like for them to arrive at the Missouri and Mississippi? The mountain views were
important because the mountains that they would have know would have been the Blue Ridge.
Charlottesville at the time of Lewis and Clark was the west. We were it. We were where people had
gone from the eastern parts of Virginia and then from there they went to the Rockies. What they had
been doing before they had this center is to involve people with an interactive experience. Many of the
people here have been involved with kids over the past several summers. There have been hundreds of
kids building a replica keel boat, which they have completed. But, they still have 25 other boats that Lewis
and Clark used on their trip that they are using with children to learn a little bit about history with real
hands on experience. That is the reason that they chose this site. They feel that the Commission's
suggestions have been good to kind of get to the basics that they want on this site. They chose a very
sensitive architect and landscape architect because they really respect this site and want to fit into the
site. They don't want to stand out on the site. They want to use the site in a way that is respectful. They
have said that they will accommodate the eastern connector in any configuration and they hope that the
Commission will recommend this and move it forward. They certainly listened to all of the discussions
over making this particular classification and have always said from the beginning that they needed this
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 11
�T�
size building based on what our needs were with the keel boat and the activities that they have planned at
the site. They are supportive of the conditions that staff has recommended.
Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Pete Stoll, resident of Key West, stated that he had a couple of issues. He stated that he did not see the
relevance of a tower here, and he would be against the tower. The second issue is if the eastern
connector is important to the County and they really want to have one, perhaps one of the most or maybe
the least costly alignments is going to be off of Dorrier Drive. He would suggest the following to be
considered. Once the County labels this as being historic that is the end of any road ever going through
there. The second thing he would like to see considered is a phased development of this project. He
would say that the critical area is northeast of Trevillians Creek. He did not think that they ought to allow
anything to be done there until they decide where the alignment is going to be. Once you do something in
there that is the end of the road ever going through there. But, he really did not have any issues with the
use. He hoped that the Commission would consider those issues.
Mr. Edgerton asked if there were other members of the public to speak on this issue. There being none,
he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for consideration and action.
Mr. Thomas stated that he would just like to throw it on the table with the Commissioners that Mr. Rieley
was on CHART and Mr. Morris currently was on CHART. In their experiences with drawing lines on maps
through CHART that probably is, as Mr. Stoll just stated, the best and most economical path for it to go
across. He asked how enthusiastic was that route accepted by the MPO or was it even accepted by
MPO.
Mr. Rieley stated that Mr. Morris might have a different view of this, but his feeling was that it never got
that far. It was one of several general routes that were discussed. He felt that Mr. Stoll makes a good
point. He felt that if they essentially take this route, which has a certain amount of logic to it, out of the
equation, it may force the acceptance of a much more disruptive route.
Mr. Thomas stated that not only getting down to that point or to that point across the river is going to even
be more difficult than getting it across the river with what has been put in front of them.
Mr. Rieley stated that there was no inexpensive way to make that connection, but it seems that a phased
approach makes some sense because it would allow the expensive part of the project that is going to
require a lot of fund raising to move ahead while it would hold out of the project the stick built trails there.
He felt that at least one of the critical things is, and he thinks Mr. Stoll is right, an historical designation on
that property would be problematic. Second, he felt that if that land gets tied up with the federal grant
money that the foundation has received for this project that it could tie the proposal up in knots for a long
time. It would be an awfully simple and painless way to address that and still let the project move
forward.
Mr. Morris stated that in today's CHART informal conversations, as well as some formal, that this location
as well as one south of 250 has been talked about. But, that is why CHART went forward to the MPO
with a formal recommendation that we do the Eastern Connector Study yesterday. The County and the
City have forked up money on it, but was disappointed that it might come about in 2007.
Mr. Rieley stated that probably from the traffic perspective they could really look at the numbers and the
pressure that it was the most pressing traffic pattern that they need.
Mr. Thomas agreed that it would relieve a lot of the traffic.
Mr. Craddock stated that he did not mind the phasing in part, but he felt that to think that the eastern
bypass was going to go through there is about as much possible as Meadow Creek Parkway ever being
built. He drives Route 250 all the time and they have a proposal here for a lot of office buildings right at
vim,,,, the corner of 250 and 20. He felt that it would be irresponsible to drop off another big layer of traffic right
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 12
rq3
there on the little Stony Point Road where they just spent a lot of money to put a sidewalk in instead of
making an improvement to the road at least as far as the Elks Lodge. If they want to phase it in, that is
fine if they feel it is important to have a tower on that piece of property.
Mr. Rieley stated that it may be irrelevant if they follow the idea of the phasing route as it relates to the
two structures in the northern part of the park. But, normally when they have special use permits, they
see there is a building, building elevations and what these things are going to look like. He was surprised
that the package, unless he missed something, did not include elevations of this tower. There is a point
in the staff report that says that it has to conform to the plan, but inside the plan there was nothing any
larger than that. He asked if there was a reason that they did not require for this project what they would
have required for almost any other project.
Mr. Benish stated that they have had renderings and cross sections of the buildings.
Mr. Rieley stated that he was talking about the tower and the fort.
Mr. Benish stated that staff felt that was of less of a detail.
Ms. Joseph stated that in other words that whatever went up that there would be no reviews as far as the
aesthetics was concerned and it would just happen.
Mr. Benish stated that staff addressed the conditions of the height of the tower basically.
Ms. Joseph stated that height was the only item.
Mr. Benish stated that the other aspect was that he believed that Pat Mullaney of Parks and Recreation
had some oversight over where improvements are going to be and the types of improvements that are
going to be a part of this project. It was one of the concerns that Parks and Recreation had. So it was
going to be subject to a reiteration with a review by the Parks and Recreation Department.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that it was not a part of the conditions.
Mr. Benish stated that it was part of the lease agreement.
Mr. Rieley stated that his reason for raising it as a concern was that they be consistent. He thought about
what they put Wendell Wood through on a project that was zoned correctly and he just needed a critical
slopes waiver, and they insisted on seeing the buildings and the elevations of the buildings. The fort is
proposed to be a 50 foot square building, which was not an insignificant structure. The only height
limitation is with zoning of 35 feet. So that is a heck of a building to just find out about after they build it
and what it is going to look like. They require so much more from other applicants.
Ms. Higgins pointed out that this is just the special use permit review and they still have provisions that
they can see the proposal at the site plan stage.
Ms. Joseph stated that at the site plan stage they cannot ask for that.
Mr. Benish stated that the Commission has had a number of work sessions and the amount of
improvements that were out in this area have actually been reduced over time.
Mr. Rieley stated that it was minus a few Indian villages.
Mr. Benish stated that staff must have thought that there was a level of comfort on those issues with the
Commission.
Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Mullaney to come forward to answer some questions. She asked when he was
present last time they talked about whether or not this would be successful for the long haul for a very
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 13
qqi
M
long time. She thought that they talked about taking a look at these buildings as they are being designed
so that it is something that Parks and Rec could use in the future if they need be. It is kind of interesting
' that yesterday on the radio there was a little story about Lewis and Clark Bicentennials and how across
the country the turn out for these kinds of things is very low. So she started thinking about this in terms
that it was important for that to be included.
Mr. Pat Mullaney stated that he actually brought the copy of the lease agreement between the City, the
County and Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center. The way it was worded under development by Lewis
and Clark Center is, "no improvements of any kind including roadways and parking areas shall be made
to the leased ground except with the County and City's prior written consent both as to the improvements
and as to the contractors and subcontractors performing the work." It is not just going to be Mike Suetz at
the City and himself. It is going to be the County, the County Executive's Office and the Board of
Supervisors that are going to give the final approval to anything that is going to happen before it is built.
He heard the Commission talk about the tower, but he did not know what a tower should look like. He did
not know how it could be used afterwards. The tower is something that could, of course, go away. He
stated that he was more concerned about the size of the building because the tower could go away fairly
easily. But, he wanted to give the Commission comfort that it was not just going to be his judgment. But,
it is going to include the full Board of Supervisors and City Council review.
Mr. Edgerton stated that his interpretation of the lease is that they will have to sign off on any
improvements or footprint.
Mr. Mullaney stated that he had actually asked Mr. Davis for clarification on that and that was his feelings
on that. It is going to go to the Darden Towe Park Committee that has two Board members and two City
Council members. It will go forth to our Board of Supervisors and City Council with a recommendation
from them. So everybody will get a shot at it.
Mr. Rieley asked relative to this point of being able to use the building should it not meet expectations,
have you in the past five or ten years every requested a building of this kind of scale and configuration as
a part of your CIP process.
Mr. Mullaney replied no, that he has not.
Mr. Rieley stated that this was something he would try to back into and try to make the best out of it if it
came his way, but it was not something that he would ask for.
Ms. Higgins asked what the provisions in the lease were because this is a land lease, which obviously
assumes that structures will be added to the land. What does it say about how the buildings are handled
at the end of the termination or the reversion on the lease? She felt that should clearly be spelled out.
Mr. Mullaney stated that it is. It says that any improvements to the land that were not approved by the
City and the County will be removed by Lewis and Clark at their expense.
Ms. Higgins asked what about at the end of its use or if they vacate or terminate the lease in any way,
then they can't take structures away necessarily. She asked if it addressed that.
Mr. Mullaney stated that if the County wanted to use the structure, then they would have to come back.
Mr. Rieley stated that there is no guarantee that the projections for this place are going to hold up. If they
don't there are several scenarios. One of which is that other localities have done by supporting the
ongoing operation through tax revenues. One is to probably have more commercial type of events to
raise money and other places have done that kind of thing. Another possibility that they need to be
cognizant of is that it will come back to the County and the City. Whether or not this is a useful building or
one that they would go out and generate is a significant piece of information. He stated that he
appreciated the issue being brought up.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 14
-7q5
Ms. Higgins asked if the 15,000 square foot building would be treated as a maximum. But, even that
building will have to go through the committee, go back to the Board and the City as the landowners
under the requirements of the lease, and maybe they will say at this time they only want to do 12,000
square feet or 5,000 square feet. They are only setting an upper limit. They will have to go through that
process even to approve and justify that. Without flexibility at that limit then the property owner, which
just happens to be the County in this case and not a property owner that walked in off the street, that they
have a plan for this. When she looked at the break down of the spaces and whether the building was
reused or not, they might think build something at 15,000 square feet and maybe it will be a big
community center in the future. She felt that would be the board's goal. She felt that this was well
thought through and that they were just looking at the justifiable parts. If a tower was designated there,
she had assumed that the tower was going to be composite represented at the time that they were
relating to. So it is not going to be a glass tower with a tassel on top or something like that. It has to go
through the process under the lease even before it can be considered. They don't have an architectural
element here to decide what looks historical or not. But, she did not have a problem with that.
Mr. Morris stated that they have not touched on Mr. Stoll's comment that once this is designated as
historic that puts a whole new light on anything. However, do they think it is fair to hold them up while
waiting on the County and the City and VDOT to do their little thing?
Ms. Higgins stated that she was of the same mode, but was going to ask Mr. Benish one other question.
Historically there was an eastern connector that preceded the early '90's. It was actually in one of the
plans, but it went away. Now the discussion of this connector has come back again. She thought that
from an earlier discussion from a Planning Commission standpoint that they wanted to make sure that it
could be accommodated and that this would not be in what they perceived as a direct path. But, there
again it is a City/County owned property and if their goals and our goals are to address the transportation
issue there is nothing to preclude it from going here. Whether it ends up here based on a line drawn on a
map is it is going to be years and years in the making.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he agreed with Mr. Craddock's comment that dumping all of that extra traffic
onto Route 20 or Stony Point Road defies logic at this point.
Mr. Morris stated that he was absolutely right, but that was discussion for another day.
Mr. Thomas applauded the board and the members of the Lewis and Clark organization for even
attempting to raise the enthusiasm of the Charlottesville because most don't have any idea of what Lewis
and Clark did. He would hope that over a period of time that they could encourage the local people to
find out what Lewis and Clark was all about. He felt that it was very important for that to be part of our
local area because it was all over the inside of Monticello. Inside there are many of Lewis and Clark's
Indian antiques. He felt that the questions that they have been asking as a Commission are very
necessary. He felt that it was an important historical part of Albemarle County.
Mr. Rieley stated that he felt that way, too. He felt that the story of Lewis and Clark was an important one
to convey and to celebrate locally. He felt that it is an example of good people with good intentions
coming forward with a proposal with a prospect of intended negative consequences. He has a lot of
concerns about lots of aspects of this project about the specific points that are pertinent to this special
use permit because that is the only reason why they are here. His first concern and he really raised his
eyebrows when he was reading the staff report because it implied that they crafted the zoning text
amendment for historic centers around this proposal. It was the exact opposite that was the case. We
had lots of discussions and went to great lengths to make the point that they were dealing with a zoning
text amendment for historic centers throughout the entire RA district. Every piece of property in the RA
district will be affected by this. They made the point repeatedly that if the Lewis and Clark Center did not
meet the criteria set forth in this that it might look at a different mechanism for achieving this goal, for
instance, in a rezoning. One of the important criteria that they talked about was a nexus between the site
and the interpretation of the site. He thought at the last meeting when they had heard some of the
connections that were positive, but he thought that they were a stretch. He felt that Mr. Lawrence used
that term inappropriately a little while ago. But, he did not fault the applicants for stretching a little bit. It is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 15
an indication of the enthusiasm for this project. But, the last time they heard from both staff and the
applicant that Lewis and Clark traveled in part by river, that this site was on a river, and therefore, that
'144W was sufficient reason to call this an historic site. They have heard lots of other ones. He was particularly
taken by the letter that justified the tower by saying that one could view the Blue Ridge Mountains as a
surrogate for the Rocky Mountains. Once again, he felt calling that a stretch is putting it kindly. The test
for whether any site is suitable for a historic center is not whether or not you can draw some tortured
connections between the physical attributes of the general area of an Indian Village that could be
anywhere between here and Fluvanna County and the specific events that are being interpreted. The
test is really whether you are interpreting historic information particularly about this site. In his view, this
site does not meet that test. Interpreting this proposal in this way he thinks will very likely come back to
bite us because it is not the first one that they are going to see. If they allow these kinds of very vague
connections to be their criteria, he felt that they will be eventually sorry that they did. That being said, it is
pretty clear from their conversations last week that was a minority position that needs to be articulated.
But, he also thinks if this proposal does go forward they should look very carefully at the ways in which
the parameters are and what the conditions are. He felt that the idea of requiring phasing is very
sensible. The area north of Trevillians Creek has two of the most questionable elements in this park. He
had heard someone refer to it as an historical theme park without the rides. To delay that part of the
project and let it be thought about a little bit more at the same time that the work is going on for the
Eastern Connector would be very prudent. It may turn out that there are all kinds of reasons why the
Eastern Connector cannot go there or why it shouldn't go there. But, there may be reasons, including the
reason that the Lewis and Clark Historical Center is a higher and better use than the roadway. He stated
that he was certainly open to that possibility. But, it seems that those arguments can be made and there
is not rush on that part of the project. It would be prudent and sensible if they are going to approve this to
approve the part south of Trevillians Creek.
M
Ms. Higgins stated that in response to his reference to how this would affect other applications that she
did not perceive at all that they were making a use consideration. She thought they have under
consideration a special use permit for a particular use in a particular zoning and that was before the
Commission. But, the way he had worded it was that he was questioning or hinting that they should be
looking at the use and that it does not meet the definition in the ordinance. Not to put Mr. Kamptner or
Ms. McCulley on the spot, but that is a zoning requirement or decision and she did not know if the
Planning Commission could say that they don't think it meets the definition and won't allow it under a
special use permit. She asked that they separate this.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that when this request first came before the Commission it came as a community
center and the zoning administrator approved that designation and they took issue with it. Now the
request is back before the Commission.
Ms. Higgins stated that now they have clearly defined what that is. She felt that their role here is not to
decide whether the use fits the definition, and she just wanted to ask Mr. Kamptner the question.
Mr. Rieley stated that the Planning Commission wrote the definition and were the ones who set the
parameters. He guaranteed that if this request had come to them as something that could be justified on
the basis of we have a historic site because it is on a river and people used rivers to explore the west, he
would never have voted for it. That was not his understanding of what that zoning text was intended to
be.
Ms. Higgins stated that she understands that, except the Commission crafts and recommends adoption of
a lot of zoning text language to the Board of Supervisors. But, it is not necessarily in their preview to
make the designation of what meets it and what does not. So she wanted to ask that question of Mr.
Kamptner. If they denied or recommended it unfavorably based on it not meeting the criteria, then again
she felt that the assumption here is that it does. What they are here to do is say how do they address the
impacts and how do they craft it if the Commission decides to approve it within that framework. If it does
not meet the definition, then they can't even consider it for a special use permit. She asked to be relieved
of that question.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 16
Mr. Rieley suggested that Mr. Kamptner answer the question, too. He pointed out that every time the
Commission grants a special use permit or a waiver of critical slopes they are required to make a
judgment about whether or not that use should be allowed. He pointed out that she did not have to
agree, but in his judgment it does not meet it.
Mr. Kamptner stated that use determinations are made by the zoning administrator. Therefore, he would
pass the question over to Ms. McCulley.
Ms. McCulley asked that the question be clarified.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that in the second to last paragraph of the staff report it says, "The zoning
administrator has previously determined that the proposed Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center meets the
definition of historical center as defined by the ordinance." The question is has that determination been
made.
Ms. McCulley stated that determination was made. There is not a separate written official determination.
It was made as part of her review of the special use permit some time ago. In terms of the approach that
she takes to these, she is not an historian. It is just like reviewing a plat that a surveyor or engineer has
submitted. She is not going to check behind them on their work. They are the professionals and they are
sealing it. She was not going to check behind and make sure that there are specific archaeological
features and things like that because she was not an historian. She is taking their word for it. The
primary thing that she heard out of their five point letter is the adjacency to the George Rogers' Clark
birthplace.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that he did not go on the Lewis and Clark expedition. From his perspective it was
not that pertinent at this stage of the game. He felt what was pertinent was the kinds of conditions and
the sequence or phasing.
Ms. Joseph stated that it may be redundant, but she felt that it would be necessary to add some sort of
condition making sure that there is some kind of collaboration with the City and County Parks Department
to ensure that the buildings proposed could be reused for some kind of recreational purposes for the use
by the City and County. She also felt that it was important that a Phase One Archaeological survey be
done on this site to make sure where they are proposing the parking areas and everything else is not on
some sensitive archaeological historic site. She also felt that there should be some sort of condition
dealing with any kind of noise, particularly the outdoor amplified noise between certain hours. She felt it
was important because what they heard last time was that the noise along the waterways travels very
clearly and for great distances.
Mr. Rieley stated that clearly the sound ordinance applies, but in addition the Commission has often
added a condition saying that no amplified noise be allowed.
Mr. Edgerton felt that staff had made it very clear this evening that all of this would be redundant, but at
the same time he could not see any reason not to include it in the conditions.
Ms. Joseph stated that she had extreme sympathies about what Mr. Rieley was saying that they don't
have documentation that tells us that this is a historic site. They have someone's renditions of
conversations that they have had and it makes here very uncomfortable in designating this as an historic
site and the fact that the ordinance is so clear on that.
Mr. Rieley stated that since this is the first historic center that it will be used as a model. It has to be.
They are establishing the precedent by which future centers will go by. He felt that the way in which this
is interpreted and designated as a historic center has to be consistent because they can't then tighten it
back down and say no, they were just talking about places like Pine Knot where they are actually
interpreting that site. He agreed with Ms. Joseph about those conditions. But, he would like to raise the
issue that Mr. Stoll raised again for just having the special use permit cover the area south of Trevillians
Creek.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 17
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that the staff report on the top of page 4 reads, "It is important to remind the
Commission that the special use permit procedure by its very nature predisposes that a given use may be
allowed on parcel X, but not on parcel Y within the same zoning district. Therefore, any action on this
special use permit would not set a precedent in the rural areas." He asked if Mr. Rieley was not
convinced that was the case.
Mr. Rieley replied no, but that was a separate issue. The issue that he was talking about is simply
designating the area for the special use permit is that part of the property that is south of the creek
because it allows the majority of the project to go ahead on the intensive part of the property. The only
thing it leaves out is really a fort and a tower, which are two of the most questionable parts of this to begin
with. The trade-off between delaying the tower and the fort relative to the importance of this
transportation connection he feels is pretty clear. Therefore, he recommended that they approve the part
that is not going to be a potential obstruction.
Ms. Higgins agreed with all of the recommendations that Ms. Joseph made, but felt that it might be
splitting hairs. A special use permit that allows a historical center she would not think is the same as
saying we are identifying this as the historical site of "the site. That is not within our authority to do. The
Commission cannot go out and point at the ground and say that this right here is an historical site. They
are talking about a center that has a relationship and an adjacency. So when they say giving it historical
designation, she did not think that was within the Commission's authority to do.
Mr. Rieley noted that was her interpretation and he felt that it was a risk
Ms. Joseph stated what they needed was some sort of documentation that would substantiate the fact
that this was an historic site.
Ms. Higgins stated that she did not conclude that by allowing a special use permit it does not make it an
historical site. When they do a Phase One Archaeological Study if they find remnants or foundations or
something along the stream that may be more, but she did not think that the special use permit makes it
the same as an historic building.
Mr. Kamptner stated that he would like to add something that was not too technical. He has not looked at
the historic site designation rules, but granting the special use permit for an historical center is not
equivalent to a designated historical site. But, a determination that a historical center can go at this site is
at least an explicit finding that there is an historical resource either on this site or adjacent to it.
Ms. Joseph stated that they could make the connection that the adjacency should have some sort of
relevance to the historic site that is going and requesting the special use permit.
Mr. Rieley asked to put this in context of a little bit of history because this is not unprecedented. When
the original master plan for the park was done his office had worked with Mr. Byrd. They brought the
master plan to the County. At that time Jerry Fisher was the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and he
told them that a road had been planned to make a connection from the east and pointed to a couple of
possibilities of ways that was planned to go. He asked if they had taken into consideration that the park
was to get federal funding. They admitted that they had not. He insisted that the designation for this park
that went for the application for federal funds did not include that land, and it did not include that land. It
took out that area to the north and also the river corridor. It was very specific for the exact same reason
that he did not want to complicate the process unnecessarily. He felt that it was very much the same
issue. It just seems that the trade-off between building this tower and fort immediately and allowing the
rest of the project to move ahead as opposed to going ahead and approving the parts of it that are not
going to be a potential obstruction. They don't know if it is going to be an obstruction or not. But, it is a
potential.
Ms. Higgins stated that all of the Commissioners were in agreement with that, and asked that they move
forward.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 18
Mr. Thomas asked if the existing athletic fields used microphones or amplified sound.
Mr. Craddock stated that they did not.
Mr. Rieley suggested that they include both his and Ms. Joseph's suggested conditions
Mr. Kamptner asked before a motion was made that staff get clarification on either the phasing or what is
being done with the area north of Trevillians Creek. He asked if it was being phased or if the
recommendation was that the fort and the tower not be approved as part of this special use permit.
Mr. Rieley suggested that the Commission be very clear about that. He did not think there were any
objections to building trails in that area that was consistent with the Byrd Nelson Woltz plan. However,
they should be built by the County. They should not be spending money that can be attached to federal
funds on that property. So the special use permit should only apply to the area south of Trevillians Creek,
which was his view.
Mr. Edgerton stated that Mr. Rieley had made a very convincing argument that a prohibition of applying or
using any federal grants in that area, which was consistent with what previously was required when they
planned the original park.
Ms. Higgins questioned whether the Commission can actually carve out a piece of property and exclude
it.
Mr. Kamptner stated that really what they were doing is delineating where the special use permit activities
can take place. Related to that, he stated that condition 1 needs to be correspondingly revised before it
gets to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
liftw Ms. Higgins stated that the end of condition 1 should say, "the improvements shown on the referenced
plan that are north of the creek are not covered under this permit."
Mr. Kamptner agreed that it would be towards that effect, but that staff can craft some condition language
between now and the Board.
Mr. Morris moved for approval of SP-2004-004, Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center with all amendments
that are stipulated by staff and that have been discussed.
Ms. Higgins seconded the motion. To clarify the motion she stated that it included the five conditions that
are in the staff report with the following three changes:
• modification to #1 that a Phase One requirement be added;
• a condition that was specific to no sound amplification; and
• the other modification.
Ms. Joseph asked that the condition concerning the collaboration between the City and County Parks be
added.
Ms. Higgins reiterated that the lease agreement collaboration language be inserted as a condition.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that she was very specific that they look at these buildings proposed so that they
could be constructed if they need an alternative use at some point in time to include both the County and
City.
Ms. Higgins stated that she did not think they could require that because the City has not even responded
to this based on the input.
Ms. Joseph stated that the City owns part of this and they were just being nice.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 19
-N
Ms. Higgins agreed.
Mr. Morris amended the motion to include the additional conditions just discussed.
Ms. Higgins seconded the motion.
Ms. Joseph stated that she could not support this because she cannot see the connection between the
historic aspects of this site and what is going to happen on the site.
Mr. Rieley agreed with Ms. Joseph's point, but really applauded their hard work. He felt that the motion
that was coming out of the discussion was sensible.
There being no further discussion, the role was called.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:2. (Commissioners Joseph and Rieley voted nay.)
Mr. Kamptner suggested that the Commission take separate actions on the two modifications.
Mr. Morris moved to approve the two modifications as requested.
Ms. Higgins seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:2. (Commissioners Joseph and Rieley voted nay.)
Mr. Edgerton stated that SP-2004-004, Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center, would go to the Board of
Supervisors on January 4, 2006 with a recommendation for approval.
In Summary from the Approved Action Memo:
Re-garding Action on SP-2004-004:
Motion:
Mr. Morris moved, Ms. Higgins seconded that SP-2004-004, Lewis and Clark Exploratory
Center,
be approved only to include the portion of the request south of the creek and subject to the
following conditions recommended by staff and amended by the Planning Commission:
1.
The site shall be developed in general accord with all sheets of the plan entitled "Lewis & Clark
Exploratory Center," revised October 18, 2005 and prepared by Nelson, Byrd, Woltz. Setbacks
indicated in the table on sheets L3.1 and L3.2 do not set increased minimum setbacks. The
improvements shown on the referenced plan that are north of the creek are not covered under
this permit.
2.
The top of the Lookout Tower, measured in elevation above mean sea level, shall not exceed
(AMSL + 351. The approved height shall at no time be taller than the tallest tree within 25 feet of
the Lookout Tower, and shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the tower above
the pre-existing natural ground elevation.
3.
A maximum of 12 special events, in accordance with Section 5.1.42.i, are authorized per calendar
year.
4.
A maximum of 4 festivals, in accordance with Section 5.1.42J, are authorized per calendar year.
5.
A lighting plan and a landscaping plan shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the
Architectural Review Board prior to final site plan development plan approval.
6.
In accordance with Section 32.7.9.9, a 20% tree canopy shall be required for the site based on
the disturbed area for the historical center building, parking, and access road.
7.
Prior to any grading or construction activity, the limits of the 100-year flood plain and stream
buffers, where adjacent to constructed proposed improvements including the amphitheater,
timber fort, lookout tower, entrance road and retaining wall, shall be flagged at 10-foot intervals by
a land surveyor to prevent encroachment land disturbing activity, storage of construction
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 20
_351
equipment or materials, and actual construction of improvements during construction.
8. Outdoor amplified noise is not allowed on site.
' 9. As stipulated in the lease agreement between the applicant and the City and County, the
proposed improvements are to be reviewed by the City and County prior to construction to make
sure there are alternative uses available for the improvements should the venture fail.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:2. (Commissioners Joseph and Rieley voted nay.)
Mr. Edgerton stated that SP-2004-004, Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center, would go to the Board of
Supervisors on January 4, 2006 with a recommendation for approval.
Action on Modifications to Sections 5.1.42 and 5.1.42.p:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Ms. Higgins seconded, to grant the following two modifications from Section
5.1.42 and 5.1.42.g as follows:
Section 5.1.42. a new historical center structures:
Approval of a modification to allow the historical center structure to exceed the ordinance provision that
new buildings associated with historical centers not exceed 1,500 square feet in floor area with the
following condition:
1. The new historical center structure shall not exceed 15, 000 square feet in floor area.
Section 5.1.42.g Accesso Uses:
Approval of a modification to allow the floor area of accessory uses within the historical center building to
exceed 10% of the total floor area of the structure with the following condition:
1. Accessory uses identified in Section 5.1.42(g) shall not exceed 20% of the floor area of the building.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:2. (Commissioners Joseph and Rieley voted nay.)
The Board took a break at 8:01 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 8:07 p.m.
ZMA 2005-008 Pantops Park (Sign #14) - Request to rezone 4.87 acres (Tax Map 78, Parcel 16) from
HC (Highway Commercial) to NMD (Neighborhood Model District) to allow a 42,000 square foot bank and
office building and two 22,500 square foot mixed office and retail buildings with proffers. Highway
Commercial zoning allows for commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15
units/ acre). Neighborhood Model District zoning is intended to provide for compact, mixed -use
developments with an urban scale, massing, density, and an infrastructure configuration that integrates
diversified uses within close proximity to each other. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property
as Regional Service and Industrial Service in Neighborhood Three. Regional Service designates areas for
regional -scale retail, wholesale, business and/or employment centers, and residential (6.01-34
units/acre). Industrial Service designates areas for warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research,
office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial,
lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre). The property, described as Tax
Map 78, Parcel 16 is located in the EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District and the Rivanna Magisterial
District on the south side of Route 250. This property is the former Moore's Lumber site. (Sean
Dougherty)
Mr. Edgerton stated that due to advertising error the Commission will not hear this request as a public
hearing item tonight. The public hearing will be opened to receive public input and the review will be
treated as a work session.
Mr. Dougherty summarized the staff report and presented a power point presentation: (See staff report.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 21
`7 5
• Pantops Park, LLC is requesting to rezone the former Moore's Lumber site near the intersection of Rt.
250 East and Rt. 20 North from Highway Commercial to Neighborhood Model to construct a central
banking facility, offices and retail. The request is accompanied by a special use permit request for a
drive up facility for a bank. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Regional Service
and Community Service in Neighborhood Three. It is located in the Entrance Corridor Overlay
District.
• During its review, the ARB had no objections to the rezoning request. The ARB has to review the
applicant's revisions on December 12.
• The proposal is for three buildings. Each building will contain a mixture of uses. The general
development plan is in accord with the principles of the Neighborhood Model.
• The staff report identifies a lack of the applicant's mitigation for the Albemarle County Service
Authority's access for the lower parking lot. A new set of proffers includes this, which he passed
around.
• Additionally, the applicant has replaced a proffer to replace a traffic signal that really could not have
been implemented in this location in exchange for a $15,000 contribution towards pedestrian and
vehicular improvements in the area. Given these new proffers, staff cannot be sure this contribution
is adequate. The County Attorney has been given little time to review the revised proffers.
• The site contains manmade critical slopes, which were created through an approved site plan in
1972. The zoning administrator has made an interpretation that manmade critical slope that is a part
of an approved site plan does not require a waiver by the Commission. This is essentially where the
back of the existing Moore's property drops off to the lower part. There are some critical slopes there.
The private easement on the site can be built as a road regardless of the pending proposal for a
rezoning. However, with respect to this proposal the connection allows for better site access and the
interconnections informative element that the Neighborhood Model identifies. Opposition has been
raised by two neighbors, the Albemarle County Service Authority and Robert Adams, a physician who
has a practice at 183 Spotnap Road.
• The three main concerns raised are increased traffic, costs associated with maintaining a private road
°r,► and a potential inability to regulate parking and deliveries along a private road. Staff believes that
these issues can be addressed in part with a new proffer for pedestrian and vehicular improvements.
Additionally, a maintenance agreement would have to accompany the road at the site plan stage.
Ideally this road will become a public connection. However, at this point the ability to make that road
public does not exist. C.W. Hurt, who is the main property owner along Spotnap Road and in the
area, has indicated support for the road and a willingness to cooperate with the applicant at the site
plan stage. He noted that he had a letter from Mr. Hurt that he circulated.
• Staff recommends approval for the request. However, the changes to the proffers make for a more
fitting response to the impacts of the proposal. However, staff is unable to determine given the
submission of the revised proffers yesterday if the revised third proffer will fully account for the
proposal's impacts.
• Then in addition to the rezoning, there is a request for a special use permit for a drive -up facility for a
banking institution. The drive -up facility is located behind the building adjacent to 250 and is obscured
from the Entrance Corridor, which is a very desirable condition.
• A requirement of a by-pass lane has been waived by the County Engineer. This is basically because
the entrance to the parking facility is located in an area of the parking lot that is very far from access
points and there really is no anticipation of conflicts of that facility. In addition, the engineer has
requested that a turn around area be located near the entrance of the drive -through facility, and it is
located there close to the entrance of the drive -through facility.
• The other justification for the waiver is that the applicant's is proposing to basically build the office
portion of that building over the drive -through facility and this necessarily creates a restraint for the
width of the lanes. In general, the by-pass lane in this instance seems excessive.
• With respect to SP-2005-15, the bank drive -up, staff had identified the following factors which are
favorable to the request.
1.The ARB supports the drive -up facility in this location.
2.The design is in keeping with the Neighborhood Model.
3.A safe system for vehicular and pedestrian circulation in the site's interior has been established.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 22
3 53
• Staff has identified no factors which are unfavorable to the request
• Staff recommends approval with the following conditions
1. Drive -up windows will be limited to three (3); including one to be used for an ATM and
2. Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
3. Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as signage, and
pavement markings as indicated on the site plan. The crosswalk just beyond the drive -up window
bays for the bank shall be identified with crosswalk signage on either side of the drive aisle.
Mr. Rieley asked if the projection on the front of the building an observation tower, and Mr. Dougherty
stated that it was not.
Mr. Dougherty presented a quick tour of the site through a power point presentation, which provided a
view from different points on the site. He pointed out that the easement goes through the Service
Authority parking lot, which has implications to it. He pointed out the intersection of South Pantops Drive
and Riverbend Drive. There is a pedestrian signal, but there is no striping. One of the concerns staff
raised is that with the increase of people working in this area and potentially opting to walk the pedestrian
facilities existing in the area may pose a dangerous situation. He asked if there were any questions.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he was trying to find in the original proffers about the traffic signal, which VDOT
has already said that they will not allow in that location because it was too close to the intersection.
Mr. Dougherty stated that the main reason was that the signal would be located too close to Rt. 20.
Mr. Edgerton stated that the current situation with this new set of proffers is that they are abandoning that
request. Staff is concerned about the $15,000 being enough to cover the pedestrian facilities. He asked
if there was a number attached to the traffic signal because he thought that would cost a lot more.
Mr. Dougherty stated that traffic signals would cost more, but the applicant is not offering any figure. He
suggested that Mr. Cilimberg might be able to give a better idea about that. He pointed out that the
applicant just submitted the revised proffers yesterday and did not indicate where they got the figure.
Mr. Rieley asked if there was a proffer for the light that had a fractional ratio based on the traffic on Route
250.
Mr. Dougherty stated no, that it was just for the hard cost to construct a light. The old proffers were
contained in the staff report.
Ms. Higgins stated that the contribution shall be determined by multiplying the hard cost with the
purchase and installation by the fraction and numeration which shall be the number of motor vehicles
entering and exiting the connection. It is a typical prorated share contribution.
Mr. Rieley stated that if the signal is required because of this additional use he would question that
method of determining the share of the cost.
Ms. Higgins stated that it was her understanding that the signal was not required and it is not even going
to be allowed.
Mr. Morris stated that was correct.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that the signal would be too close to this intersection.
Ms. Higgins stated that they could put the money on the table, but they can't spend it there.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 23
5�
Mr. Rieley stated that number 1 of the new proffer form in the third sentence it says that the applicant with
the approval of Albemarle County Planning Department and consent of adjoining property owners, whose
` WW consent is required, design the extension in a fashion, so on and so forth. He asked what this proffer
means if the consent is not forthcoming.
Mr. Dougherty pointed out that this was one of the other changes to the proffers. The Service Authority
and the applicant have met and the Service Authority is opposed to the connection. He thought what they
were trying to do there is say that they are willing to do it and they realize that building a road through and
using the easement that is there would have impacts on the Service Authority. Therefore, they are trying
to put their best foot forward and propose that they will cover what would be required to realign access for
the Service Authority given the location of the easement and the effects that it has on the Service
Authority's access to the rear parking lot.
Ms. Joseph asked what it does to this project if that road does not go through in staffs estimation.
Mr. Dougherty stated that it would require significant review and probably some alteration to what is here,
abut they do have the right to build the road and they intend to do it. If the road did not go through it, he
felt that it would cause significant problems or at least would make the site's access and the intensity of
the uses proposed here really out of balance with what the site can support.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he was confused because one minute they were reading a proffer that says that
all of the adjacent property owners have to sign off on it in order for it to be valid. Then staff is saying that
the applicant has the right to build the road regardless of how the adjacent property owners feel.
Ms. Higgins stated that she interpreted that to mean that this is a connection back to a private road that
involves people who signed a private road agreement of some sort at some time that says they are
responsible for maintaining it. It all has to do with how they collaborate. Because if they put this traffic on
a private road where the financial responsibilities are bore by others, then whose responsibility really is it?
She suggested that they hear from the other parties that are here tonight, specifically Bill Brent of the
Service Authority.
Mr. Dougherty clarified that what they were talking about is just the road or the private access easement
and then the connection to the Service Authority's parking lot from this new road. The new road shares
the easement that is there. The Service Authority's access to the lower parking lot is somewhat inside the
easement that the applicant is proposing to construct. He pointed the triangular area. The part about the
owner's agreeing is with reference to the access to the parking lot and not the private road.
Mr. Cilimberg stated what it boils down to is that the easement that they have the right to establish has a
connection. They have to accommodate if they are doing that how the access to the Service Authority will
be provided.
Mr. Edgerton stated that if Dr. Hurts owns the two properties that the applicant could go straight if he
wanted to.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the letter from Dr. Hurt indicates that he would agree with modifications that
might better accommodate the connection.
Ms. Higgins asked if it was an expectation that this will stay a private road.
Mr. Dougherty stated that the applicant has proffered that he will dedicate and build with the rezoning the
road to be accepted with VDOT standards. It is really a matter of getting further cooperation along
Spotnap Road.
Ms. Higgins asked if he would define what he means by the road. She asked if it was the little connection
from that parcel down to Spotnap Road or is it from the connection to Spotnap and all the way down to
*wr South Pantops. She felt that was a real element here.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 24
En
Mr. Dougherty stated that the only portion that the applicant can build as a public section that VDOT can
accept is on their property.
Ms. Higgins noted that VDOT won't accept a piece of a road that goes to no where.
Mr. Dougherty stated that they are planning on building it with the anticipation that somewhere down the
road that a public connection could be worked out, but they cannot be expected to make that public
connection on their own right now.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that they are going to design it to a public standard from 250 down to Spotnap. But,
it won't be acceptable to VDOT until such time that Spotnap can also be accepted into the public system.
That is the difficulty. It is not from there through their site. It is what exists. Without the cooperation of
the landowners who are a party to Spotnap to determine how to make it acceptable to VDOT then that
cannot happen. So it will remain private all the way through until such time that can be accomplished.
The bottom line is that is what they run into when they are trying to make interconnections in an urban
setting where existing roads have already been built to various standards, including private road
standards. He felt that is the concern of the Service Authority, in that they are a party to Spotnap Road.
He suggested that Bill Brent could speak to that. They are a party to the private Spotnap Road right now.
He was sure that they would love to see the road become public as well, but it is going to take a
combination of all of those who are a party to Spotnap to make that happen.
Mr. Edgerton invited Bill Brent to address the Commission, but noted that it was a work session.
Bill Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, stated that he came prepared to
make statements in a public hearing, but he would reframe from that given the fact that new proffers have
been offered that he has not had the opportunity to review. Initially the Service Authority's opposition is
not to the project itself, but to the fact that they propose to build a road connection Route 250 to South
Pantops Drive, a portion of which would travel over the existing portion of Spotnap Road which provides
access to their property. They realize that a lot of large trucks and heavy equipment in our operations
which travel Spotnap and they are concerned with the safety of our employees and our customers in
traveling Spotnap. Spotnap has its limitations. It varies in width from 29 to 39 feet. Parking exists on one
side of the street, but not on the other. There are sight limitations. The existing traffic control devices,
such as painted curbs, signs and so forth, are routinely ignored. Being a private street the enforcement of
these regulations is almost impossible. Adding through traffic to this street they felt was unacceptable. It
was suggested in the staff report that this street at some point would become a public street and being
accepted and maintained by the Highway Department. It was also suggested that the lack of cooperation
to this end was preventing this from happening. Nobody has approached us about the possibility of
converting Spotnap Road as it exists now to a state maintained highway. They are also concerned about
the maintenance responsibilities. Spotnap Road is now subject to a private road maintenance agreement.
The road is for the benefit of property owners which abut that road. Two parcels, none of which is the
applicant's parcel, do not abut it, but does have an easement to the road. Another parcel, which does not
abut it, but which has since then been developed and they did not utilize the access to Spotnap. He
noted that the applicant's parcel, which is the subject tonight, is not subject to this road maintenance
agreement. So as it stands today changes would have to be made to the road maintenance agreement
to subject that property to the cost of maintaining the road. They have concerns about the access to their
rear parking lot. The attorney for the applicant told him yesterday that they were willing to proffer that
they would provide reasonable access. He would take them at their word and assumed that was in their
proffer. He believed, but could not speak for the Board of Directors tonight, that they would consider
reducing if not eliminating the opposition for the proposal that Spotnap become a interconnecting street if
that street could be brought up to state standards and maintained by the state. But, of course, that would
be a decision that would be up to the Board of Directors.
Ms. Higgins asked to ask one question of the applicant. Mr. Brent stated that there was a property of
adjacency that was developed and did not connect. She asked if someone would point that property out.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 25
--456
Mr. Morris pointed out that it was the doctor offices.
Mr. Edgerton invited the applicant to address some of the issues.
Frank Cox stated that he was representing Mr. Dittmar, Virginia National Bank and everybody else that is
involved with this project. This was a highway commercial zoned site. Moore's Lumber Company had a
building sitting right on the line where they wanted to build their new building. Given the geometric of the
site, the parking needs and the overall orientation of the property, they needed to scoot the building up to
where it was located originally. Mr. Dougherty encouraged them to apply for the Neighborhood Model
District, which has opened up a lot of issues on this. Over the last four months they have been trying to
develop this site. For a small site of 4.8 acres, this is a very interesting way to take the Neighborhood
Model in which they can't achieve everything, but can achieve a lot of the good things. They have been
able to do that with relegated parking, pedestrian access and interconnectivity. They have looked at the
easement and talked with the property owners to determine if a road meeting state criteria could be built
within the easement that everyone agrees was established for the purpose of building such a road. In
fact, there is an easement that continues off to the southeast that would allow Monican Parkway to move
off in that direction if the will exist. There are some physical problems with doing that, but there is in act
an easement in place. In the early stages of this project was where they got the idea of a possible
signage, which was brought to their attention by some folk in the County. The idea of this road becoming
a public road was also brought to their attention. He agreed with Mr. Brent that it was an excellent idea
that the road becomes public. But in the meantime they were more than willing to participate in any
maintenance agreements that are in place for Spotnap. The existing Spotnap should have been a public
road to start with. Spotnap could easily be converted into a public road meeting an existing VDOT
standard with very little work. It could probably take 2 inches of asphalt and one or two minor waivers of
waive able design criteria that are in place through VDOT under their current regulations. But, in essence
this project is one that creates less impact than the original Highway Commercial District. He was not
sure if they knew they would have had to go through all of this to move the building 5 feet closer to the
street if they would have done it. But they are here now and really want their support. They really want to
work with the Service Authority if they want to tie into the road. At present their facilities trespass on the
existing easement. He was sure that they have grown accustomed to the utilization of the easement in
the way that their own facilities are plugged into it. However, this road is going to create interconnectivity
in a serious vein that is going to ameliorate some of the traffic problems that they have on this southern
side of the 250 corridor. They also have agreements to access directly to their west in the area that
moves into Riverbend Drive through the existing medical facilities. Again, that was something that was
insisted upon during our earlier work sessions with the staff. He felt that they have gone through the
process the last four months of so and have come up and resolved a lot of these issues. They agree with
the conditions that Mr. Dougherty has presented to the Commission relative to the special use permit.
The revised proffer was submitted today in hopes of clarifying some concerns. He was not sure if VDOT
has made a statement of adamantly not supporting a signal at that location. At one point there was
rumination as to that being an intersection that would carry a significant road across to the north. They
are not excited about a signal at that location at this point in time. However, the genesis of the signal
proffer was one that they were trying to participate in that though from a traffic generation standpoint, it
was a tail wagging a dog condition given the total ADT volume on 250. So here they stand with the
proposal and he would certainly love to answer any questions other than the concerns Mr. Brent has
posed. He was sympathetic with every issue that he has presented. He felt relative to the interest of the
community in this project that it made a whole lot of sense. Bottom line it is a whole lot better than the
Moore's Lumber Company redeveloping in its formerly existing shell. The pictures that Mr. Dougherty
showed were of the site before they demolished the structures.
Ms. Higgins stated that the Code of Development addresses the parking requirements. The staff report
indicates that they would have to work the parking requirements, of course, to the building and they don't
have a building design at this time. But, what she was trying to understand is some of the references to
the mixed distribution and phasing of land uses. The proffer statement does not specifically reference. It
is Highway Commercial now and it does not specifically reference what uses that they are looking to
incorporate here. So when you compare it to what is there now it is obviously better. But, are there
specific uses listed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 26
-15
Mr. Cox stated that the Code of Development on page 5 one of the specific requirements under the NMD
District is that the uses be designated permitted and prohibited. Those uses under the existing Highway
Commercial District that they have not excluded, they maintain those as allowable and permitted uses for
the future. Those in italics are those which they have specifically excluded from the by right uses.
Ms. Higgins stated that the Code of Development will be incorporated by reference on the proffer form
Mr. Cox stated that this was sort of like an overlay and these are the rules and regulations.
Ms. Higgins noted that so many of these uses don't seem to fit with the plan. In other words, a lot of
these by right uses don't seem to fit necessarily with the plan. If the Code of Development is suppose to
go with this plan, and then she did not know how these uses could be used. One of the problems here is
parking and traffic and how it was going to be handled. So there has to be a nexus for those three
issues.
Mr. Cox stated that the Code of Development placed a limitation on the total amount of retail that could be
developed. It is limited to 11,000 square feet. That played hand and glove with the justification for the
parking impact study that sought certain reductions using transportation demand management and a
shared parking formula. Getting right to her questions, they sat down with the owners and reviewed the
list of uses that were permitted by right and they scratched out the ones that they agreed to scratch out
and kept the ones that they preferred to leave in.
Ms. Higgins stated that since it was a work session, she was not trying to make a judgment. She was just
trying to look at the site with the parking and mix of uses. From the old school, every time one of the office
spaces changed they had to go to zoning and figure out what the parking requirements are. In essence
they could pick a few high uses that demand more parking and use it up and then have some vacant
spaces because there is not a way to just typically give it with the uses that they were looking at. She just
li%w did not know how that could play out because there were a lot of uses in here that don't seem to fit it.
Mr. Edgerton suggested that the Commission might want to narrow the list down. But, from the owner's
perspective why offer more than they have to.
Mr. Cox pointed out that it was quite possible that Mr. Dittmar might want to sell daylilies from the roof,
and he would be permitted to do that with the uses permitted by right.
Mr. Morris noted that as long as he had enough parking
Mr. Cox stated that the key point that she was making was relative to whether or not they were going to
overwhelm the parking demands. What they tried to do with presenting the traffic impact analysis and the
parking studies was to create a balance keeping in mind that they know that retailers want more parking
than the County would prefer under a Neighborhood Model application of percepts less parking. What
they resolved out of this was that it would be a safe and sound thing to do to limit the total amount of retail
square footage permissible. They have all recognized in the work sessions with staff that the intent for
the retail is to support retail ancillary to the principle office uses that are on the property as well as those
that surround it so that whatever retail that it might be such as a deli or any other modest service use
would be something that is pedestrian accessible as well as vehicular accessory to the community at
large.
Ms. Higgins stated that what she was getting around to, and staff can research it, because the NMD is
fairly new and there are not many cases where they have had it, but this is a stacked building and she
was wondering why they don't have something like in the PD-MC or the new shopping center designation
where basically you will have a mix of uses, assuming the shared, and you can set you parking spaces
and it does not have to be recalculated every time a use changes.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that it will not have to be recalculated according to what Mr. Dougherty has told him.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 27
- 5S
Ms. Higgins pointed out that the Code of Development infers that it will.
Mr. Dougherty stated that zoning was not comfortable with any shopping center standard. By restricting
the retail to 11,000 square feet, the bank has its own associated requirement and everything else is
office. Essentially, the zoning administrator was comfortable with that, but there will be some fine tuning
at the site plan stage depending on the uses. But, at this stage there is no way to determine that. But,
what the Chief of Zoning said is that if they limit it to 11,000 square feet of retail that using the traffic
demand management tools, which helps us get built into this development, the tools that are really
needed to start to counter some of the car culture that is in Pantops and dominates it. Essentially, she is
comfortable with those traffic demand management tools being implemented, whether it is changing the
facilities with what they have in the Code. She is comfortable that at the site plan stage that these things
can be worked out.
Ms. Higgins stated that what she would like to know is that when she sees three buildings if there is a
more simplified way to do this rather than the way it is suggested to be done in the Code of Development.
Mr. Dougherty stated that the applicant proposed a more simple way of doing it and the shopping center
requirement. But, zoning was not comfortable in applying that to the entire square footage of the
buildings.
Ms. Higgins asked if someone looked at it to see if it meets the definition regardless of what zoning's
comfort level is. She did not think that the intent was to prevent the application of those interpretations.
When the uses change, even with the 11,000 square foot limit, that someone can go in and say well now
we have gone to this higher use and we only have this many parking spaces so they can't rent to this
person. She felt that they needed to get those two things together.
Mr. Edgerton felt that Ms. Higgin's question was very important and probably needed to be resolved if
zoning was just looking at the parking for a specified amount of retail and the rest office.
Mr. Cox pointed out that they were asked to show how this site could infill even more intensely to give a
graphic representation on how that could be accomplished. That was the purpose of the exhibit in the
Code of Development for the parking deck. They recognize that if they did anything other than what was
shown on the rezoning plan being reviewed that it would require another rezoning.
Ms. Joseph stated that when they were working on these parking impact analysis with Ms. Sprinkle and
zoning that the idea was that it would give them certain flexibility for the uses on the site so they would
not have to come back and ask for specific uses.
Mr. Cox stated that the NMD District has a lot of moving parts to it. He thought that when the County
elected to adopt the NMD District in the form that it did that they recognized that it was not a perfect
equation because they were working towards a dynamic equilibrium. There were so many pieces of this
that even with larger projects like Albemarle Place when that was approved; it was approved with a very
substantial shared parking study. But, part of the Code of Development it was recognized that with each
site plan that was submitted that there would have to be a justification and a compatibility assessment
with the initial parking study that was accepted with the zoning. Now as they established for the Pantops
Park the parking impact relationships they did it thinking of really three uses. There was a modest
amount of retail that would be support for the general area for pedestrians from the offices. The second
dominant use would be the two offices in the southern portion of the project, which included the Virginia
National Bank building of 86,000 square feet all total on site. But, the retail has the ability to serve a
pedestrian market that is not going to inundate the site with vehicular traffic. That gave us he platform to
work with zoning and to go through the TDM machinations and come up with a shared parking formula
and a reduction factor that they have applied to the site. In looking at their parking they were thinking
bank, office and some amount of retail on the first level of the back two buildings, but not necessarily
having all of that for retail. But they would have that as the cap so that if everyone decided to drive in that
there would be a cushion from a parking standpoint.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 28
--� 51
Ms. Higgins noted that she was looking for something more like Hollymead Town Center, which actually
has a schedule based on how many square feet that you build. Then there is a range of 4.0 to 5.5
parking spaces designated for that mixture of uses. In this case she felt that it got rather complicated and
that someone still perceives this after the rezoning and you get a site plan each time a tenant changes
over having to re -verify something. She felt that they have made leaps and bounds to improve that
process and they don't want to go backwards on it. She felt that could be further evaluated. This is
probably one of the most walkable areas on Pantops.
Mr. Cox noted that with the medical offices right next door they did not want to preclude that from the list
of desirable tenants for the property.
Mr. Craddock felt that this was going to be the backdoor to get to the new Martha Jefferson Hospital. He
questioned a couple of connections shown on the plan.
Mr. Cox noted that one was for Crown's connection to the road and the other goes behind the medical
office.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that what he had heard tonight was some concern about how the parking will be
administered as part of the County's approval process. There are three points in time where parking
would be evaluated. The first is here with the rezoning and what seems to be important in defining the
amount of use and the various types of use to achieve the general parking that they can anticipate for the
development as it is proposed. The second point in time is going to be as site plans come in and how
particular parking will be required with those site plans based on the uses that will actually occupy the
space. The third could be as different users vacate and relocate in spaces. What staff will do before this
comes back to you is clarify with zoning how they will administer the parking. He felt there was some
question whether that third point in time was going to be one that zoning even gets into. He felt that there
was some anticipation that is going to be at the site plan stage and then that will be it, and as uses
change there will not be a re-evaluation of parking there. But, staff will confirm that with zoning. He felt
that is what the Commission wants to know.
Ms. Higgins stated that was because it ties back to the uses.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he thought that he heard a lot of concern about trying to get something a little
more committed on how that connection is going to be made from this road down to South Pantops Drive
on Spotnap. He did not know if there was any way to resolve that.
Ms. Joseph asked if there was a real possibility of Spotnap becoming a public road.
Mr. Rieley stated that it does seem that from a practical perspective that this is going to have to move
ahead in a less than ideal circumstance and that is if you are connecting up a road that was built to state
standards as opposed to one being built as a private road. But, he did not see any reasonable way to
anticipate that this thing is going to be done as a public road all at once. So it seems that the missing
piece not in the proffers is the maintenance agreement. That is something that has to be addressed and
Mr. Cox said that they were willing to do that. Beyond that he felt that the assurance that they can get the
pieces moving ahead in such a way that it can feasibly lead to this being a public road that is in
everybody's best interest.
Ms. Joseph stated that the other piece in the proffers has to do with the pedestrian access and they don't
really know what they think is necessary out there.
Mr. Rieley noted that staff said that they would look into that more carefully.
Mr. Edgerton stated that was going to be hard to determine without some educated guess as to what
pedestrian draws would be included in the retail. If it is a Starbucks, he felt that they have a problem.
That is not just going to be supported by pedestrians, but it is going to be pulling an awful lot of traffic on
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 29
IGO
to the site. He noticed looking down the list that they are covered for that use in the Code of
Development.
Ms. Joseph suggested that they make it easier for pedestrians if they want to walk to the site.
Mr. Rieley felt that a connection all the way from this project down to the connection between South
Pantops and where it comes into Riverbend as the slide showed is important. It seemed that there is a
missing piece in the sidewalk in that it did not continue all the way to the property line. If you get to the
property line and can't make the connection, then that is an issue. He felt that it should be
conceptualized all the way through and then they build as many of the other pieces as they can.
Ms. Higgins stated that the other thing in the report is the bank drive-in window that takes a special use
permit. She noted that the ARB did not take exception to it. It is behind the building and has been
reviewed by engineering.
Mr. Rieley stated that he loved seeing them utilize the Neighborhood Model District to achieve a
somewhat better form, but he did want to encourage the Commission and staff to be thinking about the
more pure vision of the Neighborhood Model and to strive to work in that direction as much as they can
while at the same time realizing that they need to be pragmatic and need to encourage these kinds of
zoning designations because it is going to get them closer to where they want to be.
Ms. Joseph felt that the pedestrian connections would make a good argument for the Neighborhood
Model. She asked Mr. Cox if he could take these amenities that he gave numbers to and put them on the
application plan.
Mr. Cox stated that the large scale plans contain that information, but that the plans might have been
reduced to a level where it cannot be seen. One of the things that they attempted to do was to integrate
the civic space with the bank building between a car wash and a car dealer. Also, as they pursued longer
range master planning looking at creating a site that afforded the ability to have an ultimate phase ten
years down the road where they could capture more of the essence of the Neighborhood Model. Mr.
Dougherty was very interested in them organizing the space right at the intersection of 250 and Monacan
Parkway so that an infill building would fit there. They adjusted their site for that purpose. They also
reconfigured some of the early phase pieces of the projects so that ultimately they could accommodate
more of an infill opportunity. He felt that was a good and responsible encouragement by staff of an
applicant in a transitional area that albeit right now is not anything that he would classify as Neighborhood
Model material. At least they were creating a paradigm that hopefully others would follow as more
properties redevelop. Relative to private road, he felt there was near term and long term aspect of that
too. They very much feel from a transportation standpoint that the intra-neighborhood vehicular
movement is going to be aided and abetted by this connection because it would provide some opportunity
for access to those that are circulating internal for the precinct, this commercial and industrial area that is
south of 250. But, he felt that if the desire is for this to become a public road they want to participate in
that. But, also there is truly going to need to be an in initiative by the County because they cannot go out
and dictate that a road that should have been public in the first place becomes one. But, they certainly
want to participate in that process. As they have worked with VDOT and as they have developed
preliminary plans and profiles for our alignment and ensuring that they can fit it all within the existing
easement they can do that and still meet current day VDOT design criteria.
Ms. Joseph asked staff if he has any other questions answered at this point.
Mr. Dougherty stated that he would like to mention from the staff report that VDOT identified the
reconfiguring of the median and the narrowing of the travel ways on 250 would allow for a right hand turn
off 20. That does not exist now so if you are waiting to turn on 20 you have to wait until all of the traffic
has gone through. That is one thing that has been identified by VDOT that would work towards some of
the transportation issues in the area.
Ms. Higgins stated that he was talking about west bound right turn on to 20. She asked how that would
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 30
`161
M
relate to this site. To do that you would have to come out of the site and then turn left and then turn right,
which is probably not a movement that you would want to encourage.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that in a case of new development within a larger area of existing development and
existing traffic circumstances what typically has happened in the past with proposals that there be some
kind of contribution towards ultimate improvements. Right now they have $15,000 on the table now. So
the question is whether or not that is significant to deal with future transportation improvements in the
area, whether they be pedestrian or with the road system. He stated that he did not think putting a right
turn lane onto Route 20 is substantially created by this proposal. He felt that contribution towards
improvements that are necessary in the pedestrian and road system is very much contributable to this
development. The question is what the proper amount is.
Mr. Rieley asked staff to bring some suggestions next time on that issue.
Mr. Edgerton stated that the Planning Commission will discuss this item, Pantops Park, again on
December 13, 2005.
In summary, the request was deferred to the December 13, 2005 Planning Commission meeting due to
an advertising error. In lieu of a public hearing, the Commission held a work session to discuss the
proposal and provided feedback to the assist the applicant and staff with outstanding issues.
Work Session.
Dickerson Road Affordable Housing Project Pre -Application Work Session — (David Benish)
George Ray, applicant, submitted two attachments. (See Attachment A and B)
Ms. Joseph asked if there had been a change made since the staff report, and Mr. Ray replied that some
changes have been made.
Mr. Benish summarized the staff report. (See Attachment C)
• This is a pre -application work session to discuss the Dickerson Road Affordable Housing Project
proposal for the 200 (+/-) units on 22 acres off of Dickerson Road adjacent to the airport and the
Hollymead community.
• The Commission held a work session on this proposal in February and staff provided a brief
summary of what they felt was the findings of that. Also, the minutes from that meeting are
attached in order that the Commission can decide whether they agree with staffs summary. Staff
summarized the Commission's answers to the five questions raised previously. Those questions
spoke to whether this is the appropriate location for residential. The area in the Comp Plan is
shown for industrial. So there was a concern about the conversion from industrial land use to
residential. That type of change from the Comp Plan usually requires a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment process to be reviewed and the Commission was concerned about the length of time
that process would undertake. Therefore, the Commission had some discussion about how to
deal with that. They also had questions about the mix and the design of the development. Staff
tried to summarize the Commission's direction at that meeting. This type of review process does
not require specific recommendations or actions. Therefore, the Commission is only providing
direction to staff. He asked if the Commission had any questions about staffs summary or the
minutes because they could go over that.
• The minutes indicated that the Commission did feel like additional information on the proposal
would be important from the applicant.
• The applicant has continued to craft the proposal.
• One of the issues that the Commission had was how the commitment was going to be made to
affordable housing. The applicant has worked on that issue. Ron White from the County's
Housing Office is present. The applicant has been working with Mr. White about those concepts.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 31
• Staff had hoped that a market analysis would be available from the Places 29 process, which
would really help us further discuss the issues regarding the need for the demand for industrial
land. That is not completed as of yet.
• Staff is prepared to walk the Commission through the Comp Plan to talk about the inventory of
industrial land. Staff has provided some numbers on the inventory to the Commission previously.
The summary of that is that we probably have significant capacity in the short term of 5 to 10
years, but over the long term of the plan there may be some question as to this pattern of piece
mill erosion of our industrial land designation.
Mr. Edgerton noted that on that point that one of the things that has come out of recent conversations
here is that the land values have gotten so high in the 29 Corridor areas that even if the zoning is there it
is irrelevant because you can't afford to buy the land for that use. There is nobody that is willing to spend
that kind of money for industrial property.
Ms. Joseph asked if he was saying that they were willing to spend it for residential, and Mr. Edgerton
stated that was correct and they were hearing this over and over again for residential and retail.
Ms. Higgins noted that it was the supply and demand issue.
Mr. Benish pointed out that staff is still trying to investigate that and feels that the market analysis might
help target what sort of demands there are for these types of land uses and what are the right price points
for those. Also present is Bob Marry from the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development.
He may be able to speak to some of those issues if the Commission wants to ask some questions.
Susan Stimart and he have spoken with Bob about this issue. As he recalled Mr. Marry did recognize
that there are some pricing issues with certain types of industrial land. By the same token there are other
industries that would potentially pay that price depending on what product that they were going into. For
example, the UREF Fontaine Research Park and that sort of end of development potentially may have a
need for a location that this might provide an opportunity for. But, he would let Mr. Marry speak to that.
He felt that staff has found that for certain types of industries that the County has priced itself out of the
market competitively in other areas. But, how far that covers the range of things that are permitted in
Industrial Services is the question. Industrial Service includes Light Industrial, which is basically a
business district or an office park. Ron White is also present for questions. The main reason for the work
session was for the applicant to provide more information, and then they could get back to the question of
how to address this as a process moving down the road.
He distributed the early from the Places 29 process that included the framework of a. b. and c, which
were reviewed by the public. Two of those, framework a. and c., did include this area as a low density
residential area. There are four maps in the packet. The first map is the existing conditions. Framework
a. and c. show it as low density land. Framework a. shows more protection of the environmental areas,
such as the stream valley areas. Framework b. shows it as an employment designation with a small retail
area located there. Framework c. shows a little more basic low density. (See Attachments)
The consultants will review this area and look at the findings in the future to come up with a more detailed
recommendation. Option b. is intended to reflect what would be an employment type of designation,
which would be consistent with this Comprehensive Plan. The middle option more reflects what is in the
Comp Plan now.
In the staff report the prior concept map was included because staff was not able to coordinate getting
this proposal in the packet because Mr. Ray was out of the country. Staff was not able to coordinate it
and what Mr. Ray is passing out is different.
George Ray stated that he was one of three partners of the limited liability company that is proposing this
project. He presented a power point presentation to walk the Commissioners through the proposed
project. The purposed of the presentation is to obtain feedback and direction from the Planning
Commission. Since the February 1, 2005 work session, they have been working on incorporating the
+i% Commission's comments. They have been working with staff and Ron White on this proposal. The
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 32
63
purpose of this second work session is to get some direction and feedback on how the Commission
would want them to proceed with this project.
The name of their LLC is Sugaray and the principals are Suzanne Jessup Brooks, who is present tonight.
The others include Mike Gaffney and himself. They have had discussions with two builders to provide the
housing product that they would show them tonight. One is Gaffney Homes, who helped them on
Glenwood Station with an affordable housing product which has been very successful. They have also
had some discussions with Ryan Homes. They feel that they have a very strong affordable housing
component for this project. He felt that they would be able to build a better product for less money than
many of the area builders due to their type of production. They have had a scale model built by an
architecture student at the University of Virginia. He presented the model which displayed each of the
proposed products shown on the colored renderings. Mark Keeler, the owner of Tara Partners, was
present to comment on the site plan. The project manager, Marilyn Young, was present as well as his
wife, Jane. They have named this project Willow Glen. The objective, much like Glenwood Station is that
they want to deliver a quality product in which all of the condos, single-family residences and townhouses
all relate to each other. He felt that there ought to be a relationship between the architectural elements.
Ms. Young will go over the affordable housing components proposed for this project.
They have proposed 210 units on 23 acres, which was 8.99 units per acre with a combination of
townhouses, condominiums or flats, and single-family houses. They held a series of focus groups, which
included some fire fighters and teachers. They found that the fire fighters and police officers in particular
did not want to live in attached housing. They have used that for a couple of things. One in trying to
provide some diversity for the community, but also to reduce the density and to put a product within the
project that might be of interest to those particular civil servants. He reviewed the proposal.
Marilyn Young stated that they know that the affordable housing target is for the 15 percent to be
affordable. In our community with the approximately 200 units that is 30 units out of the total. As they are
looking at the targeted market for who is going to qualify for the assistance, they know that there has
been a lot of talk about the work force component that are people that are needing housing, which are
people who are important to the community. This would include the active and retired law enforcement,
fire fighters, teachers and civil servants in the County. The question is how do they go about getting
enough money and how do they get the assistance. So this is what the developer and the builders are
proposing to do here. She felt that it was a real testimony to their commitment to affordable housing to be
willing to be this specific this early on. They have a lot of work to do in order to know how much this
project will cost to deliver and how long it is going to take and what the product is going to be. They have
made this commitment to offer these specifics at this point in time and are looking for a $10,000 write
down from the cost of the lots on those 30 that are going to be affordable lots.
Ms. Joseph stated that she was clarifying that what they were offering was 15 percent of all of the units in
the affordable range. Right now what she was explaining was what affordable means.
Ms. Young stated no, that this was the target of what the program is going to be, and they have to figure
out where the money is going to come from.
Ms. Joseph asked if 15 percent was what their affordable component is.
Ms. Young stated that was correct. What they wanted to talk about was what was affordable and how do
you determine who qualifies and those sort of things. There are no easy answers. She thanked Mr.
White for being present and that they would appreciate any clarification that he could add. This is a
significant offer from the developer and the builders to talk about. What is the cash or contribution that
the builders and developers are going to be offering to help make it affordable? Given the cost of the
land and development, it is a real tough nut to crack. Given the amount of money available to the County,
it is a struggle meeting these targets for any developer. So they are proposing to do it two different ways.
To have a direct write down of $10,000 on the cost of a lot to the builder, which will come right off the top
or returned to the partners in this development? Then to get another $300,000 that is going to come from
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 33
-764
a surcharge on the remaining lots. Basically, they would be helping to create a fund or a pool of monies
that could be used according to criteria that is yet to be developed.
Mr. Edgerton asked if they discount the price of the lot to the builder, how they are going to control
whether he adds that price back in to his assessment.
Ms. Young stated that it would be part of the contract to the builder.
Mr. Edgerton stated that this would deal with the first sale, but not the resale.
Ms. Young stated there have to obviously be other things that are going on. The assistance programs
through the County and PHA and others, there are all sorts of criteria for appreciation payback and how
much profit sharing or interest carry, whatever. There are a lot of things to think about. But, this is the
basic structure of it. The current assistance structure that they have right now, it is her understanding that
these County and Piedmont Housing Alliance programs and other state and local money would serve
those people with median incomes up to 80 percent of the area median. They would like to expand that
program a little bit, and would talk a little more about why they feel they need to expand it. But, to look
more to the VHDA guidelines, which moves according to the household size to 100 to 115 percent of the
area median. She presented the power point presentation noting that there are a lot of things to think
about in formulating these programs. They need to work collaboratively with the County to come up with
solutions to solve all of these problems about the structure of the program. HUD uses the household size
in their calculations. The average household size in Albemarle County is somewhere around 2.6 percent.
With those adjustments it will reduce the number of people who would otherwise be eligible. VHDA starts
with the average County income, but each agency does it differently. She reviewed the various assistant
programs including the County's down payment program noting that it was very difficult for many persons
to qualify. Therefore, either the criteria have to change or somehow there has to be some other type of
pot of money. They are hoping that they can work with the County to try to fill some of that gap. She
stated that they were trying to focus on as low as they can go down. When you look at those income
levels it is probably going to be 70 to 100 percent that is going to be the meat of the market for new
construction. Possibly for existing construction they could reach down further. Given new construction as
a practical matter it is going to be tough.
Ms. Joseph asked if the proposal was for 15 percent affordable and the rest would all be at market.
Mr. Edgerton stated that 7.5 would be affordable by the definition because the definition as it stands is 80
percent or less.
Mr. Ray stated that if it was the will of the County that they take the whole pot and direct it to 80 percent
or less that they would do that. But, they keep hearing that there are people who cannot afford housing
who make more than 80 percent of the median income. They are throwing it out there, but if they don't
like it they will adjust it to something else. They want to work with the County. This is just one of their
ideas.
Mr. Edgerton asked if in the focus group if they found they could deal with the greater then 80 percent.
Ms. Young stated that if you take someone who is a mid -grade employee if you look at those HUD
guidelines that many times they will exceed. She guessed the question they have to ask is how well they
are servicing their house to work towards their target right now.
Ms. Joseph asked if they realize when someone comes in for a rezoning for residential and a special use
permit is that our expectations are that 15 percent are for affordable housing regardless. She was really
surprised because when this was presented for an affordable housing project that it was going to be
something different than what they normally see. That is what they normally see.
Ms. Young pointed out that they were working under the VHDA guidelines.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 34
Ms. Higgins stated that it would be how they arrived at the number of units that need to fall in that
category. They understand what it takes to get in that category. But, affordable housing has been
defined by the County as the 80 percent. So that would account for the whole. That is a target and does
not mean that every development has to be 15 percent. Some have been approved with less.
Ms. Joseph felt that when this was presented as an affordable housing project that there certainly would
be more than 15 percent of the units offered would be in the affordable range.
Ms. Higgins stated that they would require it across the board.
Mr. Edgerton stated that this proposal was one-half of what the Comp Plan was proposing
Ms. Young stated that they would go back and look at the price points. They obviously are in the
conceptual stage here. They are trying to work with the County and the goals that they understand with
working with the work force that a lot of people who don't qualify at that 80 percent with the conflict what
somebody can afford at those levels. There just is not a product. They are trying to deliver a product as
opposed to proffers that is something that they are not always seeing here. Before you get to the
rezoning, she asked to speak to Places 29 plan c. She noticed on plan c that there is a lot of high density
right along 29. She does not live two blocks off of 29 and they get a lot of road noise. She asked that the
Commission reserve their judgment on whether their proposal fits in with the proposed Ruckersville
Parkway at this point.
George Ray stated that the impression that he got was that the 15 percent was a defined and that the
County did not want more than 15 percent because there is a down side in concentrating too much
affordable housing in one area.
Mr. Edgerton stated that was exactly correct, but that the difference was a huge gap in their definition of
affordable and the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Ray stated that if they wanted them to put all of the units into the $185,000 or less that they will do
that. He felt that they felt that they had come up with a good idea to include the group of persons who
could not afford a house in the County such as the firefighters, school teachers, etc. that go to
Waynesboro to buy a house that were not included in the group of 80 percent median income. This need
would be in addition to the people with 80 percent or less. If it does not work, then they will modify it. He
stated that he could not put $600,000 in a pot and help both groups. But, if he had to do 15 percent
affordable, then he did not know how to do it. It depends on whose guidelines that you use. For 16 foot
wide townhouses the builder feels they can sell that for $200,000, and they will come up with a way to
wipe that down either by writing down the lot to the builder or making a cash contribution from the other
pot, they will figure out a way to make those affordable at $185,000. The second part of that proposal
was for the ones that cost $235,000; they would come up with a private pot of money that does not have
government restrictions and do some down payment assistance for people who make above the 80
percent of the median income. In order to do that they would buy a different priced house and would
qualify to buy the different price house. They would still be subsidizing their acquisition. They could also
donate it to Piedmont Housing Authority and take a tax write off, which they could then put back into a
bigger program for that and let them administer it. He noted that they don't know how to administer it.
Ms. Joseph asked where they would find houses for people to buy.
Mr. Ray stated that it would be restricted to this project. They would be putting the money up and they
would be restricted to spend it on this project. They would be giving the money for affordable housing,
but would restrict it to being used for their project.
Mr. Thomas stated that the affordable housing would be paid for by the higher price housing.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that a school teacher would not qualify for this affordable housing.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 35
-166
Mr. Ray noted that it would almost have to be a two person income.
Mr. Edgerton stated that if there was a single entry work force there would be nothing available.
Ms. Higgins pointed out that the buying power would be limited based on the increasing interest rate.
Mr. Ray stated that those are all legitimate concerns. The challenges are the rising interest rate, the
length of the approval process and the construction cost escalation. When the full impact of rebuilding
the Gulf coast hits he did not know what was going to happen to some of these projects. Those are all
things that they are going to try to address. This is a legitimate attempt to build as quickly as possible
affordable housing in Albemarle County. He could not emphasize enough that they were offering to work
with the County staff and Ron's office to come up with something that is workable. He pointed out that if
what they proposed tonight would not work, then they would figure out another way that would work.
Ms. Joseph stated that there were a couple of other issues that they should discuss. The first is the
layout and the industrial land. The proposed layout looks great. The industrial land aspect of this is
something that she is very concerned about because of where this is located, because of all of the roads
that connect because it is near the airport, because there is the nuisance factor and the factor of
convenience for someone that does have an economic use on the property. So that is the kind of thing
that they also need to talk about not only what their target rate is in affordable housing, but also the other
aspects. She pointed out that she was getting very tired.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that there were some fundamental questions regarding this. The Commission has
an idea of what the applicant would like to pursue. In order for this to happen there are some other things
that have got to happen. The Commission has to give some direction on how they would like to see that
occur if at all. The first point is that this is industrially designated in the Comp Plan. So there is not an
application that can be made right that is consistent with the Comp Plan that is any where close to what
they are proposing to do. So if you want to change the plan the question is what you have to see in order
to make that change beyond what you have seen tonight. As an example, as to the employment aspect
of the land use that is there now and what is the mechanism that you want to look at that. Is it on its own
as a review or is it part of what they are doing right now as part of Places 29. Places 29 will be a comp
plan change. In fact, when you had Mr. Wood's proposal for additional area the Commission told him to
change the Comp Plan and they would like that to be looked at concurrently with Places 29.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he would like to continue down that route. It makes a whole lot more sense to
look at the entire region rather than a specific area.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that Places 29 as Mr. Benish mentioned will look at the need for industrial land
versus other land. That is part of the analysis and is part of what ultimately comes out as the options for
dealing with this particular area will be reflective of that. He felt that the three scenarios that were laid out
for the public were just for reaction. Next they will submit some real scenarios for consideration. By early
March that is what is going to be before the public. Unless the Commission is directing staff to be
pursuing this independently of that, then their best recommendation is that they be looking at Places 29
as kind of a land use approach to this area while the applicant is looking at how they might want to be
structuring a project provided the plan gets changed.
Mr. Ray stated that what they would be requesting is that the Commission allows them to go to the site
plan stage and let them start preparing the site plan. They would ask that they consider the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning at the same time simultaneously. Some of the things that
scared them are the rising interest rates and some of these costs that they are going to have, which is
going to make a project like this more difficult. He would suggest that they came to the Planning
Commission in February of this year, which was before the Places 29 project began. He noted that he
was in the public sector for 20 years and these things always have a habit of dragging out. He pointed
out that they were offering an affordable housing project and would work with the County any way that
they can, but they need their help with part of the help being an expeditious review of the project.
Otherwise, he feared that it would become more and more complicated.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 36
Ms. Joseph stated that she could buy into that if they had not come in and seen them last February. But,
it has been a long time since February since they've come back again.
Mr. Ray stated that they had done a lot of work since February.
Ms. Joseph stated that this project was not any different than what Mr. Wood is doing.
Mr. Ray stated that they were in line first.
Mr. Thomas stated that he had always been worried about the industrial property around the County,
specifically in depleting all of the LI zoning. He asked if this stays LI what type of use they would put in.
Ms. Higgins stated that it was zoned RA, but was shown in the Comp Plan as Industrial Service. She
noted that if there was a rezoning before the Commission, the question would be if they would rezone the
property consistent with the Comp Plan. She felt that would be a very difficult thing to do because of the
residential context, the input you would get next door, etc.
Ms. Joseph agreed because they were currently working on Places 29 and were trying to look at this and
how it meets the regionally. When they look at this regionally she hoped that the County was looking at
what is happening in the rest of the County too and how whatever they do in this area will affect the other
areas.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he would not be surprised if Places 29 does not come back with another
recommendation other than Light Industrial for this area. He favored allowing the consultants to sort out
this mess.
Ms. Higgins stated that if this was a comp plan amendment before the Commission without Places 29
going on she felt that they were all saying the same thing. She felt that was a meaningful way to tilt. If
there was a rezoning request for light industrial it would be hard to deny it, but it would possibly be difficult
too. But, maybe this is more compatible. She felt that there were a lot of rezoning uses that could be
request that the neighborhoods would be very much impacted by.
Mr. Morris stated that when he originally read this he had built up false assumptions on his part. But, the
applicant is proposing to locate a 200 +/- affordable housing project on approximately 22 acres. After he
read through this he was curious to know how the applicant was planning on doing it. When they started
talking about the 15 percent instead of the 100 percent, he felt that was logical but he misinterpreted it.
He felt that was where the balloon was burst for him because he made false assumptions based on what
he read. He apologized, but that was where he was coming from.
Mr. Benish asked if there were any questions for Mr. Ron White, County Housing Director.
Ms. Joseph stated that it was very important for the Commission to know what is going on in Albemarle
and felt that it was very important the next time that they discuss this for Susan Stimart to be here.
Mr. Benish stated that Ms. Stimart's function is to help promote partnerships to implement the County's
neighborhood model and not in charge of the economic development for the County. But, she certainly
was versed in what is happening. The last thing that he wanted to clarify was with the Wendell Wood
process that they went through. What they have agreed to with Mr. Wood's proposal was that they would
come back at strategic times during the Places 29 process. The earliest strategic time was after they
would get the economic information to vet it in full and at the time that they would have some sense from
the consultant with what the proposals would be either by charrettes coming out in that February or March
time frame. The question would be how much public vetting of those that you would want, which would
dictate the earliest possible time that they could bring this back to you. That would be the first opportunity
that they would see a consultant recommended series of proposals and some public feedback on those.
He felt that was where the March/April window was, which was how they were planning to proceed with
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 37
Wendell Wood's proposal. That does not mean that they were committed to an action. Mr. Wood is
recommending that 225 acres be amended in the Comp Plan from Industrial Service.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that he had heard that project has gone away and gone to Nelson County.
Mr. Benish pointed out that he had not withdrawn the comprehensive plan amendment.
Ms. Joseph asked if staff was proposing that you bring this along the same tract when that information is
obtained.
Mr. Benish stated that during the work session with Mr. Wood they had discussed coming back to the
Commission before an adoption of the Places 29, which was at the next strategic point if there was
additional information that they could further discuss that issue.
Mr. Rieley stated that this was different than Mr. Wood's project because there was a considerable
amount of design work and quite specific proposals from the place mix as well as the design of the site
and the buildings.
Ms. Higgins pointed out that the comp plan amendment has to go through before the rezoning.
Mr. Rieley stated that it seemed that there should be a mechanism to forward a proposal that is specific
as this into that process so that it can be evaluated. Because it is not as if the whole County is a blank
slate and they are not looking at previously developed sites as if they are a blank slate. He did not see
any reason why a piece of property that has a concrete proposal on the table can't be put into the mix as
it might have some influence on the direction.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if he meant by in the mix as being a part of the Places 29 review.
Mr. Edgerton suggested that they take the proposal to the consultants and tell them this is what they want
to do.
Ms. Joseph felt that it made prefect sense to do that.
Mr. Rieley did not think it can or should come with a recommendation particularly, but he did not see any
reason why a specific proposal can't be evaluated within that context and considered. They may find that
it is a good fit or they may find that it is not. Or they might find that it is partially a good fit.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that our approach with dealing with a project like this somewhat like Mr. Wood's
would be to show the consultant what is being proposed.
Mr. Rieley stated that he would absolutely agree.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that it was not something that they would hold out and say let's see what you come
up with and then we will compare it to this. They would want them to see it, understand it, evaluate it and
consider it as part of what they are coming forward with. That gives them an early look at how they see
that fitting. That may allow them to move on with this project and not have to wait for further approvals in
the Places 29 process.
Mr. Rieley stated that in addition they also in the Crozet Master Plan requested changes. They requested
that they take a chunk of area out and put it in somewhere else. Therefore, what they adopt may not be
what the consultants will bring back to us.
Ms. Higgins asked if they were saying that it would be considered concurrently.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that what they were saying was to give the consultant what the applicant has
40W developed, evaluate it and have them provide their thoughts regarding that in context of the bigger picture
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 38
1 v)
in
of the recommendations that are going to be coming forward with for this winter meeting and bring that to
the Commission and let them see how they see it fitting. Then the Commission will make a decision
whether to move forward with the rezoning application with the understanding that the comp plan
amendment may actually be something that happens later.
Mr. Morris agreed.
Ms. Higgins stated that they would potentially consider the rezoning without the comp plan amendment.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that they could go ahead and basically do them concurrently with the understanding.
Ms. Higgins asked if the applicant should just put a request in now for a comp plan amendment.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that this would be much more expeditious. He pointed out that he did not think there
was any application that could be put in now for a comp plan amendment change that would go any
quicker than having it evaluated as part of the Places 29 discussions that were going on right now
because they have the resources to look at.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that the market study was very important.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that there is a process going on right now and changes will result out of that.
In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on Dickerson Road Affordable Housing
Project. The applicant gave a power point presentation and reviewed the proposal, particularly the
affordable housing components of the project. The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the
proposal and provided the following comments and suggestions to the applicant on how to proceed with
their request:
• There were many unanswered questions related to the applicant's mechanisms for providing
affordable housing, whether the proposal met the 15 percent target and how it would be
administered.
• The proposal should be forwarded to the consultant to be evaluated and considered as part of
the Places 29 regional review. The specific proposal would have some influence on the
direction of the study and possibly allow the applicant to move forward and not have to wait for
further approvals in the Places 29 process.
Old Business:
Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any old business.
• Next week Mark Graham will be present information on the Hollymead Town Center runoff to the
lakes at Forest Lakes.
Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any further old business. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
New Business:
Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any new business. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting on November 29,
2005.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 39
r
V. Wayne Cilifterg,
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 22, 2005 40
--4I