HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-10
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FINAL
MAY 10, 2006
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
3:00 P.M., MEETING ROOM 235
1 . Call to Order.
2. Work Sessions:
a. 3:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. - Mountain Overlay District Committee Proposed Framework.
b. 4:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. - Rural Areas Implementation, Phasing, Clustering and Family Division (continued
from April 12, 2006).
3. Recess at 5:30 p.m. and Reconvene at Burley Middle School on Rose Hill Drive, Charlottesville.
6:00 P.M., BURLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL
4. Call to Order.
5. Pledge of Allegiance.
6. Moment of Silence.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
8. Recognitions:
a. Proclamation - Emergency Medical Services Week - May 14-May 20,2006.
b. Proclamation - Police Memorial Week - May 14-May 20,2006.
9. Consent Agenda (on next page).
10. Ordinance to amend Chapter 8. Licenses. Article VI. Schedule of Taxes. Division IV, Personal,
Professional, Business or Repair Service Business, Occupations and Professions, of the Code of the County
of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Section 8-617, Retailers or retail merchants. The proposed ordinance
would reduce the license tax from twenty cents ($0.20) for each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross
receipts to ten cents ($0.10) for each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts for sales made to a
remote buyer ordering by telephone, internet, or mail in which the item(s) sold is/are shipped by common
carrier or by the U.S. Postal Service. The proposed effective date of this ordinance is January 1, 2007
(continued from May 5, 2006).
11. PROJECT: ZMA-2000-09 and SP-2002-72. North Pointe. PROPOSALS: Rezone 269.4 acres from RA Rural
Areas zoning district which allows 0.5 residential units per acre & agricultural, forestal & fishery uses to PD-MC
Planned District Mixed Commercial zoning district which allows large-scale commercial uses; & residential by
special use permit (15 units/ acre). Approximately 675,000 square feet of commercial and office space is
proposed. Special use permit to allow 893 residential units in accordance with Section 25A.2.2.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance which allows for residential uses in a PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial zoning district.
PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USEIDENSITY: Neiqhborhood Densitv
Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions & schools & other small-
scale non-residential uses. Urban Densitv Residential - residential (6.01-34 units/acre) & supporting uses such as
religious institutions, schools, commercial, office & service uses. Reqional Service - regional-scale retail,
wholesale, business and/or employment centers, & residential (6.01-34 units/acre). Office Service - office uses,
regional scale research, limited production & marketing activities. supporting commercial. lodging & conference
facilities, & residential (6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: North of Proffit Road,
east of Route 29 North, west of Pritchett Lane & south of the Rivanna River in the Hollymead Community. TAX
MAP/PARCELS: Map 32, Parcels 20, 20a, 20a1, 20a2, 20a3, 22h 22k, 23, 23a, 23b, 23c, 23d, 23e, 23 f, 23g, 23h,
23j and 29i. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
12. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
13. Adjourn to May 23,2006,6:00 p.m., for Joint Meeting with Planning Commission.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
9.1 Key West Dam - Authorize an additional $180,000.00 to proceed with constructionlrepair.
9.2 Resolution to accept road(s) in Springridge Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
9.3 Resolution to Authorize Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority to Sign the DEQ Grant Contract and Other Appropriate
Documents Related to the Source Water Planning Grant and the Regional Source Water Supply Plan.
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors of May 10, 2006
3:00 P.M., Room 235
May 12, 2006
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to Order.
. Meeting was called to order at 3:07 p.m. by the
Chairman, Mr. Rooker. All BOS members were
present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry
Davis, Tom Foley, Mark Graham, Lori
Allshouse, Ron White and Ella Carey.
2a. Work Session: Mountain Overlay District Joan McDowell: Proceed as discussed.
Committee Proposed Framework.
. HELD.
. DISCUSSED holding an informational meeting
and scheduling a joint public hearing with the
Planning Commission.
2b. Work Session: Rural Areas Implementation, David Benish: Proceed as discussed.
Phasing, Clustering and Family Division.
. HELD.
. DISCUSSED holding an informational meeting
and scheduling a joint public hearing with the
Planning Commission.
3. Recess.
. The Board recessed at 4:45 D.m.
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors of May 10, 2006
6:00 P.M., Burley Middle School Auditorium
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT
4. Call to Order.
. Meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. by the
Chairman, Mr. Rooker. All BOS members were
present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry
Davis, Mark Graham, Wayne Cilimberg and Ella
Carey.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
. There were none.
8a. Proclamation - Emergency Medical Services Week. (Attachment 1)
. Chairman read and presented to Dan
Eggleston.
8b. Proclamation - Police Memorial Week. (Attachment 2)
. Chairman read.
9.1 Key West Dam - Authorize an additional OMB: Forward appropriation form.
$180,000.00 to proceed with construction/
repair.
. APPROVED an appropriation of an additional
$180,000 from the Stormwater CIP fund to
complete the repair to the Kev West Lane dam.
9.2 Resolution to accept road(s) in Springridge Clerk: Forward signed resolution and signed
Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Form AM-4.3 to Greg Cooley. (Attachment 3)
Highways.
. APPROVED.
9.3 Resolution to Authorize Rivanna Water & Sewer Clerk: Forward signed resolution to Tom
Authority to Sign the DEQ Grant Contract and Other Frederick. (Attachment 4)
Appropriate Documents Related to the Source
Water Planning Grant and the Regional Source
Water Supply Plan.
. ADOPTED the attached resolution.
10. Ordinance to amend Chapter 8. Licenses. Clerk: Forward signed ordinance to County
Article VI, Schedule of Taxes, Division IV, Attorney's office and Finance. (Attachment 5)
Personal, Professional, Business or Repair
Service Business, Occupations and
Professions, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Section 8-
617, Retailers or retail merchants. (continued
from May 5, 2006).
. ADOPTED, by a vote of 4:2, the attached
ordinance.
11. ZMA-2000-09 and SP-2002-72. North Pointe.
. DEFERRED to June 7,2006.
12. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters
Not Listed on the Agenda.
. There were none.
13. Adjourn.
. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 D.m.
/ewc
Attachment 1 - Proclamation - Emergency Medical Services Week
Attachment 2 - Proclamation - Police Memorial Week
Attachment 3 - Resolution - Springridge Subdivision
Attachment 4 - Resolution - Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
Attachment 5 - Ordinance to amend Chapter 8, Licenses, Article VI, Schedule of Taxes,
2
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
ATTACHMENT 1
Emergency Medical Services Week
emergency medical services is a vital public service; and
the members of emergency medical services teams are ready to provide lifesaving care
to those in need 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and
access to quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival and recovery rate of
those who experience sudden illness or injury; and
the emergency medical services system consists of communication officers, emergency
medical technicians, firefighters, law enforcement officers, educators, administrators,
hospital and rehabilitation personnel, and others; and
the members of emergency medical services teams, volunteer and career, engage in
thousands of hours of specialized training and continuing education to enhance their
lifesaving skills; and
it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of emergency medical
services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services Week;
NOVlt, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED that I, Dennis S. Rooker, Chairman on behalf of the Albemarle
Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
May 14-20, 2006
as
Emergency Medical Services Week
with the theme
EMS: Our Community's Front Line Response
in Albemarle County, Virginia, and encourage the community to observe this week with
appropriate programs, ceremonies and activities.
3
ATTACHMENT 2
NA T10NAL POLICE MEMORIAL WEEK
WHEREAS, May 15 of each year was proclaimed "Police Officer's Memorial Day" by President
John F. Kennedy on October 1, 1962, in honor of those peace officers who, through their courageous deeds,
have lost their lives or become disabled in the performance of duty; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County is faithfully served by a professional and committed Police
Department whose men and women are dedicated to providing outstanding service to the community: and
WHEREAS, these days of increasing fear, rising crime, reckless acts of violence, recall to our minds
President Kennedy's words of praise for these officers as "truly men and women of courage, judgment
and dedication;" and
WHEREAS, we share his sentiments and agree that it is time to remind the public of the day-by-day
heroism of our officers, both those on active duty and those who have given their lives in the line of duty; and
WHEREAS, we will be recognizing Police Memorial Day in Albemarle County with a special
ceremony to be held on May 17, 2006;
NOVlt, THEREFORE, I, Dennis S. Rooker, Chairman on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors, do hereby declare and set aside the week of
May 14 through May 20,2006, as
NA T10NAL POLICE MEMORIAL WEEK
and call upon all citizens to recognize the significant efforts and accomplishments of these officers.
4
ATTACHMENT 3
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 10th
day of May 2006, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Springridge Subdivision, described on the attached Additions Form
LA-5(A) dated May 10, 2006, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County. Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Springridge Subdivision, as
described on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A) dated May 10, 2006, to the secondary system of state
highways, pursuant to S33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Require-
ments; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
*****
The road(s) described on Additions Form LA-5(A) is:
1) Shadvbrook Trail (State Route 1341) from the intersection of Route 1521 (Powell Creek
Drive) to the intersection of Route 1342 (Turnberry Circle) as shown on plat recorded
12/11/2001 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
2123, pages 96-111, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.22 miles.
2) Turnberrv Circle (east) (State Route 1342) from the intersection of Route 1341
(Shadybrook Trail) to the cul-de-sac as shown on plat recorded 12/11/2001 in the office
the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2123, pages 96-111, with a
60-foot variable right-of-way width, for a length of 0.42 miles.
3) Turnberrv Circle (west) (State Route 1343) from the intersection of Route 1341
(Shadybrook Trail) to the intersection of Route 1342 (Turn berry Circle) as shown on plat
recorded 12/11/2001 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 2123, pages 96-111, with a 60-foot variable right-of-way width, for a length of 0.35
miles.
Total Mileage - 0.99 miles
5
ATTACHMENT 4
RESOLUTION
Resolution to Authorize Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority to Sign the DEQ Grant Contract
and Other Appropriate Documents Related to the Source Water Planning Grant
and the Regional Source Water Supply Plan
WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly has mandated the development of water supply plans
throughout the Commonwealth and the State Water Control Board has developed regulations to
implement this planning process, and
WHERAS, based upon these regulations, Albemarle County is required to complete a water
supply plan by November 2, 2008 that fulfills the regulations, and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has announced the
availability of grant funds, subject to inclusion of such funds in the General Assembly's adopted budget
for FY 2007, to assist localities offset some of the costs related to development of these plans, and
WHEREAS, DEQ is encouraging localities to submit applications for grant funds to develop
regional water supply plans of multiple local government jurisdictions, and
WHEREAS, regional water supply planning is a sensible approach to developing a water supply
plan since watershed boundaries do not follow political boundaries and since there will likely be cost
savings to all local government jurisdictions participating, and
WHEREAS, the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority has previously managed the development of
successful regional plans and is a logical entity to organize and manage a regional water supply planning
process, and
WHEREAS, the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority desires to participate in a regional water
supply plan that will serve the needs of Albemarle County and other localities in the region, and desires to
secure DEQ grant funds to help offset the cost of the plan development.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
authorizes the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority to develop an application for water supply planning grant
funds and to develop a regional water supply plan which will meet mandated regulations, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority is authorized to sign the
DEQ grant contract and other appropriate documents related to the source water planning grant and the
regional source water supply plan.
6
ATTACHMENT 5
ORDINANCE NO. 06-8(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8, LICENSES, ARTICLE VI, SCHEDULE OF TAXES, DIVISION
IV, PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL, BUSINESS OR REPAIR SERVICE BUSINESS, OCCUPATIONS
AND PROFESSIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8,
Licenses, Article VI, Schedule of Taxes, Division IV, Personal, Professional, Business or Repair Service
Business, Occupations and Professions, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, is hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 8-617 Retailers or retail merchants
CHAPTER 8. LICENSES
ARTICLE VI. SCHEDULE OF TAXES
DIVISION 4. PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL, BUSINESS OR
REPAIR SERVICE BUSINESS, OCCUPATIONS AND PROFESSIONS
Sec. 8-617 Retailers or retail merchants.
Each person engaged as retailer or retail merchant shall be subject to the license tax, and other
provisions, set forth herein:
A. Each person engaged as a retailer or retail merchant shall be subject to a license tax of
twenty cents ($0.20) for each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts, other than as provided in
subsection (B) herein.
B. Each person engaged as a retailer or retail merchant shall be subject to a license tax of
ten cents ($0.10) for each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts for direct retail sales. For
purposes of this section, a "direct retail sale" is defined as a retail sale made to a remote buyer ordering
by telephone, internet, or mail, in which the item(s) sold is/are shipped by common carrier or by the U.S.
Postal Service.
C. Retailers or retail merchants include, but are not limited to, the following:
Aircraft or aircraft parts.
Alcoholic beverages.
Antiques.
Auto accessory, tire, battery.
Automobile graveyards.
Auto sales, motor vehicle dealers.
Bakeries, caterers.
Bicycles.
Boats, motors.
Books, stationery.
Building materials.
Candy, nut stores.
Cigar, tobacco stands, newsstands.
Confectionery.
Custom tailor.
Dairy products.
Del icatessen.
Department stores.
7
Drapery, curtain, upholstery.
Drugs.
Dry goods stores.
Eggs, poultry.
Family clothing.
Farm equipment.
Filling stations.
Firearms.
Fish, seafood market.
Floor covering.
Florists.
Fruit stores, vegetable markets.
Fuel, ice.
Furniture.
Furriers.
Garden supplies.
General stores.
Gift, novelty, souvenir.
Grocery.
Hardware.
Heating, plumbing, electrical equipment.
Hog, grain, feed, seed.
Hosiery.
Jewelry.
Junk or secondhand merchandise.
Lightning rods.
Luggage.
Lumber goods.
Meat markets.
Men's and boy's clothing.
Millinery.
Motorcycle.
Musical instrument.
Office, store, appliance supply.
Optical.
Other clothing.
Paint, glass, wallpaper.
Photographic, supply, equipment.
Radio, television or household appliances.
Restaurants, eating places, nightclubs.
Secondhand stores, other than junk.
Scientific, medical supplies.
Shoes.
Soda fountain.
Sporting goods.
Travel bureau or tour agent.
Used cars.
Variety stores.
Workmen's clothing.
All other retail stores and retail merchants' occupations, businesses or trades not included herein
and not otherwise taxed by this chapter.
(3-15-73, S 55; 4-21-76; 3-10-82; Ord. 96-11(1),11-13-96, S 11-68; Code 1988; S 11-68; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-
5-98; Ord. 06-8(1), 5-10-06)
State law reference--Va. Code S 58.1-3703.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2007.
8
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Mountain Overlay District Committee
Proposed Framework
AGENDA DATE:
May 10, 2006
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SU BJECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST:
MOD Committee proposal for protection of
Albemarle County Mountain Resources
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Cilimberg,
Benish, McDowell
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
~
(
ATTACHMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors appointed the original Mountain Protection Committee in 1995. The Committee's charge was to
develop strategies to protect the scenic values and environmental characteristics of the mountains. In 1998, the Committee
and the Planning Commission recommended a Comprehensive Plan amendment and Mountain Overlay District zoning text
and map amendments. The Board of Supervisors adopted the Committee's recommended Mountain section into the
Comprehensive Plan; however, the zoning text and map amendments that would implement the Comprehensive Plan's
policy were tabled until the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan was further advanced. A background summary
of mountain protection efforts in Albemarle is included as reference (Attachment A).
In 2002, the Board of Supervisors decided to reconsider the 1998 ordinance and appointed the second Mountain Overlay
District (MOD) Committee in 2004. Supervisor Sally Thomas and Planning Commissioner Pete Craddock were appointed
as liaisons from the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. The 'History of the Work of the 2004-2006 MOD
Committee is included as reference (Attachment B).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2.1: Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character.
Goal 2.2: Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources.
DISCUSSION:
The eleven members and two liaisons of the Mountain Overlay District Committee represent a diverse cross section of
citizens having a common interest in protection of what the Comprehensive Plan identifies as one of Albemarle's most
important resources - its mountains. This group of volunteers recognized it was essential that they produce "a consensus
on an acceptable and effective ordinance for adoption" as directed by the Board of Supervisors. They shared the concern
that failure to do so could ultimately result in development on the mountains that would forever impact a most visible
feature of Albemarle's sense of place and jeopardize innumerable environmental systems, including the water supply.
As described in the 'History of the Work of the 2004-06 MOD Committee' (Attachment B), the first phase of the
Committee's work was learning from the previous committee's work, various experts, and from each other. This ultimately
enabled the Committee to come to a consensus on a mountain protection framework that describes the importance of
protecting the mountain resources, uses the Overlay District boundaries that were adopted into the Comprehensive Plan,
and describes measures needed to protect the MOD. On April 21, 2006, eleven members of the MOD Committee
unanimously voted to recommend the 'Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources' (Attachment C).
One member was unable to attend to provide an official vote, but emailed his support of the proposal. The Committee has
offered to be available to assist in answering questions during the further work on its recommendations and would like an
opportunity to review the draft ordinance when it is available. Jon Cannon, a co-chair of the MOD, would like to make a
presentation on the Committee's recommendations at the Board's upcoming meeting.
The 'Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources' (Attachment C) contains a three-part program:
AGENDA TITLE:
Mountain Overlay District Committee
Proposed Framework
May 10, 2005
Page 2
1) an outline for a mountain protection ordinance; 2) principles that would require cluster subdivisions; and 3) provisions for
the acquisition of property interests through easements and voluntary reduction of development potential. Many of the
recommendations for mountain protection expand upon existing ordinances.
Part 1.
The MOD ordinance would provide protection for public safety, economic interests, natural, scenic, historic, and cultural
resources, important soils, biological diversity, and water resources both within and outside the Mountain Overlay District.
The MOD boundaries would be the same as the Mountain section of the Comprehensive Plan. These boundaries were
also proposed with the 1998 MOD ordinance.
Outline framework for a Mountain Protection Ordinance:
1 . Critical slopes - adds restrictions on the construction of roads and driveways on critical slopes after the date the
MOD ordinance is adopted and limits the conversion of roads built on critical slopes for agricultural, forestal, or
horticultural uses to residential uses. Many lots within the MOD boundaries can only be accessed through critical
slopes; therefore, an administrative waiver or modification of the requirements would be available. (Attachment C.
Section f.)
2. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - would require that land disturbing activities exceeding 2,500 square feet
would require an E & S plan. Currently, a plan is required for disturbances of 10,000 square feet or more. Upon
adoption of an ordinance for a Mountain Overlay District, Section 17-104(24)(b) of the Water Protection Ordinance
would automatically require an E & S Plan for land disturbing activities of 2,500 square feet or more for properties
located within, in whole or part, the mountain overlay district.
3. Stream Buffers - Stream buffers would be widened from 100' to 200' within the MOD, as research literature
indicates that if a buffer measuring 200-horizontal feet on either side of a stream were preserved, then the
resulting 400-foot wide riparian corridor could provide improved habitat for mammals and birds, and could provide
improved sediment trapping ability. Headwater streams in the mountainous portions of the County can benefit from
these increased buffers because of the steeper terrain within the sub-watersheds which raises the risk of erosion
and sediment transport where land disturbing activities would occur. In addition, the headwater streams do playa
critical role in the life cycle of aquatic life. The benefits of temperature control and leaf litter drop that are provided
by a riparian buffer encourage a healthy macroinvertebrate community in the headwater streams and transfers
downstream where larger species depend upon these macroinvertebrates as a part of the food chain.
4. Height Restrictions - The crests (highest points of the mountains in the MOD) would be unbroken by building
intrusions as the current 35' height restrictions within the Rural Areas zoning would be measured in consideration
of the adjacent crest. Buildings would be constructed lower than the highest point of a mountain within the MOD.
5. Safe Access - Access to dwellings would be designed to be accessed by fire and rescue vehicles.
6. Waivers or Modifications - Relief from the strict adherence to these regulations could be obtained through
administrative waivers or variances if a finding can be made that the alternative would advance the purposes of the
ordinance.
Part 2.
Incorporation into a future Rural Area cluster ordinance:
The MOD ridge areas would be incorporated into the Rural Areas cluster ordinance currently under review by the Board of
Supervisors. If the RA Cluster ordinance is not approved, this provision of the MOD framework would require the
establishment of a cluster ordinance tailored to the MOD.
Part 3.
Additional protection for the MOD would include the promotion of conservation easements, riparian buffer easements, and
voluntary reduction of development potential. The Committee has recommended several approaches for the Board to
include in their considerations.
Remainina Work:
In considering the Committee's recommendations, staff believes it is important to note that only a framework has been
provided by the Committee and there are other matters that will need to be resolved before ordinance amendments are
finalized for the Planning Commission and Board. The following are examples of matters to be addressed:
AGENDA TITLE:
Mountain Overlay District Committee
Proposed Framework
May 10, 2005
Page 3
. Proposed ordinance would rely on the implementation of new Rural Area cluster ordinance provisions which are
currently in a similar stage of review as the MOD process. The Board has not yet provided direction to staff on how to
proceed with the clustering ordinance.
. The proposed critical slopes provisions would require the identification of roads existing at the time the ordinance
is adopted. The County may not have records or evidence of all roads constructed for agricultural, forestal, or
horticultural purposes. The current 2002 aerials are scheduled to be updated in 2007 and should be available in
January 2008. The ordinance may need to rely on information from the applicant, unless other methods are found.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Budget impacts would depend on the requirements adopted in the final ordinance and on programs to fund further
protection of the MOD (Part 3).
Property Value: The MOD framework "is designed to conserve properties and their values both inside and outside the
MOD." The protection of property values was an important consideration of the Committee. Therefore, the framework
suggests ideas for potential funding approaches for properties and resources within the MOD. Development rights on
properties remain theoretical and the MOD ordinance does not offer guarantees that all rights can be exercised.
However, waivers and modifications would be available to moderate the effects of compliance with MOD standards. A
potential for an increase in property value both within and outside of the MOD could result from the protection of
mountain resources, including scenic resources.
ApDlicant Costs: These changes may result in additional requirements for property owners seeking to develop their
property. Staff does not believe that those costs can be accurately quantified until the ordinance specifics are drafted. At
that point, working in cooperation with potential applicants, staff intends to develop estimates of those additional costs for
consideration with the ordinance amendment.
County Costs: These ordinance provisions and other initiatives recommended to protect mountains may require additional
staff resources to review applications. The extent of these additional resource requirements would be established once the
ordinance provisions are finalized. Additional fees or general fund revenues may be needed to fund the additional
resources and funding programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
As this framework represents significant modification of the ordinance that was presented in 1998, staff recommends the
following review process:
· Board of Supervisors notifies property owners in the MOD of the framework proposed by the MOD Committee
(Attachment C) and holds a meeting to receive public comment on the MOD framework;
· After receiving public comment, the Board of Supervisors passes a resolution of intent to amend applicable ordinance .
sections and refers the framework recommendations to the Planning Commission with direction as to how to proceed;
· The Planning Commission develops ordinance provisions, holds a public hearing, and makes recommendations to the
Board of Supervisors;
· Retain the Mountain Overlay District Committee to review the draft ordinance and provide input to the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Mountain Protection Background
B - History of the Work of the 2004-2006 MOD Committee
C - Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources
06.067
Attachment A
MOUNTAIN PROTECTION BACKGROUND
1971: Mountain protection efforts began with the adoption of the County's first Comprehensive Plan that described
the mountains as "conservation areas." The provisions of the proposed Mountain Overlay District are based
on concerns described in that Plan and successive Comprehensive Plans.
1980: Steps were taken to protect mountains through regulation when the Rural Areas zoning district and the critical
slopes provisions were adopted. The critical slopes provision currently requires a "building site" (minimum
30,00 square feet less than 25% slope, critical slopes, for the location of the dwelling and septic system).
Driveways are not regulated on critical slopes.
1992: The Open Space and Critical Resources Plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors as part of the
Comprehensive Plan, recommended a mountain protection ordinance and first defined mountains by contour
elevations.
1995: The Board of Supervisors appointed a twelve member Mountain Protection Committee to study mountain
protection measures and to make a recommendation regarding an ordinance.
1996: The Committee's final report, the Proposed Mountain Protection Plan dated August 1, 1996, recommended
that the Board adopt an ordinance to protect water quality, reservoir capacity, soil conservation, forest
resources, plant and animal habitat, and scenic values with their associated impact to the economy, tourism,
and public safety. The Board of Supervisors received the report on September 4, 1996, and directed the
Planning Commission to hold sessions on a proposed ordinance as recommended by the Committee. The
Planning Commission held three sessions that fall, leading to the resolution of intent adopted on October 15,
1996. Staff was directed to prepare ordinance language.
1996-1998: Following work sessions and a final public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval
unanimously (6-0) of all three amendments (Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 98-01, Zoning Text
Amendment ZTA 98-05, Zoning Map Amendment ZMA 98-10).
1998: The Board approved The Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Mountain Protection Plan). The Zoning Text
Amendment and the Zoning Map Amendment were tabled; thus, action on these amendments was deferred.
2002: The Board of Supervisors determined that they would reconsider the Zoning Text Amendment, as revised by the
Board in 1998, and the Zoning Map Amendment.
2003: Open House Informational Meetings Held
2003: The Board of Supervisors determined that a new Committee should be appointed to consider the proposed
Ordinance. The Board appointed a twelve-member Mountain Overlay District Committee and one liaison from the
Board of Supervisors.
Attachment B
History of the Work of the 2004-2006 MOD Committee
The MOD Committee met 27 times from April 5, 2004, through August 1, 2005. During that time, attendance varied
from 54% to 100% of the Committee's 13 members; we had 100% attendance only once, on December 6, 2004.1 The
work of the Committee was continued by a subcommittee consisting of Jon Cannon, Harry Levins, Joan McDowell,
and Greg Kamptner, who met several times in late 2005 and early 2006. Katie Hobbs moved to Georgia in the fall of
2005, reducing the Committee's membership to 12.
The MOD Committee's work over the last two years can be divided into four phases.
Phase 1 - Education, research, and discussion (14 meetings, April 5 through December 6,2004). In June 2004,
the Committee chose two Co-Chairs and adopted a consensus process (see Attachment 1). The Committee
examined the 1998 ordinance and decided to write a new one instead of revising the old, although the 1998 definition
of the area to be regulated was retained. The Committee heard presentations on biodiversity, critical slopes, mountain
access by fire and rescue vehicles, the Freedom of Information Act, lumber industry and forestry practices, parcels
within the MOD, legal constraints limiting the Committee's options, and many other topics. The Committee reviewed
maps of debris flows, topography, the 1998 MOD boundaries, etc. The Committee spent several sessions discussing
the theoretical loss of division rights under the 1998 ordinance.2 At the December 6,2005, meeting, the Committee
asked a subgroup to draft a summary of the 2005 discussions for consideration by the full Committee.
Phase 2 - Summarizing framework (two meetings, January 10 and 24, 2005). The Committee discussed and
commented on a "Framework for a MOD Ordinance" that was designed to summarize the tentative conclusions the
Committee had reached in 2004. Most, if not all, members of the Committee agreed with a majority of the provisions
of the Framework. In fact, it is likely a majority agreed with all major provisions of the Framework. However, we did
not have unanimity on all provisions (Le., consensus).
Phase 3 - Seeking consensus (11 meetings, February 7 through August 1,2005). Since the Committee did not
achieve consensus with the Framework, it decided to build consensus from the top down in three steps:
1. Choosing major elements
2. Describing major elements
3. Detailing the provisions
At a single meeting (February 7,2005), the Committee quickly agreed on the following major elements, with one
member "reserving assent":
1. Strengthening environmental protection
2. Mandating Rural Preservation Development (RPD)/clustering
3. Expanding programs to purchase easements within the MOD through negotiated agreements with landowners
From March through June, the Committee fleshed out most of second step (or "level," as the Committee called it). But
it encountered two difficulties:
1. The Committee learned that, for legal reasons, the County could not develop a clustering ordinance just for
the MOD; it would have to develop one for the entire County. That meant we could retain this element as one
of our recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, and we could recommend how the clustering regulations
should be tailored and applied in the MOD, but we could not develop our own ordinance.
2. In July two members expressed opposition to one of the three level-one elements, "expanding programs to
purchase easements within the MOD through negotiated agreements with landowners." Because the
Committee had achieved consensus on this element in February, we could retain it as part of our
recommendation, but the objections effectively stopped us from adding any flesh to it.
By August 2005, we had a three-legged proposal, but it appeared only one leg (strengthening environmental
protection) could be developed in detail. At the August 1st meeting, the Committee delegated the task of developing
an environmental protection ordinance3 to Co-Chair Jon Cannon with help from County staff.
Note: The consensus document developed in Phase 3 is attached (Attachment 2).
Phase 4 - Drafting an environmental protection ordinance3 (September 2005 through February 2006). Jon
Cannon (with assistance from Committee Co-Chair Harry Levins, Deputy County Attorney Greg Kamptner, Principal
1 I do not have a copy of the minutes for the June 7, 2004, meeting, so I am unsure of the attendance.
2 Legally, all division rights (which include development rights) are hypothetical until an attempt is made to exercise them. Under
specific circumstances, it is possible that some rights that would have been otherwise exercisable might not have been if the 1998
ordinance had been adopted.
3 The elements of an ordinance, not the legal language.
Planner Joan McDowell, and other County staff) wrote the draft environmental protection ordinance3 (the "straw
proposal") you have before you today. Jon met with each member of the Committee to review its major elements.
The proposal includes references to the other two legs of our original three-legged consensus: mandating
RPD/clustering and expanding programs to purchase easements within the MOD through negotiated agreements with
landowners. The Subcommittee is hoping this straw proposal will help the Committee bring its work to a fruitful
conclusion.
Attachment 1 of History
Summary of the MOD Committee's Consensus Process
1. Definition of consensus. Webster's Dictionary defines "consensus" as "general agreement; unanimity; accord;
collective opinion: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned." When the Committee makes a decision,
it aims for unanimity, although that will not always be possible.
2. Implementation
a. Objection. Participants may object to the emerging consensus. Objections will require further
discussion, as the goal is to make a decision that is acceptable to all (true consensus).
b. Major objection. If a decision acceptable to all cannot be found, those who object to the majority
decision can go on record as having a major objection to the final decision. In true consensus, a major
objection blocks the decision from being implemented; if action is needed, discussion must continue until
a compromise resolution is found. However, using "major objection" that way could terminate the MOD
Committee's deliberations. Therefore, the Committee will attempt to obtain true consensus but, failing
that, move forward with minority opinions duly documented.
c. Missed meetings. The nature of consensus requires attendance by every Committee member at each
meeting. Since this is virtually impossible in an age of multiple responsibilities and conflicted schedules,
the Committee must develop a way of continuing the consensus decision making process even when
some members are absent. The alternatives are endless delays (as we wait for 100% attendance) or
decisions that absent members can later disavow-wasting all of the time the Committee spent making
the decision, and derailing the effort to fulfill the Committee's mission. Therefore, if a member cannot
attend a meeting, he or she must give his or her "proxy" to another Committee member who will be
attending the meeting. That Committee member will speak for the absent member, and the absent
member will be bound by decisions made in his or her absence.
Attachment 2 of History
Albemarle County Mountain Overlay District (MOD) Committee
Development of a Draft Ordinance
Version Used for the August 1, 2005, Discussion
IFirst Levell
On February 7,2005, the Committee agreed to the following high-level framework for a MOD Ordinance:
1. Strengthening environmental protection
2. Mandating RPD/clustering
3. Expanding programs to purchase easements within the MOD through negotiated agreements with landowners
ISecond Levell
1. The new ordinance will use the MOD boundary lines established in the 1998 revisions to the Comprehensive
Plan. (approved Feb. 7 and modified May 2)
2. The new ordinance will incorporate critical slope, stream buffer, and other regulations in order to minimize
potential negative human impact on soils, water quality, native species, hydrological flows, etc. within the
MOD. These regulations could take the following form:
a. Performance-based
b. Design specifications
c. Prohibitions/invariable requirements (approved March 21)
3. Rural Preservation Development (RPD) / clustering of houses will be mandatory.
a. RPD regulations within the MOD will minimize the adverse impacts of development across a range of
criteria tailored to the topography and other aspects of the MOD. Determination will be made on a
case by case basis. (approved April 4)
b. A single dwelling unit is permitted in each preservation tract. The dwelling unit will be subject to the
RPD regulations mentioned in 3.a. (approved April 18)
c. Within the MOD, all residential construction and access thereto (that is not subject to the RPD
regulations) will be subject to regulations that minimize the adverse impacts referenced in 3.a.
(approved April 18)
d. For the third level, the Committee will develop directional bullet points (meaningful guidance).
(approved July 18)
4. Citizen advisory committee. Tabled-no further discussion planned. Four possible roles discussed: pre-
application advice to applicants (on voluntary basis); technical advice to staff; review of process for
implementing MOD ordinance; and recommendations for modifying standards for development in the MOD,
once implemented. (tabled May 16)
5. FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION: County-wide special tax district that could raise funds to purchase
development/division rights within the Mountain Overlay District (MOD); lease payments in exchange for non-
development (but no permanent preservation and politically unpopular); other.
6. Virginia Code S 15.2.2286 does not appear to authorize transfer of development rights. Tabled-no further
discussion planned. (tabled May 16)
Attachment C
Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources
by
The Mountain Overlay District (MOD) Committee
On June 4, 2003, the Board of Supervisors appointed a Mountain Overlay District Committee. The Board asked the
Committee to craft "an acceptable and effective ordinance to protect mountain resources and implement the Mountain
Protection Plan" (a section of the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1998).4 The Committee's diverse membership was
also asked to use a consensus process.5 The Committee worked for two years, from April 2004 through April 2006.
AI/12 of the Committee's members support this proposal. 6
The Mountain Overlay District (MOD) Committee recommends a three-part program to protect the economic, cultural,
and natural resources of Albemarle County's mountains. The recommended program includes: a mountain ordinance
focused on protecting the MOD environment; principles that would mandate and govern Rural Cluster Subdivisions in
the mountains; and public acquisition of interests in land. Each of these elements is outlined below.
The program, as a whole, is designed to get development off critical slopes and out of stream buffer areas and to
protect habitats and watersheds, scenic and historic resources, and agricultural and forestal uses of the mountains. It
is also designed to conserve properties and their values both within and outside the MOD. Several aspects of this
proposal, such as enhanced protection for critical slopes, might also be appropriate for general application in the
County's Rural Areas. Because the Committee's charge related to the MOD, however, we have not included broader
applications in our proposal.
A. Outline of a Mountain Overlay District Ordinance
1. Findings
a. Ensuring public safety is of particular concern in Albemarle's mountains. In a few clearly defined areas,
unstable mountain slopes are a clear threat to life and property, as evidenced by past debris flows. More
generally, difficult access can make successful fire and rescue operations problematic in the mountains.
b. The mountains of the County are almost entirely in forest cover with the remaining acres in orchards and
pasture. They support a viable forest and agricultural industry that is important to the County's economic well-
being. Mountain areas provide critical services in collecting, storing, filtering and releasing water for human
consumption and other uses at lower elevations. Maintaining forest cover and protecting headwaters and
stream buffers in the mountains are necessary for adequate quantity and quality of water. The mountain
forests (like all forests) also protect air quality and help stabilize climate.
c. Mountain landowners have important interests in maintaining the use, enjoyment and economic value of their
land. Landowners, businesses and citizens throughout the County have important economic and quality-of-Iife
interests in preserving the natural, historic and scenic qualities of the mountains. These economic interests
include a substantial tourism industry.
d. Mountain areas are a system of slopes that extend for greater distances and may be considerably steeper
than slopes at lower elevations. Disturbance of steep slopes in these areas is of particular concern because
of the presence of more erodible soils than in other areas and the length of the grade on such slopes.
e. The mountain areas support native biological diversity and offer prime habitat for hunting and wildlife
observation. Declines in diversity are threatened by fragmentation of habitat - the dividing of large areas into
smaller parcels - and the resulting disruption of forest cover.
f. The mountains provide an important and unique aesthetic and cultural resource. The relatively pristine,
wooded character of the County's high elevations - the blue backdrop of the mountains - defines much of the
character of Albemarle County and has served as an inspiration and cultural landmark for residents since
colonial times.
2. Purposes of Ordinance
Based on these findings, the Committee proposes an ordinance to achieve the following purposes in mountain areas:
4 "Mountain Overlay District" memorandum from Joan McDowell to the Mountain Overlay District Committee, March 16,2004.
5 Ibid. and "Mountain Overlay District Committee Meeting Notes," AprilS, 2004.
6 A 13th member, Katie Hobbs, moved to Georgia in late 2005.
a. Protect public safety
b. Protect headwater streams, water quantity and quality, and public drinking water reservoir capacity
C. Reduce impacts of development on native biological diversity (natural heritage)
d. Preserve properties and their values both within and outside the MOD
e. Protect agricultural and forestal soils and uses
f. Protect scenic qualities and cultural and other historical resources
3. Definitions
a. Mountain Ordinance District (MOD). The ordinance would use the same lower boundary lines for the MOD
as the proposed 1998 ordinance. It would apply to parcels that lie wholly or partially within those boundary
lines.
b. Ridge Area. A "ridge area" within the MOD would be defined as within 100 vertical feet or 250 horizontal feet
of a crest, whichever is more restrictive.7
4. Terms of the MOD Ordinance
a. Critical Slopes
No residential construction or related road or driveway construction, except for the improvement of a road or driveway
that existed on the date of the ordinance, would be permitted on critical slopes. This ban on construction would not
apply to roads built for forestry, agricultural, and horticultural purposes.8 Neither would this ban apply to lots of record
created on or before December 10, 1980, in order to establish the first single family residence, provided there is no
alternative building site and no alternative route for the road.
Any roads built on critical slopes for forestry, agricultural, or horticultural purposes after the date of the ordinance
would not be convertible to residential use after the date of the ordinance. This limitation would not apply to lots of
record created on or before December 10, 1980, in order to establish the first single family residence, provided there is
no alternative building site and no alternative route for the road.
b. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Land disturbing activities exceeding 2500 square feet will require an effective erosion and sediment control plan
explicitly designed to address erosion control and water infiltration for the long term. Guidelines for drafting these
plans should encourage flexible and innovative approaches.
c. Stream Buffers
No residential construction would be permitted within 200 feet of an intermittent or perennial stream or river or other
body of water shown on a U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle topographic map. No hard-surface or
impermeable surface roads, including gravel on compacted base, or driveways would be permitted in this area except
by special use permit.
When disturbance is necessary to cross streams to access a portion of the property as set forth above (or as
otherwise allowed in the MOD), best management practices would be imposed.
Development in a stream buffer mal be authorized in the following circumstances, provided that a mitigation plan 10 is
submitted to, and approved, by the program authority:
7 Virginia Code ~ 15.2-2295.1 defines "crest" to mean "the uppermost line of a mountain
or chain of mountains from which the land falls away on at least two sides to a lower
elevation or elevations."
8 See Albemarle County Code S 18-4.2.1 (definition of "building site").
9 Albemarle County Code S 17-321 provides that the activities "may" be authorized by the program authority, but the authority
does not have to permit the activities in all cases.
10 The mitigation plan mandated by Albemarle County Code S 17-322(C)(2) requires, among other things, that the activity be
located so that it is the least disruptive to the functions of the stream buffer.
. On a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction and maintenance of a
driveway or roadway, and the program authority determines that the stream buffer would prohibit reasonable
access to a portion of the lot which is necessary for the owner to have a reasonable use of the lot; or
. On a lot of record created on or before December 10, 1980, if the stream buffer would result in the loss of a
building site, and there are no other available building sites outside the stream buffer on the lot, or to allow
redevelopment as permitted in the underlying zoning district.11
d. Heiaht Restrictions
No building within the ridge area would be permitted to exceed 35 feet in height or to exceed the height of an adjacent
crest, whichever is more restrictive.12
e. Safe Access
Building sites within the MOD will not be approved unless the applicant can demonstrate that fire and rescue vehicles
will be able to safely access the site.
f. Waiver or Modification
An administrative waiver or modification from one or more of these requirements would be available. Such waiver or
modification could be granted only upon a finding that alternatives proposed by the developer would advance each of
the purposes of the ordinance to an equivalent or greater degree than strict application of these requirements.13 In
making this determination, the appropriate body-the Program Authority or the Planning Commission-would take into
account the effects of the developer's overall plan for the property (including residential construction and related road
or driveway construction or road or driveway improvement), and if a waiver were issued, it would include any
conditions on development necessary to protect the purposes of the ordinance.
A variance would be available in cases of undue hardship under existing regulations.14
Application of the Ordinance may result in inability to use all division rights 15 that have been allocated to properties in
the MOD - that is, because of measures in the Ordinance, parcels may not be able to be developed as extensively as
they would without these measures. Property owners would have the ability to moderate the effect of these measures
through waivers and modifications.
B. Guidelines for Incorporation into a Future Rural Cluster Subdivision Ordinance for the MOD
For Rural Preservation Developments (RPDs) in the MOD, rural preservation parcels (RPPs) will include any ridge
area in the RPD or as much of it as feasible consistent with utilization of all development rights otherwise available to
the parcel. The RPP will retain a development right. The RPP will be configured and conditioned to minimize adverse
impacts on hydrology, biodiversity, aesthetics, cultural and other historical resources, agricultural and forestal soils and
uses, public safety, and to preserve property values within and outside the MOD.
Development lots outside the RPP will be configured and conditioned to minimize impacts on these same resources
and property values.16
Construction in RPDs in the MOD will also be subject to the generic requirements in the MOD Ordinance, as above.
C. Additional Protection for Mountain Resources
11 See Albemarle County Code S 17-321.
12 It is the Committee's intention that "adjacent" refers to a crest on which a residential dwelling could be constructed.
13 Compare with Albemarle County Code ~~ 18-4.2.5 and 18-5.1(a).
14
See Albemarle County Code ~ 18-34.2.
15 The term "division rights" includes "development rights."
16 See Mountain Design Standards, Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan, which is a component of the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan, pp. 116-117; Strategies, Rural Areas Plan, which is a component of the Albemarle County Comprehensive
Plan, pp. 37-38; and Memorandum to Planning Commission from Stephen P. Waller (May 24,2005) (Ragged Mountain Farm
RPD).
The County's Comprehensive Plan makes specific provision for acquisition of property interests, such as purchase of
development rights (PDR), to protect the mountains. The Committee proposes expanded efforts within the MOD to:
. Promote conservation easements
. Promote riparian buffer easements
. Encourage voluntary reduction of development potential
More specifically, beyond the ordinance and clustering proposed in this document, the Committee believes the Board
of Supervisors must develop innovative and flexible approaches to protecting Albemarle's mountains. It has
generated the following list of ideas, although it is not endorsing any single one. The list is certainly not intended to be
exhaustive; rather, the Committee encourages the Board to think creatively.
.
Grant complete or partial tax-exemption to any real estate placed in a permanent "riparian buffer" easement,
even if the landowner chooses to impose stream buffers that are wider than those recommended in the
Stream Buffers section of this proposal.17
Change the ACE Program's criteria to evaluate properties and allocate the currently available and potentially
new funding resources as follows:
o Mountain value: Modify the ACE ranking to add a category for land located inside the MOD.
o Scenic value: Modify the ACE ranking to add a category for scenic value.
Lease scenic rights. Develop a Scenic Land-Lease Program that would pay a fair price to landowners for very
long (30-99 years) scenic leases on the highest ridge spines.
Develop a Watershed Protection Fund. Work with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Albemarle
County Service Authority to develop a user fee that would be earmarked-as supplemental ACE funding-for
the MOD sections of the watershed that feed the local public water supply system.
Abate all property taxes on the Ridge Areas within the MOD as long as they remain undeveloped. If
conversion occurs later, a rollback of all abated taxes would be levied, with interest at 10% on accrued
rollback balances compounded annually.
Develop a transfer of development rights (TDR) ordinance (using recent enabling legislation) whereb1
development rights within the MOD may be sold and transferred to parcels wholly outside the MOD.1
.
.
.
.
.
Enactment of one or more of these approaches would not be designed to compensate landowners for the impact of
the proposed ordinance. Instead, they would create additional protections for the MOD beyond what may be
accomplished by regulation.
It is the Committee's desire to avoid adverse impacts on the viability of the ACE program as well as on any other
similar program or regulatory provision in the County.
17 ~ 58.1-3666. Wetlands and riparian buffers. Wetlands, as defined herein, that are
subject to a perpetual easement permitting inundation by water, and riparian buffers,
as defined herein, that are subject to a perpetual easement permitting inundation by
water, are hereby declared to be a separate class of property and shall constitute a
classification for local taxation separate from other classifications of real property.
The governing body of any county, city or town may, by ordinance, exempt or partially
exempt such property from local taxation. "Riparian buffer" means an area of trees,
shrubs or other vegetation, subject to a perpetual easement permitting inundation by
water, that is (i) at least thirty-five feet in width, (ii) adjacent to a body of
water, and (iii) managed to maintain the integrity of stream channels and shorelines
and reduce the effects of upland sources of pollution by trapping, filtering, and
converting sediments, nutrients, and other chemicals. "Wetlands" means an area that is
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency or duration sufficient
to support, and that under normal conditions does support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, and that is subject to a
perpetual easement permitting inundation by water. (1998, c. 516.)
18 Approved by the Governor-Chapter 573 (effective 7/1/06). Transfer of development rights. Allows localities to provide for
the transfer of development rights from a parcel of property located in the locality to another parcel of property located elsewhere
in the locality.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas Implementation
AGENDA DATE:
May 10, 2006
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST:
Planning Commission recommendation for RA lot
development, phasing, clustering, family division
regulations, and process for receiving public input
on proposed ordinances. Background information
for Board discussion of topics raised at April 12,
2006 work session.
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Cilimberg,
Benish, McDowell, Clark
REVIEWED BY:
~
(
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
On April 18, 2006, the Board reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding Rural Area lot
development, phasing, clustering, family division regulations, and the process for receiving public input on proposed
ordinances. Phasing, clustering, and family subdivisions were discussed, and the Board asked for more information on the
following topics:
. Phasing - Selection of Phasing Period
. Combining Phasing and Clustering
. Phasing and Clustering - Comparison of Road Requirements and Costs
. Central Water and Septic Systems
. Family Divisions - Increased Holding Periods
. Hardships
The Board did not have an opportunity to give staff feedback on the public-input process at the April 18 session.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2.1: Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character.
Goal 2.2: Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources.
DISCUSSION:
PhasinQ - Selection of PhasinQ Period
The number of development lots released per phasing period, and the length of that period, should be selected to have a
significant impact on the rate of new lot creation. This is important whether or not phasing is paired with clustering as part
of the Rural Area protection initiatives of the County. Permitting the use of a large portion of a parcel's total subdivision
potential in each phasing period or setting the phasing period too short will not significantly slow the rate of new lot creation.
Despite this limited effect, such regulations would still require additional staff time and resources for tracking and
monitoring development rights.
In the County's Rural Areas zoning district, parcels in existence on December 10,1980 were assigned five development
rights, in addition to the by-right creation of 21-acre or larger lots permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. In many cases, the
development-right lots are a large portion of the total lots that can be divided from a parent parcel. This suggests that
permitting the creation of four or five lots per phasing period will have little impact on the rate of new rural lot creation, as
most of the development potential could be used immediately.
Short phasing periods are also ineffective. Given the essentially permanent alterations to the Rural Areas caused by the
creation of residential lots, a short (e.g., five-year) phasing period is little different from no phasing at all. The rate of new lot
creation would not be significantly affected (but the complexity of processing applications would be increased). Phasing
periods of 10 years or more would have more of an impact on the rate of new lot creation.
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas Implementation
May 10, 2006
Page 2
See the attached graphic, "Examples of Subdivision Phasing," (Attachment A) for illustrations of effects of different phasing
rates.
Of course, unless other circumstances change, any phasing period will eventually lead to the same buildout. Also, there are
over 10,000 undeveloped lots in the Rural Areas that could be built on without needing any subdivision approval. Phasing
will do nothing to address use of this potential; it will only affect the rate of new lot creation as those parcels are divided in
the future.
Given these concerns and experiences, whether or not phasing is paired with clustering, staff recommends phasing the
creation of new rural lots at the rate of 2 lots per 10 years, inclusive of the total count of both development-right lots and 21-
acre lots allowed under current provisions. Table A below shows the number of years it would take for parent parcels of
various sizes to use their total development potential. The table also shows the number of lots that could be created if
phasing and clustering were implemented separately or combined. If phasing and clustering were implemented together,
the table illustrates that one additional lot would be allowed. The additional lot would allow the preservation parcel to be
recorded with the first phase. The parent parcel (the original parcel and holder of any future development rights) would be
permitted to construct one dwelling during the first phase, for a potential for four dwellings during the first 10 years. Even at
this phasing rate, parcels of 100 acres or less would use their total development potential in no more than 30 years.
Combinina Phasina and Clusterina
Staff research and the Comprehensive Plan identify three aspects of residential development that impact the Rural Areas:
overall density, pattern of development, and rate of development. The Board decided not to consider changes to the overall
density of development in the Rural Areas. Therefore, the Comprehensive Plan focuses on reducing the impacts of
permitted development by better controlling the form and rate of development. This is the basis for considering clustering
and phasing together. Issues with combining phasing and clustering were also discussed in the staff reports for the
September 14, 2005 (Attachment B) and April 12, 2006 (Attachment C) work sessions.
Clustering by itself controls the pattern of development (within a given property, without regard for larger-scale development
patterns), but does nothing to reduce the speed at which the physical impacts of development accumulate. Phasing alone
would slow the rate of change somewhat, but would still lead to a buildout condition with highly fragmented rural land and
very little land conserved in parcels large enough for agriculture, forestry, or conservation to be effective. These tools need
to be combined to have a significant impact on the pattern and timing of residential development in the Rural Areas.
Table A - Phasina and Clusterina
Parent Clustering* Maximum Total Total Total Total
Parcel Lots Lots Lots in Lots in Lots in
Acreage Possible after Year 10 Year 20 Year 30
First
Division
Includes
Parent
Parcel
31 - 51.99
52 - 72.99
73 - 93.99
94 -
114.99 Yes 9 4 6 8 9
No 9 3 5 7 9
* Proposed form of clustering would require creation of preservation tract in first division
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas Implementation
May 10, 2006
Page 3
PhasinQ and ClusterinQ - Comparison of Road Requirements and Costs
Attachments E through H show the roads needed for two subdivisions of the same property-one under current by-right
development (Attachment E), and the other under phasing and clustering (Attachment F is the initial division; attachments
G and H are the subsequent 1 O-year phases).
From staff research on recent cost estimates from road bonds, it appears that for many rural subdivisions, the road cost is
approximately $70 per foot. Using this estimate, Table B shows the road length and road cost associated with these two
forms of subdivision: (For simplicity, current costs are used; changes to road costs during later phases of development are
unpredictable.) This table also shows that the clustered subdivision shown in this example would have 33 percent of the
road length of the current by-right form.
Table B: Road LenQth and Costs
Subdivision
Total Road Road Cost Road Cost
Length (feet) Total at
Buildout
$115,500 $115,500
$10,850
$15,400
$11,900 $38,150
It should be noted that the location of the cluster, which is typically based on the best area to preserve on the original parcel
being subdivided, will impact the actual road cost. As can be noted in Attachments F through H, this phased, clustered
subdivision example assumes the cluster is adjacent to the existing state road and the preservation tract is behind the
cluster. If the cluster were located more internally a longer road would be necessary which would increase the road cost
total and would mean less differential in cost when compared to the current by-right example. Generally, the more the
houses are clustered near the existing road, the more cost savings are associated with clustering.
Central Water and Septic Svstems
The Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan recommends no changes to the current regulations regarding central
water and septic systems, which "may be considered on a case-by-case basis." The Land Use Plan (Attachment I) states
that the County should "[d]iscourage the utilization of central water and/or sewer systems or the extension of public water
and sewer into the Rural Area except in the cases where public health and safety are at issue."
The current proposal regarding clustering assumes that such systems will not be used, and sets a maximum lot size (2
acres) that should allow individual wells and septic fields on each lot, with the possibility of increasing to 3 acres in cases
where it can be demonstrated that only the extra area will permit safe systems to be established.
Past staff input on these systems has pointed out that central systems would allow smaller development lots in clustered
subdivisions, and thus would put more land in the preservation tracts. However, the Board was uncomfortable with
encouraging such systems because of the history of failed central water systems. Staff suggested that a county-wide
authority would be needed to oversee the systems and ensure proper maintenance, but this approach was not
recommended by the Commission or Board.
Familv Divisions - Increased HoldinQ Periods
At the April 12, 2006 work session, Board members requested clarification on the reason for recommending to add a 5-
year holding period before family divisions would be permitted, and an increase of the existing 2-year holding period after
division to 5 years.
Although abuse of the family-division provisions is rare compared to the overall rate of development, staff felt that since
family divisions would be exempt from the phasing requirement, there would be a greatly increased incentive to use these
divisions to circumvent development regulations. The recommendation for increased holding periods is intended to
anticipate and avoid this situation.
Although the 5-year holding periods are a significant increase over the current standards, they are significantly shorter than
those permitted by the Code of Virginia. That Code was recently amended by S 15.2-2244.1, effective July 1,2006, which
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas Implementation
May 10, 2006
Page 4
[aJllows a locality to include in its subdivision ordinance provisions permitting a single division of a lot or parcel for
the purpose of sale or gift to a member of the immediate family of the property owner, if (i) the property has been
owned for at least 15 consecutive years by the current owner or member of the immediate family and (ii) the
property owner agrees to place a restrictive covenant on the subdivided property that would prohibit the transfer of
the property to a nonmember of the immediate family for a period of 15 years.
Hardships
At the April 12 work session, the Board did not have an opportunity to discuss hardship issues. Possible topics for
discussion include listing types of hardships that would qualify, and objective criteria for deciding on individual requests. In
order to react to legitimate hardships without leading to frequent circumvention of ordinance standards or inconsistent
enforcement, these criteria would need to be very clear and not subject to variable interpretations.
Implementation Schedule
The staff report for the April 12 work session included a proposed implementation schedule, but this schedule was not
discussed at that work session. Board discussion of this proposed schedule would provide valuable guidance for staff.
However, please note that the original schedule assumed only one work session at this stage (in April); some adjustment
will be necessary.
BUDGET IMPACT:
See the report for the April 12 work session (Attachment C) for a discussion of budget implications.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission has recommended that the Board accept the framework for ordinance development
(Attachment D) and the public input process as described in the April 12 staff report (Attachment C). Staff is prepared to
implement the outlined process, if the Board finds this ordinance framework acceptable. In order to proceed with the
Zoning Text Amendment process, the Board will need to adopt a resolution of intent to amend the County Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances. A proposed resolution will be provided at the work session.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Examples of Subdivision Phasinq
B. Executive Summary for September 14, 2005 Work Session
C. Executive Summary for April 12, 2006 Work Session
D. Planninq Commission Recommendations for Phasinq. Clusterinq, Family Divisions Framework Plan
E. Road for Current By-riqht Subdivision
F. Road for Phased/Clustered Subdivision (First Division)
G. Road for Phased/Clustered Subdivision (Second Division)
H. Road for Phased/Clustered Subdivision (Third Division)
I. Land Use Plan Statement on Central Water & Sewer Systems
06.068
<to
.....
ce
~
>-
V"l
<:'"l
<to
.....
ce
~
>-
o
<:'"l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
......c
c.: 0
... Oll._
'-.- l'I.l
'"' ... .-
=' ~.::
U~Q
~
'"
...
...
~~
.- -
'" 0
~....
=.....
~
'"
...
...
..Q
Oll....
.S ~
'" 0
~....
=.....
~
'"
...
...
..Q
Oll....
c--
.- .;s
'" 0
'" ,
.:-
=......
r:
OS
...
...
..Q
Oll'"
.S~
;.3
fM
'to-
o
U)
Q) U)
'Q..'S;
E :c U)
CO .a CO
><:::::1"C
WenD..
~
~~
~ ~
]-~
ceO
><:0
~-
~ ce
;3 ~
...c:: 0
E-<...c::
"0
~
ce
0..
E
o
u
v1 ~
~ 0
...... :=
i:: .~
I:lll......
.S ~
~ ~
-aB
o
]lJ")~~
~5,;;-:g
\-4~Oo~~
~ . 0.. - .- u
:=1:lll~"""7ce
.., := ~ -t:=A -;:: _'
...... '2 -:: .:::' a3 C'l
~ ~ ~ E ~
-;::..c~g.~
~Q3~Q3..s
t:~u>"O
Bo..B~8
~
,r;;
"0 -;::
3 ~
8~
]:a
a ce
0.."0
1l~
S :~
N"O
s:::
o
q
~
...c::
......
o
......
I::
.g
:a ~
"0"0
~ .~
.S ~
~
Q..
N
I
11
~
~
~
"
~]
~::
~ .~
:: E
<~
~
~ .~
~ E
~.9
~ ~
zo
.00
C)
s:::
~
.'"
8
-0
~
.~
.....
~
0..
Attachment A
c
.9
'i5.
o
il
-g
~
E
8
~
Attachment B
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas (RA) Comprehensive Plan
Implementation Joint Work Session
AGENDA DATE:
September 14, 2005
ACTION:
x
SUBJECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST:
Review alternatives for advancing RA
implementation priorities
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Kamptner, Graham, Cilimberg,
Benish, McDowell
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On March 2, 2005, the Board established implementation priorities for the Rural Areas (RA) section of the Comprehensive
Plan. The phasing zoning text amendment (ZTA) was to be done first (to be sent to the Planning Commission for review
by April 2006), followed by a ZT A to mandate the clustering of all new lots in the RA (ZT A work to begin after completion of
the phasing amendments-April 2006-and sent to the Planning Commission for review by April 2007). The timing for
undertaking and completing these text amendments was based on available staff resources, existing and anticipated
workload, and assumed that the normal public input for ordinance amendment procedures would be followed. The Board
has since expressed a desire to accelerate the phasing and clustering zoning text amendments.
On July 6, 2005, the Board reviewed alternatives for advancing the Rural Areas implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan. At this meeting, the Board considered three proposals to expedite the RA implementation zoning text amendment
process: 1) contract with a consultant to work on specific projects; 2) contract for temporary staff; or 3) hire additional full-
time staff. The assumption in those proposals was that staff would continue to work on the phasing provisions, while
additional assistance/support would allow the clustering ZT A to begin sooner. However, staff suggested that, before any
decision was made on hiring additional support, staff would provide the Board information on the scope of each text
amendment. Staff suggested that more information on the key issues in each amendment and on the key public input
procedures would provide a better idea of the time needed to bring a draft ordinance forward to the Planning Commission
for review.
On July 6th, the Board directed staff to schedule a joint meeting with the Planning Commission in September, in order for
the Board and Commission to provide direction to staff. The intent of this direction is to assist staff in determining how best
to expedite the review of these implementation priorities.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2.1: Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character.
Goal 2.2: Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has broken down the discussion into five major areas, which will help the Board provide direction to staff in
undertaking these ZTAs. These areas are: A) technical issues/focus points regarding each ZTA (information); B)
reconfirmation of implementation priorities (Board direction); C) implications of undertaking the phasing and clustering
separately (Board direction); D) the desired public input process (Board direction); and E) consultant or contract assistance
with work (Board direction).
A. Technicallssues/Focus Points Regarding Each ZTA:
Staff has researched phasing and clustering provisions of other localities. Many of the potential provisions for phasing and
clustering in Albemarle County attached to this report have origins in other localities (Attachments A, B, and C). However,
Albemarle is embarking on new territory by "mandating" clustering and combining it with phasing. To the best of staff's
knowledge, mixing these two implementation strategies together has not been done by any other county in Virginia. This
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas (RA) Comprehensive Plan Implementation Joint Work Session
September 14, 2005
Page 2
combining of phasing and mandated clustering, together with the way density was allocated in 1980 (5 development rights
and 21-acre divisions of the residue, rather than simple minimum-lot-size zoning) presents challenges unique to Albemarle.
The key provisions and components of both ZT As contained in the attachments are intended to be for information only, at
this time, to provide the Board with a sense for the complexity of issues that will need to be addressed in the ZT A review.
However, in an effort to expedite the amendment process, the Board may wish to 1) give guidance to staff and the
Commission regarding the amendments, as they have been presented here; and/or 2) forward the text amendment
information (Attachments A, B and C) to the Planning Commission without delay, for the Commission to give staff direction
and also for the Commission to be able to determine the appropriate number and the appropriate type of public meetings.
It should be cautioned that the information concerning the clustering text amendment (Attachment C) is the result of initial
discussions and research and should not be considered complete. This guidance/direction would be beneficial to staff in
evaluating the review process and schedule, particularly if the Board has significant concerns with some aspect or direction
of the ordinance outline to date. If the Board determines that additional work sessions need to be held for the Board to
further the review of the phasing and clustering information, additional time should be allocated to the schedule.
Any Board comment is welcome at this time. In lieu of Board comment at this work session, Staff's opinion is that
forwarding the phasing and clustering text amendment outline/information that has been developed to date to the
Planning Commission now would provide an opportunity for the Commission to give initial guidance on finalizing
a draft ordinance for Commission and public review.
B. Reconfirmation of Implementation Priorities:
When the RA section of the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in March of this year, the Board determined that phasing of
development and rural preservation development (clustering), in that order, would be the primary priority implementation
tasks. The Board's intention for placing the phasing as the top priority was its desire to try to control the rate of subdivision
taking place in the Rural Areas. The phasing text amendment was perceived to be comparatively simple and quick to
complete, while the clustering amendment was considered to be more complex and more time consuming to draft (in part,
because by State law it must be an administrative review process and, thereby, should include the design standards for
reviewing clusters). If the clustering amendment was developed first, additional time would pass before the County would
be able to implement measures (phasing) which would try to address the rate of subdivision occurring in the Rural Areas.
Staff has assumed that the rate of subdivision in the Rural Areas (addressed by phasing) remains the Board's top
issue to address in the Rural Areas, and the form of subdivision (addressed by clustering) to be addressed
second. The following section discusses both advantages and disadvantages of separate reviews.
C. Implications of Undertaking Phasing ZTA and Clustering ZTA Separately:
As discussed in the previous section, the phasing ZTA was considered the highest priority and phasing has been
scheduled to be completed first. Addressing phasing first also includes the following advantages:
· potentially slowing the rate of subdivision through phasing would provide time to carry out other RA
Comprehensive Plan strategies, such as agricultural support initiatives and easement purchases, which would
also serve to slow subdivisions;
· addressing each of these text amendments separately would provide an opportunity for a more focused public
input on each text amendment (phasing first, then clustering).
Continuing the separate review of phasing and clustering should also include consideration of the following potential
disadvantages:
· would allow the continuation of large-lot subdivisions that may not protect natural, historic, and scenic resources
and would result in further reduction of agricultural and forestal land;
· may require later adjustments to the phasing regulations, in order for the two ordinances to be in concert;
· would not provide an opportunity to understand how the two amendments will work together when the phasing
ordinance is completed;
· would require that more time overall on public input processes, as each ZTA would require separate roundtable
meetings and/or public hearings;
· to carry out a major change to regulations in the RA zoning district for phasing, and then some time later present
another complex ZT A for clustering, may lead to more frustration for RA residents and landowners than a single
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas (RA) Comprehensive Plan Implementation Joint Work Session
September 14, 2005
Page 3
comprehensive ZTA that includes both phasing and clustering.
Staff's opinion is that, on balance, taking on the phasing ZTA concurrently with the clustering ZTA will be more
efficient in the long run, although it will likely extend the adoption of the phasing ZTA. Understanding that the
Board's highest priority is to address the rate of subdivision in the Rural Areas, is concurrent review of both ZT As
a desirable change in course to take or is it still the Board's preference to adopt phasing amendments first?
D. Desired Public Input Process: .
The standard process for developing zoning text amendments includes public input at several points. Specifically, there
are four points in time where the public can be involved in the ZT A process and three of these points allow the opportunity
for public comment. These points are: 1) review of draft ordinances by staff with focus groups (roundtables) representing
affected parties or groups, such as farmers and surveyors or engineers; 2) work sessions of the Planning Commission
(public comment typically is not taken at work sessions); 3) Planning Commission public hearing; and 4) Board public
hearing.
The focus group discussions with the impacted public (roundtables) are intended to help bring forward a proposed
ordinance to the Planning Commission, which has anticipated issues the public might have and has "debugged" the
ordinance of technical issues that typical users of the ordinance might find difficult to use. For example, farmers from time-
to-time have to subdivide their property for financing/business purposes other than for the sale of and/or development of
the land. How will phasing (and clustering), as drafted by staff, affect this aspect of agri-business? This information can be
obtained from focus group discussions prior to developing a final draft for Planning Commission and public review.
The focus group discussion part of the ZT A process typically adds two or more months to the process. This time is used to
identify affected parties; notify individuals/groups; distribute proposed drafts; allow time for invitees to review the draft; hold
the roundtable meeting(s) and follow-up meetings, as necessary; allow 1-2 weeks for follow-up written comments; and staff
review of comments (that may include follow-up contacts, depending on comments received). Focus group discussions
account for a total of 6 months of total review process for both the phasing and clustering amendment schedules.
Each ZTA (phasing and clustering), if done separately, will also require two public hearings (Planning Commission and
Board). Staff anticipated the possibility of the need for additional time for advanced public notice and response to
extensive questions from the public prior to public hearings, due to the significance and complexity of the amendments
that may be perceived by the general public. The need for an "open house" meeting may also be necessary to better
explain/educate the public about each ordinance. The public hearing processes account for an additional two months to
the total review schedule for completing both ordinances, if the ZTAs are done separately. If the ZTAs were combined,
only one public review process would be necessary, and two months could be saved in the schedule.
The following options may be considered by the Board and the Commission in order to expedite the text amendment
process:
· eliminate early roundtable reviews/discussions and forward the draft text amendment to the Commission for work
sessions and public hearings. (However, it is important to add a note of caution that this time could be lost later
in the review process, if major issues are missed and additional work sessions and public hearings are
necessary). This option would allow the ZTAs to be brought forward to the Commission sooner.
· reduce the total number of public hearings and possibly work sessions by the Commission by consolidating the
two text amendments.
Staff's work on the phasing ZTA is slightly ahead of schedule (roughly 1-2 months ahead of schedule). If the focus group
roundtables are eliminated from the ZT A process, staff could begin working on the clustering ordinance within the next 1-2
months
Consolidating the text amendments would reduce the number of public hearings and work sessions. Eliminating
the early roundtable discussions also would expedite the text amendment process. Staff estimates time savings
of up to 8 months with these two measures. Does the Board want to consider a condensed public input process?
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas (RA) Comprehensive Plan Implementation Joint Work Session
September 14, 2005
Page 4
E. Consultant or Contract Assistance
The purpose of this work session is to receive information/guidance from the Board and the Commission on the key issues
in each amendment and on the public input process to provide a better idea of the time needed to bring the ordinances to
the Commission for review. Once staff has an understanding of these points, it can better determine how beneficial
consultant services would be in advancing the projects. Staff's caution on advising on the benefit of consultant services is
that it is difficult to predict the true benefit of contractual support, particularly consultant services. Staff has estimated that
consultant support could theoretically advance the project by approximately six months. However, the following should be
noted:
. It may be difficult to find qualified consultants that are familiar with the state code and County regulations/policies and
processes.
· Procurement of consultant services is time consuming, requiring development of a scope of work and request for
proposal, advertisement time, interviews, and contract negotiations. Procurement can take 2-5 months to complete.
· Staff time would still be required to manage the contract and work of the consultant, which can reduce the overall
benefit, in terms of time gained, to the project.
Staff's experience with using consultants for ordinance amendments is very limited. All text amendments in the recent past
have been developed by County staff. Therefore, staff's estimate of time savings is not based on a significant amount of
experience with using consultants for this purpose.
One aspect of amendment work where it may be beneficial to have consultant support would be in drafting the
development standards for the clustering provisions. The benefit of the consultant to the project would be in providing
additional design expertise and adding review hours to the project (potentially reducing the schedule). The scope of this
work and cost would be more limited than previously estimated (approximately $50,000). Staff would not recommend
funding of a consultant at this time until staff has fully developed an outline of the clustering ordinance that has been
reviewed with, and supported by, the Commission. At that time staff will have a better understanding for need for additional
support
Staff's opinion is that there are several approaches which have been suggested to reduce the schedule for the
ZT A's and that those should be pursued first to advance the ZT As using existing staff. The need for consultant
support will be reconsidered as staff completes work on the clustering ordinance outline
BUDGET IMPACT:
Taking into consideration staff's preliminary work on the clustering amendment and the expedited outline for the phasing
ordinance, it is staff's opinion that consultant services are not required at this time. However, should the Board determine
that a consultant should be hired, the budget impact for consultanUtemporary staff services would depend on the scope of
work remaining for him/her to accomplish. However, the estimated cost would be approximately $50,000, less than the
amount of the projected $60,000 to $120,000 noted in the July 6th report.
There would not be any budget impact for the other options listed in staff's recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes that the advantages of combining the phasing and clustering amendments processes would provide a
greater opportunity to expedite the text amendment process and, ultimately, would provide for a more efficient and effective
review with the public. Staff also believes it can advance the delivery of a draft ordinance to the Planning Commission by
reducing the public input part of the ZTA process. Any additional public input processes would be determined by the
Planning Commission, as part of its review of the draft ordinance. These changes to the process would reduce the
schedule for completing both phasing and cluster provisions by 8 months, from April 2007 (for clustering) to July 2006.
Therefore, staff recommends:
· Forward the phasing amendment information (Attachments A and B) and the work done to date on the cluster
amendment (Attachment C) to the Planning Commission for a work session in October (without the roundtables and the
time needed to draft an ordinance) for initial review and direction;
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas (RA) Comprehensive Plan Implementation Joint Work Session
September 14, 2005
Page 5
· After the October Commission meeting, staff will begin more detailed work on developing the cluster ordinance, with
delivery of an outline for clustering provisions presented to the Planning Commission for review and direction by May of
2006;
· Based on direction from the Commission in February, proceed with development of a draft ordinance for both phasing
and clustering to be delivered to the Planning Commission by July 2006.
The above recommendations would expedite the text amendment process as follows:
October 2005
May 2006
Phasing and clustering information to Planning Commission for guidance.
Clustering amendment outline/information to Planning Commission (and any proposed
adjustments to the phasing component).
Draft phasing and clustering ordinance based on Planning Commission direction.
July 2006
ATTACHMENTS
A Phasinq
B Examples of Subdivision Phasing
C Rural Cluster Subdivisions
05.120
Attachment C
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas Implementation
AGENDA DATE:
April 12, 2006
SUBJECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST:
Planning Commission recommendation for RA lot
development, phasing, clustering, family division
regulations, and process for receiving public input
on proposed ordinances
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Graham, Cilimberg, Benish, McDowell
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
LEGAL REVIEW: YES
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Guiding Principles for the Rural Areas recognize eight defining principles that are important components of the RA:
agriculture, forestry resources, land preservation and conservation, water supply resources, natural resources, scenic
resources, and historical, archeological and cultural resources. When the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan
was adopted in 2005, residential development was identified as the greatest threat to the principles of the Rural Areas.
The RA Plan emphasizes the importance of implementing these principles and contains the goal to "Reduce the level and
rate of residential development in the Rural Areas and minimize the impacts of permitted development." The plan refers
directly to phasing and clustering (RPDs) as tools that the County should "aggressively pursue."
The Board of Supervisors identified priorities for implementation of the RA Plan at the time it was adopted. Each priority
was measured by its potential to lessen development pressure on the Rural Areas and by its potential to have the most
significant impact on what the Guiding Principles seek to achieve, both in the short term and in the long term. Phasing and
clustering were identified as the top two priorities for implementation, with phasing to be completed first. It was later
decided by the Board to implement phasing and clustering simultaneously.
On September 14, 2005, the Board held a joint work session with the Planning Commission. The Board determined that
the issues concerning implementation of phasing and clustering should be discussed in greater depth by the Commission
(see Attachment A - Work Session staff report). The Commission was also asked to recommend a public
information/review process to the Board. In addition, staff was directed to provide experiences of other localities concerning
phasing.
The Commission's deliberations since September have included guest speakers from Madison and Rockingham Counties
to share their extensive experiences with using phasing as a growth control measure. A copy of the minutes of that
discussion is attached as reference (Attachment B). In response to the Planning Commission's request for information
concerning impacts phasing may have on the acquisition of conservation easements, conservation easement specialists
from the Nature Conservancy and Piedmont Environmental Council were invited to attend a later work session. These
experts agreed that while it would be difficult to determine if there would be a reduction of easement donations, slowing
growth through phasing would provide a greater overall benefit to the Rural Areas.
On March 14, the Commission completed its discussion. This report includes the Commission's recommendations for a
framework for phasing, clustering and family divisions (Attachment C). An expedited public information/input process has
also been recommended and is included in this report.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2.1: Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character.
Goal 2.2: Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources.
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas Implementation
April 12, 2006
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission has addressed phasing and clustering concepts as both separate ordinances and ordinances
that work in unison. In addition, as family divisions were recommended for exemption from both phasing and clustering
ordinances, the Commission addressed the time of ownership both before and after subdivision.
Although the majority of the Commission agreed to the ordinance framework plan (Attachment C), not all items in the
framework received unanimous support. The following summary of the major framework criteria, issues, and impacts also
includes many of the concerns raised at the work sessions.
Phasin~: Major framework standards, issues and impacts of phasing subdivisions are identified below.
. Phasing or time-release of subdivisions addresses the rate of subdivision; the number of division rights assigned in 1980
would not be affected by phasing, Le., the ultimate potential of rural areas density would not be affected.
. Two new lots in ten-year increments is the recommended rate of subdivision; more lots and/or a shorter time period
would not effectively slow subdivision activity.
. While phasing could slow down future subdivision activity, it may not affect the number of building permits issued within
the Rural Areas in the foreseeable future, as there is a substantial inventory of existing lots: 10,571 parcels in the Rural
Areas are undeveloped (Le., 2005 real estate improvements assessment < $25,000).
. A process to track used and remaining subdivision rights would need to be developed.
Clusterin~: Major framework standards, issues and impacts with clustering of subdivision are identified below.
. Intended to provide a more effective land use pattern that preserves and protects the County's scenic, natural,
agricultural, and forestal resources. Clustering would not affect density of Rural Areas development.
. Clustering would be the mandated form of subdivision in the Rural Areas, with few exceptions.
. Current regulations for clustering (Rural Preservation Developments) provide an opportunity to improve land
development patterns, but its effectiveness is compromised because it is an optional form of subdivision.
. The identification and protection of resources would be the highest priority and residential lots would be located in area
with the least impact on resources.
. As many resources as feasible would be placed into a preservation parcel.
. All residential lots would be accessed from interior roads.
. A maximum lot size of two-acres for residential parcels (an additional acre would be possible to provide water/septic).
. Large lot subdivisions (greater than 2-acre lots) would no longer be permitted. The majority of the Commission agreed
that larger lots did not fulfill the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and would continue to erode rural lands.
. The identification of resources to protect the best location for the residential lots may be best achieved by subjective
means; ranking of resources may not achieve the desired results.
. Smaller lots for residential development could address some existing affordable housing issues.
Phasin~ and Clusterin~ Combined: Although both phasing and clustering could operate independently, they could be
modified to be implemented together. The following list provides some of the modifications and issues with combining the
two ordinances together.
. Phasing and mandated clustering operating together would be unique to Albemarle County in Virginia.
. The preservation parcel would be exempted from phasing and would be recorded with the first phase. A driveway to any
residence on the preservation parcel would be permitted.
. Road construction could be phased, in correlation with the number of lots permitted.
. The residue of the parent parcel would hold the unused development rights, if the cluster consisted of one parent parcel.
. If multiple parcels were combined into one cluster development, the unused development rights would be assigned by
the owners to one residue parcel.
. An approved preliminary subdivision plat may acquire vested rights and not be subject to future ordinance amendments
(Attachment D).
. Phasing/clustering would require ordinance amendments of other provisions: Agricultural/Forestal Districts
(phasing/clustering would be more restrictive), road standards, and family divisions.
Familv Divisions: Abuses of current family division regulations have not been identified; however, the County does not
have a monitoring program in place. As family divisions have been recommended for exemption from both phasing and
clustering ordinances, the Commission believed that these exemptions could lead to future abuses. Therefore, the
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas Implementation
April 12, 2006
Page 3
majority of the Commission recommended that the ownership of family divisions be extended from the current requirement
of ownership of two years after the family division takes place to five years before subdivision and five years after the
subdivision. Prince William County requires ownership five years before the family division (all) and five years following (for
lots 10-acres or greater). Other Virginia counties require family ownership only after the subdivision occurs (see
Attachment A - last page).
Public Input Process:
The Commission agreed on a review process that contains levels or stages to provide early opportunities for public input on
the framework, before the formation of an ordinance. The process also includes two opportunities for public comment on
the framework for phasing and clustering combined and for family division provisions before it is transmitted to the Board.
. provide an opportunity for the Board to comment on the framework recommendations (April 12)
. conduct two Commission public input work sessions
. advise staff of changes to make
. County Attorney drafts ordinances
. conduct a Commission public hearing and direct any necessary changes
. review final draft at a public hearing
. ordinances transmitted to the Board
The following timeline is staff's best assessment for the review process. The timeframes are subject to changes should the
Planning Commission or County Board determine additional meetings are warranted during the process.
Timeline for RA Phasin & Clusterin 1m lementation
... ...
CI) CI)
.c ... .c
- E
I/) CI) E
~ CI) .c CI)
CI) >a - 0
.;: >a c Cl Q, - >
~ III ~ ~ ~ CI) u 0
:E .., .., en 0 z
Board of Su ervisors Review of Framework
Two PC Work Sessions with Public
PC Direction to Staff for Ordinance Develo ment
Count Attorne Pre ares Draft Ordinance
PC Hearin on Draft Ordinance & Direction for Chan es
PC Hearin on Final Ordinance Draft
Transmit to Board of Su ervisors
Remainina work:
In considering the Planning Commission's recommendation, staff believes it is important to note this is only a framework
and significant issues still need to be resolved before an ordinance amendment is brought before the Planning Commission
and Board. The following are a few examples of those issues:
. No other county in Virginia has attempted to combine phasing and clustering in this way. There are numerous
complications with this approach that still must be resolved. For example, does the applicant provide the
infrastructure for the entire subdivision with the initial phase? If so, the project could be financially impossible to
build, as the revenue from lots that will be created 10 to 20 years in the future is needed to pay for the
improvements. If not, then the County could potentially have substandard roads in the future that VDOT will not be
willing to accept for State maintenance.
. As described in Attachment D, phasing could potentially vest preliminary plats for very long periods of time. If the
ordinance prohibits the property owner from developing more than two lots every ten years, does the vested
preliminary plat effectively give them the ability to develop those remaining lots at any time in the future? If there
was a future interest in stronger measures to limit development in the Rural Areas, that effort could be weakened
by a large number of phased preliminary plats that can sit for decades without creating all of the lots.
. Would the ordinance provide some relief for hardships? For example, could an estate create 4 lots for the heirs all
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas Implementation
April 12, 2006
Page 4
. at the same time rather than only allow 2 lots within 10 years?
. How can family divisions be mixed into subdivisions? For example, the framework calls for lots to be no more than
2 acres in size, but could we allow a 4 acre lot that could be subdivided in the future for a family division? If so, is
that family division exempted or counted as one of the two lots every ten years?
. The ordinance will need to establish clearly delineated standards that staff will be able to apply in ministerial
reviews.
Staff raises these issues to make the Board aware there is still considerable work before the ordinance language can be
finalized and those issues can impact the effectiveness of the ordinance.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Property Value:
Staff has not determined how implementation of the proposed ordinance provisions will affect property values and finds this
a very complex analysis. To illustrate that complexity, phasing is intended to slow potential lot creation, possibly making
rural area lots scarcer and more valuable, increasing their valuation. On the other hand, phasing potentially decreases the
value of undeveloped land as it becomes more difficult and time consuming to realize the economic benefit of creating rural
area lots, decreasing its valuation. Similarly, clustering could significantly reduce land development costs, but the lots
created in cluster development may not be perceived as valuable as larger rural area lots which provide more privacy and
room for rural area amenities, such as enough land to keep horses on the property. Finally, it should be recognized the
County has little data that explains the motivations of people buying new houses in the rural area versus elsewhere.
Putting all of these factors together, staff has found it very difficult to definitively say how phasing and clustering will affect
property values.
Applicant Costs:
These changes will result in additional requirements for property owners seeking to subdivide their property. Plans are
anticipated to be considerably more complex to prepare and, given that complexity, more revisions to plans are anticipated,
especially as related to the cluster provisions. Staff does not believe those costs can be accurately quantified until the
ordinance specifics are drafted. At that point, working in cooperation with potential applicants, staff intends to develop
estimates of the additional costs for consideration with the ordinance amendment.
County Costs:
Both phasing and clustering are anticipated to require additional staff resources for review of applications and monitoring of
phasing. Clustering is anticipated to require significant environmental expertise to assist in the determination of the
appropriate location of clusters, which translates into additional training and more staff time spent on each application. The
extent of these additional resource requirements would be established once the ordinance language is finalized. For the
County's review of subdivisions, either additional fees or general fund revenues will be needed to fund the additional
resources required for the subdivision reviews. If this is funded by additional fees, that should be combined with the other
cost increases for applicants.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission has recommended that the Board accept the framework for ordinance development
(Attachment C) and the public input process as described in this report. Staff is prepared to implement the outlined
process if the County Board finds this ordinance framework acceptable.
ATTACHMENTS
A September 14. 2005, Executive Summarv
B Planninq Commission Minutes for October 18. 2005
C Planning Commission Recommendations for Phasinq, Clusterinq, Family Divisions Framework Plan
D Phased Cluster Subdivisions: Vested Rights
06.048
Attachment D
Planning Commission Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors
Phasing, Clustering, Family Divisions Framework Plan
Phasing:
The following list contains the framework of the major components of the proposed text amendment that
would limit the rate of subdivision in the Rural Areas.
1. Subdivision rate: a maximum of two lots in ten years (not including the parent parcel).
2. No changes in the original assignment of development rights (as of December 1980).
3. Phasing time clock begins with first subdivision following the adoption of this ordinance.
4. Exceptions: family divisions; subdivisions for properties subject to conservation easements; lot
line adjustments that do not create a new lot.
Clustering:
The following list contains the framework of the major components of the proposed text amendments that
would address the design of the Rural Areas. This framework addresses clustering exclusively.
1. Clustering would be the mandated form of subdivision in the Rural Areas.
2. Exceptions: family divisions; properties that would not result in the preservation of a parcel too
small to further the goals of the Guiding Principles for the Rural Areas (Attachment D);
subdivisions of properties subject to conservation easements; lot line adjustments that do not
create a new lot.
3. The unfragmented preservation of resources identified in the Comprehensive Plan's first Guiding
Principle for Rural Areas are the primary considerations for defining the areas to be protected.
4. Pre-application conferences would be required to identify areas to be preserved (the no-build
areas).
5. As currently required, a sketch plan would be required to determine the actual number of potential
divisions with the preliminary subdivision (conventional subdivision sketch plan).
6. A maximum of one preservation parcel per cluster, unless it can be ascertained that one
additional preservation parcel would further the preservation of resources, as identified by the
Guiding Principles for Rural Areas.
7. All residential lots would be required to be accessed from interior roads.
8. Some areas to be preserved, such as critical slopes, could be located within residential lots, if left
undisturbed and where that location furthers the unfragmented preservation of resources.
9. One primary residential dwelling unit would be allowed on the preservation parcel; one secondary
residential unit, requiring the use of a development right and compliance with all zoning ordinance
regulations, also could be permitted on the preservation parcel, to serve a farm manager.
10. If it could established that the maximum 2-acre residential lot could not accommodate a well
and/or septic and that redesign of the subdivision would not reduce or eliminate the need for
additional acreage, administrative approval to achieve a maximum of one additional acre would
be available.
11. "Pods" or small clusters of lots in more than one area within the subdivision may be permitted, if it
can be established that these pods/small clusters would have a greater benefit to the resources
to be preserved.
12. Maximum lot size of 2-acres for residential parcels that would be required to be clustered together
to minimize fragmentation of preservation areas.
13. There would be no limit to the number of residential lots contained in a Rural Cluster subdivision.
14. Encourage the connectivity of conservation land wherever feasible by locating the conservation
easement adjacent to other conservation easement properties.
Phasing and Clustering Combined:
Combining phasing and clustering presents some unique considerations. In addition to the major
components of phasing and clustering (listed above), the following lists the major components related
to the simultaneous operation of both ordinances.
Phasing Clustering
Framework
BoS April 12, 2006
Page 1 of 2
1. Preservation parcel would be recorded with the first phase, in order for the County to
determine links/connections to other potential preservation parcels and easements and
ensure the permanent protection of resources.
2. Preservation parcel would be exempt from phasing requirements.
3. First phase could include a minimum of four lots (parent parcel, two new residential lots, and
the preservation parcel), thereby, triggering a requirement for a public road standard.
4. Each parcel (created prior to December 1980) could use its phasing potential to locate into
one cluster development (as with current RPDs).
5. Future development rights would stay with the parent parcel.
Family Divisions:
If excluded from phasing and clustering regulations, the Commission recommends a concurrent ZTA to
extend the time of ownership to 5 years before and 5 years after the creation of a family division. The
current regulations do not have a time of ownership prior to the family division and require family
ownership for the two years following the division.
Phasing Clustering
Framework
BoS April 12, 2006
Page 2 of 2
;.
~
i
~ ~:
...
'II=- .
i~= ";;
!;j
jW
. !it
I :.C
iati
~i!i i~
0'14..
Hl11~
':,... 1!
Hi;il
"';;'::1;''''
j~!i;!
!:il'! ~
:hUt
h '0.
!igH
... .II ......
ATTACHMENT E
,*
1ii
~~
.s~
~
;;;.
...
tI}
l:1
(:)
...
III 0
... ,...
;;;. .,-
o
.....
~~
~
;:,
i:l:l 0
;.
i
!
~~:
...
u.
W
!;j
oj, us
s i:~
.. Iii
I ~.~
.~ .
....
liJ:.1lO
~i;:1 i~
..!4..
1I.i.1=
~iPtl'
to ....
lii:~
u~:l-:'u
idii!
a:~l:l~
.. a.. ..
;lauJ
It '__
ti~~H
... ... ......
A TT ACHMENT F
"*
;;
Cl()~
.5 @.
III ~
~
f
'1::l
~
c
~
;: 5l
c
....
III
....
t:l
o ~
.... ..i
~
~ 0..1
~
!
~~:
'..
1: =-.
';=
!: .
]:i
i :iiJ
a l:t
. ..
1 ij~.
iiiH
i ,-i i~
1:N "'.....
-11'I!i:
1~3::
011'11
i~r;iI
~~:1"~
1tfl'1I.
Ii;:';;
~:jl'h
-l"!ali!
, "--
"'..i....:
!h:H
'" '" "'..
A TT ACHMENT G
z*
b()1il
.. ~
..::: LL
~ ~-
..:: ~
Q.,
~
<::l
Q
~
5 8
-.. '"
III
-..
..
~ ~
;::
Q
'"
ow
trJo
~
!
.t
;~~
i~=
~;i
. !i'
t ht
11 Illi.
I !l~.
}.;i;h
:H!I~
- "II..
n.ah
od'li
fii';il
:;:;H;:'~
sa!:!;
s 110",,"1..
'.U"
Ha!!!
mm
.6, .. .....
ATTACHMENT H
..
10
~,f
.;: ~
III -
<::l ~
..:::
Q.,
"':::
<::l
Q
1:1:::
I
;:: ~
Q
....
III
....
;:;.
Ci~
"':::
""
~o
-
ATTACHMENT I
Public Water and Sewer
The provision of water and sewer facilities is very costly. The treatment, delivery and collection
of water and sewage is technically sophisticated and capital intensive. Careful planning and
coordination of these facilities with the Land Use Plan is essential to insure facilities are provided
in a cost efficient and timely manner (see Map I).
General Principles for Public Water and Sewer
The following statements are a set of principles that provide vision and guidance for decisions
regarding the provision of public water and sewer service. These principles reflect the need for
decisions related to water and sewer service to be consistent with, and supportive of, the growth
management policy.
1. Plan and live in accord with our water and sewer resources by providing an
economical and safe public system of water and sewer to serve the existing and
future Development Area population and ensure high quality ground water for the
existing and future Rural Area population.
2. Protect the County's surface and ground water supply to ensure continued safe
potable water for county residents.
1. Serve Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages with public water and sewer.
Prohibit private central water and/or sewer facilities within County Development
Areas.
2. Discourage the utilization of central water and/or sewer systems or the extension
of public water and sewer into the Rural Area except in the cases where public
health and safety are at issue. Rural Area development will be served by individual
water and septic systems only (central water facilities are considered wells, springs
or other systems capable of serving three or more connections. Central sewer
facilities are considered systems consisting of drainfields or septic tanks capable of
serving three or more connections).
3. Continue effective coordination between the Albemarle County plans and policies
and those of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the Albemarle County
Service Authority, the City and the University.
114
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Key West Lake Dam
AGENDA DATE:
May 10, 2006
SUBJECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST:
Authorize an additional $180,000.00 to proceed with
construction/repair
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Shadman,
Stumbaugh, Garrison
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
f
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors was alerted in 2004 by residents of the Key West Subdivision living on Key West Lane that the
dam that Key West Lane passes over was in danger of collapsing. Key West Lane is the only ingress/egress for residents
on the north side of Key West Lane as well as for the Key West recreation center.
The County hired Kimley-Horn and Associates to inspect the dam and submit a report on its condition and offer options.
This report was received on August 4, 2004. After the County staff analyzed the report and presented their
recommendations, the Board of Supervisors, at their December 1, 2004 meeting, approved Option 3, appropriating
$347,000, and directing staff to proceed with the repairs.
After review and approval from a host of regulatory agencies, the project was designed and bid in the fall of 2005. The bids
received were much higher than expected (low bid was $872,500). A re-bid resulted in no bids received. Staff contacted
several contractors and after getting their input, made major changes to the original design by Kimley-Horn to get the
project within budget. Through this process it was determined that the original design was far beyond what was necessary
given the goals for repair of the Key West Lane dam. The bids recently received resulted in a low bid of $360,122. This
includes one "addition" to the project, the installation of a guardrail to ensure safe passage over the dam. The redesign is
acceptable to the County Engineer and General Services staff and meets the original goals of the project.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goals 3.1: Make the County a safe and healthy community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play
DISCUSSION:
The current competent low bid, combined with all costs pertaining to the project (design/engineering fees, plat preparation
and contingency) results in a total project cost of $527,000. There is a need for additional funding to be appropriated
before proceeding with awarding the bid and completing the project. An additional $180,000 is necessary.
The Staff feels that three alternatives are available to the Board of Supervisors:
1. Approve the additional funding;
2. Cancel the project entirely; or
3. Direct General Services to attempt a redesign of the project and re-bid a fourth time.
Staff, with input from the contracted engineering firm, believes that the low bid is fair and the contractor competent to
perform the work. The County has already invested in excess of $70,000 for design fees and the preparation of bid
packages and advertising.
AGENDA TITLE:
Key West Lake Dam
May 10, 2006
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
This project was originally funding through the Stormwater CIP Fund and will require an additional $180,000. The
Office of Management and Budget advises that additional funding is available in this fund to complete the project
without impacting other projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board appropriate an additional $180,000 from the Stormwater CIP fund to complete
the repair to the Key West Lane dam.
06.066
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
From:
Division:
Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Greg Cooley, Roads Engineer
Inspections
May 2, 2006
Board Agenda - May 10, 2006
Road Resolution for Springridge Subdivision
Date:
Subject:
Attached is the original of Additions Form LA-5A for the following roads in Springridge
. Springridge - Shadybrook Trail (State Route 1341)
. Springridge - Tumberry Circle (East) (State Route 1342)
. Springridge - Tumberry Circle (West) (State Route 1343)
We would like to have this included on the Board's May 10, 2006 agenda so that a resolution can be
adopted requesting VDoT add these roads into the secondary system of state highways.
If additional information is needed, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Attachments
In the County of Albemarle
By resolution of the governing body adopted May 10,2006
Thefollowing VDOT Form AM-4.3 is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for changes
in tlte secondary system of state highways.
A Copy Testee
Siglled (COUllt)' Official):
&>
Fonn AM-4.3 ( 11/28/2005)
Asset Management Division
Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways
Project/Subdivision
Springridge
Type of Change: Addition
The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are
hereby requested. the right of way for which, including additional easements for drainage as required, is guaranteed:
Reason for Change: Addition, New subdivision street
Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: ~33.1-229
Route Number and/or Street Name
. Shadybrook Trail, State Route Number 1341
. Description: From: Intersection Rt. 1521 Powell Creek Drive
To: Intersection RT.1342 Tumberry Circle
A distance of: 0.22 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 12/11/2001, Deed Book 2123 Pg. 96-111, with a
width of 50'.
. Turnberry Circle (east), State Route Number 1342
. Description: From: Intersection Shadybrook Trail Rt.1341
To: Cui de sac
A distance of: 0.42 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 12/1112001, Deed Book 2123 Pg.96-111, with a
width of 60' Var..
.
Turnberry Circle (west), State Route Number 1343
-~------------------
. Description: From: Intersection Shadybook Trail Rt.1341
To: Intersection Tumberry Circle (east)
A distance of: 0.35 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 12/11/2Q01, Deed Book 2123 Pg. 96-111, with a
width of 60' Var..
Page 1 of 1
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the
10th day of May 2006, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Springridge Subdivision, described on the attached Additions
Form LA-5(A) dated May 10, 2006, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virqinia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Springridge
Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A) dated May 10, 2006, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to ~33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
*****
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Sally Thomas.
Seconded by: David Wyant.
Yeas: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
Nays: None.
Absent: None.
A Copy Teste:
The road(s) described on Additions Form LA-5(A) is:
1 ) Shadvbrook Trail (State Route 1341) from the intersection of Route 1521 (Powell
Creek Drive) to the intersection of Route 1342 (Turnberry Circle) as shown on plat
recorded 12/11/2001 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 2123, pages 96-111, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.22 miles.
2) Turnberrv Circle (east) (State Route 1342) from the intersection of Route 1341
(Shadybrook Trail) to the cul-de-sac as shown on plat recorded 12/11/2001 in the
office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2123, pages 96-
111, with a 60-foot variable right-of-way width, for a length of 0.42 miles.
3) Turnberrv Circle (west) (State Route 1343) from the intersection of Route 1341
(Shadybrook Trail) to the intersection of Route 1342 (Turnberry Circle) as shown on
plat recorded 12/11/2001 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County
in Deed Book 2123, pages 96-111, with a 60-foot variable right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.35 miles.
Total Mileage - 0.99 miles
RESOLUTION
Resolution to Authorize Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority to Sign the DEQ Grant Contract
and Other Appropriate Documents Related to the Source Water Planning Grant
and the Regional Source Water Supply Plan
WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly has mandated the development of water supply plans
throughout the Commonwealth and the State Water Control Board has developed regulations to implement this
planning process, and
WHERAS, based upon these regulations, Albemarle County is required to complete a water supply plan
by November 2, 2008 that fulfills the regulations, and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has announced the availability of
grant funds, subject to inclusion of such funds in the General Assembly's adopted budget for FY 2007, to assist
localities offset some of the costs related to development of these plans, and
WHEREAS, DEQ is encouraging localities to submit applications for grant funds to develop regional
water supply plans of multiple local government jurisdictions, and
WHEREAS, regional water supply planning is a sensible approach to developing a water supply plan
since watershed boundaries do not follow political boundaries and since there will likely be cost savings to all
local government jurisdictions participating, and
WHEREAS, the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority has previously managed the development of
successful regional plans and is a logical entity to organize and manage a regional water supply planning
process, and
WHEREAS, the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority desires to participate in a regional water supply plan
that will serve the needs of Albemarle County and other localities in the region, and desires to secure DEQ grant
funds to help offset the cost of the plan development.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors authorizes the
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority to develop an application for water supply planning grant funds and to
develop a regional water supply plan which will meet mandated regulations, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority is authorized to sign the DEQ
grant contract and other appropriate documents related to the source water planning grant and the regional
source water supply plan.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a
meeting held on May 10, 2006. ~
Cerk, Bl~~y~
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
Aye Nay
y
y
y
y
y
Y
ORDINANCE NO. 06-8(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8, LICENSES, ARTICLE VI, SCHEDULE OF TAXES, DIVISION IV,
PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL, BUSINESS OR REPAIR SERVICE BUSINESS, OCCUPATIONS AND
PROFESSIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Licenses,
Article VI, Schedule of Taxes, Division IV, Personal, Professional, Business or Repair Service Business,
Occupations and Professions, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, is hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 8-617 Retailers or retail merchants
CHAPTER 8. LICENSES
ARTICLE VI. SCHEDULE OF TAXES
DIVISION 4. PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL, BUSINESS OR
REPAIR SERVICE BUSINESS, OCCUPATIONS AND PROFESSIONS
Sec. 8-617 Retailers or retail merchants.
Each person engaged as retailer or retail merchant shall be subject to the license tax, and other
provisions, set forth herein:
A. Each person engaged as a retailer or retail merchant shall be subject to a license tax of twenty
cents ($0.20) for each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts, other than as provided in subsection (B)
herein.
B. Each person engaged as a retailer or retail merchant shall be subject to a license tax of ten cents
($0.10) for each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts for direct retail sales. For purposes of this
section, a "direct retail sale" is defined as a retail sale made to a remote buyer ordering by telephone, internet, or
mail, in which the item(s) sold is/are shipped by common carrier or by the U.S. Postal Service.
C. Retailers or retail merchants include, but are not limited to, the following:
Aircraft or aircraft parts.
Alcoholic beverages.
Antiques.
Auto accessory, tire, battery.
Automobile graveyards.
Auto sales, motor vehicle dealers.
Bakeries, caterers.
Bicycles.
Boats, motors.
Books, stationery.
Building materials.
Candy, nut stores.
Cigar, tobacco stands, newsstands.
Confectionery.
Custom tailor.
Dairy products.
Delicatessen.
Department stores.
Drapery, curtain, upholstery.
Drugs.
Dry goods stores.
Eggs, poultry.
1
Family clothing.
Farm equipment.
Filling stations.
Firearms.
Fish, seafood market.
Floor covering.
Florists.
Fruit stores, vegetable markets.
Fuel, ice.
Furniture.
Furriers.
Garden supplies.
General stores.
Gift, novelty, souvenir.
Grocery.
Hardware.
Heating, plumbing, electrical equipment.
Hog, grain, feed, seed.
Hosiery.
Jewelry.
Junk or secondhand merchandise.
Lightning rods.
Luggage.
Lumber goods.
Meat markets.
Men's and boy's clothing.
Millinery.
Motorcycle.
Musical instrument.
Office, store, appliance supply.
Optical.
Other clothing.
Paint, glass, wallpaper.
Photographic, supply, equipment.
Radio, television or household appliances.
Restaurants, eating places, nightclubs.
Secondhand stores, other than junk.
Scientific, medical supplies.
Shoes.
Soda fountain.
Sporting goods.
Travel bureau or tour agent.
Used cars.
Variety stores.
Workmen's clothing.
All other retail stores and retail merchants' occupations, businesses or trades not included herein and not
otherwise taxed by this chapter.
(3-15-73, S 55; 4-21-76; 3-10-82; Ord. 96-11(1),11-13-96, S 11-68; Code 1988; S 11-68; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98;
Ord. 06-8(1), 5-10-06)
State law reference--Va. Code ~ 58.1-3703.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2007.
2
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of four to two, as recorded below, at a
regular meeting held on May 10, 2006.
(/ l? tL--L-L
Aye Nay
y
y
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
y
y
N
N
3
/@)
n:~...
.-..:"
... .
. .
Charlottesville Regional
Chamber of Commerce
cvillechamber.com
May 4, 2006
Dear Mr. C
m writing to you and your Albemarle County Board of Supervisors colleagues on behalf of
Crutchfield Corporation, a nationally acclaimed, long-tenured Chamber member enterprise, area employer,
taxpayer and corporate citizen based in Albemarle County since 1979.
As you know, our Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce is dedicated to representing
private enterprise, promoting business and enhancing the quality of life in our Greater Charlottesville
communities. Founded in 1913, today our Chamber has 1,200 member enterprises. Chamber member
enterprises employ more than 45,000 men and women in our Greater Charlottesville communities,
representing an estimated total payroll of more than $1.3 billion a year.
Our Chamber supports the Board of Supervisors' favorable consideration of Crutchfield's request for
an Albemarle County Business, Professional & Occupational Licensing Tax (BPOL) business reclassification
of Crutchfield Corporation that would accurately reflect that leading business' internet and catalogue sales
component of their significant operations in Albemarle County. We further understand that a number of other
similarly constructed Albemarle-based internet/catalogue sales businesses would also benefit from the
County's reclassification of these types of information age enterprises.
In our Greater Charlottesville area, Crutchfield accounts for a direct payroll to this area in excess of
$17 million each year, plus more than $4 million in additional competitive employee benefits. Crutchfield
employs more than 400 of our neighbors at its current Albemarle locations. We all know someone, often a
number of people across several generations of families, working for Crutchfield. Crutchfield is recognized
independently as a leading low-turnover, good employer offering career-ladder job opportunities. Beyond this,
not counting its significant store-based retail sales activity at its Rio Hill outlet, Crutchfield's local tax payments
exceed $250,000 each year. Add in charitable and other community contributions and it is clear that
Albemarle County should strive to keep and help secure a future for a clean, home-grown, home-owned
enterprise such as Crutchfield and other similarly vital job creating and sustaining enterprises.
Some might theorize that home-grown businesses like Crutchfield might not be able to compete in the
national and global marketplace from a base like Albemarle County in the economy of tomorrow. Our
Chamber chooses to believe that that day - if it ever arrives - should be pushed as far into the future as
possible. We would hope that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors agrees.
Crutchfield's Albemarle County BPOL position maintains that a gross receipts (BPOL) classification
that equates gross catalogue/internet business with traditional in-store retail transactions is fundamentally
inequitable. We agree. Application of the local BPOL gross receipts tax classification should not be confused
with state and local sales & use tax transactions. Application of state and local sales and use tax on retail
transactions, regardless on their mechanism, should be equitable. It is important not to confuse these two very
different issues. Local gross receipts classification and state sales and use taxation are two commercial
frameworks that are distinctly different and should be recognized as such. We trust you agree also.
PO Box 1564 · Fifth & Market Streets · Charlottesville, Virginia. 22902 . 434.295.3141 · Fax 434.295.3144
- 2 -
The gross receipts tax inequity is further compounded by the patchwork of local BPOL tax schedules.
Albemarle County's BPOL tax schedule is at the high end of Virginia's tax scale. Many business-friendly
localities have significantly less BPOL taxes. Some have none. If Albemarle County wishes to compete as a
locality where cornerstone, information age, consumer-driven businesses can be sustained, it must act
affirmatively. Not to do so is a very negative message to send to these types of Albemarle-based enterprises.
Our "Chamber Jobs Report," in 2004 and again last year, revealed significant data concerning the
nature of jobs within our communities. Our communities have seen overall job growth; much to do with the
good fortune of having the enormous economic enterprise that is the University of Virginia. Our region has
also witnessed significant job growth in both local and federal government. However, career-ladder private
enterprise job opportunities are not as diverse as today's and tomorrow's economies require. Together we face
a continuing challenge to sustain and enhance our community's economic vitality and quality of life in the face
of continuing economic challenges. Home-grown businesses like Crutchfield are essential to that vitality.
We appreciate your responsiveness and look forward to your favorable action upon the request.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
~
~~
Timothy Hulbert
President
The Honorable Dennis Rooker
Chairman of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
cc: The Honorable Robert Tucker, Albemarle County Executive
The Honorable Members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
The Chamber Board of Directors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA 00-009 North Pointe Update
SP 02-72 Residential Uses at North Pointe
AGENDA DATE:
May 10, 2006
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST:
Public Hearing
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Cilimberg,
Echols
REVIEWED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REQUEST:
The North Pointe rezoning request is a request to rezone 269.4 acres from RA Rural Areas to PD-MC with special use to
allow a mixture of commercial and residential uses. The property is located in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District (EC).
A maximum of 893 residential units is proposed with special use permit SP 2002-72. Approximately 540,000 square feet of
retail use is proposed, along with approximately 135,000 square feet of office and 217,000 square feet of other non-
residential uses. Two hotels containing a total of 250 rooms are also proposed.
Approximately 180 acres are devoted to residential uses which is approximately two-thirds of the area of the site. Density
in the areas devoted to residential use is 5 units per acre. Over the entire site, density is approximately 3 units per acre
(gross). The development includes Tax Map 32 Parcels 20, 20a, 20a1, 20a2, 20a3, 22h 22k, 23, 23a, 23b, 23c, 23d, 23e,
23 f, 23g, 23h, 23j and 29i is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District north of Proffit Road, east of Route 29 North, west
of Pritchett Lane and south of the north fork of the Rivanna River. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
Regional Service, Office Service, Urban Density (6 - 34 dwelling units per acre) and Neighborhood Density (3 - 6 dwelling
units per acre) in the Hollymead Community.
Uses of surrounding properties are residential (low density single family detached and a mobile home park), commercial
(84 Lumber), a church, and medical office (Martha Jefferson Outpatient Facility).
BACKGROUND:
The North Pointe rezoning was submitted to the County in August 2000. After receiving the first set of comments, the
applicant indefinitely deferred the project until a traffic study was submitted in the summer of 2002. At the request of the
applicant, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project in late 2002. The Commission unanimously
recommended disapproval and the applicant asked the Board of Supervisors for a worksession to talk through the next
steps. The Board of Supervisors held a worksession and advised the applicant to go back to the Planning Commission to
work through the details of the project. The applicant went to the Planning Commission for a short series of work sessions
in the summer of 2003 and, in the fall, asked the Commission to make a decision. The Commission held a public hearing
and the applicant requested several deferrals before asking the Planning Commission for action in November 2003. The
Planning Commission again recommended disapproval and the applicant again asked the Board of Supervisors for a
worksession to talk through the next steps.
Throughout most of 2004, the Board and a smaller subcommittee appointed by the Board worked with the applicant to try
to find resolution to some outstanding design issues identified by both the staff and the Planning Commission. The Board
reviewed the project several times in 2004 and made its last review on November 10,2004 during a worksession. At that
time, staff and the applicant were at an impasse on whether the project's impacts were adequately addressed and
appropriate. Staff recommended that the Board act on the project rather than continue to ask the staff and applicant to find
mutually agreeable resolution to the outstanding issues. The Board agreed with staff and advised the applicant to bring the
project back when the applicant's proffers were ready for a public hearing and action by the Board. Final proffers and a
final application plan were provided over a year later, in December 2005.
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA 00-009 North Pointe Update
SP 02-72 Residential Uses at North Pointe
May 10, 2006
Page 2
On the request of the applicant, the Board of Supervisors held two worksessions in 2006 to discuss outstanding issues
related to the proffers and the plan. These worksessions were held on January 4 and February 8. No conclusions were
reached at either of these worksessions and the applicant resubmitted a final plan and final proffers on April 14, 2006. (See
Attachment A for the application plan and Attachment B for the proffers.) The applicant has requested a public hearing and
decision on May 10, 2006.
A special use permit application for 893 residential units was submitted with the rezoning. Staff has recommended special
use permit conditions. The applicant has taken exception to a few of the staffs recommendations. Attachment C contains
staff recommended conditions. The applicant's concerns and issues are identified in the staff report below for the Board's
information and review.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
3.3 Develop and implement policies that address the county's growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance the
factors that contribute to the quality of life in the county.
DISCUSSION:
This rezoning has been in the process of review for approximately six years. Significant time has passed between
worksessions of the Board of Supervisors after the Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning in late fall of
2003. As part of the standard review and analysis, staff assessed the rezoning for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan
and adequate mitigation of impacts of the commercial and residential uses on streets, schools, utilities, environmental
resources, and service provision. Additionally, staff reviewed the rate of growth and trends and needs of the community for
additional residential and non-residential space.
Since the request was initially submitted in some of the problems have been addressed and others have not. The most
substantial change to the proposal occurred between 2005 and 2006 when the applicant dropped from the proffers the
proposal for a Community Development Authority as a way to finance many of the costs of the development at a lower-
than-market interest rate. Staff believes that this change was positive as was the additional cash proffer of $100,000 for
the development's share of a regional transportation study.
Below is a description of the major problems which are still present with the proposal. A list of proffer changes and staff's
response to the appropriateness of those changes follows the list of major problems.
1. Southbound Route 29 improvements still do not have a calendar date for completion - The development as
proposed will have three entrances on Route 29 North. In order to construct those entrances, an additional lane
will be needed on both the north and southbound lanes. Improvements needed in the southbound lane include
turns and tapers for street entrances as well as correcting a vertical curve in the street. Staff has repeatedly
requested that these improvements take place by a specific a calendar date. The proffers, as written, would result
in construction of a varying number of lanes with no date for completion of improvements. The applicant has not
been willing to commit to a completion date for these improvements. Without a calendar date, staff believes the
project could generate a demand for the County to complete these improvements before the developer would be
required. Additionally, staff believes the reluctance of the applicant to proffer a completion date for these
improvements indicates a lack of confidence that there is a market demand for more than 290,000 square feet of
commercial space in North Pointe. That is consistent with staff's concern about possible stale zoning.
2. Intersection of Rt. 29 and Proffit will likely fail if the middle entrance to the project is not constructed prior
to construction of 290,000 square feet of commercial space - Between the 2004 proffers and proffers
submitted at the end of 2005, the applicant made changes to the timing for construction of the Middle Entrance
from Rt. 29 to North Point Blvd. The changes reflect the applicant's desire to not construct the middle entrance
until 290,000 square feet of commercial space has been constructed if Northwest Passage is built first. This
change was not modeled in the traffic study. County Engineering believes that using Leake Road and Northwest
Passage as the sole streets to support 290,000 square feet of commercial area will likely cause the intersection of
Rt. 29 and Proffit Road to fail because Leake Road and Northwest Passage cannot handle the amount of traffic
generated by 290,000 square feet of commercial use. Staff suspects that future complaints could put pressure on
the County to resolve this problem for the applicant.
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA 00-009 North Pointe Update
SP 02-72 Residential Uses at North Pointe
May 10, 2006
Page 3
2. The commitment to construct residential units is too low relative to commercial development - Demand for
residential units, especially affordable residential units, is fairly large relative to supply in Albemarle, yet the
developer's emphasis is on commercial development. This is of concern to staff because staff expects that a
large commercial component will be constructed, and then the residential units will lag along with provision of
infrastructure to serve those residential units. To help mitigate this concern, staff has suggested that commercial
square footage be limited to 290,000 until at least 224 units have been constructed. This number is 25% of the
total number of units proposed. The applicant is not willing to commit to more than 138 units prior to permits for
more than 290,000 square feet of commercial area.
At the last worksession, several Board members expressed interest in a much stronger commitment to completion
of the residential component and to assuring the residential units were being completed concurrently with the
commercial development. Old Trail Village was mentioned in the meeting and, if used, would translate as follows:
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the one hundredth (looth) dwel/ing unit
within the Property, the aggregate building permits for commercial space within the Property sha/I
not exceed one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the two hundred fiftieth (250th) dwe/ling unit within the Property, the aggregate
building permits for commercial space within the Property shall not exceed two hundred
thousand (200,000) square feet. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the four
hundredth (400th) dwelling unit within the Property, the aggregate retail space within the
Property shal/ not exceed two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) square feet. Prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the five hundred ninety fifth (595th) dwe/ling unit with
the Property, the aggregate building permits for commercial space within the Property sha/I not
exceed three hundred fifty six thousand (356,000) square feet.
Putting this in a table form, the paragraph says:
Residential
C.O.s
100
250
400
595
%Residential
Complete
11 %
28%
36%
67% (2/3)
Commercial Allowed (square
feet)
100,000
200,000
250,000
356,000
% Commercial
allowed
19%
37%
47%
67% (2/3)
In this scenario, the commercial development starts much quicker than the residential, but by the time the project
is 2/3 complete, residential and commercial completion ratios are equal. This does not restrict the office space.
Staff offers this arrangement as an alternative to the recommended special use permit conditions which limit
commercial use to 290,000 square feet until more than 25% of the residential certificates of occupancy have been
issued.
3. Affordable housing does not meet County policy and VHDA limits have been increased to allow for units
priced at $293,900 to qualify as "workforce housing" --- The County adopted an affordable housing policy in
2004 and since that time, almost all legislatively approved residential developments have provided 15% affordable
units or an equivalent. While this project was originally designed and submitted before the policy was adopted, the
project has now been under review for over five years. During the last year, two major rezonings have occurred
approving 775 units and 2200 units, respectively. Each of these rezonings provided at least 15% affordable
housing or an equivalent. Staff believes this project should not be treated any differently. The current proffer is for
8.9% affordable units - half for sale, half for rent; and $300,000 to the County for housing projects. The 40 single-
family for-sale units in a single-family detached product would be for "workforce housing.
At the last worksession, the Board of Supervisors discussed whether to allow "workforce housing" to qualify as
"affordable housing" to meet the County's policy. "Workforce housing" is more expensive than the County's
definition of "affordable housing" would allow. Under definitions used today, affordable for-purchase housing
would be housing of less than $238,000. For "workforce housing", the applicant is using the Virginia Housing
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA 00-009 North Pointe Update
SP 02-72 Residential Uses at North Pointe
May 10, 2006
Page 4
Development Authority (VHDA) mortgage lending limits for first-time homebuyers. In this market, VHDA will
finance housing up to $293,900, which is well in excess of what the County considers "affordable". Staff does not
know whether the Board would agree to accept "workforce housing" in lieu of "affordable housing" for the single-
family detached units. If the Board is agreeable to this concept, however, staff believes that the proffer for
workforce housing be changed to allow for only 80% of the VHDA maximum mortgage for first time homebuyers
for single-family detached housing, rather than 100%. This figure would equate to roughly $ 238,000. For attached
housing or condominiums, staff recommends that the figure be changed to 60% of the VHDA maximum mortgage
which translates into a $176,000 unit. The Housing Director believes that the lower figures are more appropriate to
needs in the County.
4. The applicant has not committed to construct emergency access points to a minimum public road
standard until Pritchett Lane is upzoned - When North Pointe originally was proposed, staff asked for street
connections to Pritchett Lane. The applicant declined, stating that commitments had been made to the Proffit
community that no connections would take place from the North Pointe property to Pritchett. Citing the need for
access that didn't require driving to Leake Road or Route 29, County staff asked for public road access to be
provided from the development to Pritchett Lane early in the rezoning process. The Board of Supervisors affirmed
the staff's recommendation for the need for future public access; however, they asked that the access be
"emergency access" only with the potential to upgrade the roads to public roads in the future, should the need for
public road access exist.
Staff has recommended special use permit conditions for the applicant to dedicate right-of-way, grade out the
accessway for a future public street to minimum VDOT design and construction standards, and build the
accessway for emergency access. The applicant has declined to grade out the accessway for a future public
street or complete a public street, until the land across Pritchett Lane is upzoned. Since the land across Pritchett
Lane is in the Rural Areas and is not under consideration for inclusion in the Development Areas with the Places
29 project, staff does not believe the applicant will actually grade the accessway out for a future public street within
five years and, as such, staff cannot support the applicant's proposal. Staff is recommending that the rights-of-
way be graded and prepared for a future public street for the County to open if a true public road connection is
desired or warranted in the future, without a condition for upzoning.
5. Overlot grading proposals will result in drainage problems on residential lots and poor lot-to-Iot
relationships - Because of the steep topography in most of the residential areas on the site, staff asked for a
commitment to an overlot grading plan for the residential uses. The applicant agreed in principle, but the applicant
and staff disagree on the details. The applicant wants to use a non-conventional contour interval for the overlot
grading plans (2 Y:z feet) instead of a conventional 2 feet used by all other applicants. The applicant believes that
drainage should be possible across 5 lots before putting it into a channel, rather than 3 lots as recommended by
staff. Finally, the applicant does not wish to have any requirements for flat areas around houses and basements
for residents to prevent major drop-offs from back yards. Staff recommends that these restrictions be placed in
the special use permit conditions.
6. Commercial square footage has slow absorption rate and the development areas will be overbuilt with too
much commercial space - Early in project review by the Board of Supervisors, most Supervisors were not
concerned about the possibility of too much commercial area being rezoned relative to potential absorption. Staff
raised this as a concern and the Commission shared the worry of having too much land zoned commercially,
ultimately resulting in stale zoning or vacant shopping centers at other locations in the corridor. Based on studies
provided by the County's Fiscal Impact Planner and also by a consultant for the Places 29 master plan, Staff still
believes the area has an abundant supply of retail space and this project will intensify that oversupply.
Additionally, staff continues to fear that this oversupply of "greenfield" development will constrain the ability to
redevelop underutilized space in the Route 29 corridor. While the Comprehensive Plan does not speak specifically
to "phasing" of development within the designated development areas, it strongly speaks to the need for
redevelopment of underutilized spaces. The Code of Virginia also directs localities to consider in a rezoning the
trends of housing, commercial, and industrial development and the community's need for additional housing and
non-residential development relative to growth. Finally, staff is concerned that North Pointe effectively "stretches"
commercial development over a larger area long before demand dictates the need. That "stretching" potentially
reduces the County's ability to use mass transit to address transportation needs.
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA 00-009 North Pointe Update
SP 02-72 Residential Uses at North Pointe
May 10, 2006
Page 5
7. 25-foot landscape area and double rows of parking in Entrance Corridor have not been modified -- The
County's policy for many years has been that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review rezonings and special
use permits in the Entrance Corridor prior to a rezoning to ensure that the plans will be able to conform with the
County's Design Guidelines in the Entrance Corridor. Although the applicant would not submit plans to the ARB
architectural review, staff asked the ARB to comment on the rezoning plan in 2004. The ARB reviewed the plan
and, among other things, requested that a 25-foot landscape area be provided on the applicant's property between
Route 29 and the parking areas. The ARB also requested that double rows of parking adjacent to the Route 29 be
reduced to a single row of parking in front of the buildings.
The applicant had been responding to the request for the 25-foot landscape area by saying that part of the area
could be accommodated in the Route 29 right-of-way. and part on the applicant's property. The applicant has
proffered that, if the right-of-way. is ever needed by VDOT or the landscaping removed, the 25-foot landscape area
would be established entirely on the applicant's property. Legally, the applicant can make this proffer; practically, it
is unworkable. Although the applicant has made the commitment in writing, in actuality, the future removal of
parking and, possibly buildings is very unlikely. Staff does not believe this proffer appropriately addresses the
ARB's request.
8. Proffers are needlessly complex, convoluted, and difficult to comprehend - From the beginning of this
process, the reviewing Planner, Engineer, Zoning Administrator, and County Attorney's office have struggled to
understand the meaning of many of the individual proffers. Many hours of staff time have been devoted to
determining the exact intent of the words and to clearly comprehend the applicant's commitments. To illustrate,
each person reviewing proffer 5.3.5 has a slightly different interpretation of what it requires. Because of the
reviewing staff's difficulty in understanding the proffers, staff believes that neither the Board of Supervisors nor
future staff can clearly or consistently read each proffer and understand its intended meaning.
At present, the proffers are not in a form that is legally acceptable. At a minimum, a minor wording change in
Proffer 3.1 is necessary as well as rewriting of Proffer 5.3.5 described in #8 below and on page 3. The County
Attorney does not believe that action should be taken on the rezoning until those modifications are made. To date,
the reluctance of the applicant to rewrite the proffers in a more simple and direct format has resulted in and will
continue to result in inordinate amounts of staff time devoted to understanding intent and application. Staff does
not recommend approving the proffers as written, and cautions that future reviews of site plans and subdivision
plats will likely require additional staff time and delay reviews as the proffers are applied to the plans.
Since the Board last saw the proffers, several changes have taken place. The changes are described below, as well as
staff's assessment of how well they address impacts or meet expectations previously established by the Board. Where
problems are noted, they are in addition to the list identified above.
1. Proffer 3.2 -- Changes to the maximum square footage allowed for two "big box" buildings. In prior plans, two of
the three big boxes were shown as 88,500 square feet and 72,000 square feet. A third big box was identified as
55,000 square feet. Previous proffers limited the footprints of the two larger buildings to no more than 88,500 and
72,000 square feet, which was in keeping with the expectations of most members of the subcommittee of the
Board and most members of the Board. Current proffers allow for the two largest big boxes to be over 97,000 and
79,000 respectively.
Staff understood that a majority of the Board desired the limitations of 88,500 and 72,000 as footprints for the two
largest buildings. As a result, staff believes that the change would not be acceptable to the Board given previous
concerns for the size of the building footprints and limitations on some previous big box buildings (70,000 square
feet in Albemarle Place).
2. Proffer 4.2 -- Addition of a proffer for biofilters for 20% of the required parking lot landscaping of the commercial
areas.
Staff asked for a greater commitment to erosion and sediment control because of problems experienced at
Hollymead Town Center. The applicant responded by proffering to provide biofilters in 20% of the parking lot
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA 00-009 North Pointe Update
SP 02-72 Residential Uses at North Pointe
May 10, 2006
Page 6
landscaping. Since landscaping is required for 5% of the parking lot, biofilters would be provided in 1 % of the
parking lot. While this proffer is beneficial, it doesn't offer a great deal because biofilters would typically be
required for more than 1 % of the parking lot area.
3. Proffer 4.3 -- Addition of a proffer for "additional appropriate erosion and sediment control measures that exceed
State and Local minimum standards".
Staff believes that this proffer is legitimate and beneficial, but notes there is ambiguity in the ability of the County's
Program Authority to administer erosion and sediment control requirements. The proffer allows the Department of
Conservation and Recreation to review and advise in circumstances of disagreement on the extent erosion and
sediment control measures. Staff would like to be clear that it interprets the proffer to mean that the Department of
Conservation and Recreation advises, but does not make decisions on the extent of the proffer language to
provide additional erosion and sediment control measures that exceed State and Local minimum standards, to the
"maximum extent practicable".
4. Proffer 4.4 -- Addition of a proffer that the applicant will contact the County for a list of areas inside the County that
would be good candidates for off-site mitigation as an exchange for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' permission
to pipe a portion of Flat Branch Creek through the property.
Staff supports this proffer although the offer ultimately may have no effect on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
permits nor cause the Corps to allow for mitigation within Albemarle County. Nonetheless, staff believes it is
advantageous to have the wording in the proffer.
5. Proffer 5.3.1. (a) (1) (iv) -- Addition of a proffer to allow sufficient shoulder width for construction activities for Rt. 29
north between Proffit Road and Northwest Passage.
Although staff appreciates the offer, this proffer simply recognizes a VDOT traffic management technique rather
than makes any commitment to needed future roads.
6. Proffer 5.3.1. (a) (2) (ii) -- Addition of a proffer for $200,000 for future construction of a roundabout at Leake Road
and Proffit Road if VDOT does not require construction of the roundabout as part of North Pointe Blvd.
Staff believes that the need for the roundabout is generated by the development and that it should be constructed
as part of the intersection improvements to Leake and Proffit. At present, the applicant has not provided staff any
basis for determining if $200,000 will actually cover the cost of a roundabout, if or when the Proffit Road
improvements will happen or how the County would administer the proffer. Additionally, staff notes the timeframe
assumes VDOT funds Proffit Road improvements, which remains uncertain. Next, this puts the County, rather
than the applicant, at risk for cost overruns. Finally, if Proffit Road construction does take place within the
required timeframe, staff will have no way of determining how much the roundabout actually cost because it will be
a small part of the entire project rather than a separate project. That would prevent staff from quantifying a
required reimbursement with this proffer. As a result, staff does not believe this proffer is adequate and also
believes it cannot be administered.
7. Proffer 5.3.1. (a) (2) (iv) -- Addition of a proffer for $67,500 for VDOT to construct an additional through-lane
eastbound on Proffit Road in conjunction with the Proffit Road improvements.
Staff does not support accepting this proffer because staff does not know if $67,500 is a reasonable amount to
cover the cost of lane construction. At present, the applicant has not provided staff any basis for determining if
$67,500 will actually cover the cost of the lane, if or when the Proffit Road improvements will happen or how the
County would administer the proffer. Additionally, staff notes the timeframe assumes VDOT funds Proffit Road
improvements, which remains uncertain. Next, this puts the County at risk, rather than the applicant for cost
overruns. Finally, if Proffit Road construction does take place within the required timeframe, staff will have no way
of determining how much the roundabout actually cost because it will be a small part of the entire project rather
than a separate project. That would prevent staff from quantifying a required reimbursement with this proffer. As
a result, staff does not believe this proffer is adequate and also believes it cannot be administered.
AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 00-009 North Pointe Update
SP 02-72 Residential Uses at North Pointe
May 10, 2006
Page 7
8. Proffer 5.3.5 -- Staff believes [but does not know] that this additional proffer is for a contribution of 75% of the total
cost of the southbound improvements plus interest if the County or VDOT decides it wants to make the Rt. 29
southbound lane improvements constructed prior the time the developer is ready to make the improvements.
Staff disagrees in principle with this proffer. Staff has repeatedly asked for a calendar date for construction of the
southbound lane improvements which the applicant has repeatedly declined to do. The offer to pay for only 75%
of the cost plus interest is inconsistent with County policy to require developers to mitigate the impacts of their own
developments. This proffer would require the County to pay the entire cost of the improvements up front. The
applicant would not have to reimburse the County for the 75% portion of the cost until it obtained a building permit
allowing the aggregate commercial, office and hotel gross floor area to exceed 290,000 square feet. Because the
applicant is not required to obtain that building permit, there is no assurance when, if ever, the County would ever
be reimbursed. Thus, the proffer is unacceptable. In addition to a disagreement in principle, staff finds the proffer
to be nearly incomprehensible and impossible to administer.
BUDGET IMPACT:
As presented in the December 2003 Board worksession, the project's fiscal impact analysis showed that North Pointe can
have a net positive fiscal impact when completely built out. The fiscal impact analysis, however, did not take into account
regional transportation needs for Route 29 which, in the past, have not been covered through County expenditures.
Staff notes that, the net positive fiscal impact minus regional transportation needs occurs only at build-out. Staff anticipates
there will be a long period of time in which a negative impact will occur because of the time period to absorb additional
retail square footage. The scenario where the development reaches 290,000 square feet of commercial and then stops
has been repeatedly discussed with the Board. If residential development continues while commercial development
languishes, the fiscal impact of the project can be negative.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
In previous Executive Summaries, most recently the February 8, 2006 Executive Summary, staff has articulated the
reasons why approval of the rezoning is both premature and not recommended. Staff has analyzed the proposal for
conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and finds that the proposal represents a conventional suburban form with a
segregated land use pattern that is not in keeping with the following principles of the Neighborhood Model:
1. Pedestrian orientation - uses are spread out and separated, diminishing the use of sidewalks because of
excessive distances between housing and shopping/employment areas.
2. Neighborhood friendly streets and paths - many streets in the central commercial area are actually parking lot
drives that do not look or act like real streets.
3. Relegated parking - parking surrounds most of the non-residential buildings in the development.
4. Neighborhood Centers - a large commercial center is created; 2-3 walkable smaller centers could be created.
5. Buildings and spaces of human scale - no commitments to the appearance of structures have been made.
Pedestrians must walk through vast expanses of parking lot area to get to buildings.
The proposal does not appropriately mitigate transportation impacts because there is no calendar date for constructing the
middle entrance or constructing a southbound lane within a reasonable period of time. Affordable housing is not provided
in accordance with the County's policy for 15% affordable units and the administration of the proffers for affordable housing
will be problematic.
The proposed rezoning does not reflect trends in growth and the economic needs of the community. Retail space is
proposed in excess of absorption within a reasonable amount of time, which staff believes will result in vacancies
throughout the Route 29 corridor. Zoning property before the use is actually needed will limit the County's ability to cause
the owner to respond appropriately to a changed future condition. The County has recently dealt with this situation in
Gazebo Plaza and Faulkner Construction.
For all of the reasons listed above, staff recommends disapproval of the rezoning and the special use permit for residential
use. If the Board wishes to approve the rezoning and special use permit, staff would encourage the Board to delay action
until the County Attorney is satisfied the proffers are acceptable.
AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 00-009 North Pointe Update
SP 02-72 Residential Uses at North Pointe
May 10, 2006
Page 8
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Application Plan dated April 14. 2006
Attachment B: Proffers dated April 14, 2006
Attachment C: Recommended Special Use Permit Conditions dated May 1,2006
06.069
Q) .b-
~ · E ~u J
~1.(,g
~ E ~t~ii
~ 0 ~ ;'-lel ~
4-J · ~;: ;
~ "', ~~ll a
o ~ 0 ~~~~
Z U.1
IIIII II:!!
!r,
I; . · . ..:
I. I I I II
I' · . . .. H
II .
'uli 1lIIIllllilhllh
! I 'il/\!'iJ iI u,uuuuuuu
~ I
~ P'I-Ilt ,hI I
~ pi IlIll:I!' fii !/!
l'/ IIIII':I JJ'I'II'IIJIHJ
'II 111':11:"" ...
i l/l.lll lilllillllJiiI
~ Uil IIl1lmlmmh
I- II I' II'
J ~ lr , , !! !!
lit It " . .."
I!-:u i:;;iiiji;i;;;i!i~;=i::;i;~;i;!!
II II
'l'li i i I Ii Iii 11111 !If Ii! 1 II Ii! !III 1 'i. ',.
1I111I111111i1l1 iI 11111 1111111
.. 10 <.;
. ';j
] t I
! . II
j ! ~h
if · ; it
h . 1.11
11 · rJ
Ii ! ~Ij
if ! ~ fl
..a! .a I Ai
~ l ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
H
i~J
gJ~
;~:(
I
~Jj1i
;~l~';
Iii;!
l~'"
~'-J
H
l~!
PI
I
.1
Ijl
tfl
i ~! Iii
f it ill
1 11 -. f
t Et lH
I if in
- ..
! I .
11 . J.-
t 1 . 1..1
~ t I. · ";rl
~ .!I. I.. I
... .s ~ 1" I
~f .1 ~ .1"
~l .i!r 1: if
,,1-. i) ~ ~r ~ I
.. J ~I" !-I I
ir) 'iff ] if ~r
iA ~l e- ~A ~l
o .. 5.. .l!
0
=I
=I
!!Y
=I
=10
S;';u ~
~'z \.)
~~ ~ I'
:I: I
a~ \.) 'I
=1<( ~ I'
1);::2 d
~ffi \.) 'I
uti; '" I
w~ >- !I
~f- ~ II
lL ~~ tlil
<{ offi
L ~
d !!!'o
:[:0
z'c. ~
0t ~
>~ a
~
i I I ~ !..'" I I I I III I I I I' 'i" "1 'i"I" II"" Ill'!
h II """",;""",1,1.'1."",'",,,,,,,1' I
. It I . · .
i J!j I 1111111111.11I1I11111.11.IHIIIIIII!!!1l 1,1
".11 !i! l!,,,,,, !1"m;"""H!!,!""" I
I!! ~J "!!!lml!mlllH,~""",,!I,!,n"!
, . ij I ii!!!iiiiiiiiiiiii;iiiii;iiii;iiiiiiii I
!il I ., :j II. 1111 I
~ iii i i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~!~~!~~~~~:,:!!!~~~I
II I'f '\ I
11111I111I1111I11I1 I i1h jlll'flHi' - -
S 'II.................. fill! 1.111' 'lil,'1 I 1111 I I I
~ I "11 IWllh' I' I i I I I' ,11
I IlJIIlllll""'I" l'I!,1 " !lulLi I "'II!I' 1I'IIi 11'1',
III mmmdllllil! Jill!. !IIHililill I! Ii. ili.li. III i ilfl
l:mmmll!!lm ! 1,dl !H!hllhh ~i ". ,I, \, I' II"
~ 1\". '1'" H i H H H ~;: ; ; ~ n ;:; i 100'1" H I" n i ,"';;: ;i ,"';:; I";; ii;:~iii-.i i ~ii.!sii~, i 1"'1=-,I"'-Hi 11" n l'il'~l'ii~i ~ l.jHI"i~:;;:;: I" U 1,' ,. n ;
lei ' "lliill"!iiil!~'~" .. "1."" ." 11'1" ,,'ii hi !!! I." ..1 II . n.l. .. ",,"II ."1 1.1
t II 'I ',',' 'I' ,
~ "!Hlnlllllllnn"IlIlIHI""!!lnl!ii" ,I '{!I ! 1,1 II" ,i I 'II il'''!I!!'lli
'~";'~_'~"'II~"'='l'.tl" _lil.l.t I. ,. I' ~ ., r,. i. I ~ . i , .. '" "
i I II I , " " i " . " Ii " , II " '" " I " " , , I ;. .. " ,llli.,iI,1 "li..illl , ,lljlil.! " .1 ,liuil,l. .liuil,! " II II , . " I
fl. I.. r,. t, "'" t' I'" II I.' .. " f""" s, i... s! ,! . i'" f: . I !.... J' II ~
: 1111
"- ;~: i
., . U~
"~
II
Attachment A
-=~::::.:: =:::= ""~~,~~~ ;I;~:l! ~!!~.li,- :'j:N _Oil,
,':-;:....~~~ ANV.roJ 1Nl/'l'DI'N'/VHlB1S't'3 l'iHl j! E I'll
m=_w_'"::~~ -,~~ "m~~o5 I 'l!l
9.L03.LI1lO/W '"oOf A31IM3131:J4 .31NIOd HUlON. HIUIlUUl i P I b
It:/n/ !if ft;~
I , :lY: [.-Jf!
\)0 ~. ~ ,~, ~
" ~;'__....:,\ ~, 1'-9'
" . III "" - \\~ . ' '\
h. I ~.J>IIIr\ '.~ . \~ ,,'
dIP ir ~:\~~;j(~r, ;t;~:')" 'f6'Y~~I,
~" , . '>, ~'~,.~ ,', ,;X :, vn I ' ' ~ z ,"
" \~o'-#~: ;of' UI ~ <f{
- ",' 'LA:>,':',"';c,:IE:" ,.,," , -' ~.
", '/d '--;'.',-.' ./;:',')-- :",,' ~-- :..; ll. ,;
o~~y /~'~ "r>: -- ~ ~ ~l
\ i,,~-\J~~ ~Y))':r ~',;,~ ' ./ ~ "I
f} r~'? '. n :~ ~~y '. g 'I
/ -",' ,,-CC:''"!'\r J;' &:
""":Y :' --- / '.:.::. : ',! <( I
.~ "- ,/ /) - ! ~
\ ,'~?i1J~: !,"" 0
- :'~J;fja~: ,. r.- ~
~A'tj~":':;: c,
~.~): .~~~\ ,
i:>' :" (;9:~r,;}(,
=:~ ~~ ~:;:,:C'lI:'':'\'J ",
"A~~ . WI \:,'/- '. '
~.//', "i, "" ",::
" ":,:::.:>: -.' "
,:<"': be ~:'
,~, ''i.
.::", "'"
I mli '. Ii &<-:,~~/"~ fA
HiI!
'I i ','I /. /
Iii , '
! ,_.~~! ~
.~S -}'~
,r-- ":\[)> ,.
,<"]A\: :(
., -"
<:' Q '- -~'~
- }~f:-~7-~~\ft ~ \. . .
<A:,',',","" ~, .< ~/:,'::: " ,,'
'~I ,',\1' :~,
~f' .~:~~~""'~~J
~(/" ;r~~ 0
W!f I~ r,?r" :..
~
I"
~II
~:l'
.II,~
~ 'i~
IN
..1.
!1ih
'---
~ il
i, ! Ii
~I ~U ~ !;
"" :1., I 'I
o ~gn I i
~I" I!' i l
~liUiii!
11111'
~ 2'.
~ .. Mia.
~!!
-= i ji i i .
;;, ;,;! 11
~ i n i. i. I
, >:;:
,;:;i!~.,,~, ..:,.,.;P'~~\..
,><<:-., ""<'" ,
.-:::"'. " ", ::,:,i",
:;
S
~ ~'<;\)
>) 'r-'"
:,?'?!S- '
'~" '
"
:,-,\<>:",
.,
0.. ';D:
,E':.
,Q I //
A'-\, :
::",.'
7>:
',. i,..~
":.i,,, !k::o;.
I"l,
%:
:~
~
C:j:
, 9
,~ '
'j- -
- !I.
/ .-,~'"
i~;\4 ,df
ip',/ j
0ltr
u "~~,~
'.",~':'d!.!t/J,
:L""i1"(" "-?.:-.->'"
i\::'~<1 .{;, f,/i(',~
::;;1, ' :PS;
)f' , ~ ~,
0"
: ::N/C
i:-;:~ ;;; ,,': ,"-'"
, k." ,,'/
, ~j~
<1. \\"r'
;;;~.
~1
:,:/
x'~;(\~
I,:
,;/,1
""~:\
~;;)y
/~
(
I "p~.;
"t
~-XlI'(t)'SI.lUl
, ;',P--..
j' ~j,':,',.m
. WIH
~~,:
~,
:;':t ·
~
- .~"'"
..............1...,., "'"~
1lOlE""'_)__~
:~...~~
--""..... .-........-..:-
~.g)(,i2V^~
..__'<II _llOOOd'(]'wl)lj~IlIN
).N>IrffYJ IN::r(D'v't#~ NIillSV3 l~
o!
.
SlOiWlIOW '00 , A31N3I3J~
"m~vro5
.31NIOd Hll:!ON.
,
~~
q
~i
;/
I
; ~
w .
" ~ ~
o ~! ·
~ !~ ~
'-' ~~ ':
.~ ~
~H
n
II
!i
i,
I'
II
! i !
lilt
"
'!
, I-
, l
I
II ~ I
'1 ~I'
I, I
II W
I ~
n ~'
~I!!I
'Iii ~I
_-+.'!8~
,I !~!
n'!l~:iii
, I. !i
. ~ II ~ ~
',.'" ;' ~lli
IJ ~ II W',~
lJ 7 ,i ;' e
I ." .1 .. ~
..19 I' 0:.
II ~ I :>.
lJ.ij~~
III!
" ~In
I ~ e
. ..
'n
@c
'I
I-
\ ,
~~--- Q ,- If!! III!
.il - 8 ~ I. "
. Ii cd
! I ~ ii ~,I
.----Ii ~'. ~l!i ~Ii
, I ~.I 0:
! ) I'"
'I] 8 i!~rh
ll- .1 liill ~
I c
Sl:J3J.IIi~'" '00 r A3IIN3131)fj
<Ulo!:::~=-=: ':::::;: ~~~.~~~~
IOW~ ....^ Tf"W;;u.w",.......... ANVd'()J lN3"'1~W'l Nl:H.1SV3 IV3lf)
_~,~~~'=
"ril'N7i~~o5
.31NIOd HU:lON.
III
l'~ 51
11II1II!IIIIIDlB I w ;
iiilillUIIIIYIlI
IftfttbttntB_ Ii I &; r ~
!l'lllll'll'l'l'ln'~ l I . ~ '0
,II, .1, urn ~ i
t!
d
l
"
. 'I ~ I
'.' '. .... . .' .~,J ~ :
II, .........'''''..............................'............'...'.!I!S
~ .. .'. '.. ~ t ~
.' !I I!~.l.." il ~
8 . ~ll <> I r-':' ~)>-..] Iii ~
! -. ':1-'.--- - "ll "I ~
I .. I ~ II PrF\i1 1,1 IIi 15
,. iii b.I.6.W I z
~. ~;. ~~
crrn
I' II
I' .
.1 I
I.
il ~ ~
,) 0 l
~ ~! ~
!I ~I~
I' -'19
,I ~
I; j!;
II'
'irC'1
\jc
\
!I wl'~,
I' "
,: :Ji
I""
II <11(",
'I! ~ ~
I III 0
!I I ~
1'1<'
.1 0 ~
,. z ~
li(~ ~
!II!
'il
I
@~
I! I!~
jl l!l"
Ii ill 1
I ~Il~,
~ ft ~
~ I' W ~
I!!jll ~ ~Iil~
iJ"I: ~ 0,
- I; 2f.
- . ~
'I I (i]~)
I,
,I
I! 11
i! ~ i
II l:!
Ii ~ I
I, In ~
!l ~ p
!i ~ I
I' z S
I! fO:
'i ~ c
_lUelloe>l_
""""...elKYl_~
- -~~~
'.~'Z:ro<W......:NllQ"
--"".....~~
SJ.03.lJHotIV "00 r A3fM313l)jJ
~ i \"'1'\
I}'.n \ ':,
1( lfJ :::,
/g~ !;~
<(:::. , ' :
>"1:/~: '
ftj ~.,: J':
_~1_
fJ.
J
w
~ \\
~ ~
~ ~
i'l
u. "
o .
..J
;;: .
I-
W
o
"'1':
w
~
~
f--
Z
W
j; 'I
a:: .
o
z
u. "
o .
..J
;;: .
I;j
o
~.'ilJIla:Yf\nWnllO~
---- ~lI08'Od'Olo'Otl~IIII~
mv.roa IN't'<3O\'>M'l""3lSV3 l~ ~ :a ~ !3
"m~vrc5:5 I ~ ~ ~
.31NIOd HUlON.
w
().
~ ;<
a:: -
!z ~
w "
..J II
8 .
g i
ill ~ ~
jj ,! ~
/, ~
II :>
,,0
',III
Ii ~
!I ~
j', :z:
, l-
I' :!i.
II z
I
i 2
i!: "/
a -
Ul
u. "
o
..J .
;;: 0
I-
W
o
- 1':
(
'I
I,
1O-1O::l-"""'___..,,-.._~
llWol::t==-=t :==~ ~~~.~~~
.'~"~~ ANVo:ftX)1N~~t-.I:BlSV31V3b'D
-~.......,~~
"ATI~Wo5
.31NIOd HUlON.
I~I~
;(
Uflll~lIl1i1l1B ! !' ~ IU i
UIIII~1I111ll1ll
amiHfiiiii P p : ~
S.L:>3.JJ1OIW '"00 i' A3JNJ3J3J)D
;i "~
Iii ~,
0"-1
!z ~l
w
~ II
"-0
;;'0: 8
::<:n. _
~
::<:- ,
1-0
a:< .
00
Za:
~ ~!
~ ~!
I- ~l
~ :d
~~ :1
::<:~ -
::<:- ,
1-0
::>< .
00
"'a:
.
I
r
I
I
I
!
_.....;.:~~ --;"<I'<O'JiN~~~~ ioi~ BlUllbmdilllll'~ Cl~
~~_w_. 'AlIN~vro5 ifi:!!i!i~ !!!!m!!!!!!l,. ,~
SJ.03.lJHOIIV"oO 'A35\IJ3131)D .31NIOd HUlON. l!5 Ii HlllllEllll!llilh i~ is
I '. '!::!NlJl((// il!
. I ceo, IS' I ~ "I I' mlt li!III~1 ,,\j,O I ,'" -.,;. _ ' .'i .,"
I h',! ", Ii j'l 'j.,.,,~ );::.-,~~\. "
.. ,,~, l~l '. !I' !ll'!'ii/l! ^J,:~J jb" - ~ ~I..\\-<Q " ...V'.'
~ .. ,., .... II' '1" tic.,,,.. , y-;; .- ---.__.J '~. .
! II I . , -".:!b:~ " ~I,':, 0:. \~'C,'.;". .
1! 11 I~!; I! llmt ...l# ~~<.'~/!{a\ -':w;' :" ., , .,
~ !l~ !l~ I '/ II II~' ~ ~ .....0.<;/ ' In' ] f ' . t "
t'l! ! il,llll PI! ~ \\! , ~~ ~.;;,~~;;(., "~']' f.. uD ! { .,
.1 Iii .lIl fl -Ill!,' ~:'v.~. p:;;; " " .
lJI l'l"llIl"lll~' If" 1--- (~p" j~ 'J1... . " _
, II Jl I I 'I': ~.., u' :)'-01'.<,- -'n"-- .::;, "
I I I I}, ~~ _
---=-() 1.--':=>,/, -'="':\i, ;...0"1' , ==
o' ..:"'l~-:~. ."",",",
nse. i i ~l I ."',Y ~ --::/ .,:. ~
g, ....., · il ... · . . ~Zfi11i1'
~ HHj. I Jj I' \J~fgfi'"
~! I:'l! ,:11.' ~.i' ili'f.;:' .
i ( (-,i\! 1 il o' , "'~~6 'il . ,
i.. ~ IIhm I flU ~. 9 . '~1 />~ .
~~ ;.-':",;,< :,
Iii III { ~-..:-:=~~;'-. :"::--~:-\~~~":':'.~.,
jIj 1 I . j g, -:. \,\l\~\)\,:') . _
~ 111ft HI d f . .. .... \t ;<\\~~ ,.,
I mo_ .. '.- " <:':::-;j;:~ Z/.: -' , ; ....
i li- .... ':1 ;.,:,<' "
~~! ,.H """""",,,,""~ .
" ~ ~ J .3". ,0. ; :',
~ il ~ ; IU ~I~ k.(JJ'" :"
.~ e~~;. ~;. iii!;~ ~"a '.' _' - .._--' - .
~, ;l.~ > !:~i~" d5 i /i/ . .
~ 'H."! '..o~n ~/il<f}'"
i !li;rn'~"I~?
LJr~\~. ('.:.;.~
1<' }.....~
. >i'. "\n' ;;. . '
'j -'~i;.'
I..~<.':"~"'" ". -' .
'>,c:, . z.<..>.~' .' , ~:
X., c!cAI, !~.. F":'
~.~.
~ ';Il"
~!
~!
~i
~
b~
i: ~..j.
\\1,
.~'
o /' '::D~:
. -,=--.
. '...;.
,oL, J
. .ff/ "
; '/,'/i
i ,;;:;~
A~]
':, ;:
: .;oBlr......,':.. ~{
Ii ~.\'.~,.
1:6,.51'. ,I':';.. ....
~hf
{.:.:" i' '. "
c.' '.,~ 'j :"It~ ~.g1/J-
" Gr'",;' '\\I'~'. .c, .'.
i.::: "Uc \. ;~;,' '(j
F;t '. ~ "'iDDIG ..~.
.. ~.~ . )~li~
.:l),~';
.:~' ~7>~
\ .... \"V"'"
:. ,:.;'
".
> : .
..'.).. '
_ '. /Jif!/':~''''
~"".
, ,'''::;
l,
ei
'.'
...' /'i: ~ ,/.
" tV:, ' " ,
t~<(~'~,;f\.,: ·
r~~)l~.~ :.<,
:1""- x i':\-""-=>
ftcl''''T,),''~ .....
I;;, /:: f'/.' ,'f. ;}-i'
i:t', ...~ (:..-'
c'. """"" ";.,. If;"I.
~
~
. '.
\' ., a,..
.. ,:t~
... '9
~)!;~I~. " i'
:j'f I
.,
.
tJ~ 'j1! I 'C'.cc,_,,> '~ ,
1 v !
.- r
! ~ d
i
,'., J
:', :
'.
-,~ ~ 1
9.l03ll1l0liV .00 , A3JNJ3131)/J
uwo:_~~:::.=:. ta,_::;: lliNi~~~'~~~
I~~"'~~ >>Nt.NY.) IN~~ Nb'31SV31VH)
--.,..,~~
/
.(
"
"AliNrwlWo5
.31NIOd HIHON.
U!
.s
~' ---J "I
~...
, -- -r
I \1~-
I 0.:
~ \ ~
;j:ii ~~
~ . I
:!:
u
'] ~.
~i
~:il
~--:o
.-- ~ ~
----=!.---
- lJ5
w
I-
<l:
13
o
(J)
~~
...J
...J
X
I-
W
...J
o
:>
/
I
f
>iJ
I~
-----.-.-.-
I~
~1
-....;;-~
..
""""
~L
I!!", .~
~~'I
~
;1
.~
"
1: ~':-...
~ ~~ ,.,
kL',("" :,0),....~~
. t", "~ ~
~:":-r2i) .' 1]( .
;:,.,.:( f;",:..', ",-
'." ,">' :' :it ,,,.'
h.::
',fif~'T~':- ~; . , "
~';J, ~ .:: ~j;/
J~~d';;) ;'ii" .
~ :/ )6/ S" :.':;4f,"Y
" ../
, '~:' ';'<'.C<'" ;.,1',,::;//
H !
"1 .
~ ;
. I~ i
>- ~".
~ <g ~ i'l ~
o h, ! :
z lI.;t g ! !ii
t3 ~t 3 i i
w..lj , "
_J~~...W~
1'1
, 'r{)~;<.~;
. ~. , . .
B7"'."~.""\ "
-.- 'l ,'f\,,,,
~,""""':'!I.'
',;~( '.
'.1", , ".
c,:> ' "
.'^ ,
',:, '-I' . ..
, --
I
-:::;:;=:.;: ::::::::~ ""~~.::,.~~ II 1.~!!!~;!!!dllll.illi'''J "'-.
,~...~ ~1t.ftX) IN:t'(D~'NW'l1'tffiS\f3 ll/Hl IIIlB G4.
~.oo~w_:...-~~~- '^m~'~o5 ~ H'" !!!!!ll .~
Sl:>3lIH:>>N '0:> , A31M3J3J:M .31NIOd Hll:lON. fiUlIlHHlIlHlll: : ~ . 0
::,~'HJ II. ;JJj
:~Ul;~
'.'.7 \),,0, J,,>~.::--,,{f.I-n~
':Jl jr'~' ~.:- ~~" .1'/E:1
~ir ~':~'T'I\:~~);:, ',Ii<?X;.:':i,: '~':\1:'
1\ ~ ,,__~<<:~ ~ ;, -~_W. ' - 'y'
, - ~ . . '~)/ ".'~) ,:~,' .' ;""-,'!' :~:'
A\ "0. '. ':~ va . ~
~ i '4>: '-~
= -c, \::~~)' ;J4~ ',:.".. >:,-, : , ~
" POd,' ;)\01'''': rt~ "'," ,
p "'Ie ~. I,t""", ,_:~}v ,
<> >:~ ': '. n; t I'll
,2
~!
~i
\ ; Qrf7r1~
~.~~.. ~~~~...
(0,.'0]", ' .
tfe, .......1'1 :~' :?;!rg~:~ ..
?~ -IWt . -- "'--1'
7(2"';;;<\ :~~:" ;/:::
~'/i ' ,:\ .:!~:\:.". ....~ .:
. -: ,,~ .
../-.:;:;'-',.,~
,---;:--,
~
I J~
.~
I '
ie\ .
"'_;:;1,~;
..~..
o ~L
, , ':';"
..".
__'::~::::.;'C
~":-:"-"
,r-::-L
~:: ,
:,",'., , :'
/://,- ,',
//....fJ-'.
/t//;,'
'ii.
"
~/
"i,> "
,. ~
)\-~ ~'
:',',
)
. , ')
.~.~..
..L>':-
"~I .
,--. -, . '" ;" J
'.', \l~'~~
:/" :, .~\\~.:~:.
\.~V' ..",
'irr i1< c
: ;1,DDJ:;:~ ~
,'~ ~!~ !J~";.!i';."(:;~I': ...."....
, ,(/Ju :,..;
",' J '" ::, ';\\\':
" .'/'. .-~-' '\, ~:J':'
, ~~ . - .;' 1'-,.....,
". '.i,,~
. l".....\'v--
,,' " : I':~
,-~ ,~)~~.j< ~~
'.
'c;dJ~::
~ " :. I ~ ,! \ I.,~-
".
,:-/..
.
.'
:, .,'
" -"-;~-
'-',
.'
~'
.~ .
\'
.
"
,
, if,...
, ';(.0
miI
I
I I'
, ~,
"
__ ....: CO-
'~ ~<rjP1.~ I' ,'" '.~
. ...............~ (
) (,) .~
/ 't
~~~
,.,....d'~ -;;;'~jN;.~~~ ~~~ UII!U~!i q~-'~
-~~-~~ iJil~ "ill '-I--
~=_'w_. "'m~vro5 ~ ~ HIH II ~ ':8
SlO3.U/QW"oo., A3J5Vl313J>U .31NIOd HH:lON. __ill aln!!ll!lll!llih! l 10
., M '
,,,,'Wi ~/ '/,;Y J
',l~ / l'I /.' ; fJ!!
I ,:.gp}I,' ~
. Q \, 7-~ \ \i If~'
.",'Jl ...!;;,'~~- u '~~--h:J"0~>~
~\r. . \'f' ::,\,\, *~ <ii!(fj:' [~~~:~:-':I/ ", ~\ :
." ";' :\".., \:'.'.' '.l"~ ---~;,. "'0: ~ 0 sl
\/.::' ,'/' t.~,::jj':,,2.Gt~;JIti.D71f,lrr! t~\1 ~ ~!
~.' ..t,~ .. ,.,,'. :.:::::>'::{>~ UU1H.J. ~ 8 "I
L--'J:t'ij.:. ; (: , 'f.~~';?;:::."" ~:::;, [1K ".. ~ ~rfl' ~ ~~ i
-./~):.....i;fC:'.,:.'...""r'?;:'.'-<:.'..:.\1'.:'."~,:' r\.....' J ?~::.:, F: 'r\,I\;J /)--/>.',: ':!> ~~ II
.!~ /",.u.,.~,:.,U-. '" ,',:=:I,,'i :' ) ~:'\:~ ,H./!!lw.
.0.0.' "".': .' J'""" '" ",// / !,~ OJ [iSu:J'
, ,'Ji ~i!':i: /.!t~!iI\lIl!" '.'11." ..... 1,1 ;i ~ ~
'_ ~.! ~t!'/ ~:. .'. .~. ~'IIIc::s.::.:.< C"). .': :, \0,' '1.t
~'~4~1~~\:~C~'~)'.i:~'~ i,;,~~;; \
~..~~<.:~:~~~}: ,_..~....-~trt./\'~.3~~1~ f(j.;?/.-" . ~~/:<~.
~~."8'\d;~\':\:' >-p:':~, ',\)fii/ /, ~~;OV~/~'~,
;>\~-,//,i . j,~;\'\~:,:':,\'<:'>\\'/o~":::~,-':,~~::\~~,\ ,\', i, , :~~~:(><
'. ......... "';~.'mJ,i~rn):' :'.':~ l~'liilll~.' .:,'>,::
Ii '> F~,~fld~~1 s>
u ..~.,. ~ ~ I' '\, ~~ ~ -1~~"1:' ",' .' Ii -;~:~/
-'. / . _<;;,t f~t>#; T:it,' . :.(~.t:~. I f.g~....;:~..... "i
tGi:.>t:':.:>::.': '5~\~fJ~f:" .~:,:,o;.' .'<~. ",~..t"S
I~'>'!::':'-: ''':~;' 7iI!( i (~,~ -' ,:~~ , : - ('~<:.'-.':'.' ~-:..'l!;' : ..oJ .' ". :.
i:::u' '~'_/-}:!1~.. R..~..r ~(:~--'..~,' >:.'J~./(~J"L.o_~.,-{~i~! ;'~ '7#'1..,
'I ;r..-~ lTi!! ,::~~ i':, !i::..:~. OO>'e,
l\:\ . I~;~h\<::~.'.'.-.".' ""~'.'..., : .">:}::. :-::.... ;: ,:', . '1ft' .....
;(>ygA\I~;~4.<:~~t;~,i ;.. .... ":~...[~~~:t~'
;:'I-/z}I' ://;,1') ,,~,;,::: :, ':' M" ' \:,\
'::_"~;:--~:lll '.~<"~ .' ,", "tL '. nn' '.' "i ;,i"
'(;S~:b'~> i~X~' :'\~.\ 1,: '
, '. .-~ -'"--~ '.:; 't'- / . '\ " "L"
rr1[n~(?,z ...../;'.', . .. I;;U
",~~~.;~~ ~\t( t, n.' /.....m
'-',~fdJ</>""'" 'i(/" r - I {~\
:':~'r >->"/.;;//""tl....... !? Hi
:\'.\'
:; ',-'~
':(
""n N
If
Ii
t
~"'~ i!1
dl
" .
. 3
. .
It
_......ll'nI_
'"ll2._/IoaJ__~
~..................~
,.........._~..."
--.....,-~~
12V;"'SOIio2 y^ nwEUO~
'"___"1iII gzg;l108Ud'Olo'OI:l~1l9i!
ANVoftX) .lNy,DVN'tn NH31SV3 IV'H>
S.L~iWH:M' 'O~ r A3fM3J:iJJ>4
"mN7i~~o5
.31NIOd HUlON.
" a: ~!
l_~,' ~ ~i
, .. 3: ~!
LU M!
....2
~~
3:"-
~~
~~
z<
ca~
Attachment B
PROFFER STATEMENT
NORTH POINTE CHARLOTTESVILLE, LLC
REZONING APPLICATION: #ZMA-2000-009, SP -2002-72
April 14, 2006
With respect to the property described in rezoning application #ZMA-2000-09
and SP-2002-72 (the "ZMA"), CWH Properties Limited Partnership is the fee simple owner and
North Pointe Charlottesville, LLC is the contract purchaser of Tax Map 32, Parcels 20, 20A,
20A1, 20A2, 20A3 and 291 (the "North Pointe Property"), Violet Hill Associates, L.L.C. is the
fee sinlple owner of Tax Map 32, Parcels 23, 23A, 23B, 23C, 23D, 23E, 23F, 23G, 23H and 23J
(the "Violet Hill Property"), Virginia Land Trust is the fee simple owner of Tax Map 32, Parcel
22K (the "Virginia Land Trust Property") and the Estate of Edward R. Jackson is the fee simple
owner of Tax Map 32, Parcel 22H (the "Jackson Estate Property"). The respective parties are
collectively referred to herein as the "Owner", which term shall include any successors in
interest. The North Pointe Property, the Violet Hill Property, the Virginia Land Trust Property
and the Jackson Estate Property are referred to collectively as the "Property".
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Owner
hereby voluntary proffers the conditions listed in this Proffer Statement, which shall be applied
to the North Pointe Property if the ZMA is approved by Albemarle County. These conditions are
proffered as part of the ZMA and it is agreed that: (1) the ZMA itself gives rise to the need for
the conditions, and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested.
This Proffer Statement shall relate to the multi-page application plan entitled
"North Pointe Community", prepared by Keeney & Co., Architects, as revised through Apri114,
2006 and attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Application Plan"), and the Albemarle County Code
in effect as of the date of this Proffer Statement (the "County Code"), The North Pointe
Conununity shall be referred to as the "Project",
I. TIDS SECTION INTENTIONALLY DELETED
II. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR
2,1 Creation of a 25-Foot Buffer alone the Entrance Corridor, Within six (6)
months after the acceptance by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") of the
Road Improvements as defined in Section 5.3 that are along the northbound lanes ofU.S, Route
29, Owner shall plant and thereafter maintain at all times a landscaped buffer, including
hedgerows, along the Entrance Corridor frontage parcels owned by Owner. The buffer will
consist of a minimum 25-foot wide continuous visual landscape area that shall be subject to
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board ("ARB") review and approval (the "Buffer"). In
the event VDOT at any time in the future reduces any portion of the Buffer located on VDOT
property, the Owner shall compensate for such reduction by extending the Buffer on Owner's
property in order to maintain a minimum 25-foot Buffer, even if such compensation shall require
the removal of parking adjacent to such Buffer.
2.2 Appearance of Storm Water Manaeement ("SWM") Facilities. The SWM
facilities visible from the Entrance Corridor identified on the Application Plan (stormwater
management facilities 1,2, and 10) shall be shown on a plan and be subject to ARB review and
approval. SWM I shall be designed such that its shape, placement, and land form (grading)
transition between the adjacent conservation area and the adjacent hard edge of the parking lot
and buildings. The plan for SWM 1 shall be submitted to the ARB with the first ARB
submission for Building 14 or 19, identified on Sheet B to the Application Plan ("Sheet B"),
SWM 2 shall have a more structured appearance than SWM 10 (see below) and shall be designed
such that its shape, placement, and land form (grading) transition between the adjacent
conservation area and the adjacent hard edge of the parking lot and buildings. The plan for
SWM 2 shall be submitted to the ARB with the first ARB submission for any of Buildings 26
through 31. SWM 10 shall be designed such that its shape, placement, and land form (grading)
are integral with the adjacent conservation area. The plan for SWM 10 shall be submitted to the
ARB at the time road plans are submitted to the County and VDOT for Northwest Passage.
III. DENSITIES
3.1 Total Buildout. The total number of dwelling units within the Project shall not
exceed eight hundred ninety-three (893), Subject to Proffer 3.2, the building footprints and gross
floor areas of commercial, office, and other uses, and the building footprints of hotels shall not
exceed those set forth in the Commercial Land Use Breakdown Table on Sheet A to the
Application Plan ("Sheet A").
3.2 Limited Adjustments to the Elements of the Application Plan, The gross tloor
area of the buildings used for commercial, office, other uses, and hotels shown on Sheet A may
be adjusted within a range of up to ten percent (10%), provided that the maximum gross floor
area for each category of uses shown on Sheet A is not exceeded. The footprints of Buildings 6,
14 and 36 as shown on Sheet A can be interchanged, Notwithstanding the terms of this
paragraph 3.2 to the contrary, but subject to the provisions of paragraph 8.1, the County may
authorize Building 21 as shown on Sheet A to be adjusted by more than ten percent (10%).
IV. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND STREAM BED CONSERVATION
4.1 Flood Plain. The area of the 100-year flood plain within the Project shall remain
undisturbed except for road crossings, public utility facilities and their crossings, and pedestrian
and biking trails, and only to the extent such exceptions are permitted by County ordinances and
regulations. Upon the request of the County, Owner shall provide a survey and prepare the
necessary documentation and dedicate the land within such flood plain to the County,
4.2 Stormwater Manaf!ement Plan. The stormwater/best management practices
("BMP") plan for the Project shall be prepared, and all stormwater management facilities for the
Proj eet shall be designed and constructed, to accommodate all current stormwater discharge from
Tax Map Parcel 032AO-02-00-00400 (Northwoods Mobile Home Park Development) and from
the existing developments on the northeast and northwest comers of Proffit Road and U.S. Route
29 specifically the following parcels shown on the current Albemarle County tax maps: tax map
2
32, parcels 38, 38A, 39, and 39A; tax map 32A, parcels 2-1, 2-1A, 2-IAI, 2-IB, 2-IC and 2-1D.
The stormwater management facilities shall mitigate the stormwater quality and quantity
impacts, for the stormwater generated both within the Proj eet and for such existing offsite
conditions as described herein, as though the entire preexisting condition of the drainage area is
an undeveloped wooded site and is being developed to the existing off-site conditions and the
proposed on-site conditions, In addition, biofilters shall comprise a minimum of twenty percent
(20%) of the total required parking lot landscaped areas within the "Commercial Area" of the
Project, as such Commercial Area is delineated on Sheet G of the Application Plan ("Sheet G").
4.3 Erosion and Sediment Control.
(a) The Owner shall, to the "maximum extent practicable", provide such
additional appropriate erosion and sediment control measures that exceed State and Local
minimum standards. If there is a disagreement regarding whether the standard of "maximum
extent practicable" is satisfied, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation will be
provided an opportunity to review and advise on such question.
(b) Post-Construction Stormwater Management: The applicant shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, provide post-construction stormwater BMPs that are designed to
achieve an average annual sediment removal rate of 80% as published by the Center for
Watershed Protection in Article 64 of the The Practice of Watershed Protection (2000 edition),
These will include, but are not limited to, bioretention, bioretention filters and wet retention
basins.
4.4 Stream Buffer and Restoration, Upon the commencement of the applicable
comment period, the Owner shall notify the County and provide the County with a copy of any
application(s) to the Corps and/or DEQ for any stream disturbance, In addition, if necessary,
after first looking on-site for mitigation opportunities available to satisfy the permitting process,
the Owner shall contact the County for a list of off-site opportunities within Albemarle County
for such mitigation.
v. TRANSPORTATION
5.1 Internal Street Construction Standards. Public streets, which in any event
shall include at least Leake Road, North Pointe Boulevard, Northside Drive East and Northwest
Passage, shall be (i) constructed in accord with the illustrative urban design cross sections shown
on Sheet D-l to the Application Plan ("Sheet D-l") and also in accordance with VDOT design
standards pursuant to detailed plans agreed to between Owner and VDOT, and (ii) dedicated for
public use and offered for acceptance into the state highway system. Trees (with a maximum
spacing of fifty (50) feet), landscaping and sidewalks as shown on Sheet D-l shall be installed
and maintained by the Owner in accordance with County or VDOT standards, unless VDOT or
the County agrees in writing to assume this responsibility.
5.2 Timin!! of Completion for Internal Streets. Before issuance of certificates of
occupancy, Owner shall complete that segment of an internal street as shown on Sheet D-l
3
within the Project which serves the building or residence for which a certificate of occupancy is
sought with at least the stone base and all but the final layer of plant-mix asphalt. The final layer
of plant-mix asphalt shall be installed within one (1) year following the issuance of the first
certificate of occupancy for a building or residence served by the affected street segment.
5.3 Road Improvements. Owner shall design and construct all of the road
improvements referenced in Sections 5.3. 1 (a), 5.3.1(b) and 5.3.1(c) below, which are also shown
on Sheet D-l and Sheet E to the Application Plan, entitled "External Road Improvement Plan"
("Sheet E") (collectively, the "Road Improvements"), unless such Road Improvements are first
constructed or bonded by others. Owner shall dedicate to public use any required right-of-way
that it now or hereafter owns in fee simple. For purposes of this paragraph 5.3, the use of the
term "road" as it applies to internal streets shall also have the same meaning as the word "street"
in the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code)
where applicable.
5.3,} Desien and Phasine. All Road Improvements shall be designed and phased as
follows:
Design. The Road Improvements shall be shown on detailed road plans satisfying
VDOT design standards which shall be submitted by the Owner for review and, when
satisfactory, approved by VDOT and the County (except for the Road Improvements to U.S.
Route 29, which shall be subject only to VDOT approval) (hereinafter, the "Approved Road
Plans"). The Approved Road Plans shall show the width and length (except as specified in
Proffer 5.3.1(a)(1)(i) and (iv) and Proffer 5.3. 1 (b)(l)(ii)), location, type of section, and
geometries of all lane improvements as required by VDOT design standards. All of the Road
Improvements shall be constructed in compliance with the Approved Road Plans. The Road
Improvements to U.S. Route 29 shall be based on the then-current VDOT design speed and
cross-slope requirements, Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph to the contrary, in
the event that the internal residential street designs as shown on Sheet D-1 are not accepted by
VDOT, the Owner shall submit detailed road construction plans for such streets to the County for
review and, when satisfactory, approval.
Phasing. The Road Improvements shall be constructed and completed in three
phases as set forth below:
(a) Phase I Road Improvements. Prior to approval of the first subdivision
plat or site plan within the Project, Owner shall obtain all associated permits and post all
associated bonds required for the construction of the following (collectively, the "Phase I Road
Improvements"):
(1) Middle Entrance on U.S. Route 29 (Northside Drive - SR 1570):
(i) U.S. Route 29 Southbound - construction of a continuous
12 foot wide through lane (with shoulders or guard rail as may be required by VDOT) from the
entrance 1,000 feet north and 1,000 feet south by 12 feet wide.
4
(ii) u.s. Route 29 Southbound - construction of dual left turn
lanes with taper.
lane with taper.
(iii) U.S, Route 29 Southbound - construction of a right turn
(iv) U.S, Route 29 Northbound - construction of a continuous
12 foot wide through lane (with shoulders or guard rail as may be required by VDOT) extending
from Proffit (Airport) Road (Route 649) to the Northwest Passage entrance. The Owner shall
design the additional through lane to provide for sufficient shoulder width that would allow for
the future construction of additional lane width to accommodate two-lane traffic northbound and
southbound in the northbound lanes at the time that work on the additional southbound lane is
being constructed pursuant to section 5.3.1(b)(1),
(v) U.S. Route 29 Northbound - construction of right hand turn
lanes at both the Middle and Southennnost entrances, the geometries of which will be subj ect to
VDOT approval.
with taper.
(vi) U.S, Route 29 Northbound - construction of left turn lane
(vii) SR 1570 Eastbound - construction of or restriping of lanes
to result in separate left, through and right turn movements.
(viii) Entrance road Westbound - installation of a traffic signal
with 8 phase timing, video detection and associated intersection improvements on U.S, Route 29.
the crossover.
(ix) Existing crossover at Cypress Drive ~ construction to close
(x) Frontage road from Cypress Drive to SR 1570 _
construction of a public street to serve properties currently accessing U.S. Route 29 through
Cypress Drive,
Road:
(2) Northside Drive, North Pointe Boulevard. Leake Road and Proffit
(i) Leake Road and North Pointe Boulevard, in accordance
with the design cross-sections shown on Sheet D-l. from Proffit Road to either Northside Drive
or, if Northside Drive has not yet been constructed to the roundabout at North Pointe Boulevard,
North Pointe Boulevard shall be extended to Northwest Passage. The Owner shall provide a fifty
(50) foot public right-of-way along Leake Road and shall construct a two-lane public street to be
accepted by VDOT and as much of the other improvements shown on the cross-sections as
possible within the available right-of-way as reasonably determined by the County Engineer.
5
(ii) Within the existing VDOT right-of-way, the roundabout at
the intersection of Leake Road and Proffit Road shown on Sheet B and the additional westbound
right turn lane on Proffit Road from Leake Road to U.S. Route 29, as shown on Sheet E to the
Application Plan entitled "External Road Improvement Plan" ("Sheet E"); provided, however,
that if existing right-of-way is not sufficient for the construction of the roundabout, Owner shall
petition the County to pursue obtaining the necessary right-of-way. If such additional right-of-
way is not obtained, the intersection will otherwise be designed and constructed as approved by
VDOT and the County, and prior to the approval of the first subdivision plat or site plan within
the Project, the Owner shall cause to be contributed to the County of Albemarle Two Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($200,000) cash for the future construction of the roundabout. In the event the
actual cost of such construction is less than Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000), all
excess funds shall be returned to the Owner within twelve (12) months after the completion of
such construction. In the event the actual cost of such construction is more than Two Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($200,000) the Owner shall have no additional obligation. Subject to matters
of force majeure, if construction of the roundabout or any portion of a road improvement project
of which the roundabout is a part has not commenced within seven (7) years after the date the
funds were contributed to the County, all unexpended funds shall be refunded to the Owner.
(iii) Northside Drive between U.S. Route 29 and North Pointe
Boulevard as shown on Sheet D-1, or, alternatively, if North Pointe Boulevard has been
constructed to Northwest Passage pursuant to Section 5.3. 1 (a)(2)(i), and Northside Drive
between U.S, Route 29 and North Pointe Boulevard has not been constructed, Northwest Passage
from North Pointe Boulevard to U.S. Route 29 as shown on Sheet D-1.
(iv) If not previously constructed, bonded, or necessary for site
plan approval for any development of the southeast comer of U.S. Route 29 and Proffit Road,
and if right-of-way is made available at no cost to Owner, Owner shall either construct an
additional through lane eastbound on Proffit Road from U.S. Route 29 to the roundabout at the
intersection of Leake Road and Proffit Road, or Owner shall cause to be contributed to the
County of Albemarle Sixty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($67,500) cash for the future
construction of such additional through lane, which would be constructed by VDOT, In the
event the Owner makes a cash contribution as provided herein, and the cash contribution is not
expended for the stated pwposes by December 31, 2012, all unexpended funds shall be refunded
to the Owner.
If North Pointe Boulevard has been extended to Northwest Passage, and
Northwest Passage has been constructed to U.S. Route 29, Owner shall not be required to
construct the Road Improvements set forth in Section 5.3.1(a)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), (vi), (vii), (viii),
(ix), and (x) until such time as Owner constructs a signalized intersection at the Middle Entrance.
The Owner's obligation to construct the Road Improvements set forth in Section 5.3,l(a)(1)(iv)
and (v) shall at all times remain as Phase I Road Improvements.
Within fifteen (15) months after the issuance of the first building permit for a
building or within the lands subject to the first subdivision plat or site plan within the Project, or
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for such building, whichever is earlier, all of
the Phase I Road Improvements shall be accepted by VDOT for public use or bonded for
6
VDOT's acceptance if such Road hnprovements are a primary highway, or accepted by VDOT
for public use or bonded to the County for VDOT's acceptance if such Road Improvements are
a secondary highway.
(b) Phase II Road Improvements. Prior to approval of the first site plan that
would authorize the aggregate commercial, office and hotel gross floor area as shown on Sheet A
within the Project to exceed two hundred ninety thousand (290,000) square feet, Owner shall
obtain all associated permits and post all associated bonds required for the construction of the
following (collectively, the "Phase II Road Improvements"):
(1) Southenunost Entrance on Route 29:
(i) U.S. Route 29 Southbound - correction of the vertical
curvature in the roadway just north of the entrance.
(ii) U.S. Route 29 Southbound - construction of a continuous
12 foot wide through lane (with shoulders or guard rail as required by VDOT) extending from
the entrance north to match improvements required with the Middle Entrance and south to
Airport Road.
(iii)
lanes with taper at the crossover.
U.S. Route 29 Southbound - construction of dual left turn
(iv) U.S. Route 29 Southbound - construction of right turn lane
with taper to serve northernmost entrance to SR 1515.
with taper into SR 1515.
(v) U.S. Route 29 Northbound - construction of left turn lane
(vi) SR 1515 Eastbound - construction and/or restriping to
provide left turn lane with taper.
(vii) mstallation of a traffic signal with 8 phase timing, video
detection and associated intersection improvements at the intersection with U.S. 29.
entrance to SR 1515.
(viii) Close existing crossover at U.S. Route 29 and southernmost
and U.S. Route 29.
(ix) Proposed Entrance Road between North Pointe Boulevard
Owner shall have the right to reverse the order of Sections 5.3.1 (a) and (b) above
and elect to construct the improvements set forth in (b) prior to those in (a), provided that if such
election is made, the improvements set forth in Sections 5.3.l(a)(1)(iv) and (v) and in 5.3. 1 (a)(2)
shall be included with those in (b); and provided further, that in any event at least one of the
middle or southern entrances shall be constructed.
7
Within fifteen (15) months after the issuance of the first building permit for a building within the
lands subject to the first site plan that would authorize the aggregate commercial, office and hotel
gross floor area as shown on Sheet A within the Project to exceed two hundred ninety thousand
(290,000) square feet, or prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for such building or
premises, whichever is earlier. all of the Phase II Road Improvements shall be accepted by
VDOT for public use or bonded for VDOT's acceptance if such Road hnprovements are a
primary highway, or accepted by VDOT for public use or bonded to the County for VDOT's
acceptance if such Road Improvements are a secondary highway.
(c) Phase III Road Improvements, Prior to the earliest of: (i) the approval
of the first subdivision plat or site plan that would authorize the aggregate number of dwelling
units within the Project to exceed five hundred thirty-three (533); (ii) the approval of a
subdivision plat or site plan for any development of either the Virginia Land Trust Property (Tax
Map 32, Parcel 22K) or the Jackson Estate Property (Tax Map 32, Parcel 22H) or any portion
thereof; or (iii) the five (5) year anniversary of the date of issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy for a building or premises within the lands subject to the first subdivision plat or site
plan within the Project or any portion thereof, Owner shall obtain all associated permits and post
all associated bonds required for the construction of the following road improvements to the
extent any such road improvements have not already been completed:
29:
(1) Northernmost Entrance (opposite Lewis & Clark Drive) on Route
with taper.
(i) U,S. Route 29 Southbound - construction of left turn lane
Boulevard.
(ii) Northwest Passage from U.S. Route 29 to North Pointe
(iii) U.S. Route 29 Northbound - construction of a right hand
turn lane, the geometries of which will be subject to VDOT approval.
(iv) If not already constructed, North Pointe Boulevard between
Northside Drive and Northwest Passage.
(v) If the traffic signal to be constructed by others is in place
prior to Owner commencing work on this Northernmost Entrance, and such traffic signal only
includes three legs, Owner shall add the fourth leg to the signal, which shall include additional
mast arms, signal heads and ancillary equipment necessary to support Northwest Passage's use
of the intersection, as determined by VDOT, If such traffic signal is not in place and the
vehicular traffic generated by the Proj ect causes the VDOT signal warrants to be met, and VDOT
requires that a traffic signal be installed as a condition of the entrance permit, Owner shall install
such traffic signal.
8
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Proffer
Statement, within one hundred eighty (180) days after written notice from the COlmty that it
intends to build an elementary school on the School Lot (as "School Lot" is defined in Section
9,1), the Owner shall submit road plans for the construction of Northwest Passage from North
Pointe Boulevard to US. Route 29 to VDOT and to the County for review, and when
satisfactory, approval. Furthermore, within twelve (12) months after issuance of the building
permit for construction of the elementary school, and if not already completed, Owner will
complete (i) Northwest Passage from North Pointe Boulevard to US. Route 29, (ii) the
improvements set forth in Section 5.3.1(c)(1) above, and (iii) North Pointe Boulevard from
Northside Drive East to Northwest Passage. The Owner shall grant the County access to the
School Lot during construction of the school over North Pointe Boulevard and Northwest
Passage as those roads may be under construction.
Within twelve (12) months after the issuance of the first building permit for (i) the
five hundred thirty-fourth (534111) dwelling unit within the Project; or (ii) any development of
either the Virginia Land Trust Property (Tax Map 32, Parcel 22K) or the Jackson Estate Property
(Tax Map 32, Parcel22H) or any portion thereof, depending on which event required the Phase
III road improvements to commence, or prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for
such building or premises, whichever is earlier, all of the Phase ITl road improvements shall be
accepted by VDOT for public use or bonded for VDOT's acceptance if such Road hnprovements
are a primary highway, or accepted by VDOT for public use or bonded to the County for
VDOT's acceptance if such Road hnprovements are a secondary highway.
5.3.2 Upon request by the County, Owner shall make a cash contribution to the County
or VDOT for the cost of a cable or wireless radio system that will link one or more of the signals
between Lewis and Clark Drive and Airport Road; provided, however, that the total cash
contribution shall not exceed thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000). Subject to matters of force
majeure, if the County does not request the funds, or does request the funds but the construction
of the system does not begin by the later of December 31, 2010 or three (3) years after
completion of the Phase ill Road Improvements, said funds shall be refunded to the Owner.
5.3.3 Prior to the approval of plans for improvements at any US. Route 29 intersection,
Owner shall provide VDOT traffic signal network timing plans that VDOT finds acceptably
address the impacts of the proposed traffic signals for peak traffic periods.
5.3.4 Reeional TransDortation Study; Cash Contribution. Upon request by the
County, Owner shall make a cash contribution of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to the
County for the purposes of funding a regional transportation study for the Route 29 corridor,
which includes the South Fork and North Fork of the Rivanna River and the Hollymead Growth
Area of which North Pointe is a part. The contribution shall be made within thirty (30) days
after requested by the County anytime after the rezoning is approved, If the request is not made
within one (1) year after the date of approval of the first final site plan for the first commercial
building within the Project, this proffer shall become null and void, If such cash contribution is
110t expended for the stated purpose within three (3) years from the date the funds were
contributed to the County, all unexpended funds shall be refunded to the Owner.
9
5.3.5 CountyNDOT Construction of Improvements. Notwithstanding the
provisions of paragraph 5.3.1(b) to the contrary, if the Road Improvements referenced in
paragraphs 5.3.1(b)(1)(i) through (viii) (for purposes of this paragraph 5.3.5, the "Route 29
Southbound Improvements") have not been completed within ten (10) years after the date ofthe
issuance of the fIrst certificate of occupancy for the first commercial building within the Project,
and the County or VDOT elects to proceed with constructing the Route 29 Southbound
Improvements at its expense, then prior to the issuance of a building permit that would authorize
the aggregate commercial, office and hotel gross floor area as shown on Sheet A within the
Project to exceed two hundred ninety thousand (290,000) square feet, the Owner shall contribute
cash to the County equal to seventy-five percent (75%) of the total cost of the Route 29
Southbound Improvements, plus interest at a rate of three and one-half percent (3.5%). Interest
shall be calculated from the date that the County completes construction of the Route 29
Southbound Improvements through the date of issuance of a building permit that would
authorize the aggregate commercial, office and hotel gross floor area as shown on Sheet A within
the Project to exceed two hundred ninety thousand (290,000) square feet.
5.3.6 Alternate Schedule for Phase III Road Improvements. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 5.3.1 to the contrary, in the event the first subdivision plat approved for the
Project applies to land located north of Northwest Passage or fronting on Northwest Passage or
an extension thereof, and provided that Owner elects to construct the Road Improvements
referenced in Section 5.3,l(c)(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) prior to when such improvements would be
required pursuant to Section 5.3.1(c), the Owner shall have the right to do so without the
requirements for constructing the Phase I Improvements referenced in Section 5.3,I(a) until a
fInal site plan or subdivision plat is approved for land located within the Project that is south of
Northwest Passage. In such event, the portion of North Pointe Boulevard between Northside
Drive and Northwest Passage shall be constructed as a Phase I Road Improvement.
VI. OPEN SPACE AREAS AND GREENWAY
6.1 Pedestrian Pathwavs. All pedestrian pathways shall be classifIed as shown on
the Pedestrian Pathway Key on Sheet G and, except for the pathways to be constructed by the
County, shall be shown on the subdivision plat or site plan for the underlying or adjacent lands
within the Project. The pathways shall be constructed by Owner as Class A or Class B trails as
identified on Sheet G, and in accordance with the applicable design and construction standards in
the County's Design Standards Manual. Such construction shall be in conjunction with the
improvements for the subdivision or site plan, as the case may be, and bonded with the streets.
The pathway shown on Sheet G along Flat Branch north and south of Northside Drive East shall
not continue through a culvert if a culvert is used for the stream crossing. The pathway intended
for the culvert between Park E and Park F under North Pointe Boulevard shall conform to the
applicable standards in VDOT's "Subdivision Street Guidance" and Owner shall maintain the
pathway if it is not accepted by VDOT for maintenance.
6.2 ~. Upon request by the County, Owner shall dedicate to the County the lake
shown on the Application Plan for public use, provided that such lake will be available for use by
Owner for stonnwater management as described in Sheet C to the Application Plan entitled
"Stormwater Management and Stream Conservation Plan" ("Sheet C"),
10
VII. THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY DELETED
VIII. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES PROFFERS
8.1 Branch Librarv. Upon request by the County, Owner shall dedicate to the
County the fee simple interest in the land shown on Sheet B as a library, consisting of a 15,000
square foot fully graded pad site, with utilities, to accommodate a 12,500 square foot building
footprint, a five foot perimeter strip and up to a 25,000 square foot building, together with a
nonexclusive easement to the adjacent common area for ingress, egress, construction staging and
sufficient County Code required parking, stormwater detention and water quality facilities for
the location of a freestanding Jefferson-Madison Regional Library and such other governmental
uses that are compatible with the proposed surrounding uses, as determined by the County (the
"Library Lot"). Notwithstanding the terms of the prior sentence to the contrary, if the
requirements for the library building require a larger building footprint, the County may
authorize the library building footprint to be larger than as stated in the prior sentence, provided,
however, that the size ofthe area shown as "Park H" on Sheet B ("Park H") and/or the size ofthe
adjacent parking area immediately north of the Library Lot on Sheet B (the "Library Parking
Lot") shall be adjusted accordingly to accommodate such larger building footprint. The Owner
shall not be responsible for any utility tap fees, but Owner shall complete construction of the
Library Parking Lot and other parking areas serving the Library Lot. The Owner shall permit the
County to use the Library Parking Lot and/or, if not already constructed, Park H, for purposes of
construction staging. Within twelve (12) months after written notice from the County that it
intends to begin construction of the library, the Owner shall make the access roads and the area
of the Library Parking Lot available with at least a four inch compacted stone base for use as
access and construction staging. Such street access serving the Library Lot and the Library
Parking Lot shall be completed and available for use 110 later than ten (10) months after issuance
of the building permit for the library, provided, however, that asphalt pavement in areas used for
construction staging by the County shall not be required to be installed until thirty (30) days (or
such longer reasonable time as may be necessary due to weather conditions) after the County has
removed its construction-related materials and equipment. Upon the request of the County, Park
H shall also be dedicated to public use, but the Owner shall not be responsible for maintaining
such park. Owner shall be responsible for maintenance of the Library Parking Lot and other
parking spaces serving the Library Lot and the County shall have no obligation to be a member
of any owner's association, The County's request for dedication of the land for the Library Lot
and Park H shall be made within three (3) years following the latter to occur of (i) issuance of the
first residential building permit within the Project, (ii) Owner's completion of the infrastructure
(including but not limited to streets, water, sewer, electric, gas) required for the use of the
Library Lot, or (iii) December 31, 2010. If a request for such dedication is not made within three
(3) years following the later of these dates, this proffer will be null and void.
8.2 Affordable Housiol!. Owner shall provide a minimum of forty (40) "for-sale"
residential dwelling units as affordable dwelling units, twelve (12) from each of (i) multi-family;
and (ii) "other" (consisting of townhouses, duplexes, attached housing, condominiums in the
commercial areas and other unidentified housing types); and sixteen (16) from single family
detached, each at the sale prices and under the terms and conditions set forth in this Section 8.2,
11
plus a minimum of four (4) Carriage House Units (as Carriage House Units are defined in
Section 8.2(d)). The Owner shall also provide a minimum of forty (40) "for-rent" residential
dwelling units as affordable units under the terms and conditions set forth in this Section 8.2.
The Owner shall convey the responsibility of constructing the affordable units to the subsequent
owners oflots within the Property.
(a) Multi-Family and "Other" For-Sale Affordable Units. For multi-family
and "other" for-sale affordable dwelling units within the Property, such affordable units shall be
affordable to households with incomes less than eighty percent (80%) of the area median family
income (the "Affordable Unit Qualifying Income"), such that the housing costs consisting of
principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowners insurance (pITI) do not exceed thirty
percent (30%) of the Affordable Unit Qualifying Income, provided, however, that in no event
shall the selling price of such affordable units be less than the greater of One Hundred Ninety
Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($190,400) or eighty percent (80%) of the applicable Virginia
Housing Development Authority ("VHDA") maximum mortgage for first-time home buyers at
the beginning of the 90-day identification and qualification period referenced in subparagraph
8.2(f).
(b) Single Family Detached For-Sale Affordable ("Workforce") Units. For
single family detached for-sale affordable units within the Property ("Workforce Units"), such
Workforce Units shall be affordable to households with incomes less than one hundred twenty
percent (120%) of the area median family income (the "Workforce Unit Qualifying Income"),
such that the housing costs consisting of PITI do not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the
Workforce Unit Qualifying Income, provided, however, that in no event shall the selling price of
such Workforce Units be less than the greater of Two Hundred Thirty Eight Thousand Dollars
($238,000) or the applicable VHDA maximum mortgage for first-time home buyers at the
beginning of the 90-day identification and qualification period referenced in subparagraph S.2(f).
(c) For-Rent Affordable Units. For a period of five (5) years following the date
the certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for each for-rent affordable unit, or until the
units are sold as low or moderate cost units qualifying as such under either the Virginia Housing
Development Authority, Farmers Home Administration, or Housing and Urban Development,
Section 8, whichever comes first (the "Affordable Term"), such units shall be rented to
households with incomes less than the Affordable Unit Qualifying Income.
(i) Conveyance of Interest. All deeds conveying any interest in the for-
rent affordable units during the Affordable Term shall contain language reciting that such unit is
subject to the terms of this Section 8.2(c), In addition, all contracts pertaining to a conveyance of
any for-rent affordable unit, or any part thereof, during the Affordable Term, shall contain a
complete and full disclosure of the restrictions and controls established by this Section 8.2(c).
Prior to the conveyance of any interest in any for-rent affordable unit during the Affordable
Term, the then-current owner shall notifY the County in writing of the conveyance and provide
the name, address and telephone number of the potential grantee, and state that the requirements
of this Section 8.2(c)(i) have been satisfied.
12
(ii). Annual Reporting. During the Affordable Term and within ninety
(90) days following the end of each calendar year, the then-current owner shall provide to the
Albemarle County Housing Office a certified annual report of all for-rent affordable units for the
immediately preceding year in a form and substance reasonably acceptable to the County
Housing Office. Subject to all federal, state and local housing laws, and upon reasonable notice
during the Affordable Term, the then-current Owner shall make available to the County at the
then-current Owner's premises, if requested, any reports, copies of rental or lease agreements, or
other data pertaining to rental rates as the County may reasonably require.
(d) Carriage House Units. Carriage House Units shall meet the requirements
for a single family dwelling as defined in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, shall
be on the same parcel as the primary dwelling unit to which it is accessory, and shall not be
subdivided from the primary residence ("Carriage House Units"). The subdivision restriction
shall be included on the plat creating such parcels and be incorporated into each deed conveying
title to such parcels.
( e) Each subdivision plat and site plan for land within the Property which
includes affordable units (which, for this subparagraph 8.2(e) shall include Workforce Units)
shall designate the lots or units, as applicable, that will, subject to the terms and conditions of
this proffer, incorporate affordable units as described herein. The fIrst such subdivision plat or
site plan shall include a minimum of three (3) such affordable units. Thereafter, and until the
total number of affordable dwelling units proffered hereunder shall have been fulfilled, the
Owner shall provide a minimum of three (3) such affordable dwelling units per year, For
purposes of this paragraph 8.2( e), such units shall be deemed to have been provided when the
subsequent owner/builder provides written notice to the County Housing Office or its designee
that the unites) will be available for sale, as required by paragraph 8.2(f) below. In the event that
the Owner provides more than three (3) affordable dwelling units in a single year, the Owner
may "carry over" or "bank" credits for such affordable units, such that the additional affordable
units which exceed the minimum annual requirement may be allocated toward the minimum
number of affordable units required to be provided for any future year. The maximum number
of affordable units that may be carried over or banked shall not exceed twelve (12) per year.
Notwithstanding the terms of this subparagraph 8,2(e) to the contrary, upon the written request of
the Owner, the County may authorize an alternative process and/or schedule for the provision
andlor delivery of such affordable units upon a determination that the request is in general accord
with the purpose and intent of section 8.2 and/or otherwise furthers the goals of providing
affordable housing in the County.
(f) All purchasers of the for-sale affordable units shall be approved by the
Albemarle County Housing OffIce or its designee. The subsequent owner/builder shall provide
the County or its designee a period of ninety (90) days to identify and prequalify an eligible
purchaser for the affordable unit. The ninety (90)-day period shall commence upon written notice
from the then-current owner/builder that the unites) will be available for sale. lfthe County or its
designee does not provide a qualified purchaser who executes a contract of purchase during this
ninety (90)-day period, the then-current ownerlbuilder shall have the right to sell the unites)
without any restriction on sales price or income of the purchaser(s), provided, however, that any
unites) sold without such restriction shall nevertheless be counted toward the number of
13
affordable units required to be provided pursuant to this terms of this paragraph 8.2, The
requirements of this paragraph 8.2 shall apply only to the first sale of each of the affordable
units.
(g) The County shall have the right, from time to time, on reasonable notice
and subject to all applicable privacy laws, to inspect the records of Owner or any successors in
interest for the purposes of assuring compliance with this proffer.
(h) Cash Proffer. Within sixty (60) days following the approval of the fIrst
subdivision or site plan within the Project, Owner shall cause to be contributed three hundred
thousand dollars ($300,000) cash to the County of Albemarle for the Albemarle Housing
Initiative Fund or such other similar fund as may be established or authorized by the County.
The contribution shall be to fund affordable home ownership loan programs within the Project
and other areas of Albemarle County, including those provided by non-profIt housing agencies
such as the Piedmont Housing Alliance, Habitat for Humanity, and the Albemarle Housing
Improvement Program. If such cash contribution is not expended for the stated purpose within
five (5) years from the date the funds were contributed to the County, all unexpended funds shall
be refunded to the Owner.
IX. EDUCATIONAL AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES
9.1 Elementary School Site. Within two hundred seventy (270) days following
request by the County, Owner shall dedicate to the County the land shown on the Application
Plan as "Elementary School 12.85 Acres Schematic Layout", consisting of approximately 12,85
acres (the "School Lot"), Prior to dedication, the School Lot shall be graded and compacted by
Owner to a minimum of 95% compaction as measured by a standard Proctor test with suitable
material for building construction as certifIed by a professional engineer or as othenvise
approved by the County Engineer to establish a fully graded pad site to accommodate an
elementary school. The recreational field improvements shown on the Application Plan shall be
fine graded and have top soil and soil amendments added, and the mains for an underground
irrigation system serving the recreational fields shall be installed. Such improvements shall be
reasonably equivalent to those existing at the recreational fIelds at Baker-Butler Elementary
School, exclusive of any above ground improvements. The pedestrian pathways as shown on the
perimeter of the School Lot on the Application Plan shall be reflected on the subdivision plat
prepared by Owner creating the School Lot and the pathways shall be installed when the site is
graded for the recreation fields. The Owner shall provide all utilities to the School Lot. The
dedication shall include easements across Owner's land for access to and use of Storm Water
Basins 5 and 10 shown on the Application Plan, together with all temporary construction
easements to allow Stormwater Basin IOta be redesigned and enlarged, if necessary, to
accommodate the School Lot stormwater. The School Lot shall be used as an elementary school
site, but if the County determines that the School Lot will not be used as an elementary school
site, it shall be used by the County for a park or recreational purposes serving both the North
Pointe community and the region. If the County does not request by December 31,2010 that the
School Lot be dedicated, the Owner shall be under no further obligation to dedicate the School
Lot for the purpose described herein, but shall, by January 30, 2011, contribute five hundred
thousand dollars ($500,000) cash to the County to be used by the County for projects identi.fied
14
in the County's CIP reasonably related to the needs of the North Pointe community, and in such
event the School Lot may be used for other residential purposes as approved by the County after
request by Owner for an amendment to the Application Plan. After dedication and before the
County uses the School Lot for a school or for park and recreational purposes, and if requested
by the County, Owner shall maintain the School Lot until requested by the County to no longer
do so, subject to the Owner's right to exclusive use of the School Lot for park and recreational
purposes, Such park and recreational purposes shall be only those uses shown on an approved
final site plan or subdivision plat for the area that includes the School Lot. Upon being requested
by the County, Owner shall cease all use and maintenance of the School Lot and remove all
improvements established by Owner that the County requests be removed. The County shall not
be obligated to pay Owner for any improvements established by Owner that the County retains.
The deed of dedication for the School Lot shall provide that if the County accepts title to the
School Lot and then does not construct either a park or a school within twenty (20) years
following the date the Board of Supervisors approves ZMA 2000-009, then upon Owner's
request title to the School Lot shall be transferred to Owner at no expense to Owner,
9,2 Bus StoD Turnoffs. Bus Stop Improvements. and Bus Service.
(a) Owner shall construct ten (10) public bus stop turnoffs as shown OIl the
Application Plan, or otherwise two (2) in the southernmost residential area, four (4) in the
commercial areas and four (4) in the other residential areas, each in a location mutually
acceptable to Owner and the County. The bus stop turnoffs shall be approved with street
construction plans for the Project and bonded and constructed with the streets.
(b) Upon the request by the County, Owner shall contribute the total sum of
twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) cash towards the design and construction of the above
ground bus stop improvements such as benches and shelters meeting standards established by the
County at each bus stop. lfthe County does not request the funds, or requests the funds but does
not construct the bus stop improvements by the later of December 31, 2015 or three (3) years
after completion of the road network that includes the bus stop turnoffs, then subject to matters
of force majeure, the unexpended funds shall, in the discretion of the County, either be returned
to Owner or applied to a project identified in the County's capital improvements program within
or adjacent to the Project that benefits the Project.
(c) Within thirty (30) days after the introduction of public transportation to
the Project, Owner shall contribute twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) cash to the County to
be used for operating expenses related to such service, and shall thereafter annually contribute
Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) cash to the County to be used for operating expenses
related to such service for a period of nine (9) additional years, such that the total funds
contributed to the County pursuant to this subparagraph 9.2(c) shall not exceed Two Hundred
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000), If the introduction of public transportation to the Project
does not commence by the later of ten (10) years after the Board of Supervisors approves ZMA
2000-009, or seven (7) years after the date of the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for
the first commercial building within the Project, this proffer 9.2(c) shall become null and void.
15
X. ACCESS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES
10,1 Dedication ofRie-ht-of-Wav- Extension to Parcel22E. Unless the dedication
of public right-of-way and the construction of such street are required in conjunction with the
approval of a subdivision plat under Albemarle County Code ~ 14-409 and related sections, or
their successors:
Owner shall reserve the fifty (50) foot wide right-of-way located within the area shown
on Sheet B and identified as a "50' RO.W, Reserved for Future Dedication" connecting a right-
of-way from the proposed middle entrance road into North Pointe to the southern property line of
Tax Map 32, Parcel 22E ("TMP 32-22E"). Prior to the issuance of a building permit for
Building 32 as shown on the Application Plan, Owner shall record in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County, a current, irrevocable deed of dedication dedicating to public
use for road pmposes, the area labeled "50' R.O.W. Reserved for Future Dedication." Owner
acknowledges that if it is not part of a subdivision plat approved by the County, such offer of
dedication must be first reviewed and approved by the Board of Supervisors and accepted by the
Board. Such deed of dedication shall include the following conditions: (i) that 'IMP 32-22E
shall have been upzoned; and (ii) that prior to its use for road purposes, there shall have been
constructed on the land so dedicated a road approved by the County and accepted by VDOT for
public use or bonded for VDOT's acceptance. At the time of the construction of the access road
serving Building 32, the Owner shall construct the intersection curb radii or the road serving
'IMP 32-22E and extend construction of such road for at least for a minimum of one hundred
(100) feet from Northside Drive East. The Owner shall also place at the end of such extended
road, a sign, approved by the County, advising and notifying the public that such right-of-way is
the location of a future road extension. Owner shall grant temporary construction easements as
determined necessary by the County Engineer to allow for the road to be extended to TMP 32-
22E, which construction easements shall be on Owner's property and outside of the dedicated
right-of-way, and shall be established by the applicable site plan. No improvements shall be
located within the temporary construction easements until construction of such road has been
completed.
10,2 Access to Tax Map 32A. Section 2. Parcel 4 (current Northwoods Mobile
Home Park Property). Unless the dedication of public right-of-way and the construction of
such street are required in conjunction with the approval of a subdivision plat under Albemarle
County Code ~ 14-409 and related sections, or their successors:
Owner shall reserve an area in the location labeled "50' RO.W. Reserved for Future
Dedication" at the eastern end ofthe main commercial access road from Route 29 on Sheet B for
access to Tax Map 32A, Section 2, Parcel 4 ("'IMP 32A-2-4"). Prior to the issuance of a building
permit for Building 6 or Buildings VI through V6, each as shown on the Application Plan,
whichever is earlier, Owner shall record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, a current, irrevocable deed of dedication dedicating to public use for road purposes, the
area labeled "50' RO.W. Reserved for Future Dedication." Owner acknowledges that ifit is not
part of a subdivision plat approved by the County, such offer of dedication must be first
reviewed and approved by the Board of Supervisors and accepted by the Board. Such deed of
dedication shall include the following conditions: (i) that TMP 32A-2-4 shall have been
16
up zoned; and (ii) that prior to its use for road purposes, there shall have been constructed on the
land so dedicated a road approved by the County and accepted by VDOT for public use or
bonded for VDOT's acceptance. At the time of the construction of the roundabout serving
Building 6 and Buildings VI through V6 the Owner shall construct the intersection curb radii
and extend construction of the road for a distance of at least thirty feet beyond the rOWldabout.
The Owner shall also place at the end of such extended road, a sign, approved by the County,
advising and notifying the public that such right-of-way is the location of a future road extension.
After dedication and before the conditions of the dedication have been satisfied, and if requested
by the County, Owner shall maintain the dedicated land until requested by the County to no
longer do so, subject to the Owner's right to exclusive use of the dedicated land for park,
recreational, andlor greenspace purposes. Upon being requested by the County, Owner shall
cease all use and maintenance of the dedicated land and remove all improvements established by
Owner (if any) that the County requests be removed, Owner shall grant temporary construction
easements as determined necessary by the County Engineer to allow for the road to be extended
to TMP 32A-2-4, which construction easements shall be on Owner's property and outside of the
dedicated right-of-way, and shall be established by the applicable site plan. No improvements
shall be located within the temporary construction easements until construction of such road has
been completed.
XI. SIGNATORY
12.1 Certificate. The undersigned certify that they are the only owners of the Property,
which is the subject ofZMA-2000-09 and SP 2002-72.
12.2 The Owner, These proffers shall run with the Property and each reference to
Owner within these proffers shall include within its meaning, and shall be binding upon,
Owner's successor(s) in interest andlor the developer(s) of the Property or any portion of the
Property,
(Signature Pages Immediately Follow)
17
This Proffer Statement may be signed in counterparts and/or via facsimile with the same
full force and effect as if all signatures were original and on one docwnent.
Signatures of Contract Purchaser and All Owners
Contract Purchaser:
NORTH POINTE CHARLOTTESVILLE, LLC
Date: 1<4 ~l. ;2.v6
/
nt Company,
Manager
~
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
[SEAL]
The undersigned Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid hereby certifies that
Charles Rotgin, Jr., whose name as President of Great Eastern Management Company, Manager
of North Pointe Charlottesville, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, is signed to the
foregoing Proffer Statement bearing the date as of ,2005, acknowledged the same
before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid on behalf of said limited liability company.
Given under my hand this l'7 day of ~rL' I , 2005.
My commission expires: ~().i.( ~J . 2Q':) '7
~~~2
"- 1
N bhc -r-:
&fYV>1~~ ~m:J lo.Jb!rf
18
Date: L/-.'7- 7 ~ [) c,
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST
aJ;;;L/
By: ...Ie - . 'r
its: Trustee
COMMONWEALlH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
The undersigned Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid hereby certifies that
Charles William Hurt, whose name as Trustee of Virginia Land Trust, a Virginia land trust, is
signed to the foregoing Proffer Statement bearing the date as of A-o... ,I '27 . 2006;
acknowledged the same before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid on behalf of ~
Given under my hand this n4- day o~ ;4pv- I ( , 20~
My commission expires: 7.... ["](7.10 ft
[SEAL] ~;!~i
19
Date: L/- '2 7-- (:) ~
VIOLE~~ ASSOC~C. .
By: .q(~.-7 /
ItS: anager
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
The undersigned Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid hereby certifies that
Charles William Hurt whose name as Manager of Violet Hill Associates, L.L.C., a Virginia
limited liability company, is signed to the Proffer Statement bearing the date as of ~
2000, acknowledged the same before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid on behalf of said limited
liability company.
Given under my hand this ~ day of ~ 200S
My commission expires: 9 !;o !o ?
.
~t ~~1
[SEAL] otafY" Public
20
. ..;J
Date: Lj- 2. 7- tJ r;
By:
CWH PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
!?J~TL~~~~~/
its: General Partner
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
The undersigned Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid hereby certifies that
Charles William Hurt, . whose name as General Partner of CWH Properties Limited Partnership, a
Virginia limited partnership, is signed to the foregoing Proffer Statement bearing the. date as of
itr.r'{ :J.. 7 ,200( acknowledged the same before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid on behalf of
said partnership.
Given under my hand this 1E:L day of ~Y-t I , 200'
My commission expires: . c;l:jcJ /0$1
.~ct~
[SEAL] Notary Pu ic
21
TRU.ST
ESTATJ: OF EDWARD R. JACKSON
Date: ~- /- ?.o tJ6
By: Bank of America. E*eel:HBt T(~s.+ee..
By:~e;aJ{j, >1~
its: Viee Presiaeftt
$sla..+-e. Se1tl-em...d:- ~rcee
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
o The undersigned Notary Public in and for the tMP.~di.ction afor~i~ereby certifies -L.
thatL.....\.v...e.... ~.B:'h"whose name as Vie~~ettbrBarutof America, Ex~,,\:lto~fthe ~\vu...~j .
~~r ' R. Jackson, is signed to the foregoing Proffer Statement bearing the date as of
200~ acknowledged the same before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid on behalf of
sai Estate:-T't Ub T
Given under my hand this \.at day of tJ\. ~ , 200"
My commission expires: Da...~ be.v' ~\\~Cl t\~
~ t:2. _
[SEAL] N lie
\\REA\275754.17
1252007v3
1262446v4
22
. . "of ;.~ ;2.\; r:';
;; .. ;.1;.....
:;:i5.. ~~~,PLnf2:~' r~f
BALANCE DUE
~FUR.M 46820 q;.
6670
Attachment C
Draft: 05/01/06
North Pointe PD-MC Residential Use
Special Use Permit Conditions
1. Residential mix. The dwelling units within the Project shall consist of the following
three types: (a) single-family detached, including carriage house units; (b) multi-family;
and ( c) other (consisting of townhouses, duplexes, attached housing, condominiums in
the commercial areas and any other unidentified housing types). The minimum number
of each of the three dwelling unit types shall be 205 of the 893 total permitted dwelling
units.
2. Phasing of residential units. Prior to the issuance by the County of a building permit that
would authorize the construction of more than the first 290,000 square feet (aggregate) of
commercial, office, commercial/office, retail and hotel gross floor area within the Project,
as those uses are identified on the Application Plan entitled "North Pointe Community,"
prepared by Keeney & Co., Architects, as revised through April 14, 2006 (hereinafter, the
"Application Plan"), certificates of occupancy shall be issued by the County to at least
224 dwelling units.
3. Conservation areas. The conservation areas shown on the Application Plan shall remain
undisturbed and shall be protected from development impacts to the satisfaction of the
County's program authority for the Water Protection Ordinance (Chapter 17 of the
Albemarle County Code) (the "Program Authority"); except that the pedestrian paths
shown on the Application Plan may be placed in a conservation area where shown on the
Application Plan. Storm drainage outfalls and other pedestrian paths may only be placed
in conservation areas if the Program Authority finds that no other location is reasonably
available and that the disturbance is necessary for such a proposed use. Notwithstanding
the terms of this Condition 3 to the contrary, the Program Authority may approve a utility
main within a conservation area, even if it is not shown on the Application Plan, and the
Program Authority may approve other disturbances and/or measures as may be
appropriate in the Program Authority's discretion to further protect a conservation area.
4. Conservation areas with utilities. The conservation areas with utilities shown on the
Application Plan shall remain undisturbed and shall be protected from development
impacts to the satisfaction of the Program Authority; except that:
A. The streets and pedestrian paths shown on the Application Plan may be placed in
a conservation area with utilities where shown on the Application Plan. Other
pedestrian paths, other streets, and sanitary sewers, storm drainage outfalls, and/or
stream mitigation measures may only be placed in a conservation area with
utilities if the Program Authority finds that no other location is reasonably
available and the disturbance is necessary for such a proposed use. In any event,
the construction, maintenance and use of the improvements shall have the
minimum environmental impact on the conservation area with utilities necessary
for the improvements to be established and maintained, and the long-term impacts
shall be adequately mitigated. Nothing in this condition shall be construed to
1
Draft: 05/01106
obviate the requirements established for stream buffers under Chapter 17 of the
Albemarle County Code or shall constitute a waiver of such requirements.
B. Erosion and sediment control structures and measures shall be permitted within a
conservation area with utilities solely to address impacts from authorized land
disturbing activity within such area, unless otherwise requested by the Owner and
approved by the Program Authority.
C. The Program Authority may approve other disturbances andlor measures as may
be appropriate in the Program Authority's discretion to further protect a
conservation area with utilities.
5. Open space. The Owner shall restrict from development all open space areas designated
as greenway, buffer areas and park areas shown on the Application Plan. This condition
shall not apply to development parcels, conservation areas, and conservation areas with
utilities shown on the Application Plan.
A. Open space areas not dedicated to public use shall be for the use and enjoyment of
the residents of the Project, subject to the restrictions that may be imposed by any
declaration recorded as part of a conveyance of these areas to a homeowner's
association. Open space areas dedicated to public use shall be for the use and
enjoyment of the public, including the residents of the Project.
B. No structural improvements other than utilities, pedestrian and biking trails, and
common area amenities such as playgrounds, picnic areas, hardscapes, and PAR
exercise equipment shall be established and maintained in the open space areas.
6. Aggregate set aside for open-space related areas. In no event shall the total area of open-
space related areas comprised of the conservation areas (Condition 3), conservation areas
with utilities (Condition 4), open space (Condition 5), greenway (Conditions 5 and 7),
and landscaped buffer areas (Conditions 5 and 8) shown on the Application Plan, be less
than a total of thirty-five percent (35%) of the total land within the Project to be
developed for residential uses, as shown on Sheet G to the Application Plan entitled
"Open Space and Green Way Plan," dated March 6, 2006 ("Sheet G").
7. Rivanna greenway/access. The Owner shall reserve for dedication to public use a
greenway along the boundary of the Project and adjacent to the Rivanna River, between
the flood plain line and a preservation area (hereinafter, the "greenway") as shown on
Sheet G.
A. The Owner may grant such utility easements across the greenway as are required
for a forced main utility and for the proposed uses shown on the Application Plan,
each with the prior written consent of the County. Erosion and sediment control
structures and measures shall be permitted within a greenway solely to address
impacts from authorized land disturbing activity within the greenway, except as
otherwise requested by the Owner and approved by the Program Authority.
2
Draft: 05/01106
B. The Owner shall dedicate to public use the greenway and all pathways shown
through land depicted on Sheet G as "Greenway"; provided, however, that the
property owners within the Project shall have access to and over such pathways at
all times the pathways are open to the public. The greenway and pathways shall
be dedicated either upon the request of the County, or in conjunction with the
platting of the residential lots adjacent to the section of the greenway to be
dedicated. If the greenway and pathways are dedicated by platting, the greenway
and pathways shall be set apart on the plat for public use with a notation that the
greenway and pathways are dedicated for public use. If the County accepts
dedication of the lake referenced in section VI of the Proffer Statement for the
Project (ZMA 2000-009), upon request by the County, the Owner shall dedicate
to public use the access pathway east of the middle entrance and leading to Flat
Branch as shown on Sheet G.
C. Access easements to the Rivanna River shall be provided as shown on the
Application Plan for the benefit and use by property owners within the Project.
D. The Owner shall be responsible for the costs of drafting the deeds of dedication,
having required surveys conducted and plats prepared, and recordation costs.
8. Landscaped buffer between residential areas and rural areas. Before the County issues a
certificate of occupancy for the first dwelling unit constructed on any of the lots shown
on the Application Plan abutting the areas shown on the Application Plan as "Open Space
Buffer (30')" along Pritchett Lane (Lots Al-6, H8-20, L15-34 and N2-5), the Owner shall
establish and thereafter maintain a heavily vegetated buffer in the open space buffer
common areas. The buffer, where one does not already exist, shall be planted in
accordance with a landscaping plan approved by the County. The landscaping plan shall
include the following: (i) an informal mix of screening trees, loosely staggered, fifteen
(15) feet on-center; (ii) the same species of screening trees shall be clustered in groups
and alternate groups of screening trees shall be provided to create a naturalistic rural
landscape; (iii) large and medium shade trees shall be interspersed among the screening
trees; (iv) clusters of ornamental trees shall be provided in groups of3's and 5's; and (v)
tall shrubs shall be massed to help integrate the proposed plantings into a naturalistic
rural landscape. The features described in (i) through (v) herein define a "naturalistic
rural landscape." Approved plant species shall be obtained from the Albemarle County
Recommended Plants List and the buffer design shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Director of the Department of Community Development. The Owner
shall maintain the buffer.
9. Extensions. Unless the dedication of public right-of-way and the construction of such
streets are required in conjunction with the approval of a subdivision plat under
Albemarle County Code S 14-409 and related sections, or their successors, the following
streets shall be constructed and rights-of-way shall be reserved for dedication to public
use as provided herein:
3
Draft: 05/01106
A. Extensions to Pritchett Lane. The Owner shall design and construct as emergency
accessways extensions to Pritchett Lane within the fifty (50) foot wide rights-of-
way located between Lots H-9 and H-IO and Lots L-16 and L-17, respectively, as
shown on the Application Plan, subject to the following:
1. The emergency accessways shall be designed and constructed to a
minimum Virginia Department of Transportation standard for a public
street as determined by the County Engineer in conjunction with the
construction of the streets serving Lots H-7 and L-14, respectively.
2. The fifty (50) foot wide rights-of-way shall be dedicated to public use
upon request by the County, together with all necessary right-of-way for
the fifty (50) foot wide rights-of-way to be geometrically connected to
adjoining streets as approved by the County Engineer.
B. Extension to Tax Map 32, Parcel 23HI. In the event that any ofthe residential
units within the Project adjacent to Tax Map 32, Parcel 23HI are developed under
a site plan, the Owner shall design and construct extensions to Tax Map 32, Parcel
23HI by way of two streets within the fifty (50) foot wide rights-of-way located as
shown on the Application Plan and identified by the notation "R.O.W. Reserved
for Future Dedication," adjacent to the church property identified as Tax Map 32,
Parcel 23HI that fronts on Pritchett Lane. The exact location of the rights-of-way
shall be fixed by the applicable final site plan.
I. The streets shall be designed and constructed to applicable Virginia
Department of Transportation public street standards. The streets shall be
constructed in conjunction with the applicable final site plan, or at such
other time authorized by the County Engineer under such terms and
conditions the County Engineer determines to be appropriate, including
the requirement that the Owner provide adequate surety or other guarantee
that the streets will be constructed and maintained until accepted into the
state highway system.
2. The streets shall be constructed as close to the property line between
the Project and Tax Map 32, Parcel 23HI as determined by the County
Engineer to be feasible without obtaining offsite construction
easements. The rights-of-way shall be graded as close as possible to
the Project property line.
3. To allow the completion of street improvements to and beyond the
Proj ect property line, temporary construction easements on the
Owner's property and outside of the rights-of-way to be dedicated
shall be reserved on the applicable final site plan. The site plan also
shall include a note stating that no improvements shall be established
within the reserved area. Within ninety (90) days after request by the
County, the easements shall be granted. No improvements shall be
4
Draft: 05/01106
located within the temporary construction easements until the construction
of the street improvements onto Tax Map 32, Parcel23HI has been
completed so that the need for the temporary construction easements no
longer exists.
4. Within ninety (90) days after request by the County after Tax Map 32,
Parcel 23HI has been upzoned, the Owner shall dedicate to public use the
streets and rights-of-way and offer the street for acceptance into the state
highway system.
10. Overlot grading plan. For all subdivisions with lots less than 15,000 square feet in size
and not otherwise requiring a site plan, a lot grading plan ("Overlot Grading Plan") must
be approved by the County Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new
residence on any such lot(s). The Overlot Grading Plan must satisfactorily demonstrate
compliance with all Erosion and Sediment Control requirements for drainage conveyed
across such lot( s). An "Agreement in Lieu of a Plan" will be allowed for building
permits, provided the general drainage patterns and grading matches that shown on the
Overlot Grading Plan. The Overlot Grading Plan may be revised at any time by the
subdivision developer or individual lot owners, provided all work can be accomplished
within their property lines or within available easements. All amendments shall be
subject to the review and approval by the County Engineer.
A. The Overlot Grading Plan shall be drawn to scale not greater than one (1) inch
equals fifty (50) feet, with all proposed grading shown at contour intervals not
greater than two (2) feet interpolated and shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the County Engineer that:
1. All concentrated runoff is conveyed across lots using vegetated swales or
underground drainage structures in a manner that does not result in
flooding of buildings or erosion as a result of the grading. For the
purposes of this requirement, flows from roof downspouts will be
considered concentrated flows ifnot adequately dispersed before reaching
the property line.
2. Overland relief is assured in the event that drainage structures do not
function. Overland relief will be considered satisfied if buildings are
designed to have finished floors at least one (1) foot above low points for
any drainage area which includes the house. With dams and similar
impoundments, this should be measured from the top of the dam.
B. The County Engineer may allow other drainage structures (e.g., riprap ditches)
where it has been determined this change will not significantly impact usable
yards (e.g., cobblestone swale next to a driveway), where slopes are too steep for
vegetated swales (e.g., steeper than 33% grades), or where the change would
better mitigate impacts on adjoining properties (e.g., matches offsite drainage
structure).
5
Draft: 05/01106
C. Public drainage across lots shall be in storm sewers except open drainage ways
may be allowed ifthe plat restricts construction of a building within fifty (50) feet
of a proposed open drainageway. If a storm sewer is used across lots, easement
widths must be sufficient to allow excavation with 1: 1 side slopes on the trench,
sufficient room on one side of the trench to stockpile excavated materials,
sufficient room on the opposite side of the trench to allow for movement of
materials, and adequate room for a backhoe boom to swing. Fences, walls,
driveways, and other uses are not allowed within the easements, except where a
"hold harmless" clause is included in the easement agreement.
D. No surface drainage may flow across more than three (3) lots or one-half (112)
acre before being collected in a storm sewer or directed to a drainage way outside
of the lots.
E. Retaining walls higher than four (4) feet (measured from the top of the face to the
ground on the downhill side) shall be designed by a professional engineer to
assure long-term stability. Retaining walls building using a VDOT standard or a
pre-engineered product that includes certification are not required to provide a
separate professional engineer's certification provided the building contractor
provides an affidavit that the wall was constructed consistent with the standard.
Retaining walls higher than four (4) feet in useable yards or places where the
public might walk must include a railing similar in design to what is required for
elevated decks. In circumstances where it is questionable whether a railing is
required, the County Engineer will make the determination. The builder must
provide evidence of the ability to maintain any retaining wall which could not be
maintained without the use of adjoining property.
F. The Plan shall demonstrate that an area at least ten (10) feet in width, or to the lot
line ifit is less than (10) feet, from the portion ofthe structure facing the street,
has grades no steeper than ten (10) percent adjacent to possible entrances to
dwellings that will not be served by a stairway. This graded area also shall extend
from the entrances to the driveways or walkways connecting the dwelling to the
street.
G. In lieu of the foregoing provisions, the grading plan for the residential units
located in the southeastern portion of the Project as shown on the Application
Plan shall be included as part of the site development plan application for the
appurtenant commercial area as shown on the Application Plan.
11. Sanitary sewers. All residential uses shall be served by gravity sanitary sewers; however,
basements may be served by grinder pumps.
6
;
7/,':
"::~:':::,~~\rED A7 B,OS t~1E~=~'~'~,~
<5 -(J{c1
.
It"im f'1:
II
;,':; ;n1tf-t:tk:1:
f) 7)17
Charlottesville Regional
Chamber of Commerce
"... dedicated to representing private enterprise, promoting business
and enhancing the quality of life in our Greater Charlottesville communities."
cvillechamber.com
PO Box 1564 . Fifth & Market Streets
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Comments
by
Timothy Hulbert
President and chief executive,
Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce
regarding the
North Pointe Charlottesville Rezoning Request
of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
May 10, 2006
,
.
/@)
Charlottesville Regional
Chamber of Commerce
"... dedicated to representing private enterprise, promoting business
and enhancing the quality of life in our Greater Charlottesville communities."
cvillechamber.com
PO Box 1564' Fifth & Market Streets. Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Good evening.
Mr. Chairman, Honorable Members of the Albemarle County Board of SupeNisors, thank
you for allowing me to come and speak to you this evening.
My name is Timothy Hulbert. I live at 2246 Brandywine Drive in Charlottesville.
I work for the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce.
As you know, our Chamber is dedicated to representing private enterprise, promoting
business and enhancing the quality of life in the greater Charlottesville communities.
Founded in 1913, today the Chamber has 1,200 member enterprises. Chamber member
enterprises employ more than 45,000 men and women in the Charlottesville region,
representing an estimated total payroll of more than $1.3 billion a year.
As you also know, despite some areas of disagreement that perhaps get too much
attention, our Chamber and Albemarle County agree on a wide range of community
initiatives and issues. One such important area of agreement is our mutual belief that
economic growth be attracted to, and supported in, growth areas. To that end, as you
also know, you invited our Chamber and our Chamber actively participated in the
county's "Development - area Initiative Steering Committee" (DISC) process, DISC-II,
and the underlying principles of the "Neighborhood Model" for community planning.
The proposal before you tonight, I believe, represents another area of agreement.
I come before you this evening regarding the rezoning request by North Pointe
Charlottesville - a mixed-use neighborhood community development project for the
Albemarle County Designated Growth Area along the eastern alignment of US29 north of
the Airport - Profitt Road intersection.
The proposed North Pointe community responds to an innovative neighborhood design
charted by Albemarle County officials and citizens in an Albemarle County Designated
Growth Area as envisioned in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
-"
- 3 -
Economic Impact:
The North Pointe project will:
. bring millions of dollars in new private investment;
. capture between $200 million and $450 million in retail activity currently lost
to Albemarle County and our region;
. generate an additional $3 million in recurring local tax and school revenues;
. generate an additional $1 million in recurring local tax non-residential and
personal property tax revenues; and,
. add hundreds of jobs to the region's job base.
Another question answered: the North Pointe project will add to the economic
vitality of our community. We agree.
Let there be no misunderstanding - our Chamber embraces economic growth.
Growth is inevitable in any vital and attractive community. Our Chamber embraces
economic growth to enhance the human, economic, cultural and natural characteristics
of our Greater Charlottesville communities.
Finally a word about the people who make this request of their public servants. They
are our neighbors. They are Chamber members. They are good citizens. They live
here. They raise their families here. They work here. They invest here.
They have helped to build this wonderful community we all call home into the stellar
community that it is. They contribute their time, their person, their money and yes, their
spirit to many, many civic endeavors.
They have been responsive to Albemarle County's direction. They have worked
diligently and with graceful deference throughout a six-year regulatory process that is
challenging to say the least. They have earned and deserve all of our respect.
The North Pointe community has more than met the reasonableness test. It is growth in
the growth area that you have designated. It is a model neighborhood of homes, shops,
businesses, a school, a park, trails, protected environmental buffers and readied sites
community facilities. It will build and also fund affordable workforce housing. It will fund
and help improve transportation. It will broaden the local tax base. It will create jobs.
Reasonableness suggests this project has earned your approval. We agree.
Thank you.
SAP
u___.____~~ /0 - () &
- ":. / /
. '__._ I
")1('
-_.___.__._L.__..~_.~_.~.+_~.__...._
Statement to the Albemarle County SUDervisors. Mav 10. 2006
Opposing the Rezoning Request for North Pointe
Directors
I'm Jack Marshall, speaking to you as President of Advocates for a
Sustainable Albemarle Population - ASAP. On behalf
of the ASAP Board and our 250 members, I urge you
to deny the North POinte rezoning request.
Jack Marshall
President
AI Weed
Wee President
Elizabeth Burdash
Secretary
Geoffrey Mattocks
Treasurer
Rich Collins
Francis Rfe
Laura Horn
Tom Loach
Hugh Meagher
Carleton Ray
Andrew Wright
Advisorv Council
In ASAP's letter to each of you last week, we detailed
our specific objections to North Pointe, with its nearly
900 new residential units, its hotels, and more retail
space than Barracks Road or Fashion Square. We
explained why the alleged benefits are far outweighed
by the negative impacts on our environment and our
quality of life. You've heard the same - and better _
arguments from others - with Supporting data.
Diana Abbott
Gib Akin
Jim Bonner
Whitman Cross
Nick Evans
John Hermsmeier
Steve Jamme
Janis Jaquith
Harry Levins
Mark Lorenzoni
Marvin Moss
Deborah Murray
Tom Olivier
John Stack
Peggy Thome
Jane Williamson
This proposed development comes to you at a time
when county residents, as never before, are voicing
reservations about local growth and development. To
you, our elected representatives, we've given the
responsibility to ensure that planned change in the
county enhances the long-term good of the whole
community, rather than simply the short-term benefit
of a few.
Executive Director
We count on you to view with an intelligent skepticism
the claims that every new development makes about
how it will satisfy critical unmet market needs. We
rely on you to have the wisdom to examine each
proposed development - including North POinte - NOT
just by itself, in isolation, but in the context of the
dozens, hundreds, of other residential and commercial
transformations in the county that you've already
approved - and more that you'll have to decide on in
the coming months.
Jeff Sobel
3570 Brinnington Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Phone: (434) 974-6390
Fax: (434) 974-4924
asap@stop9rowthASAP.org
WWVI/.stopgrowthASAP .org
We trust that you recognize that what might, arguably,
SAP
-:.-~~-);::,
.:? ';
May 5, 2006
Dennis Rooker, Chair
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: OOTJosition to North Pointe rezoning request
Dear Dennis,
Directors
Jack Marshall
President
AI Weed
VIa:' President
Elizabeth Burdash
Secretary
Geoffrey Mattocks
Treasurer
Rich Collins
Francis Rfe
Laura Horn
Tom Loach
Hugh Meagher
Carleton Ray
Andrew Wright
Advisorv Council
Diana Abbott
Gib Akin
Jim Bonner
Whitman Cross
Nick Evans
John Hermsmeier
Steve Jamme
Janis Jaquith
Harry Levins
Mark Lorenzoni
Marvin Moss
Deborah Murray
Tom Olivier
John Stack
Peggy Thome
Jane Williamson
On behalf of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population
(ASAP), I am writing to urge you to deny the North Pointe rezoning
request. Given the concerns of so many citizens about the unbridled
extent and pace of growth in the County, this project is particularly
objectionable.
The 664,000 square feet of office and retail commercial uses
proposed are not sustainable by this community. The County's
consultant ZHA for Places 29 has determined in a draft report dated
14 January 2006 that the County as a whole can only absorb an
additional 1.0 to 1.4 million square feet of new retail by the year
2015 . Yet, according to a recent report by the Southern
Environmental Law Center (SELC), about 3.3 million square feet of
retail space either has been approved or has been proposed, about 2.5
to 3.5 times the County's estimated absorption rate. (See the SELC
Report: "Too Much of a Good Thing? Retail Overload in
Albemarle", I May 2006). While ASAP takes issue with the
County's estimate of how much additional retail space can
reasonably be absorbed, clearly more growth than the County itself
deems reasonable is already in the pipeline.
Executive Director
The explosion of residential and commercial development that the
County has already approved has resulted in unsustainable sprawling
development and serious traffic congestion problems, as is evident by
the proliferation of new traffic signals along Route 29. The North
Pointe proposal would have an enormous impact on regional traffic,
particularly along the Route 29 corridor. The Places 29 consultants
estimate that 90% of the traffic on Route 29 is from local and
regional trips to work and shop in the County and the City of
Charlottesville. If the project were built as proposed, an additional
30,000 vehicles per day would be added to the current traffic mix. A
traffic impact study for the project indicated that the intersection at
Route 29 and AirportlProffitt Road will fail during the peak morning
Jeff Sobel
3570 Brinnington Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Phone: (434) 974-6390
Fax: (434) 974-4924
asap@stopgrowthASAP.org
www.stopgrowthASAP.org
,.
North Painte Re-zoning Request
May 5, 2006
Page 2
and afternoon hours for 2010 background traffic and total traffic including North Pointe.
The additional congestion that the project would create is an additional reason for
denying the rezoning request. We would also add that the developer's intention of
attracting shoppers from outside the area is contrary not only to the County's
Neighborhood Model, which is intended to focus on pedestrian-oriented design, but also
to good public policy in these days of concern over excess driving and wasted fuel.
ASAP is also opposed to the project because of the adverse environmental impacts that
would ensue. For example, the residential development planned for the northern end of
the project would threaten the water quality of the North Fork of the Rivanna River.
Development on the critical slopes that drain directly into the North Fork would lead to
increased erosion and sedimentation of the River. In addition, as was evident from the
Hollymead Town Center development, runoff can quickly overwhelm stormwater
retention systems in instances of heavy rainfall, contributing more pollutants to the River.
Nor is the "conservation area" proposed by the developer sufficient to protect the River.
The sprawling, "big box" development that the North Pointe proposal epitomizes
endangers the quality of life for County and City residents, and overburdens our natural
resources. The County has ample authority to deny the rezoning request, and we urge the
County to do so.
Sincerely,
J~
Jack Marshall, President
:.,~' ,.-:, ~t\- r., ,'<-':, ~::' L
.___5-:.2:...J ~;:.... _ _.
//1
~
. . -,.--.-. -_._-----_.~-
~~ Southern
. . . Environmental
., Law Center
201 West Main Street, #14
Charlottesville, VA 22902-5065
(434) 977-4090
(434) 977-1483
SouthernEnvironment.org
Before The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Public Hearing on North Pointe Rezoning Proposal
Comments by Kay Slaughter
Southern Environmental Law Center
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
· For several years, County staff has consistently outlined the fundamental flaws of this
proposal. The applicant has made a series of incremental changes - tinkering at the
edges - but the core concerns remain unaddressed. The County needs to deny the
petition for rezoning, complete the Places 29 Master Plan, and only then consider
development of this parcel redesigned to fit into the County's plans for sensible growth.
· First, the proposal fails to follow the principles of the "Neighborhood Model" called for
in the Comprehensive Plan - blending residential, office, and retail into a pedestJian-
oriented community.
o This project is dominated by big-box, commercial development and surface
parking lots. Applying a veneer of Neighborhood Model design (for
example, the "library block") is not the same as building a pedestrian-
friendly neighborhood.
· Second, the development would severely damage the North Fork of the Rivanna River
and the streams leading into the river.
Carolinas Office: 200 W. Franklin Street, Suite 330, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2559 919-967-1450
GAl AL Office: The Candler Building, 127 Peachtree Street, Suite 605, Atlanta, GA 30303-1800 404-521-9900
100% rerycled paper
o To be clear, staffs position in seeking a more stringent overlot grading plan
is already a significant compromise from what should be allowed. The steep
slopes above the Rivanna in the northernmost portion ofthe project are
simply not suitable for the proposed development.
. Third, the County has a massive amount of retail already in the pipeline. SELC
recently completed a report analyzing retail growth in the County according to data
from County records. Albemarle's current amount of retail under consideration is 2 Yz
to 3 Yz times what the County could reasonably absorb. In the 29 North Corridor alone,
the County has already approved more than a million SF of new retail - significantly
more than the County's own estimates of what could be absorbed over the next 10
years, countywide. Simply put, if we overbuild retail on 29, we make it that much
harder to achieve quality retail density in the other growth areas, thus further eroding
the concept of the neighborhood model.
. Fourth, the Route 29 corridor is already congested. North Pointe would add 30,000
?-
vehicles per day. It would require three additional entrances on 29, etteh with a stop
light, thus increasing frustrating gridlock for local commuters as well as through
travelers on this state highway.
. The Board has the duty to protect the public's broader interest in sensible growth and
quality of life vis a vis those who stand to financially profit from this project.
Moreover, the Board has ample authority to reject this proposal under State law. I
leave you with a memo about that authority, and I would be happy to answer any
questions the Board might have - about our report, previous communications or my
comments.
2
.,.
~
~~ Southern
.. Environmental
Law Center
201 West Main Street, #14
Charlottesville, V A 22902-5065
(434) 977-4090
(434) 977-1483
SouthernEnvironment.org
MEMORANDUM
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Kay Slaughter; Trip Pollard; Cale Jaffe; Morgan Butler
DATE: May 10,2006
RE: North Pointe - Board's Discretion to Deny Rezoning
I. Question Presented
Does the Board of Supervisors have sufficient discretion to deny the applicant's request
for rezoning of the proposed North Pointe development?
II. Short Answer
Yes. As a legislative matter, the Board may deny a rezoning due to 12 factors. In this
case, several of the 12 factors strongly support a denial. Because the project is not
consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, does not meet the County's
transportation requirements, would create an overbuilding of commercial space, fails to
adequately protect the North Fork of the Rivanna River, and is inconsistent with the goals
ofthe Neighborhood Model, the Board can and should deny the applicant's request for
rezoning. Moreover, the Virginia Supreme Court has emphasized that the Board is to be
granted considerable deference as it considers these factors in making its zoning decision.
III. Discussion
A. Statutory Authority to Deny the Petition for Rezoning
The Board of Supervisors, as a legislative body, has the prerogative to choose between
reasonable zoning classifications for parcels of land, and to deny a request for rezoning
under certain conditions. See Board of Supervisors of Fairfax Co. v. Miller & Smith,
Inc., 242 Va. 382 (1991). The conditions to be considered by the Board have been
specified in the Virginia Code, which states:
1
Matters to be considered in drawing and applying zoning ordinances and
distri cts.
Zoning ordinances and districts shall be drawn and applied with
reasonable consideration for [I] the existing use and character of property,
[2] the comprehensive plan, [3] the suitability of property for various
purposes, [4] the trends of growth or change, [5] the current and future
requirements of the community as to the land for various purposes as
determined by population and economic studies and other studies, [6] the
transportation requirements of the community, [7] the requirements for
airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other
public services, [8] the conservation of natural resources, [9] the
preservation of flood plains, [10] the preservation of agricultural and
forestal land, [11] the conservation of properties and their values and [12]
the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the
locality.
Va. Code Ann. S 15.2-2284 (numbers added for clarity).
Reviewing these factors, it is clear that the Board has the authority to deny the North
Pointe proposal. First, North Pointe fails to conform to the County's Comprehensive
Plan. The Comprehensive Plan specifically calls for development to follow the
Neighborhood Model, which focuses on blending residential, office, and retail
development into one, pedestrian-oriented community. North Pointe rejects this approach
in favor of sprawling big-box, commercial centers and surface parking lots that fail to
meet the County's needs and goals for future development. Additionally, as explained in
the Executive Summary prepared by County staff, the proposal fails to comply with the
County's policy on affordable housing.
Second, the proposal fails to serve ''the current and future requirements of the community
as to the land for various purposes.. .." S 15.2-2284. The County's fiscal analyst, Steve
Allshouse, has estimated that the County could absorb an additional 1 million square feet
of retail between 2003 and 2013. Similarly, Places 29 consultant ZHA has concluded that
Albemarle County could support between 1.0 and 1.4 million square feet of new retail
from 2005 to 2015. Yet in the Route 29 North corridor alone, the County has already
approved more than 1 million square feet of additional retail space.l There are proposals
for 3.3 to 3.5 million square feet of new retail in the pipeline - about 2 ~ to 3 ~ times the
reasonable absorption rate estimated by the County. Clearly, the County is in danger of
1 ZHA, the County's consultants for the Places 29 Master Plan process, have calculated that 1,072,340 SF
of retail space has already been approved in the Northern Development Area. These preliminary figures,
however, underestimate the square footage slated for North Town Center, across from Lowe's, which
would bring approximately 199,800 SF of new retail to the County, according to staff estimates. (ZHA
assumed 75,590 SF for this same development.) Hollymead Town Center A, which is likely to be rezoned
and built in some form, is predicted to bring an additional 736,000 SF of retail. Thus, the County can
already except to see an additional 1,932,550 SF of retail along Route 29 North.
2
",
I-
approving projects that far exceed the community's future requirements. Overbuilding of
retail leads to a host of problems, such as increased sprawl and higher vacancy rates, as
retailers abandon older shopping centers to move out to occupy the newest mega-malls.
Third, critical transportation issues remain unresolved. The Route 29 corridor is already
congested, and if North Pointe is built, an additional 30,000 vehicles per day would be
added to the current flow. To handle the increased traffic, North Pointe will require three
additional stop lights, making gridlock that much worse for commuters as well as through
travelers on this state highway.
Fourth, the North Pointe proposal does not take adequate steps to conserve some of the
County's most valuable natural resources. Notably, the development would damage the
North Fork of the Rivanna River and the streams leading into the river. County staffs
position in seeking a more stringent overlot grading plan is already a significant
compromise from what should be allowed. The steep slopes above the Rivanna in the
northernmost portion of the project are simply not suitable for the proposed development.
Fifth, denying the rezoning application is the best way to encourage "the most
appropriate use ofland throughout the locality." S 15.2-2284. Master plans can be a
valuable tool in shaping the future of our community. In particular, the Places 29 Master
Plan process has a critical role to play in guiding development along the Route 29 North
corridor. Lengthy consideration of North Pointe, however, has adversely affected the
Places 29 process. In fact, County staff has stated, "As a proposal on the fringes of the
development area for which an acceptable plan and proffers have yet to be provided, staff
believes that its future land use should be considered as part of the current master plan
process." See Executive Summary, North Pointe Update (Jan. 4, 2006). To achieve the
most appropriate use of land throughout the County, the Board should deny the proposal,
complete the Places 29 Master Plan process, and then - after that process is complete --
allow the applicant to come back with a new vision that fits into the County's plans for
sensible growth.
B. Judicial Deference Owed to the Board in Making Zoning Decisions
In reviewing decisions by a governing body, Virginia courts grant broad discretion to
legislative decisions, which carry a presumption of reasonableness. Denials of rezoning
are considered legislative actions and therefore carry this presumption. See Norton v.
City ofDanville, 268 Va. 402,408 (2004). The burden of proof in a challenge to a denial
of rezoning is on the applicant, who must prove that the Board's decision was
unreasonable. In a rezoning case, this burden "requires" an applicant to provide "a clear
demonstration that 'the existing zoning classification is no longer reasonable or
appropriate.'" Board of Supervisors v. International Funeral Servo Inc., 221 Va. 840, 843
(1981) (internal citation omitted).
If the applicant is able to come forward with evidence that the Board's denial was
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, then the Board is obliged to present "some
evidence of reasonableness." Board of Supervisors V. Snell Construction Corp., 214 Va.
3
655,659 (1974). Ifthe Board meets its burden, then the zoning decision "must be
sustained." Id. (emphasis added).
Ultimately, a Board's action is considered reasonable so long as it is at least "fairly
debatable." Norton, 268 Va. at 409. "An issue is 'fairly debatable when the evidence
offered in support of the opposing views would lead objective and reasonable persons to
reach different conclusions.'" Board of Supervisors of Fairfax Co. v. Robertson, 266 Va.
525,532-33 (2003) (citing Board of Supervisors v. Williams, 216 Va. 49, 58 (1975)).
Moreover, "when an existing zoning classification and a proposed zoning classification
are both reasonable, a legislative body [e.g, the Board of Supervisors], rather than a
property owner or a court, has the prerogative to choose between those classifications."
Gregory v. Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield Co., 257 Va. 530, 538 (1999).
The dominant theme of the Virginia Supreme Court's rezoning cases is that great
deference is owed to the legislative body of a locality, so long as the evidence is in
conflict and the issue is "fairly debatable." See, e.g., Board of Supervisors of Fairfax Co.
v Miller & Smith, Inc., 242 Va. 382, 384 (1991). In fact, the Supreme Court has gone so
far as to state, "Presented with two uses, both of which are reasonable, the Board may
choose between those uses, even though one use 'might have been the more appropriate,
or even 'the most appropriate' use for the land.'" Id (internal citation omitted); see also,
City of Salem v. Wendy's of Western Virginia, Inc., 252 Va. 12, 18 (1996) (confirming
that the "prerogative to choose the applicable classification" fell to the City Council, not
to the property owner or the courts). Given this level of deference, and considering the
12 factors outlined in Va. Code Ann. S 15.2-2284, the Board clearly may deny the
rezoning in this case.
IV. Conclusion
Failure to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan, significant traffic problems, environmental
impacts, retail overbuilding, the Places 29 Master Plan process - all of these are factors
that, pursuant to Virginia Code, the Board can and should consider before making its
decision. Moreover, the Virginia Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that the
Board enjoys great deference as it reviews these factors. In this particular case, many
troubling concerns strongly support a denial of the North Pointe rezoning petition. The
Board should accept staff s recommendation and deny the rezoning request.
4
e..
..
. .
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
.; ----.---.~f-<~L-..{~ ~
f \ . .~
,
:f:_.__~~.____." .
(=~.7i 7
.. -I:. I Y.
Promoting and protecting the Piedmont's rural economy, natural resources, history and beauty
May 10, 2006
Statement to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
RE: ZMA 00-009 North Pointe Update and SP 02-72 Residential Uses at North Pointe
Good evening. My name is Jeff Werner and I am speaking on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental
Council.
Over the past 30-years, the PEC has worked hard to keep Albemarle a special place to live. Working with
private landowners, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, the Nature Conservancy and other partners.. almost
60,Ooo-acres of Albemarle's countryside has been protected with voluntary conservation easements. In
the PEC's nine-county region almost 240,000-acres are protected. On land use issues, the PEC has taken a
leading role in promoting smarter growth and transportation solutions. Among numerous successful
efforts, the PEC participated in the development of the County's Neighborhood Model.
The PEC respectfully recommends that you listen to your staff and reject this rezoning request.
The affordable housing: component is inadequate.
Builders, developers, local advocates, and ordinary citizens all agree that steps are necessary to address
affordable housing. Through this community's vision statement, the County's Comprehensive Plan, you
have adopted a policy that recommends affordable units be included in new development. North Pointe
fails to adhere to this policy.
There is no need for an additional 600.000 square feet of retail space.
We have heard that this community needs--even wants-new stores. That may be true, but North Pointe
is not the only new retail being proposed. There are almost 2-million SF of new retail coming with the
approved Albemarle Place, Hollymead Towncenter, Gazebo Place, and Northtown Center. These four
projects alone already exceed the total retail space that County Staff and the Places 29 consultants agree
this community can absorb over the next decade.
The Comprehensive Plan is not being followed.
This project fails to represent the infill development that the Neighborhood Model was intended to
encourage. On April 21 st, the applicant told me that the acres of parking surrounding the proposed retail
actually anticipates infill opportunities; that these parking lots were designed to allow for future
development and structured parking. If the applicant believes such infill is a positive step in the evolution
of an aging shopping center, why aren't we seeing such creative thinking at any of the shopping centers
they already own?
Transportation issues remain unresolved.
The PEC remains very concerned about the increased traffic on Albemarle's rural roads; particularly to
the east of this site on Route 20 and Proffit Road. Recently, the applicant stated that North Pointe will rely
on a regional draw-not just local shoppers. Development proposals in Orange and Greene suggest that
regional shopping traffic will not be limited to Route 29. This project has not accounted for-let alone
studied-the traffic impacts on Albemarle's rural roads.
It is time for this community to demand more than just another suburban development. Across the United
States, profitable and innovative urban places are being developed. Sustainability, density and even green
Clarke
30 East Main Street
Berryville, VA 22611
9000
Loudoun
802 Children's Center Rd. S.W
Leesburg, VA 20175
703-669-4990
Fax 703-669-2213
Orange
130 W Main St., Ste. 206
P.O. Box 266
Orange, VA 22960
540.672-0141
Fax 540-672-6265
Rappahannock
12717 Lee Highway
Washington, VA 22747
540-987 -9441
Fax 540-987-9443
design are being embraced by communities and consumers. Will we ever see such creativity in
Albemarle?
Yes, growth,belongs in the Growth Area, but it is time for this community to demand delivery on their
vision statement, the Comprehensive Plan. Albemarle County is supposed to be a "best place to live." We
can do better than allow new development that simply edges us a step closer to "Anyplace."
409 Altamont Circle....., Charlottesville....., Virginia""" 22902
May 1 0, 2006
Dennis Rooker, Chair
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: Opposition to North Pointe rezonina reauest
Dear Mr. Rooker:
I am writing regarding the proposed North Pointe Development's rezoning request for
269 acres at the corner of Rt. 29 and Profitt Road to allow for the construction of 893
residential units, two hotels of 250 rooms, approximately 540,000 square feet of retail,
135,000 square feet of offices, and 217,000 square feet of other non-residential activities.
While this tract ofland falls within the designated "growth area" the density of the
proposed development far exceeds what is appropriate for the area For starters, has the
Board of Supervisors even begun to weigh the egregious impact such density stands to
have on water consumption as well as the resulting intolerable levels of traffic
congestion? And what happens when the next major drought such as that of three years
ago hits Charlottesville? What is wrong with our memories?
The inadequacy of the plan at hand in addressing ensuing transportation impacts is the
more outrageous given the escalating energy pressures facing Americans today, not to
mention global warming consequences. Where is our conscience?
Finally, how much retail space does Charlottesville really need? It all smacks of a pitch
to attract daytrippers - the last thing local citizens want! -- to the area adding to local
traffic congestion. I ask you: is not the major function ofyoW' board to act in the best
interests of the population you represent; that is, the citizenry at large? Clearly, this
development, as proposed, will serve to benefit a relative few -- greedy developers and
Big Box corporations -- while drastically reducing the quality of life of Charlottesville's
citizenry at large.
In short, the North Pointe Development, as proposed, is NOT in
the best interests of the citizenry at large.
Sincerely,
~~S~
Felicity H. Sargent
08:32
4342435999
CLINICAL TRIALS OFFI
PAGE 02
. May 9, 2006
To the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:
I am writing to request that you please deny the rezoning request by the developers of the
North Pointe project and follow the recommendations of the County planning staff.
"reasons why approval of the rezoning is both premature and not recommended."
. "This proposal represents a conventional suburban fonn [that] is not in keeping
with (several] principles ofthe Neighborhood Model."
. "The proposal does not appropriately mitigate transportation impacts. ,\
. "Retail space [is] in excess of [what community can absorb] within a reasonable
amount of time."
. "Affordable housing is not provided in accordance with the County's policy."
Please read this request into the record.
Thank you!
Karen Davenport
.
.
Rivanna Conservation Society
Our Heart is With Our River
May 4, 2006
Dear Members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Conservation Society ("RCS"), as
well as the organization's over 500 members, I am writing to urge you to deny the North
Pointe rezoning request. RCS is a nonprofit organization dedicated to safeguarding the
ecological, scenic, recreational and historic resources of the Rivanna River and its
watershed. While RCS is concerned that any significant development of the area
proposed for rezoning would have an adverse effect on the North Fork of the Rivanna
River ("North Fork"), there are a number of serious shortcomings in the current North
Pointe proposal that render this project particularly objectionable.
While the developer's consultants have studied the pre-construction and anticipated
post-construction runoff at the site, no analysis has been conducted on the level of
sediment that can be expected to enter the Rivanna River during construction. Yet, as
witnessed during the construction of Hollymead Town Center, this is the stage of
development that poses the greatest threat to receiving waters from sedimentary runoff.
Therefore, although predictions of likely post-construction runoff are relevant, the most
critical piece of information regarding the potential damage that the North Pointe
development could inflict upon the Rivanna River and its tributaries remains
conspicuously absent. A thorough analysis of the likely impacts to the river from
construction is critical to an informed decision on this project.
For example, as currently proposed, a significant amount of residential development is
planned for the northern end of the North Pointe development. These residential units
would be situated atop an area characterized by critical slopes that drain directly into
the North Fork. Intense development along these slopes would exacerbate natural
erosion and expose the river to significant amounts of sediment during construction.
Additionally, the North Pointe proposal will require a significant mass-grading effort in
the southern end of the development. These major disturbances and land modifications
will adversely impact the North Fork by discharging sediment directly into the river, as
well as into Flat Branch Stream and another high-quality stream in the northeast corner
of the proposal. Indeed, County staff has acknowledged that even ideal sediment
retention facilities at this or any other development site can at most be expected to trap
only 60 to 80% of the sediment contained in construction runoff, so that much of the
remaining 20 to 40% from the North Pointe site will flow into the North Fork. These
impacts must be taken into account and adequately addressed.
It is also important to note that the studies of post-construction sedimentary runoff do
not consider other pollutants that will be discharged into the river and its tributaries both
P.O. Box 1501 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1501
Phone: (434) 971-1553 . Fax: (434) 970-1806
during and after construction. The insufficient overlot grading plans proposed for the
project threaten to convey harmful pesticides, herbicides and other pollutants to the
river long after development of the project is complete.
Many of the threats that the North Pointe proposal poses to the Rivanna could be
limited by a more sensible layout that would eliminate or relocate much of the excessive
volume of development proposed for the northern end of the property, while significantly
improving upon efforts to reduce and mitigate for the vast amounts of mass grading and
impervious surfaces planned for the southern end. The County should insist that
multiple layers of erosion and sediment controls be implemented at the project site -
both during and after construction - to intercept storm drainage and runoff. An
acceptable design must also include structures to convert concentrated overland runoff
flows to dispersed flows traveling over forested buffers, engineered filters, and other
permeable surfaces of sufficient size, depth, and stability to intercept anticipated loads
of fine sediments, automotive fluids, landscape fertilizers, pesticides and other
pollutants. Finally, an acceptable plan for this site would take much better care to
minimize impacts on the upper sections of streams flowing into the river and to increase
the area of conservation buffer around the streams and the river. To ensure that the
buffers are adequately managed and serve the protective features for which they are
designed, a conservation easement over the conservation areas should be granted to
the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District.
The water quality lessons learned from the construction of the Hollymead Town Center
development on the west side of Route 29 should not be quickly forgotten. The mass
forest clearing and recontouring of that area created unnecessarily high levels of
damage to the creeks on and downstream from that project site. Damage to those
resources in turn severely degraded the water quality of the ponds at Forest Lakes and
other points downstream. Indeed, Forest Lakes residents have petitioned the County to
use taxpayer dollars to assist in dredging the ponds. The current North Pointe proposal
would now repeat these same mistakes on the east side of Route 29. Indeed, the North
Pointe development would pose an even more egregious risk because the construction
runoff from the site would not first flow through the sediment control structures of other
developed areas such as Forest Lakes, but would spill directly into the comparatively
pristine waters of the North Fork.
In sum, the current North Pointe proposal fails to adequately consider and address
impacts to the Rivanna River that will occur both during and after construction of the
project. We strongly urge you to require more protection for our watershed than the
proposal currently under consideration offers.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
s:n~ P~ni _-
Matthew ROsefs~
Executive Director (/
- 2 -