HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 12 2011 PC MinutesM
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 12, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, July 12, 2011, at 6:00 p.m., at the
County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Duane Zobrist, Chair, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, Don Franco, Russell
(Mac) Lafferty and Calvin Morris, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of
Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development; Eryn
Brennan, Senior Planner; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and
Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Committee Reports:
Mr. Zobrist asked for committee reports from the Commissioners.
• Mr. Lafferty noted last night he was invited to a Livability Partnership Meeting and they had him listed as the
representative from the Albemarle County Planning Commission. When introduced he told them he was on the
Planning Commission, but did not represent the Planning Commission. If anybody had a problem with him being
on that, he would be glad to change his title.
• Mr. Lafferty, also a member of CHART, noted they met last week. Being Vice Chair of CHART puts him on the
MPO PACC Tech Policy Board. At the CHART meeting, they discussed at length the By-pass, and then he sent
a letter out to the Board of Supervisors and MPO Policy Board, which he read into the record. At the June
meeting the Committee discussed the merits, risks, and pitfalls of the revived plans for the Western Bypass.
They reached strong consensus in their discussion on two fundamental points: There is an urgent need to obtain
factual information prior to approving or rejecting the Bypass. They must express in the clearest and most well
publicized manner what is a dubious but still principle claim of the Bypass, i.e. benefits includes significant relief
of current and future traffic congestion in the Charlottesville & Albemarle Route 29 Corridor. Specifically, CHART
recommends that the MPO seek much greater clarification from competent authorities on the following questions:
1. What impact will the restructuring of the Bypass have on post 2002 area transportation plans that have been
developed for our region, including UNJAM, Places 29 Master Plan, and other urgently needed investments
in highway and transit and are reflected in the long range transportation plan and the transportation
improvement plan.
2. When Commonwealth Officials speak of reallocation of finances to finance a Bypass what are the sources of
such funds and how will these alter funding streams that affect the well documented local, regional, and
state transportation priorities that are not included in the Bypass.
3. What critical assurance can be made to the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle County that funding for
the critical roadway, transit, pedestrian and bicycle projects that they have identified and prioritized will not
be reduced or delayed by either the reallocation of limited transportation funds or the imposition of new
engineering obstacles associated with the Bypass.
4. Given the growth and development changes in our community over the past two decades can they still tie up
the Bypass as a cost effective solution to any local transportation problem.
5. Given recent and perspective changes in the region's water supply plan and the relative absence of
satisfactory deforestation analysis (on sedimentation, water quality, and air quality) and the existing
environmental impacts statement in the Supplemental Environmental Impacts Statement does the project
require a new updated and more comprehensive environmental impact statement.
• Put simply without a more realistic description of the true cost and the benefits of the revived Bypass Project and
more precise assurance the project will not impede other highly prioritized transportation investments the
community represented by the CHART Committee will not support the Western Bypass.
Mr. Zobrist reported there was no ACE Committee Meeting. In the MPO Tech Meeting, they had similar
discussions and made no recommendations. The job of the Technical Committee is to carry out policies set by
the MPO. They explained the procedures for the public hearings. He recommended to anybody interested in the
Western Bypass issues that they go to the Charlottesville Webpage where there is all the information they could
ever want and more. Then they could be well informed and appear at the public hearings to provide their input.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
• Mr. Morris reported the Pantops Community Advisory Committee met last week and were joined by the new
Chief of Police as well as Dan Mahone. He would advise any of the Advisory Committees to invite the Chief
because it is an eye opener.
• Ms. Porterfield reported the Village of Rivanna Advisory Committee met and the topic of discussion was the
Shadwell Bridge, which is going to be replaced. The Shadwell Bridge would be shut down at a certain point at a
minimum of six to eight weeks or longer. It is going to be tough.
There being no further items, the meeting moved to the next item.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Zobrist invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being no comments,
the meeting moved to the next item.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting - July 6, 2011
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on July 6, 2011.
Consent Agenda:
a) Approval of Minutes: 9-14-2010, 12-21-2010 and 5-17-2011
b) ZTA-2011-00005 Resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance: Resolution of intent to amend
the Zoning Ordinance to update and clarify its regulations
c) STA-2011-00002 Resolution of intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance: Resolution of intent to
amend the Subdivision Ordinance to update and clarify its regulations
Mr. Zobrist asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda for further review.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded for acceptance of the consent agenda with one modification to
the minutes of 12-21-2010.
The motion carried by a vote of (7:0).
Mr. Zobrist noted the consent agenda items were approved. The resolutions of intent approved are as follows:
ZTA-2011-00005
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance (Albemarle County Code, Chapter 18) was adopted in 1980 and it has
been amended numerous times since; and
WHEREAS, periodically, a more comprehensive amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is needed to
incorporate the requirements of recently -enacted State law, to clarify requirements, correct errors, update references
to other laws and to County departments and officers, and to make other minor technical changes designed to clarify
the regulations and improve their implementation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general
welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby adopts a resolution of intent
to amend the Zoning Ordinance as described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the zoning text
amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, at the
earliest possible date.
STA-2011-00002
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Subdivision Ordinance (Albemarle County Code, Chapter 14) was last comprehensively
amended in 2005 and it has been amended several times since; and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
WHEREAS, an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance is needed to incorporate the requirements of
recently -enacted State laws and to clarify certain requirements, including those related to the requirements for
submitting a final plat and the content of instruments pertaining to the maintenance of private improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general
welfare and good land development practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance as described herein; and.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
subdivision text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
Regular Items:
SDP-2011-00033 Dunlora Forest - Preliminary Site Plan
PROPOSED: Request for preliminary approval of 93 units, including townhouses, single family, and duplexes at a
density of 4.16 units per acre. Associated with this proposal are requests for a disturbance of critical slopes and
bonus density increase for more units per acre than is allowed with the standard level development required for R4
zoning.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R4- Residential- 4 units per acre standard level, and 6 units per acre
bonus level; R6- Residential- 6 units per acre standard level, 9 units per acre bonus level.
SECTION: Section 32 Site Plan; Section 16 R-6 Residential; Section 15 R-4 Residential; Section 4.2.5 Modification or
waiver of Critical Slopes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential- residential (3-6 units/acre);
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small-scale non-residential uses in Neighborhood 2
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: Rio Road East at the intersection with Pen Park Road
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 062F000OOOOOAO; 062D00100000AO; 06100000016600
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Megan Yaniglos)
Mr. Fritz passed out two exhibits from the applicant. (Attachments A & B)
Megan Yaniglos presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled Dunlora Forest Critical Slopes Waiver and Preliminary
Site Plan.
Proposal
• This is a preliminary site plan for approval of 93 units, including townhouses, single family, and duplexes at a
density of 4.16 units per acre. Associated with this request is a request for modification of critical slopes.
This site was requested by an adjacent owner to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The proposal
includes three separate parcels. TMP 62F-A; TMP 61-166; and TMP 62D-1A that are located on the corner
of Penn Park Road and Rio Road. There are approximately 22.3 acres total in the three parcels with 6.9
acres of critical slopes. The applicant is proposing to disturb 3 acres.
The property and requested modification to critical slopes are identified on both the Places29 Master Plan, and the
Open Space Plan.
• The area shown in brown on the slide are the critical slopes, and the striped/green area are those areas
identified as recommended Greenway Buffer.
• The stream to the south, does not have a Water Protection buffer associated with it, and has been
determined by the Army Corps not to be a perennial stream. In fact, the Army Corps has identified that the
stream actually ends in the approximate location shown.
• On the Open Space Plan map, a portion of the property has been identified as Major and Locally Important
Stream Valleys and Adjacent Critical Slopes.
Staff has analyzed the request, and made findings by separating the critical slopes into three different sections.
• Section A contains critical slopes that are shown on the Places29 Master Plan, but are not a part of the
Recommended Greenway Buffer. In addition, these slopes are not identified on the Open Space Plan.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of the disturbance of these critical slopes.
• Section B has mixed findings. This section has been identified in the Places29 Master Plan as
Recommended Greenway Buffer. It is also identified as Major and Locally Important Stream Valleys and
Adjacent Critical Slopes in the Open Space Plan. The Army Corps has found that the stream shown on the
Places 29 Master plan is not as large as what is shown on that plan. The comprehensive plan is general in
nature and was prepared without detailed analysis of the stream. The Commission may interpret a smaller
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011 3
FINAL MINUTES
buffer based on additional detailed studies or use the larger buffer shown. However, with a conservative
approach in this case staff recommends denial of this section.
14%W Section C is delineated on the Places29 Master Plan and the Open Space plan, and staff found these critical
slopes to be part of a large system of critical slopes associated with the stream to the north of the property,
and recommends denial of the disturbance of these slopes.
Critical Slopes Modification- Discussion
• The location and amount of critical slopes on the property does restrict the property to be developed per its
zoning without the disturbance of some critical slopes.
• The property is located in the development areas and is zoned for this type of development. Granting the
modification could serve a public purpose since the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors has
designated this property as Development Area in order to keep development out of the Rural Areas.
Staff has also analyzed the property as it relates to whether or not granting the critical slopes modification would
restrict the use of the property, and if granting the modification would serve a greater public purpose.
Favorable Factors
1. The property is located in the Development areas that has been identified by the Board of Supervisors and
the Planning Commission as the area where development should occur in the County.
2. The property is zoned R4- Residential, which permits this type of development.
3. The locations of the critical slopes could be argued to prohibit the use of the property based upon the
allowed number of units the property is zoned for.
Unfavorable Factors
1. The critical slopes are identified in the Open Space and Critical Resource Plan as Major and Locally
Important Stream Valleys and Adjacent Critical Slopes.
2. Most of the critical slopes, as well as other areas on the property, have been identified in the Places29
Master Plan as Recommended Greenway Buffer.
Recommendation: Critical Slopes Modification
Staff recommends the following listed on the screen for the critical slopes modification as shown in Attachment C and
based upon the analysis, and favorable and unfavorable factors.
✓ Section A- Staff recommends approval.
• Section B- Staff recommends denial.
• Section C- Staff recommends denial.
The preliminary site plan was called up by an adjacent owner for review and action. The site plan was reviewed by
all members of the Site Review Committee and found to meet the requirements for preliminary approval with the
conditions listed in the report.
Recommendation: Preliminary Site Plan
• If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the critical slopes modification, staff recommends
approval of the preliminary site plan with the conditions listed in the staff report.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Ms. Porterfield asked if staff is only recommending approval of the site plan if the Commission gives approval of all
three of the critical slopes waivers.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that was correct. It is one critical slopes request, but staff has broken it down.
Mr. Zobrist noted staff is recommending denial of B. and C. Therefore, if they followed the staff recommendation the
Commission would approve the site plan and approve the waiver only to Section A.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that was correct.
Ms. Porterfield asked how the Commission could approve the site plan if they deny two of the sections.
Mr. Fritz pointed out the applicant would have to revise the layout of the site plan to not disturb the areas they don't
approve. For example, if they approved Section A, but not Sections B and C, the applicant would have to revise the
plan such as Sections B and C were no longer disturbed. The ordinance actually contemplates these kinds of things.
It says if a final site plan differs significantly from the approved preliminary, then it comes back before the Planning
Commission. For example, if the Commission approved Areas A and B and did not approve Area C and they simply
eliminated those, staff would not think that is a major deviation from the approved preliminary. They would just be
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011 4
FINAL MINUTES
reducing the level of development. That would not need to come back to the Planning Commission. The
Commission could approve the preliminary site plan.
Ms. Porterfield said they could deny the preliminary site plan based on the denial of two waivers as recommended by
staff and then it would come back.
Mr. Fritz noted staff would want to work very carefully with the Commission and make sure they cite the proper
provisions of the ordinance. Staff would want to wait to see what the Commission actually does before they got to
that point.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the major proportion of the request is Sections B and C, of which staff is recommending
denial.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Keith Lancaster, with Southern Development, represented the request. Others present include Charlie Armstrong,
with Southern Development, and Mike Myers, engineer with Dominion Engineering. The project proposed 93 units on
property zoned R-4 and R-6. The third parcel at the corner of Rio and Pen Park Road was actually zoned R-6, which
gives them a by -right of 90 units without any bonus density.
• They have been looking at different designs on this property for months and working with the Virginia
Department of Transportation and County engineering staff to try to get the best design. The road system
has a loop road as referred to as Road B. VDOT has a standard of a 200' radius in that design, which
obviously would push the road down further into the hill. They were able to work with Joel DeNunzio to get a
modification to reduce the radius to 110' to help pull the units off the slopes up towards Rio Road. They
worked with engineering staff concerning the location of the basin, which is obviously at the low point of the
site. They worked with staff on the stream, which was shown in Places29 coming up through the townhouse
portion of the site. It was delineated by David Powell on their environmental portion of the site and confirmed
by the CORPS that the intermittent stream begins down at the basin.
• They believe that Area B, though shown on Places29 and on the GIS, is incorrect at this point. If they walk
the site, they would notice there is no stream location. There is another intermittent stream that comes in off
site from Pen Park and runs to the adjoining parcel to the east. They were able to pull the basin back to
allow that water to run freely to the perennial stream, which is shown in blue on the slide. They would offer
``411m" to work with staff during the site plan process to mitigate the impacts on the larger portion of the slope in
Area C. They would add additional plantings into the riparian buffer to protect the perennial stream.
• They were trying to think of ways to enhance their erosion control during construction to make sure that
nothing is released below the slope in Area C. They are offering behind lots 25 through 38 to include super
silt fencing and/or diversion dikes to reinsure that there is no blow outs during storms and they have run off
going down that hillside.
• Another component of this site they are excited about is that the 58 units seen as duplex and single-family
dwellings are going to be universal design. This design method will be for any individual aging and with
special needs. Basically, they are looking at components in the building construction where there are zero
steps into homes, wider hallways, 30" doors, and other components of the design like that to put in the 58
units. Having spoken to different groups in the community and being active with realtors this is something
that is needed in the urban core. It is a product that is missing. Dunlora actually has a similar product,
which has sold very well. They have 35 townhouses that complete the density. It is similar to the product to
be built at The Pavilions at Pantops. They feel Area B has the ability to be built on because the stream is
non-existent and that Places29 calls that out slopes.
• In Area C they offer the conditions on the exhibit. One other factor he would like to point out is that they
actually show the drainage divide on there as well. The purple area on the plan shows the majority of the
disturbance in Area C in the drainage area does not drain directly into that perennial stream. Since the
stream comes around and wraps around the hill side it is not directly above the perennial stream. They feel
that is a favorable factor.
• Hopefully, these mitigation measures will help off -set. Since the submittal of the site plan, they have been
able to figure out a way to reduce their disturbance of Area C by just over 11,500 square feet of disturbed
area. It is shown in that plan as Area D. They were able to relocate the sewer lower on the site and
maneuver some storm drain pipes higher on the hill so to not to run them down the slope as quickly. He
would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Porterfield asked the difference in the number of units they would build and if they would build with the bonus
**awl density.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Lancaster replied they are allowed the treescape as shown here. They are allowed the ability to go 5 percent and
are showing three units. Because there is a portion zoned R-6 and the two other properties are zoned R-4, they have
a maximum density of 90. They are showing 93 units.
Mr. Lafferty asked if they are going for the bonus density on affordability or design.
Mr. Lancaster replied it was on the trees saved.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment. He asked legal counsel, Mr. Kamptner, to explain
the limited nature of what they are here for tonight so the public could make their comments relative and directly to
the point on what the Commission is here to decide. He did not think they were here to decide whether this was
going to be built or not because it was going to be built. It has already been entitled. They are talking about a site
plan and a critical slopes waiver. He asked Mr. Kamptner to explain to the public what would be appropriate in terms
of public comment.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out the property already has the zoning. The two applications before the Commission tonight
are a critical slopes waiver and the site plan. The critical slopes waiver looks at the impacts from disturbing slopes of
25 percent or more. The criteria and the findings the Planning Commission considers are very specific and laid out in
the staff report. The preliminary site plan is regulated by a different part of the zoning ordinance. The sole issue that
the Planning Commission has in considering the preliminary site plan is whether it complies with the requirements of
the zoning ordinance. That compliance depends on what the Planning Commission does with the critical slopes
waiver. Otherwise but for the critical slopes waiver, the Planning Commission's consideration of the preliminary site
plan is a ministerial function. They don't have the discretion to weigh policy issues related to whether or not it is good
to have this particular type of development on this land. Policy decisions have already been made through the
comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance. The issues that are relevant to the Planning Commission tonight
really will boil down to the critical slopes waiver and the standards that apply to that unless anyone has found
anything else in the zoning ordinance that this particular site plan does not comply with.
Mr. Zobrist invited public comment.
Public comment was taken from the following persons:
Bill Coburn, Dunlora homeowner for the past 10 years and President of the River Run Homeowner's Association,
made the following comments against the proposal.
• Their concern was the proposed service of the large natural area of critical slopes. It is a natural watershed
for several streams that come together. It was pointed out there was only one perennial stream. He walked
the area last week and there is a number of intermittent streams that also feed into that, which also feed into
the South Fork of the Rivanna River that adjoins this property. In walking the property, it allows one to see
the full impact of the large watershed and large area of critical slopes and the possible future economic
disasters that could occur, particularly for the South Fork of the Rivanna River. There are many old beautiful
trees there that will be disturbed. They agree with staff on the request to deny the two sections. They can
see no compelling reason to risk potential future erosion, siltation, and contamination of the Rivanna River
and other adverse environmental impacts just to achieve density on this site.
• The proposed entrance into Penn Park Road is the second entrance proposed. It would be difficult to make
a left turn onto Rio Road from this subdivision. VDOT did a traffic count supposedly in June at this
intersection. Although the report read Penn Park Lane, it is not this intersection. He suspects that was a
typographical error and should be verified. He called VDOT about the traffic count because when they did it
the Catholic School was out for summer session as well as the Waldorf School. The summer vacation
season had begun. They said when they do the traffic count when the schools are not in session normally
they use a factor of 1.3 to compensate. If they considerate that the Catholic School has better than 350
students, the Waldorf School has 114 students, and they don't use buses, then it brings to question how
valid the traffic count is they submitted. He questioned whether the traffic study was valid for this
intersection, which is very dangerous.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out that is not before the Commission tonight. That was already studied when the rezoning was
redone.
Katha Bollfrass, a seven —year resident of 1212 Chathan Ridge Road, noted the two issues she was most concerned
about were not relevant for discussion tonight. She was concerned about the road and the trees.
Robert Toplin endorsed the opinion of staff. He agreed that Section A is not a contiguous area. Therefore, it does
not carry the water on down into the raven in the same way that Sections B and C do. Sections B and C have much
more serious issues. To take care of them they are going to have to be doing a lot of bulldozing, filling, flattening of
the land, and building retaining walls. In reading the report he found a lot of attention to issues such as disturbing the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011 6
FINAL MINUTES
drainage ravine, adjusting of the slopes, important stream valleys that will be affected, and disturbance of water into
existing streams, and soil erosion that can be quite significant. About ten days ago they had a extraordinary rush of
water right around the Penn Park area. There was a lot of movement of soil and so on. The so called streams that
are not perennial they have heard about could very quickly become rushing streams that will be affected greatly by
these efforts to change the direction of the water. It sounds like staff made a wise recommendation to consider what
is not a serious problem and what is a serious problem. That is worthy of consideration.
Thomas Wheeler, resident of 840 Charter's Oaks, said his house directly abuts the subject problem. He is really
concerned and was against the proposal. He has been looking at the Albemarle County Land Use Handbook. It
says very clearly in Section 13-200 variances should be sparingly granted. In other words, they are not supposed to
be fixing things as problems come up. In 13-4-20, it says it should not be detrimental to adjacent property. It will
certainly be a detrimental to have this huge massive group of homes put up the hill above them. Lower density is
better. More importantly, that hill moves continuously. He did not know who did the land survey on this, but it looks
like they are going to end up in his back yard. Trees come down the hill all the time. During the big storm they just
had, stuff came down the hill. They had better do a good job of fixing the hill because it is going to end up in his back
yard when they start tearing down all of the trees. He felt this would be detrimental to the adjacent property and the
district would be changed. When they bought this property, they were aware they would need a variance. Therefore,
this would be a self inflicted hardship since they knew they would need a variance to build a home. This is a self
inflicted injury to themselves. By just walking the land and seeing the slopes they should have known they should not
be building on a lot of this land. They are going to be using hundreds of dump trucks to try to fill this area in, which
will be extremely dangerous to everyone in the area. He was against this because it was a very poor concept.
Mac Canter said he signed up because he thought Pen Park intersection was on the agenda. That is a real concern
and it is going to be a mess unless it is done right.
Joseph Mahler noted that he walked that site a lot with his dogs. The trees and soil shifted after the storm. He asked
that the critical slopes request be denied.
Jefferson Gray, resident of 1425 Glenside Green, spoke in opposition to the request for himself and others that could
not be here namely Professor Jason Eldred of 1435 Glenside Green and Professor Debra Boucoyannis of 1437
Glenside Green. They all share similar concerns. Since he had seen the stream running many times while visiting
the site, he wondered who did the hydrology and geology on that. His second concern was the preliminary
*60'' jurisdiction and determination they received from the Army Corps of Engineers specifically warning they may need
their permit and authorization in addition to authorization from other authorities on this. He would be bringing that
query he had about the intermittent stream to the Department of Army Corps attention. There is another thing that
affects this related to the water, which is the concern of how the storm runoff is going to be caught, collected and
possibly pooled. He had read that there would be a catch for this. His issue was the West Nile Virus is becoming an
issue in this part of the County. Any large standing pool of water is a breeding ground for mosquitoes. Before this is
approved, he would want some kind of assurance from the County that this standing pool of water will not be allowed
to exist that would create an insect threat to residents. He presented an email dated July 12, 2011 from Professor
Jason Eldred, 1435 Glenside, (Attachment C) in opposition to Dunlora Forest.
Dr. John Graham, two year County resident, said he served as a coordinator for Adopt A Stream Program for several
years in Columbia County, Georgia. He also served in Raleigh, North Carolina in many capacities watching for the
problems they are talking about. He has never seen anyone come in and request a watershed change such as
indicated in Area B. He asked if the waiver is not granted if the developer can still put houses in that section at a
lower density. In his experience, he had observed homes built very close to streams and this one was over a stream.
Very often residents fail to recognize what they put down the sewer drains along their streets. Things like oils, gas,
and other things can end up directly or almost directly into the stream depending upon how those sewer lines are
worked. He did not recommend any development in that area. He noted in the earlier developments that some
vegetation was set aside for the Dunlora residents in the plans he examined. He thought the same should be true for
Dunlora Woods as well. He recommended the developer not put homes here in the interest of good environmental
protection.
Desi Allevato, four year resident of Dunlora, spoke in opposition to the request. The question the Commission should
look at when addressing the issue of critical slopes is not whether the developer can make it work around some of
these issues, but whether the disturbance of the critical slopes is worth the extra units and whether the developer has
demonstrated a compelling public good to doing that in terms of density and growth. That is the real question. It
appears that has not been the case. She thought there was collective disappointment that the matter of the river and
the road is already an accepted point and many people would like that to be reconsidered.
Ron Mokrish, resident of 1282 Chatham Ridge, said he was an educator and his work with children over the past 30
years has largely been related to biology and environmental issues. He spends a lot of time walking, biking, and
fishing in this area. He spoke in opposition to the request because it was a critical slope and a beautiful area. It
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011 7
FINAL MINUTES
would be hard to replace the vegetation and structure there. On the sloped area behind his house he has spent a lot
of money. He urged the Commission to vote with staff to deny these waivers.
John Blatz, resident of Dunlora, concurred with the staff recommendation on critical slopes B and C. With respect to
A, he wondered if filling that area does not increase storm water runoff from the site considerably and therefore
impact other critical slopes. He questioned whether storm water runoff would increase substantially from this site and
cause impacts on the streams and Rivanna River. The proposal states that the storm water systems at the site are
designed only for a ten-year storm water event. In light of the recent precipitation events and the very steep slopes at
the site, he wonders whether that is going to be sufficient. It also states they are planning to construct structures
within buffer areas of the site. He wondered why storm water containment structures should be constructed within
buffers that are designated as critical environmental resources.
David Drubin, a one-year resident of River Run, spoke against the waiver requests, and the increased density. He
was completely against the project mostly due to the traffic concerns, which some people have addressed that was
not on tonight's agenda. It is a major concern.
Todd Hawkins, member of the Livable for Life Steering Committee and co-owner of a company called Builder Fish,
said their cause was universal design. His opinion was staff should work with the developer because accessibility
and affordability go hand in hand. This property has some potential and staff might want to talk to someone in
Fairfax, Virginia or Montgomery County, Maryland. They have been dealing with this issue of home accessibility
since early 2000's. He questioned if there is any way to mitigate the concerns so that everybody gets something
since this type of property is sorely needed.
Sonny Knight, ten-year resident of Dunlora, said his response is emotional. He knows they need this type of housing
and they have to concern themselves with growth and the future. However, it seems to be a lot about money. This is
a beautiful place to live. He asked how many times do they have to bring in more people to a beautiful place to
increase the density when they are decreasing the value of their live experience and their properties. He asked that
the waivers be denied.
Cynthia Ricio, resident of River Run and realtor for 31 years and with Montague & Miller Company Realtors, noted
that it was a very challenging market today and there is a lot of inventory in the MLS. To add inventory to today's
market in this community will continue to devalue and make it tougher for this economy to survive and move forward.
Harriet Ricio, resident of River Run, asked to mention several items that had not been talked about. One is that this
is a recommended green buffer area in two studies done by the County. Two, is that they don't build for a ten-year
event. They build for a 100-year event. One of her last professions was doing analysis for storm and hurricanes.
They are going to have run off and erosion, which will be seen in the Rivanna River. The builder said hopefully he
could offset erosion. I hope is not good enough.
Deborah Gilbert, resident of River Run, noted that they were not informed of any of this. They came here with the
idea they could talk about the road and this obviously is not the place. She asked who they could contact to talk
about the road.
Mr. Zobrist replied they could contact Bill Fritz at 296-5832 at extension 3242.
Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Lafferty thanked everyone for coming tonight. He noted that it was very limited in what the Commission can
make a judgment on.
Mr. Morris said he walked the property in section B after two full days of absolute downpour. Walking down that cut it
was muddy, but where this particular form showed a stream there was no stream. There was no wetness on the
ground. He can only attest to what he actually saw. He is not a member of the Corp of Engineer, but it was dry.
What that says is that being on the ground and walking it that one day he saw that maybe the map he was looking at
was not quite accurate. That is all he was saying.
Ms. Porterfield suggested they ask Joel DeNunzio to come up and discuss condition #6, which is Virginia Department
of Transportation approval. Everybody would like to know if there is VDOT approval.
Joel DeNunzio replied that they had reviewed the roads in this development twice and provided comments. He
realized there was a lot of concern with the Pen Park intersection. The final design on that is not complete. They
ww, have concerns with it also. They believe it is too close to the Rio Road intersection and that probably channelization
has to be incorporated into the design to either restrict or just allow the safe movements there.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Porterfield asked that he describe what channelization is.
Mr. DeNunzio replied that channelization was concrete medians. They might have traffic stacking on a normal basis
at the signal coming out to Rio Road. They might channelize a median there so they can't take a left turn into that
site. However, they can allow right -in and right -out coming the other direction. There are many benefits to having
that connection there with one being a park down the way. It would be nice if the residents of that development could
come out and take a left to go down to the park without coming out to Rio Road. If it were a safe movement, it would
be desirable movement to keep them off Rio Road. However, there are other situations such as cars stacking up at a
light and someone is trying to pull through the middle of them. It is not safe. That is their biggest concern here with
the people coming up and trying to take a left in or if it is unsafe to take a left out. More analysis needs to be done in
this design to determine these things. They believe they can restrict certain movements that might be unsafe to
make the intersection safe.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they are going to do anything to allow the residents of the area to come and make comments
to him about this area. Obviously, they are quite concerned.
Mr. DeNunzio replied yes, he could answer any questions to citizens.
Ms. Monteith asked if Treesdale, which is already under development, would also affect this. There is a lot of
congestion in this area.
Mr. DeNunzio said that someone mentioned earlier about the traffic counts VDOT did this summer and how they are
not adequate to use for this type of analysis. Those traffic counts are not done necessarily for this type of
development. VDOT does not go out and count traffic to see if intersections are safe for these developments. They
are out there counting traffic to determine how to allocate maintenance funds to roadways. Therefore, their counts
are different from the counts they do for analysis. There was an analysis done on a previous plan out here, which
was less dense. Before the final design on this, they are going to have to revise that analysis with additional traffic
counts. They typically require those traffic counts to be done when the school is in session. It should incorporate
everything that is out here.
Ms. Porterfield assumed he would also be discussing the access roads that are shown that would not be coming out
at traffic lights. She questioned if they would restrict it to right -in and right -out.
Mr. DeNunzio noted another desirable feature of that intersection is they could take a right out and get to a traffic light
to make a left on Rio Road, which was safer than coming out the main entrance onto Rio Road.
Ms. Porterfield noted concern that just because this was inside the development area they could consider that it is
totally buildable. The Commission has talked about it out in the rural areas. She felt they needed to say that the
same thing applies within the development areas. She assumed the people who bought the property were aware of
the topography of the area when they bought it and could visualize what they would have to ask for to be able to build
it to its maximum. That is what she thinks they are trying to do. She has problems giving these waivers because the
developers are maximizing and may be overbuilding what the land can take. She also has great concern with
building something to a ten-year storm since it was not realistic particularly given the topography of the site. She
understands what staff recommended, but questioned if everything is buildable to the max.
Mr. Loach asked staff to answer the question asked by the audience. Assuming the Commission goes along with
staffs recommendation for denial of B and C, what impact does that have on the total number of units allowable to be
developed on the land.
Ms. Yaniglos replied if the Commission denied Areas B and C, a number of the lots would be affected. The applicant
might be able to make some adjustments, but she could not say for certain.
Mr. Fritz pointed out it does not change the zoning of the property. The zoning would remain R-4. Staff asked the
very same question when going through the review trying to figure the number of units to go there. Staff had a very
difficult time because a couple of things could happen. They could take off the multi -family and leave it as single-
family. They could convert what is shown as single-family into multi -family so they don't know what the numbers
would work out to be. If Areas B and C are not approved, it is a pretty significant reduction in the area of
development. It is probably about one-half. He could not tell them what the number would be because the applicant
might decide to go for a multi -family approach and cluster that. He could not answer the question affirmatively.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the catch basin is actually designed for a ten-year event. He asked if the project engineer could
1%W answer the question.
Mr. Fritz replied that he would have to come back to him on the basin design.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011 c
FINAL MINUTES
Charles Armstrong, with Southern Development, noted that Mike Myers with Dominion Engineering could address the
basin design.
Mike Myers replied that the basin design provides control for the ten-year storm, which is required by the County
Engineer. It also allows for 100-year overland relief. It does take into account the fact that the 100-year storm will be
routed to the stream. However, it is correct the actual design is for the ten-year storm.
Charles Armstrong noted the design of the storm water basin for a ten-year storm means that even with some
increased impervious surfaces on the land that the storm water basin as designed will intenerate that storm down to
the level of the ten-year storm pre -development. Therefore, it is not a matter of what storm the basin is designed for.
It is designed for a 100-year storm and it can handle a 100-year storm. It controls a 10-year storm.
Mr. Zobrist said he did not support any of the waivers. He felt that waivers should be given very seldom and when
they are very deminimus.
Mr. Franco said he would probably go the other direction. The question Ms. Porterfield asked early on is how do we
want to consider the development areas. He thought their whole Comp Plan or policies and approaches are based
on trying to funnel development to the development areas. Therefore, he agreed with staffs comment about Area A.
Those critical slopes are incidental because they are out there and 25 percent, but not associated with what he would
call a significant feature such as the major or locally important streams. Those he thought were the ones they were
trying to protect with this ordinance. He thought the critical slopes ordinance was designed to say at 25 percent they
are supposed to say be careful. They are not supposed to stay off them, but to be aware of what is going on and to
look at them to make sure they are not using their typical approaches in dealing with those slopes. He would be
more likely to approve Area A. He thought staff has outlined in the report that Area B is disconnected from the major
slopes that are near it. There is not a stream that comes up there. There is a lot of discussion whether that is really a
stream. He has to go with the Corps of Engineers who are our expects to say it is not a stream because they made
that call. He would be inclined to allow the slopes in Area B to be disturbed. He was less inclined to allow anything
to happen with the slopes in Area C simply because they are contiguous with the stream buffer in what he considered
important environmental areas.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out these are in the Places 29 Master Plan and considered as open areas and green areas.
Mr. Franco said he did not think the Master Plan has the ability to designate your property as open space and then
prohibit using the land. If the land came up for a rezoning, then they would be pursuing maybe getting an open space
or greenway. In the Comp Plan, they talk about this being a public park area. Right now, they can't do that.
Ms. Monteith noted however, they don't have to grant a waiver for critical slopes.
Mr. Franco said he has been very torn in this approach. There are aspects of the design he is concerned about.
Some of that is because of the regulations they have which has forced the design to be the way it is. However, he
did not think they ought to be regulating development in the development areas with incidental critical slopes. The
things that are up here in A and potentially B he thought they should look at as being in the development area and to
accept that they will be disturbed.
Ms. Monteith said she would argue that she thought the way these critical slopes are configured that it is critical to the
structure of the whole place. She has been on the property. Therefore, in this case she felt that the critical slopes
are problematic. She disagreed that at 25 percent they design differently. She thinks at 25 percent they have to be
very careful about what they are doing if they do anything. They should consider those issues very carefully when
they are looking at the proposal. She would also follow up on a couple of comments she heard. One relates back to
what Ms. Allevato said, which was that the developer should show a compelling public good. That combined with the
fact that they also have had it demonstrated that they have quite a bit of capacity in terms of what is available on the
market, she did not think they have demonstrated a compelling public good for actually developing these critical
slopes.
Mr. Zobrist invited further comment from the applicant
Charles Armstrong requested a deferral. They would like to go back and work a little more to see if they can stay out
of the critical slopes or at least stay more out of them. He thought there were some spaces they can work with.
Between the staff report and now, they have been able to show disturbance of less critical slope than originally
proposed. They could work on that even more. The one comment he would like to make about #1 density and #2
what is on the market to the extent that is relative to their thought processes, was part of the reason the slopes are
shown as being disturbed is because the universal design homes that are designed for seniors are a larger footprint.
They are one level living. Instead of going up two stories and getting that living space on two levels on a smaller
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011 10
FINAL MINUTES
footprint, they really have to spread it out to do universal design of a comparable size that those seniors want. That is
the primary reason that the lots are as big as they are. Those lots could be shrunk down and do townhouses and
achieve the same maximum density without disturbing the critical slopes. Without the waiver, they have a decision to
make whether they want to try to do universal design with less density or do something that is a smaller product or
more vertical and achieve that maximum density. With regard to what is on the market, there is many town homes on
the market right now. They are trying hard to offer a product that is desperately needed by the market. These homes
with universal design are not there. He had a realtor just yesterday ask if this is not approved where are they going to
live. This is a realtor that has been in the business many years and knows there is a demand for senior living. If the
Commission were willing, they would like to defer, work on this some more, and come back.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded for acceptance of the applicant's request for an indefinite
deferral of SDP-2011-000033 Dunlora Forest — Preliminary Site Plan to allow staff and the applicant to work out some
of the issues.
Mr. Morris asked staff and the applicant to clarify Area B's status in the Open Space Plan and the Places29 Plan.
Mr. Lafferty noted the deferral would give the public a chance to know what the issues are when the applicant comes
back.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that SDP-2011-00033 Dunlora Forest — Preliminary Site Plan was indefinitely deferred at the
request of the applicant to allow staff and the applicant to work on design issues.
The Planning Commission took a five minute break at 7:26 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 7:32 p.m.
Public Hearing Items:
SP-2011-00012 Locally Grown Festival
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to allow a one-time music event for a maximum of 700 people between the hours of
iftw 1-9pm in the fall of 2011
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2.42 Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
LOCATION: 5152 Mount Juliet Farm, approximately one-half mile northwest of junction with White Hall Road (810)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 040000000026A1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Whitehall
(Eryn Brennan)
Ms. Brennan presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a special use permit application to allow a temporary one day event consisting of a music festival for a maximum of
700 people in the fall of 2011. The 89-acre parcel is bisected by a private road leading to the main house on the property
and it consists primarily of cleared fields with a wooded area located in the western corner of the property north of the
main house. The properties surrounding the subject parcel are designated rural area in the Comprehensive Plan and are
included in the rural area zoning district.
The hours of operation for the music festival would be during daylight hours only that depends on when the sun sets on
that particular day in the fall. The stage would be constructed in the field north of the road traversing the property,
approximately 650 feet west of the nearest residence on Sugar Hollow Road. As the noise may exceed sound levels
allowed in the Rural Areas (60 dBA during the day), the applicant has requested a waiver from Section 4.18.04 of the
Zoning Ordinance, which is also included with this application. However, condition 12 has been offered to restrict noise
levels to no higher than 65 dBA during the event as measured from an adjacent property. A maximum of 15 vendors
selling food, wine, and beer would be set up for the event. All festival parking would be on -site, and no off -site parking
would be allowed, as stated in condition 6. One parking area has been identified on the concept plan to accommodate up
to 280 vehicles.
1 The applicant has contracted an event management company to organize trash removal and recycling, and portable
bathrooms would be available for festival participants. Condition 3 has been proposed to ensure Health, Fire, and Police
department approvals are obtained before a zoning clearance would be issued.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011 11
FINAL MINUTES
The gate area closest to Sugar Hollow Road would be where people would access the event from the parking area.
The stage would be set up in the area where there was a dip in the valley as shown in the sketch. The applicant
intended that so it would be at a lower elevation to help mitigate and off -set some of the noise impact from the event.
Some increase in traffic can be expected on the day of the event. VDOT has no objection to the application. The
proposed use does not directly contribute to the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for the rural areas,
however, given the temporary nature of the event staff has not identified any detrimental impacts on adjacent
properties. Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-2011-00012 Locally Grown Music Festival with the
conditions outlined in the staff report. The name has evolved after the application was submitted.
Regarding the waiver requested, it is anticipated that noise may exceed the 60 decibels allowed during the day.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of the waiver from Section 4.18.04 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Mr. Morris noted it bothered him when he read staff was recommending raising the decibel level to 65 after what they
have gone through with the wineries. It just seems that they are absolutely opening floodgates if they increase the
decibel level they will permit in this area.
Ms. Brennan pointed out this is the decibel level the Commission approved for the music festival held at the Misty
Mountain Campground.
Mr. Loach asked how that would be measured.
Ms. Brennan replied the condition was included because they did not anticipate staff attending the event. The Misty
Mountain Campground festival was three days and zoning staff did attend that festival. Staff did sound
measurements and none exceeded the 60 decibels. On this particular day with this particular parcel, staff could
certainly discuss with Ms. McCulley the possibility of staff attending the event.
Mr. Loach said it would also be helpful in the future as they start to develop these base lines if they can have some
experience with it.
Ms. Brennan noted if the 65 decibel level maximum was set for this particular event, it gives them a possibility of a
quantitative analysis for a future application should this become successful and the applicant wants to come back
with a special use permit. If it does not come close to the 60 decibels allowed, they don't need to include a condition.
If it came really close, they should cap it at 65 decibels.
Mr. Zobrist noted it also ends at sunset, and Ms. Brennan agreed that was correct.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the Misty Mountain festival was capped at 65 decibels.
Ms. Brennan replied that was correct because that festival goes into the evening.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it had been considered with something like this that a part of the approvals would be the
applicant would pay to have a zoning staff member at this event.
Ms. Brennan replied that to her knowledge that has not been considered.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it would be possible in the future.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that he would have to defer to Mr. Kamptner on that.
Mr. Kamptner said it has not been the County's practice to require a user of a land use to pay for the cost of
compliance with the regulations.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out the problem is if there is a complaint the event is over before the next time somebody can
get out.
Mr. Loach asked if the Commission can make a condition of approval that it be on the onus of the applicant to have
the sound measured during the performances to make sure it does not exceed the 65 decibels.
Mr. Kamptner said it would be fair to require the applicant to monitor the sound levels using the standards and
protocols that are in Section 4.18. Whether or not they would use it for enforcement purposes is another matter. If it
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011 12
FINAL MINUTES
on
is monitored, the County can further develop its data bases to these standards, conditions, and particular activities in
how to regulate them in the future. It would certainly give them real time information as to whether or not they are in
compliance and they can self -correct throughout the day.
Ms. Porterfield said that is probably the biggest reason for doing it. The applicant could self correct, which would be
wonderful.
Mr. Loach noted they could give the data to the County so they could have it for their information.
Mr. Kamptner said his recollection from the Misty Mountain Festival in 2010 or the prior year was they had actually
done sound checks before the event actually started. Therefore, they were confident and knew they were in
compliance with the condition before the event even started.
Ms. Brennan agreed and noted that County staff also went out and did measurements during the duration of the
festival.
Mr. Franco asked if they are talking about any sound or the amplified music. He was wondering if they should
specifically say amplified music. During the discussion on the wineries, there was a lot of discussion about the
general noise.
Mr. Loach suggested they reference the section Mr. Kamptner referred to
Mr. Kamptner suggested they talk with zoning rather than try to fashion a condition. In the sound tests taken under
the zoning ordinance they are not going to get a line graph showing everything taking place from the time the event
starts until sunset. However, they are going to get averages taken during certain periods. What those tell us for the
life of the event he did not know since they are not going to be random samples of sound levels throughout the event.
They are going to be whenever the person conducting the test concluded their testing period. The Commission can
make a recommendation for that condition and let staff talk to zoning to see how that can work in a reasonable way.
Mr. Zobrist suggested the condition state that the applicant will comply with such reasonable monitoring of sound as
required by the zoning department. Then they could let the zoning department decide whether they want to do it or
not.
Mr. Kamptner replied that could be the recommendation and then staff can work with zoning to come up with a
condition before this goes to the Board.
Mr. Franco said that condition 7 talks about a limit not to exceed 700 persons. Thinking back to the Blue Ridge Swim
Club, was that 700 attendees or 700 inclusive of staff, vendors, and emergency personnel?
Ms. Brennan replied it was 700 attendees.
Mr. Franco said he would like to see that clarified.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Peter Lawson, applicant, represented the request.
Mr. Zobrist asked if this was his parents' property, and Mr. Larson replied, yes, it was his family's property.
Mr. Zobrist asked if his parents had given him permission to put this event on.
Mr. Larson replied yes, his parents had given their permission to hold this event.
Mr. Loach said under the staff report it says the proposed use does not directly promote the purposes of the rural zoning
district. To mitigate that he sees this event is being sponsored by three local nonprofit organizations, including Kin Pan
Alley, the White Hall Ruritans, and the Boys and Girls Club. He asked if that is correct.
Mr. Larson replied that the third one they are changing to another nonprofit, the Music Resource Center, which is
underneath the Boys and Girls Club.
Mr. Loach asked if the sponsors would be recipients of the proceeds.
Mr. Larson replied that the sponsors would be the main beneficiaries of the revenue. They intend to give them a large
portion of the revenue.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JULY 12, 2011 13
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Smith asked what percent would be a large portion of revenue.
Mr. Larson replied that they have not discussed that with them yet. They have been waiting for this to go through
until they start talking about that.
Ms. Porterfield noted this event is a lot more open-ended because there is no date.
Ms. Brennan replied that is correct; however, it allows for a rain date.
Mr. Franco pointed out there is only one event to occur by the end of the year.
Ms. Porterfield asked when he is planning to have this event.
Mr. Larson replied he was considering Labor Day weekend or the weekend of September 16th and 17`n
Ms. Porterfield noted they have always had a date certain with a rain date.
Ms. Brennan replied that Misty Mountain Campground was allowed one event per year anytime of the year. There
was no date for that.
Mr. Franco said he was comfortable leaving the date open ended since it is one event, which has to be within the
next six months or before the end of the year.
Mr. Loach said the timing did not bother him. He had discomfort in their application for something that does not
promote the purposes of the rural area zoning. It is nebulous in they were going to have a music festival for these
organizations, but don't know what percentage of the profit they will receive. He wants to do the right thing for these
organizations, but did not want these type of things popping up all over the rural areas based on the promotion for
good causes.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out in the staff report Ms. Brennan notes they are going to be selling local goods as part of this
activity. While it might not be promoting agricultural activities on the site, which is the primary activity or the use in
the rural area, it is actually utilizing the sale of local products as part of the event.
Mr. Franco said he was a little concerned about the use. However, overall he was okay with the use because of the
local vendors and the support of the community that is coming out of it. He would be more comfortable knowing more
specifically a percentage not necessarily of the revenues, but of the products so to speak. Obviously, there will be
expenses. If the applicant were able to say aside from expenses that this portion of the profit is going towards the
nonprofits it would be good.
Mr. Loach said it would have been nice to have some people from these organizations present to support the event.
Mr. Franco said overall he was still in support of the concept.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant did not have any of that information for Misty Mountain, which came back before the
Commission twice. That event originally was approved for one year. Then it came back for a long term approval.
That was not a matter the Commission discussed nor was it an issue. That was actually a private event.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out in regards to the resolution of intent passed he was working on the temporary event section
this afternoon. One thing that caught his eye was it had to be sponsored by a local nonprofit organization. All that it
requires is sponsorship. It actually does not require anything else that he was aware of. Maybe through practice
Community Development has some base line criteria to what the nonprofits have to do to qualify as being the
sponsors. There is nothing in the zoning ordinance that establishes any criteria.
Ms. Brennan replied that zoning makes the determination when the application is submitted. They ensure that it is
being sponsored by nonprofits, whether it is one or multiple. In this case, it is multiple sponsors. Zoning made the
determination that it was sponsored by nonprofits. Therefore, it is okay for them to pursue a special use permit for a
temporary event.
Mr. Loach asked if the notification has been sent out to the neighbors. He asked if any opposition had been received.
Ms. Brennan replied there was some confusion about the road name. The road it is on is Mount Juliet Farm, but it is
not actually Mount Juliet Farm, which is the adjacent farm. When the caller understood it was the adjacent parcel
and not their own they were clear and fine with it.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011 14
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Porterfield asked when zoning made the determination, did they have the application from the nonprofits signed
by the nonprofits.
Ms. Brennan replied that the zoning ordinance does not require an application or signatures from the nonprofits.
However, the letter was submitted stating this application is being sponsored by these nonprofits, which staff felt was
sufficient.
Ms. Porterfield noted there was already one change in the nonprofits according to the applicant.
Ms. Brennan replied yes, the applicant just said the Music Resource Center under the Boys and Girls Club would be
a non-profit. She asked if that was correct.
Mr. Larson replied yes, that was correct
Ms. Monteith said she had a few questions about the 280 parking spaces and the maximum 700 attendees, in which
case they could have 800 people there because they could have other people who need to support the event. She
was trying to figure out the math on that. It does not seem that many people are going to be walking or riding their
bikes to this. She asked if he was going to mandate that there was going to be three people per car. She wondered
how he managed the numbers if he might get 800 people and could only have 280 cars.
Mr. Larson replied they assumed it would be a family oriented event. They hope people will show up in a car pooling
fashion. In addition, they have plenty of other space. They could add the entire property as a parking area. The
area is easily accessed and they could take cars all over it. Honestly, he had not considered the 50 to 100 extra
employees they will be having there. He did not expect to have the full 700 people. However, either way the parking
area shown in white is already more than capable of holding over 350 cars. That is subject to interpretation since he
has not measured it with a tape measure. However, the other land can be used for parking, too. It is just more grass.
Ms. Monteith suggested since this is a new thing that in planning for this he should think about how that parking flow
would happen and the exiting patterns. It is not really a big road. She suggested that he should think about if
everybody tried to leave at the same time.
There being no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, said they have no opinion about this project in general. However,
they do question the unfavorable recommendation with regard to supporting any part of the Comprehensive Plan.
The idea of the festival itself and the idea of rural enterprises, which he speaks about regularly, are supported by this
type of activity and would be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Loach supported the application even though he had some discomfort with it. He stressed his opinion to Mr.
Kamptner to consider nonprofits while he is working on that section of the ordinance. In the future when these things
come with the proviso of being supported by whatever organization he felt they should have supporting
documentation from those organizations and know what percentages of the revenue they receive. He thought the
Planning Commission should actually know that. He moved for approval of SP-2011-00012, Locally Grown Festival
subject to the conditions recommended by staff.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if he wanted the decibel condition revised as discussed.
Mr. Zobrist noted it was as reasonably required by the zoning administrator.
Mr. Loach agreed to change the decibel condition. In addition, condition 7 should be changed not to exceed 700
attendees.
Mr. Franco questioned if the attendees should be ticket purchasers or whatever it is.
Mr. Lafferty asked if they wanted the vehicles to be attendee vehicles.
Mr. Franco preferred if staff was comfortable saying that the delineated area is for parking and supposed to stay in
the delineated area, but not to regulate the number of cars.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011 15
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Brennan noted that condition 1 ties it to the location of the temporary parking area, so the concept plan shall be
in general accord with that.
Mr. Franco asked that condition 8 be eliminated, which limits the maximum to 280 vehicles. As long as they can fit
300 vehicles in that area, it is alright.
Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Franco.
Mr. Kamptner said based upon what the applicant said — condition 15 should be amended because the two dates he
suggested are before fall begins just so zoning does not have an issue with the condition.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested the condition be reworded to say shall be held before the end of the calendar year 2011.
Mr. Kamptner suggested the condition state to be held in 2011.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Smith seconded for approval of SP-2011-00012, Locally Grown Festival subject
to the conditions recommended by staff, as amended.
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Concept Plan entitled Locally Grown: A Festival
of Organic Proportions for SP-2011-12, prepared by Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services,
and signed by Peter Larson and dated April 18, 2011, (hereinafter, the "Conceptual Plan"), as determined by
the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator.
To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features essential to the design
of the development:
location of the temporary parking area
location of temporary stage
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. A maximum of fifteen (15) vendors shall be allowed to operate during the temporary event.
3. Written approval from the Police Department, Fire and Rescue, and the Health Department shall be required
prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance to allow the temporary event use.
4. No tree removal, grading, or disturbance shall take place within the driplines of the trees as shown on the
Conceptual Plan. Any grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall necessitate submittal
of a "Tree Protection Plan" in accord with section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. No grading or
disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall be permitted until a) a survey and fencing have been
completed and b) the Planning Director approves a plan which shows the grading or disturbance and the
surveyed dripline of the existing trees.
5. The hours of operation for the music shall not begin earlier than 1:00 PM and shall end not later than sunset.
6. Off -site parking shall not be permitted.
7. The maximum number of attendees peeple allowed on the site for the temporary event shall not exceed 700
persons.
9. A minimum of 20 private security, parking, and traffic control staff members shall be required on site on the
day of the temporary event.
10. Overnight camping shall be prohibited.
11. Artificial lighting shall not be permitted, provided that flashlights may be used while the site is restored and
cleared as provided in Condition 14.
12. The maximum level of noise shall not exceed 65 dBA as measured from an adjacent property line.
13. The applicant shall reseed and restore the parking area as required by the zoning administrator within 30
days of the temporary event.
14. The site shall be restored and cleared of all trash, debris, and structures associated with the event within
three days after the temporary event.
15. Special use permit 2011-12 shall be valid for a temporary event to be held in the fall of 2011.
Mr. Zobrist invited discussion.
Ms. Porterfield asked if VDOT looked at the road and entrance and if it meets their standards.
Ms. Brennan replied yes, VDOT has no objection.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011 16
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Cilimberg noted this approval was for the event to occur one time. If this is successful and they decide they want
future events, then they are going to need to come back. There will be some history and a record of how the event
went this year if they were to come back with a request again.
Ms. Porterfield said there was not much in this application. She would be much more comfortable if it was at least a
little bit better delineated like some other ones they have had. That is why she would vote no.
The motion was passed by a vote of 6:1. (Ms. Porterfield voted nay)
Mr. Zobrist noted that SP-2011-00012 Locally Grown: A Festival of Organic Proportions, would go before the Board
of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval on a date to be determined subject to staffs recommended
conditions, as amended.
ZMA-2011-00004 Albemarle Place Proffer Amendment
PROPOSAL: The request is to amend proffers on property zoned NMD which allows residential (3 — 34 units/acre)
mixed with commercial, service, and industrial uses. No new dwellings or change in residential density proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Designated Urban Mixed Use (in Destination Center) — retail, residential, commercial,
employment, office, institutional, and open space; Urban Mixed Use (in areas around Centers) — commercial and
retail uses that are not accommodated in Centers; and Commercial Mixed Use — commercial, retail, employment
uses, with supporting residential, office, or institutional uses.
LOCATION: Northwest corner Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) and Seminole Trail (US 29) in Neighborhood 1.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061 WO-03-00-019AO, 061 WO-03-00-019BO, 061 WO-03-00-02300, 061 WO-03-00-02400, and
061 WO-03-00-02500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
(Wayne Cilimberg)
Mr. Cilimberg presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
The Planning Commission is familiar with the Albemarle Place location. In fact, the Commission already in the last
year reviewed a rezoning of more substance than this that dealt with the Neighborhood Model zoning of this property.
'rw It actually added the corner parcel to the Neighborhood Model District at the time.
Purpose of Hearing:
• Rezone @ 65 acres NMD, Neighborhood Model to allow two substantive proffer changes for:
• Phasing of through road improvement
• Required inter -parcel street connections
In this case, the request would allow for two changes. There is one housekeeping matter, which is the change of a
reference to a State Code. The two substantive changes would be for the phasing of the through road improvement,
which has been known as Albemarle Place Boulevard and now being called the Stone Field Boulevard in the actual
development proposal, and the required inter -parcel street connection. There would also be changes there.
Currently this particular area would be developed with the requirement that there be an extension of the through road
to Route 29. In this case, the addition of Area E could also take place with Certificates of Occupancy issued that
would allow that development and the delay of the connecting road; or to have that connecting road built as a
temporary road to Route 29. In the report that temporary road connection remaining to be built for the section may
not be built initially connecting through based on traffic studies, which would be approved by VDOT and the County.
That would be the section subject to the change as proposed in the proffer changes. In addition, the particular
interconnection that would be shown as possibly being extended through to Commonwealth would be dropped as
part of the proffers as requested. All of the interconnections originally shown that went off -site in this project would be
dependent on future development in other areas. This would be the only one actually dropped. The remaining
interconnections would still be available for future development.
The report noted there are improvements to 29 and Hydraulic Road that are required under the zoning that have
been proffered. Those improvements are happening early in the project. Before any of the development that would
potentially lead to a decision regarding the temporary road or not building the road through initially would take place,
these improvements would already be in effect. They would be under development and hopefully in place at that time
as well.
Factors Favorable:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011 17
FINAL MINUTES
• Allows some flexibility in the design and timing of Albemarle Place Boulevard and the number and/or
location of inter -parcel connections that still assures streets are provided commensurate with the needs
generated by the development.
• Does not create inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan.
Factors Unfavorable:
• Construction of Albemarle Place Boulevard urban cross-section from the western entrance to Sperry Marine
to Route 29 may not be in place until after the COs are issued in Blocks A, B, C, D and E.
In fact, they may only have that temporary road or they may have no road constructed initially if the traffic does not
warrant that. Ultimately, that would have to be built through as an urban cross section street.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2011-00004 inclusive of the proffers dated June 6, 2011.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the staff.
Ms. Porterfield asked staff to go back to the road improvements outside of the project, which would be Hydraulic and
Route 29, and if those improvements would be completed prior to the CO's.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that they actually have to get started with those improvements as they are developing the first
site plan for the project. The timing of getting that done is dependent on the construction time that will be involved.
As the project starts developing and gets to the point where Area E is under development, they would expect all
those frontage improvements along 29 and on Hydraulic in the County to be done. There are other improvements
they proffered to do in the City, but those are not under their control.
Ms. Porterfield asked about Areas A, B, C, and D and if they are going to be completed prior to CO's being issued for
buildings in those areas.
Mr. Cilimberg replied yes that it is dependent on the timing of doing those improvements. They are going to get
started with the improvements on 29 and Hydraulic they are required to do with the first site plan that gets approved
in A, B, C, D, and E or anywhere. Those improvements are subject to the timing of construction. Once construction
NOW gets started the timing can be affected by weather or other circumstances. The intention would be that those would
be underway so as Areas A, B, C, D, and/or E are being built they will already be in place.
Ms. Porterfield said that he was not guaranteeing that.
Mr. Cilimberg replied they could guarantee that.
Ms. Porterfield said she understood there is a stoplight going in at the road coming out on Hydraulic. She asked
when is the stoplight going in.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that stoplight is going in with this project with the development of this area.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the 15-screen movie theater goes up are they going to have a stoplight to get people out of
this comer.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that was his understanding, but he would let the applicant speak to that. That is part of the
improvements they have to do on Hydraulic Road.
Ms. Porterfield said she was very confused as to when these improvements are being put in.
Mr. Franco pointed out what she was getting to is whether it is tied to the certificate of occupancy (CO).
Mr. Cilimberg noted actually the construction is tied to the first site plan approval.
Mr. Franco said it would be at the start of construction. He asked about the completion of the infrastructure and if it is
tied to anything.
Mr. Cilimberg said they would either tie it to completing it before they issue a certificate of occupancy (CO) or not.
The construction of the improvements is tied to that. He would go back to look at the proffers once again to make
*4W sure of that.
Mr. Franco said that he did not understand.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011 18
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Smith said he did not understand everything that he was saying, but would expect and would like to think that all
the exterior improvements for safety would have been done before the certificates of occupancy (CO's) were issued.
Mr. Cilimberg said the County may require these improvements to be completed as a prerequisite to the issuance of
any certificates of occupancy.
Ms. Porterfield questioned if it should be "may" or "will."
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it says "may." This is a proffer that has existed since the beginning. Proffer 7 says, "At its
expense the owner shall plan, design, bond, and construct travel lane improvements to be dedicated for public use on
its Hydraulic Road and Route 29 frontage. The design shall be submitted with the first site plan for the initial phase of
Albemarle Place." That first site plan for the initial phase is the theater. The subject frontage improvements are
depicted as shown. The County may require these improvements to be completed as a prerequisite to the issuance
of any certificates of occupancy. The construction of the subject improvements shall be deemed complete when they
are constructed in conformance with the plans approved by VDOT and opened to public use as approved by VDOT.
Mr. Kamptner said the signal at Hydraulic and Albemarle Place Boulevard has to be constructed when the County or
VDOT request installation, but in any event prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for any building in
blocks A, B, C, or D provided that such signals are warranted by traffic volumes or otherwise approved by VDOT.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that was the signal.
Mr. Franco said if the traffic signal was needed, then it will be required and have to be in.
Ms. Porterfield said if the traffic signal was not needed, then they are going to have people making left turns out of the
site without a light.
Ms. Monteith questioned if that is a little bit tricky because the signal could not be needed before the development is
complete. They can't warrant when something is not completed. However, at the same time if it is not in at the time
that the development opens it seems like they have a problem.
+" Mr. Franco said basically the way it is written if a small store, such as a 7/11 or a movie rental place, were to open
that did not have lots of traffic generation that it would be allowed to get a certificate of occupancy (CO) until they had
traffic that started to generate that need. He thought they would run it off the design and not necessarily the strict
warrants. If they knew a theater was going in that was going to generate a lot of traffic, he was sure VDOT would
insist that light be in as part of the site plan.
Mr. Cilimberg noted it says they shall be constructed when the County or VDOT requests installation of such.
Therefore, it is up to the County and VDOT.
Mr. Kamptner said the signalization is not required only when VDOT determines it is warranted or is otherwise
approved by VDOT, but recognizes this large development project is going in even if the warrants before the CO's
are issued are not met. He assumes VDOT would approve a signal knowing the traffic is coming.
Mr. Cilimberg said in the work on the site plan they are in fact working on the signal for that intersection. So it is a
little of a moot point. They are talking about theoretical outcomes. The reality is that is what they are doing.
Ms. Porterfield asked to cut to the chase. She would much rather have the applicant say they will have that signal in
before they open the movie theater.
Mr. Lafferty noted they have not gotten to the point where they ask the applicant to speak.
Ms. Porterfield said she was very worried about getting people out of this project since that is an awful corner.
Mr. Lafferty asked does this eliminate any connection to Commonwealth Drive.
Mr. Cilimberg replied it does remove one connection. As the plans have been provided this is being developed in a
different manner so there is not actually a through road. There is now a parallel road running north/south. This
particular location would not be conducive to an interconnection. There could be an interconnection in other locations
and theoretically in the back. Those interconnections are shown on the application plan and are proffered, which are
part of proffer 13.
Mr. Loach asked how many connections are to Commonwealth.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011 19
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Cilimberg replied that if they look at proffer 13 there are six interconnections he believed that would go off -site.
*ftw All of those interconnections can only be stubbed out in this project. The interconnections can only be built through
with future development of those other areas. He did not think the County was going to condemn those properties to
make interconnections. They are just providing the opportunity, which essentially is what this rezoning was all about
from the beginning.
Mr. Lafferty asked staff to explain on page 7 what the unfavorable #1 means.
Mr. Cilimberg replied essentially this is saying they may have for a period of time in this location a temporary road. In
other words, it will not be a full urban cross section road. They have told the applicant they would want to have at
least a path for potential pedestrians coming from 29 back into the site from this area. This would ultimately be an
urban cross section as required as part of the rezoning.
Ms. Porterfield asked if temporarily would it open up on 29.
Mr. Cilimberg replied yes. This is also a location where there would be a crossover and a signal.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it would not have a crossover and signal while it is temporary.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that is up to VDOT. The applicant will have already constructed the turn lanes as part of those
frontage improvements as shown.
Ms. Porterfield said she was really surprised this whole area is being graded. Obviously, it will be built in pieces. She
questioned if the site would look like Hollymead.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it would depend on the pace of the project. The grading has occurred under the allowances
of the County zoning. Application plan projects are allowed to do early grading as long as it is consistent with their
application plan. He pointed out the grading that occurred with Hollymead Town Center was partially in rural area
before it was ever zoned.
Mr. Smith asked what is a criteria for the temporary road.
Mr. Cilimberg replied in terms of its design that has not been determined yet. It would be part of the approval of that
temporary road if they make that submittal to do that in lieu of an urban cross section.
Mr. Franco pointed out VDOT and the county engineer would review and approve the temporary road.
Mr. Cilimberg noted the county engineer would be the main reviewer because as a temporary road it may not be a
public road. It would be a VDOT road as a temporary road.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Valerie Long, legal counsel for the applicant, noted that joining her this evening was Tom Gallenger, who represented
the developer of the project. She presented a PowerPoint presentation to reorient the Commission and provide a
different view of the off -site road improvements to help make sure everyone is clear on what is being proposed.
• The application plan shows the off -site transportation improvements. She would respond to Ms. Porterfield's
question first. Mr. Kamptner read from the proffer that states clearly that the signal at Hydraulic Road and
Albemarle Place Boulevard next to the future Cinema shall be constructed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for any building within blocks A, B, C, or D. The Cinema is in one of those blocks. It
has to be constructed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Cinema. There is some
language that says provided it is warranted, which is language that VDOT and the staff asked to be put in so
they avoid the situation of saying they are going to put a signal in and VDOT says it is not warranted. They
feel confident for the reasons the Commission presumes that there will be traffic increases in significant
volumes that the signal will be warranted. Therefore, that is combined with the other improvements along
Hydraulic.
• They have a new bus stop location and a new lane on the southbound side of Route 29 that starts up at
Westfield Road close to Waffle House and runs south all the way to the Hydraulic Road intersection. In
addition, there will be a second dual right -turn lane from 29 south onto Hydraulic. Currently there is only
one. The addition of the second turn lane will improve the situation.
• This is a recap of the proffer amendment that the Commission recommended and ultimately was approved
by the Board last August. The original 2003 proffers would have obligated the developer to make a number
of improvements on the City side of the line near the Kmart. The City decided they would much rather have
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011 20
FINAL MINUTES
the funds that would have been required to make those improvements be put towards the new ramp on the
so-called Best Buy ramp. It would run along 29 south along Best Buy and include the road improvements
*, onto 250. That was part of what the Commission authorized last year with the proffer amendment to allow
reallocation of those funds. The Block plan A, B, C shows the Cinema location where the signal will be
added.
• Originally, it was going to be Blocks A, B, C, and D as part of the first phase. It was not expected initially
there would be much interest in the residential component of Block E. Therefore, it was not part of phase
One. There is a residential developer that is very interested in building some multi -family units. The issue is
accommodating that within the proffer. They know it is complicated, but this will allow that element of the
project to move forward in a way that will avoid exasperating the traffic situation. She pointed out what
would be built as part of the first building phase including the portion of the road. Albemarle Place is building
a new entrance to Sperry Marine. The proffers reference the new western entrance to Sperry Marine.
• The second phase is Block E, the residential development. Albemarle Place Boulevard will be extended in
this location. Then one of two things will happen. Either a temporary road will be built in most likely the
same alignment as the final permanent alignment. It just won't be built to the same standard. If VDOT will
let them, the developers will put the light in at 29 as well. That could happen. Or, the proffers say if a traffic
analysis done at the time indicate that even with the addition of the dwelling units in this location it does not
exasperate or make the level of service at the Hydraulic and 29 intersection any worse than it is now, then
this could be built without the addition of this temporary road. It will depend on a traffic study that would be
done at the time and reflect the current traffic volumes. They tried to work very close with staff on this
language to make sure if a temporary road is needed the developer will be required to build the temporary
road. If the temporary road is not needed, they won't make them build it unnecessarily. Blocks F and G,
the final building phase, will be developed and then the road will be in its permanent form.
• Most of the questions regarding the future road interconnections were answered by Mr. Cilimberg. Those
were reserved and dedicated so that in the future when anyone else wanted to build those interconnections
it would be feasible to do so.
Ms. Porterfield asked if Block E was going to precede the movie theater, and Ms. Long replied that it would come
after the theater.
Ms. Porterfield asked about the back entrance into Sperry Marine.
Ms. Long replied that would be built as part of the first phase.
Tom Gallenger, with Edens & Avant, pointed out the Sperry Marine entrance is one of the first things that would be
done. Their current access road has to be moved. Before they can pull them off the current access road Inglewood
Drive has to be put in. To get them off that road they have to put in a new access point. They would expect the
multi -family in Block A would come on after the theater.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out the Sperry Marine people are already going in and out on Hydraulic without a light. That is
why she was asking the question. She was wondering how this traffic was going to get onto Hydraulic.
Mr. Gallenger said the VDOT road plans have been approved. They have posted the bond and the roads are actually
under contract with Faulconer Construction. The only thing they are working on right now is getting some utility lines
relocated along Route 29. They are going to add the additional lane once the utility lines have been relocated. Their
expectation is that over the next month they will be in the position to start those actual road improvements. They
foresee all those road improvements would be physically completed before they opened the Town Center. That
would include Regal, Trader's Joe, and the other tenants that would be in the Main Street portion. They also are
planning to put the signal in. With respect to activation of the signal, obviously they welcome the Planning
Commission, Board and anyone else at the County to encourage VDOT to approve those warrants as soon as
possible. They agree that signal should be in as soon as anything opens. They are fully on board in terms of the
actual construction and the warrants.
Ms. Monteith asked if Blocks A, B, C, and D are self sustaining in terms of parking and development.
Ms. Long asked what she meant by development.
Ms. Monteith replied it was the number of parking spaces needed for the use.
Mr. Gallenger replied with the first phase that goes in with Blocks A, B, C, and D there are about 270,000 square feet
of retail. There is a 90,000 square foot hotel supplying about 1,506 parking spaces, which is a little over the actual
*Aw. County requirement. In terms of parking, it does meet the County requirement as a stand-alone.
Ms. Monteith asked if some of the parking is in deck or podium.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011 21
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Gallenger replied there was about 175 to 180 spaces that would actually be located under the Cinema. Because
this will be built out over a couple of years with the Cinema done on the front end, they will incur about 3 million
dollars in additional costs in the front end to put parking underneath the Cinema. It is dispersed within the site.
Otherwise, they would have had one full block without any parking in it.
Ms. Monteith said in looking at the overall site plan she notices the amount of parking in the last phase. It is a little
bit confusing.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that a lot of the building area shown in Blocks A, B, C, and D is actually deck parking ultimately.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public
hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Franco seconded for approval of ZMA-2011-00004 Albemarle Place Proffer
Amendment subject to the proffer dated June 6, 2011 as recommended by staff.
Mr. Zobrist asked if there was any discussion.
Ms. Porterfield suggested the Commission require the light on Hydraulic Road to be in before a Certificate of
Occupancy is issued for anything in this development. The applicant is willing to put it in. She would just like to see it
written down that they will put it in. Then if they have to go fight with VDOT, they will do so because they need it.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out they were already in the position where they are doing that. They would fight with VDOT.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out the word read was "may," which was not "will."
Mr. Cilimberg said that is what is happening. As Ms. Long described they have actually gotten those plans approved
and are in the process. Actually, Mr. Gallenger explained that.
Ms. Porterfield said Mr. Gallenger explained they were most willing to put the signal in before the certificate of
occupancy, but right now it is not absolute.
�rrr
Mr. Cilimberg said he believed Mr. Gallenger said they would not be able to activate it.
Mr. Franco pointed out VDOT is the one that controls that no matter what. If the applicant says they will put the
signal in and it is restricted to the certificate of occupancy (CO), then what happens if VDOT says it is not ready. If
they don't get a certificate of occupancy (CO) everything comes to a grinding halt. That is not the position they want
to put the applicant in. The language is perfect as is.
Mr. Lafferty suggested if the applicant explained the grading, then perhaps she would be satisfied.
Ms. Porterfield replied no, that she just brought it up because they had this discussion before he came on the
Commission. She had heard the people who were here when they did Hollymead say they were not doing that again.
Then they have unfortunately done it. If they are not going to build everything now, it was sad that they had mowed
everything down.
Mr. Zobrist asked that the question be called.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted ZMA-2011-00004, Albemarle Place Proffer Amendment would go to the Board on a date to be
determined with a recommendation for approval.
Old Business
Mr. Zobrist asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting moved to the next item.
New Business
Mr. Zobrist invited new business.
*111111011 Mr. Morris thanked staff for the new agenda cover page.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011 22
FINAL MINUTES
• Joint PC/Board meeting to be held on August 3, 2011. At the next meeting, the Commission needs to
adjourn to that meeting.
There will be no Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, July 19, 2011. The next Planning Commission
meeting will be on Tuesday, July 26, 2011.
There being no further new business, the meeting moved to adjournment.
Adjournment
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m. to the Tuesday, July 26, 2011 meeting at 6:00 p.m. at the
County Office Building, Second Floor, Auditorium, 401 McIntire Road, CharlottesvilA, Virginia. ,
V. Wayne Cilimt*rg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2011 23
FINAL MINUTES