HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-20February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February
20, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Deputy Clerk, Laurel W. Bentley, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There was no one from the public who wished to speak at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.4 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items
for information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Dennis Rooker, Sally Thomas, Charles Martin, Walter Perkins and David Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Lindsay Dorrier.
__________
Item 5.1. Resolution to accept roads in Forest Lakes South Block Q, R, S into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the Board adopted the following
=
Resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes South Subdivision, Sections Q, R and
S described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 20, 2002, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are 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 streets 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 roads in
Forest Lakes South, Sections Q, R and S, as described on the attached Additions
Form SR-5(A) dated February 20, 2002, 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.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1) Ashwood Boulevard (State Route 1670) from the intersection of Route
1678 and Route 1696 at roundabout to end of maintenance at Route
1669 as shown on plat recorded 8/6/99 in the office of the Clerk the of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53,
Deed Book 1830, pages 431-437, Deed Book 1846, pages 210-220,
with a 120-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.46 mile.
2) Creekview Lane (State Route 1669) from the intersection of Route
1670 to the cul-de-sac as shown on plat recorded 6/25/99 in the office of
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1846,
pages 210-220, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.09
mile.
3) Keiser Ridge Road (State Route 1668) from the intersection of Route
1670 to the cul-de-sac as shown on plat recorded 6/25/99 in the office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1846,
pages 210-220, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.06
mile.
4) Kernwood Place (State Route 1667) from the intersection of Route
1670 to the cul-de-sac as shown on plat recorded 6/25/99 in the office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1846,
pages 210-220, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.09
mile.
Total Mileage - 0.70 mile.
__________
Item 5.2. Resolution to accept roads in Dunlora, Phase 1F, into the State Secondary System of
Highways.
At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the Board adopted the following
=
Resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the streets in Dunlora Subdivision, Phase 1F, described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 20, 2002, fully incorporated herein by
reference, are 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 streets 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 roads in
Dunlora, Phase 1F, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated
February 20, 2002, 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.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1) Charter Oaks Drive (State Route 1164) from the intersection of Route
1174 and existing Route 1164 to the cul-de-sac as shown on plat
recorded 6/10/97 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1621, pages 44-53 and Deed Book
1675, pages 631-632, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.25 mile.
2) Mountford Court (State Route 1239) from the intersection of Route
1177, Dunlora Drive, to the cul-de-sac as shown on plat recorded
6/10/97 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County
in Deed Book 1621, pages 44-52 and Deed Book 2116, page 613, with a
50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.03 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.28 mile.
__________
Item 5.3. Ordinance to amend Chapter 15, Taxation, Article X, Real Estate - In General, of the
Code of Albemarle, to establish abatement of levies on buildings that have been razed, destroyed or
damaged by fortuitous happenings (deferred from February 6, 2002).
The following memorandum had been received from Margaret Maliszewski, Design Planner, re:
Historic Preservation Committee action on an ordinance to amend Chapter 15, Taxation, Article X, Real
Estate, of the Code of Albemarle:
At its meeting on February 11, 2002, the Historic Preservation Committee voted
A
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
unanimously to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the above referenced
proposed ordinance amendment be approved as written. The motion was made by Bob
Watson and seconded by Lowry Abell.
Discussion on the item focused on the following points:
- the ordinance does not "approve" demolitions, but rather allows the abatement of taxes
on a structure that no longer stands.
- the ordinance wording says "may be abated" not "shall be abated".
- razed structures for which the abatement would be sought would likely be razed with or
without the potential for tax abatement.
- the more pertinent issue relates to the issuance of demolition permits and the lack of a
mechanism for identifying buildings to be demolished as possible historic resources.
- the Committee is all ready charged with addressing the demolition issue.
@
The following Ordinance to Amend Chapter 15, Taxation, Article X, Real Estate - In General,
of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, was adopted by the recorded vote which is set out
above:
ORDINANCE NO. 02-15(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE X, REAL ESTATE -
IN GENERAL, 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 15, Taxation, Article X, Real Estate - In General, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle is amended and reordained as follows:
By Adding:
Sec. 15-1003 Abatement of levies on buildings razed, destroyed or damaged by
fortuitous happenings.
Chapter 15. Taxation
Article X. Real Estate - In General
Sec. 15-1003 Abatement of levies on buildings razed, destroyed or damaged by
fortuitous happenings.
Levies may be abated on buildings which are (i) razed, or (ii) destroyed or
damaged by a fortuitous happening beyond the control of the owner. No such
abatement, however, shall be allowed if the destruction or damage to such building shall
decrease the value thereof by less than $500. Also, no such abatement shall be allowed
unless the destruction or damage renders the building unfit for use and occupancy for
thirty days or more during the calendar year. The tax on such razed, destroyed or
damaged building is computed according to the ratio which the portion of the year the
building was fit for use, occupancy and enjoyment bears to the entire year. Application
for such abatement shall be made by or on behalf of the owner of the building within six
months of the date on which the building was razed, destroyed or damaged. (Ord.
02-15(1), 2-20-02)
State law reference - Va. Code 58.1-3222.
'
(Note: This item was not properly advertised for public hearing for February 6,
2002; was readvertised for public hearing and heard on May 15, 2002.)
__________
Item 5.4. Commonwealth's Attorney Request for Special Prosecutor.
Memorandum dated February 24, 2002, was received from Robert Tucker, County Executive, in
which he stated: The Commonwealths Attorney has requested approval for funding of a special
A=
prosecutor for three months during which an Assistant Commonwealths Attorney will be out on maternity
=
leave. He made a valid justification for his request of $12,672 and staff recommends that the Board
approve this request by simply allowing him to expend revenues out of his current budget which includes
both the FY 02 and FY 03 budget periods, i.e., May, 2002 through July, 2002. Mr. Camblos should be able
>>
to cover some of these requested revenues out of his current budget and any remaining funds will be
covered through the end-of-the-year Fund Balance.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the County Executives
==
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
recommendation.
__________
Item 5.5. Second Quarter Report for JAUNT services FY 2002, was received for information.
Ms. Shaunesey said that based on current financial and service information, she does not anticipate a
budget shortfall, though they will continue to monitor rural services which are exceeding expectations.
__________
Item 5.6. Copy of letter dated February 8, 2002, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Roger W. Ray, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND
PARCELS - Section 10.3.1 (property of Harry Courtney Powell, Sr. and Reva A. Powell), was received for
information.
__________
Item 5.7. Draft copy of Planning Commission minutes for January 29, 2002, was received as
information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Public hearing to provide information on the availability of Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for housing and community development needs in the County.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on February 10, 2002.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the staff report saying local citizen participation is encouraged throughout
the process of developing Community Improvement Grant (CIG) proposals funded through the Virginia
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. To facilitate participation, two public hearings are
required. The first hearing (tonights hearing) is to provide information to the public on funding availability,
=
the County's housing and community development needs and performance on past CDBG-funded
activities. The public may also discuss needs other than those identified by staff. The second hearing will
be held on any applications that may be submitted.
Mr. Tucker said the County is eligible to apply for up to $2.5 million in CDBG funding for projects
that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. Eligible activities include economic development, housing
rehabilitation, housing production, community facilities and community service facilities. Potential needs
identified include the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Whitewood Village Apartments by a partnership
created by the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program and water system needs in the Corville Farms
Subdivision at Greenwood. The latter project will need to be developed further to determine its eligibility
while the former will be significantly the same proposal as that submitted last year.
He said Albemarle County has been successful in receiving a number of CIGs over the years, the
most recent being a multi-year funded grant for housing and neighborhood improvements for the Porters
Road and Yancey School neighborhood. Approximately $3.0 million was invested in this project ($771,000
in CDBG funding) to rehabilitate 29 homes, construct five new homes, demolish 13 dilapidated structures,
construct a community park and refurbish a community center. All activities, with the exception of
completion of the five new homes, should be completed by early summer 2002.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
Ms. Anne Dunn said there were several members of the community (Corville Farms) present
tonight. She handed in a petition which had been signed by the neighbors who were not able to attend this
meeting. She also handed in a letter dated July 25, 2001, from James W. Moore, District Engineer, Virginia
Department of Health. She asked that the Board consider getting the request from Corville Farms on the
CDBG program for the water system. Fifty-one percent of the households in the subdivision fall within the
income guidelines. There were also three people present in the audience who indicated support of the
request.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said there was no action required by the Board on this agenda item tonight.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2001-040. Crossroads Waldorf School (Sign #70). Public hearing on a
request to allow private school serving a max of 350 students. Znd R-4. TM61, Ps170, 173 & 179A,
contains approx 12.97 acs. Located on Rio Rd E (Rt 631) at intersec of Rio Rd E & Pen Park Rd (Rt 768).
Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on February 4 and
February 11, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report. He said the Crossroads Waldorf School proposes to
=
relocate its existing school from the former Crozet Elementary School to a new facility to be constructed on
the west side of Rio Road across from the Charlottesville Catholic School at the intersection of Rio Road
and Pen Park Road. Upon completion of initial construction, the school will enroll 250 students from
preschool through eighth grade. Ultimately enrollment may reach 350 through grade twelve, with a
maximum staff of 40. The property is zoned R-4, Residential, and designated in the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Plan for Urban Density Residential (6.01 - 34 dwelling units/acre) in Neighborhood Two.
Mr. Cilimberg said the subject of a Comprehensive Plan amendment which referred to the Jones &
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Jones study for the Meadow Creek Parkway and to land use and park land in that area was mentioned last
September. Therefore, staff made reference to the Jones & Jones findings in its report. He said the site
where the school is proposed is actually the site recommended in that report for the southern of two urban
centers. Primary gateways would be located at the southern end of the ultimate mixed-use urban areas, as
well as at the northern end. The Waldorf site underlies that conceptual southern gateway. He said the site
concept complicates implementing the Jones & Jones report because the school occupies a substantial
portion of what is recommended for the southern urban center. If connections are made between the
school and the rest of the area, the school could be a supportive neighbor to the urban center. Under that
scenario, it would play a more transitional role, but could still benefit and cooperate with the larger urban
area by contributing to the greenway system, preserving a sensitive area of streams and steep hillsides at
the rear of the site, offering a venue for events in which the public could be invited to participate, and serving
as a transition between the established residential neighborhood just to the south, and the areas to the
north.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff originally suggested conditions intended to bring the Waldorf proposal in
closer compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Two Profile and the Neighborhood Model.
Staff noted in its report that there are several aspects of the Neighborhood Model that this particular
application strongly incorporated, which included parks and open space, redevelopment, and site planning
respecting terrain. Staff originally noted concerns with the incomplete pedestrian network and the lack of
interparcel connectivity, and its original conditions centered on trying to address those factors.
Mr. Cilimberg said this application was heard by the Planning Commission on January 15, 2002,
but was deferred until February 5 to allow staff and the applicant additional time to discuss issues which
were unresolved, particularly relating to interparcel connectivity and consistency with the Neighborhood Two
Profile in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff met with Mr. Gary Okerlund, a local planning consultant, who was
a member of the Jones & Jones team. As a result of that meeting, staff noted that because the topography
is steep and difficult to develop, the urban center concept calls for smaller scale mixed-use development
based on a 300-foot city block, that the alignment of the axis (or spine) road between the north and south
urban centers is critical to maximizing the developability of the area, and the axis should parallel Rio Road
East so that the property in between is wide enough for useful development. The first development on this
southern square will establish the alignment of the axis road by establishing the orientation of the square
itself.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant submitted two concepts (Attachments E & F in staffs report of
=
February 5) which illustrated how the schools building orientation and site design could relate to the
=
proposed southern urban center. Staff proposed conditions of approval that included adherence to design
concept Diagram A which had been submitted by the applicant. As a result, at the February 5 Commission
meeting, it recommended approval of SP-2001-040 subject to minor clarifications to staffs conditions
=
related primarily to access to adjacent parcels.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission added language to Condition No. 3 specifying that the northern
classroom wing must maintain a footprint and orientation in substantial accord with Diagram A. Staff was
directed to meet with the applicant and County Engineering and identify in more detail the location of a
future connection to Parcel 173A (an adjacent parcel to the residential property located next to the school
property). Staff recommends that a connection be made along the back of Parcel 173A at an appropriate
location and distance from the intersection of the entrance road. Also, that the connecting road to the north
be designed to align with the intersection.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended clarification of Condition No. 9 to distinguish between the
50-foot greenway dedication along Meadow Creek and dedication of a portion of the linear park identified in
the Comprehensive Plan, Neighborhood Two Profile, reflective of the Jones & Jones report of the Meadow
Creek Parkway. He said the applicant provided a letter dated February 13, 2002, in which they raised
concerns with four of the ten conditions (Condition Nos. 3, 7, 8 and 9) recommended by the Commission.
Each concern was discussed with the Commission before it took action. Staff notes that Condition No. 7
has now been revised in a way that can seemingly address the applicant's concern as well as meet the
Commission's intent. This week staff met with the applicant's representative and discussed Condition No. 9.
Alternatives offered by the applicant, while not providing for the dedicated
public park land recommended by staff and the Commission, are intended to provide for desired public
access to the greenway and linear park area and preserve the remaining area in its natural state.
Mr. Cilimberg said since this is the first project of significance to be proposed in the area amended
under CPA-2001-006, the Boards decision on elements of this proposal as they relate to the
=
Comprehensive Plan amendment will set the stage for subsequent development of the area. He offered to
answer questions.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board should look at the wording of revised Condition No. 9 which
was distributed by Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis said it was his understanding that the applicant concurred with the
revised condition, but now he understands the applicant does not concur. They object to the dedication in
paragraph 9c.
With no further questions for staff, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant
to speak.
Mr. Bruce Wardell said he is the architect who represented the school in developing the master
plan and the application for this special use permit. He said the school has represented throughout the
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
proposal the nature in which it intends to be a part of this community. There are many ways in which the
Waldorf School has all ready represented itself in the community of Crozet as a quality civic citizen. That
will continue on this site. Some of the issues raised throughout the process do need attention. He will
focus on only three. He said Condition No. 7 has been settled satisfactorily. He will focus on Condition
Nos. 3, 8 and 9.
Mr. Wardell said for Condition No. 3 the applicant submitted diagrams to show various ways in
which a configuration of the building could accommodate the secondary village square envisioned in the
Jones & Jones report. Those alternatives were only two of eight or more different types of proposals. The
Planning Commission chose to fix one of those lay-outs to a diagram which was intended to show some
ability for the school to relate to the plans which are as yet undeveloped for the property to the north. By
fixing that orientation and that footprint, it removes much of the ability of the school to actually design a
building which may relate to certain sustainable and environmental indications on the site. They feel there
are a number of ways in which they can successfully set the stage for a public square (that is yet
undesigned), and they felt it is premature at this time to fix the orientation and the footprint of that building.
As designers, they need to look at the real situation on site, with the real topography, as opposed to relating
to a schematic diagram in the Jones & Jones report. This is not intended to negate the ability to be an
active participant in that northern development, but to say they need flexibility in order to design a building
which responds both to the clients requirements and the Countys agenda for the development of this
==
northern property. They request that the Board insert language in Condition No. 3 that would give them
flexibility in the footprint and building orientation and allow them to meet both the Countys agenda and their
=
clients agenda.
=
Mr. Wardell said for Condition No. 8 much of the early discussion about connectivity and interparcel
connectivity centered around how the Jones & Jones recommendations could actually be implemented on
this site. To date, the School has accommodated the County in almost all of those connectivity issues. The
remaining issue is that the Commission inserted a condition asking that the path of connectivity to Village
Square be built before the School can occupy the building. That would make a path in someones back
=
yard, and it would not connect to Village Square and they feel it would encourage trespassing. It could also
create bad relationships between the two parcels until Village Square actually makes dedication of its
easements. The school would be happy to build its portion of this path once Village Square has made the
required dedications and easements for their part of the path. To build a path at this time which would end
in the middle of the woods does not make sense.
Mr. Wardell said in Condition No. 9 only section (c) needs discussion. When the school first looked
at this piece of property, prior to adoption of the Jones & Jones report into the Comprehensive Plan, the
school discussed with the County what they wanted to do and how they intended to develop the site. The
school saw the rear portion of the parcel as critical to their curriculum which is a highly environmental and
sustainable curriculum. The school children constantly use the landscape as a method of learning. The
school saw the rear portion of the site, which is in critical slopes and a stream, as a classroom. As the
process developed over the months, approximately two acres were required for the greenway dedication.
An additional dedication of 1.1 acres has been requested for the linear park.
Mr. Wardell said the school intends to keep this property completely natural. The school does
need the use of the property for their curriculum. The school is willing to propose a compromise that
accomplishes the Countys goals for open space, that corresponds to the outline in the diagram shown in
=
the Jones & Jones report, and to reserve that space as an undisturbed natural area. The school is also
willing to provide the 50-foot greenway that is noted in portion a and a 30-foot public access easement
A@
along the western side of the intermittent stream. That would allow for a Class B trail across this area of
the property. This would accomplish the connectivity which the Planning Commission gave as justification
for the entire dedication. It would allow connectivity between the future urban development on the Wetsel
property to the greenway. It would make the dedication along the greenway and preserve the ability of the
school to use the area envisioned as an ecological classroom on a daily basis. They feel that if the property
were dedicated to and managed by County Parks and Recreation, it would limit the school's ability to use
the property in this manner.
Mr. Wardell said the school would be the best steward of this kind of open space, critical slopes
and delicate environment. They do not think another applicant would have a better agenda for what the
County wants to accomplish with this portion of the site. The school needs to maintain its ability to use this
site the way they envisioned when they purchased the property, and when the rules were different than they
are now. He said the discussion should focus on the portion of the site that is critical to the school and their
ability to use this site to serve their curriculum and their agenda.
Ms. Nancy Reegan, Administrator for the Waldorf School, and a County resident, presented a
petition signed by approximately 200 supporters of the school, including all residents of Village Square
Phase I. She said these people have signed in support of the school, and its retention of ownership of the
back two acres of the parcel, with the understanding that those acres would forever be undeveloped by the
school and exist as a natural area. She then asked those people in the audience who were present to show
support to raise their hands; approximately 70 people. She said the school has operated for almost 20
years. They operate in two locations. They rent in Crozet where they enroll about 135 students from age
three through the eighth grade. They have a second facility at Four Seasons where they enroll another 45
students of pre-school age.
Ms. Reegan said they have looked for a permanent location for the school for almost 20 years. In
doing so, they have had many conversations with the County. They need to be centrally located to be more
readily available to families in the community. They looked for a place of physical beauty because it suits
their curriculum. They looked for a place with enough room for outdoor education, and for a way to unite
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
their campuses. The property on Rio Road is centrally located and is a place of remarkable physical
beauty and it is big enough for the school. They have modified their plans many times during this process in
response to requests by the County. They have allowed for a road to connect to the Wetsel farm when that
land is developed, and they allowed space for a pedestrian connection to Village Square, and found a way
to bring the two contiguous properties (Daniels and Tisdale) out through their driveway so those properties
do not need to use Rio Road anymore. This was in response to the Countys need for connectivity under
=
the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Reegan said they have not been able to say yes to the loss of the two acres at the back of the
A@
property. Their curriculum has children outside almost as much as it has them inside. When they looked at
this site, they were aware of the very steep slope where they could walk children down the slight rise and on
to Meadow Creek. They see that as an outdoor classroom. She urges the Board to consider their petition
to keep that as part of the Waldorf School property. They need to have access to it and they need to have
control of it, so they need to be sure it will remain open space available to their children. She said if left to
the school, the school will keep the property the way the County wants it to be kept.
Ms. Sarah Tremaine said she was Chair of the Land Search Committee and is a resident of the
County. She wants to comment on the matter of precedent. She understands there is concern by the
Board, the Planning Commission and staff about the precedent which might be set if the school were to
maintain control of the back 1.8 acres, instead of it being deeded to the County. She read from the
Comprehensive Plan about the methods for obtaining land for a greenway. In this situation, she sees that
there is a precedent available for a public/private partnership. She said Virginia has been a leader in these
partnerships for open spaces where the Virginia Outdoors Foundation has in excess of 200,000 acres in
trust. There are many other organizations that have land in trust. The Waldorf School is offering to be
good stewards of this land. In this time of shrinking budgets, they can save the County money by
stewarding this land. Also, they are allowing for public access by the Class B trail along the intermittent
stream. She spoke with the Director of the Land Trust Alliance in Washington, D.C. who coordinates many
land trusts in the United States and he commented that this is a model opportunity. It is a different kind of
precedent where the public stated objective can be mutually compatible and achieved in this fashion.
Ms. Jennifer Till said she is a resident of the County and is Director of Development for the school.
She said it is important to point out that by requiring the school to dedicate 1.81 acres to Albemarle County
for the public park and trail system, the County is imposing obvious collateral, financial and moral
challenges for the applicant. She said it is difficult to get a donor excited about giving money to purchase
land on which to build the new school, only to turn around and give about 13 percent of that land away.
She said if they are not assured the land will be kept natural, they will be concerned until its actual usage is
determined. That will hamper the philanthropic climate for the school. As Mr. Wardell indicated, the school
is willing and wants to create a win-win scenario in which the County and the school both get what they
want.
Mr. John Diven said he is a County resident, a parent of a child at the school, and is head of the
design team. He will address Condition No. 3. It is their desire to come up with the best possible design for
this site. They have agreed that they will be the southern node of the Neighborhood Model development in
the Jones & Jones report. He said they are being asked to configure their footprint to Diagram A as
developed by Mr. Wardell. It is a good plan, but Diagram B was also a good plan. Some of the Planning
Commissioners liked B better than A. Both plans are very hypothetical. They are only potential
A@A@
strategies. They request that they be given some latitude as they approach their design in view of that
situation. He said their design needs to maximize the potential of the site. It needs to relate to specimen
trees which are near the urban center. They would like to save those trees and A may not save them.
A@
They want to respect the existing grades, not wanting to do a lot of land moving and disrupt existing
topography. They are interested in a solar orientation for the school. They are interested in using prevailing
breezes and sustainable architecture. Their initial and current goal is to give Mr. Wardell and his associates
the maximum latitude for creating a school which is in harmony with the site. They request that the Board
allow some flexibility in Condition No. 3 so they can create the school they aspire to provide for their
children.
Mr. Bill Downer, Downer Realty, said understanding there is a very steep part of this property, the
lay-out of the property, its access, and the Countys plan for the area, he had three options; multi-dwelling,
=
R-4 which is by right, or the school. He chose the school because of what they said they wanted to do on
the property. In this area, there are not many people buying sites where they will develop only one-half of it
and leave the rest of it as a natural barrier. He thought this was a natural match for this location, and would
be a good neighbor for future development of the Wetsel property and the other parcels in the area. He
thinks the majority of the undeveloped parcels will be developed, and not much land will be left unused.
For those reasons, the special use process has provided the County with plenty of input, and the school has
responded in a positive way.
Ms. Cathleen Jump said she would like to talk about the Boards interest in the future investment of
=
the County. She thinks the Comprehensive Plan is crafted in the way to manage growth and development
in order to make an investment in the County. She feels the school on this property, and maintaining the
school in Albemarle County, is a significant investment in the future. The school looked for a long time to
find a suitable site in the County. She thinks it would be a loss if the school could not continue to exist in the
County. She said the Crozet librarian has said she is very sorry the school is leaving the area because of
the involvement of the parents in the community. Many dozens of families have moved into Albemarle
County just so their children can attend this school. She said there will be generations of parents as
involved and committed to this school.
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Cilimberg to elaborate on discussions he had with Mr. Gary Okerlund
regarding orientation of the northernmost part of the building on the site, and the importance of that
orientation.
Ms. Thomas said she understands Mr. Okerlund and staff were interested in the facade, the
footprint is not of interest. She thinks that if it is the facade, and all the Board members agree with the
Planning Commission, it might engage in some wordsmithing.
A@
Mr. Cilimberg said prior to the February 5 meeting of the Planning Commission, both staff and the
applicant met - independently - with Mr. Gary Okerlund, one of the Jones & Jones team members. It was
staff's intent to more fully understand the concept for the mixed-use development proposed for this portion
of Neighborhood Two, particularly the southern urban center which, in the Jones & Jones report, was
intended to occupy the area now proposed for the school. Mr. Okerlund reaffirmed the importance of the
interparcel connections, and also stressed that the form and orientation of the first structure to face the
southern urban center would establish the alignment of the axis road for the rest of the mixed-use area.
Aligning the axis or spine road parallel to Rio Road East is critical to maintaining a useful and usable width
of the property in between the two roads (Rio and the new spine road). Because the topography is steep
and difficult to develop, the urban center calls for smaller scale, mixed-use development based on 300-foot
city blocks. It is important that orientation of the building be in substantial accord with Diagram A, one of
A@
the two concept plans submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Rooker asked if it is important that the orientation presented in Attachment A be followed. Mr.
Cilimberg said the orientation is the most important aspect because it relates to the square and also allows
for road lay-out as shown on Diagram A. He said there is a roughly north/northeast orientation to that
particular side of the building.
Ms. Thomas asked if the northern wing of the building is to have a northern orientation. Mr.
Cilimberg said it is not a true north, but it is close.
Mr. Rooker asked if the word footprint were deleted from Condition No. 3 and the condition stated
A@
... with a northern wing building orientation in substantial accord with Diagram A .... if that would
A@
accomplish the primary purpose of the condition while providing more flexibility for the applicant.
Ms. Thomas said she did a little research about solar panels and solar orientation and daylighting.
She checked with some people who worked on Monticello High School when the daylighting was an issue.
Southern orientation is required for solar panels, and northern orientation is needed for reducing the heat
load and daylighting. Knowingly or not, Mr. Wardells Diagram A lays it out almost exactly as the experts
=A@
would lay it out if taking a maximum view toward solar aspects.
Mr. Rooker referred to Condition No. 8 and said he believes the applicant's recommendation is
reasonable. Maybe the wording suggested is not perfect, but he does not think the path should have to be
constructed until it will connect to something. The condition now says ... shall be in place prior to the
A
issuance of a zoning clearance for use of the building as a school. He believes that requirement could be
@
deferred until such time as connectivity is established on the other side.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Rooker had any suggested language for this recommendation. Mr.
Rooker said the applicant is asking that they not be required to construct the path until such time as Village
Square commits to their portion of the connective path. He is not certain that is the correct language, but he
thinks the Board should consider a condition that does not require that the path be built until there is another
portion of the path for it to connect to. Mr. Davis suggested as an alternative to say that the path would be
constructed upon the request of the County. The County does not know how the
other property will be developed, and both portions may need to be coordinated so they can be established
at the same time.
Mr. Martin said the owners have not been given time tonight to discuss things brought up at the
public hearing. They still have that time available. The conditions can be reworded and placed on the next
consent agenda for action by the Board.
Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission felt Diagram A was the most suitable, and had the
best orientation. He wonders if the Board would be willing, in addition to removing the word footprint, to
A@
consider insertion of some language to the effect or as otherwise acceptable to the Planning Commission.
A@
Since the applicant has presented a reasonable orientation which was accepted by the Commission, it
would give them slightly more flexibility. The applicant is now completely tied to Diagram A except for the
15 degrees mentioned. He would not have a problem with the Commission making that determination.
That would keep with the intent of Diagram A, but it might differ a little more than envisioned and still be
acceptable. That could be determined during site plan review.
Mr. Martin said he would like to hear the applicants response to both suggestions. He thought Ms.
=
Thomas suggestion about northern orientation might be a reasonable compromise which accomplishes
=
what is needed.
Ms. Thomas said her suggestion takes out the word footprint so the condition would state how to
A@
meet that orientation. She was convinced by the Planning Commission that it is important to have that
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
anchor to that urban area. If that is not made clear in this petition, dealing with the private developers of the
rest of the property could be weakened.
Mr. Rooker said the Jones & Jones report cost a lot of public money to work out the design for this
property. Mr. Okerlund was asked his opinion about the orientation, and he indicated it is important that the
orientation be followed in order to end up with the correct design of that whole property. That opinion,
combined with the Planning Commissions discussion of the whole issue, convinces him the Board should
=
stick with the orientation. He thinks the applicant would have substantial flexibility by just eliminating the
word footprint.
A@
Ms. Thomas said she would like to talk about Condition No. 9. This greenway will either be the
plug at the end of some 50 acres of a linear park or it will be a piece of a wonderful linear park which the
school and the students will benefit from greatly. There will be a bicycle path from this property all the way
to downtown Charlottesville. There will be a pedestrian way, and there will be park which includes a creek
which will need a lot of environmental work, and is part of what got the Jones & Jones people excited when
they realized that there are three schools around that park. This would be the fourth school. She said the
County is also faced with a city which does not believe the Board means what they say. This is the first
chance the County has had to have a piece of that property become part of that park, and if the Board does
not take it, they will cement the skeptics in the City. On the other hand, she thinks it is totally unfair to make
the school dedicate land to a park which may never exist. That is why she liked the wording of 9c which
A@
was distributed to the Board, but which the audience has not seen. It says The land shall be reserved for
A
dedication and shall be dedicated to Albemarle County at such time as a linear park is established on the
contiguous properties to the north and south of the reserved area. When dedicated, the reserved area shall
become part of the Countys and the City of Charlottesvilles park and trail system. The owner shall
==
preserve the reserved area in the natural condition, install no buildings and show it on the final site plan.
@
She said that wording does not require that this school blaze the trail for the park. But, it also would not
become the cork that blocks the park at the end, if and when it becomes a reality. She thinks it will become
a reality, but since the County was depending on VDOT to purchase some of the land, who knows when
that will happen. This would keep the school from being penalized for the Board having dreams.
Mr. Martin said if what the school is envisioning is along the same lines as what the County
envisions for a linear park, is there a way to make sure it becomes a linear park without the County having
ownership. He thinks that is a question which should be explored.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Davis if the process could be reversed, and the school retain ownership but
grant an access easement to the public for use as a park at such time as the rest of the park came on line.
Mr. Davis said that could be done, but he understands the objection is that the school wants to maintain
control of the property; they do not want it to be open to the public. He said the hangup is not whether it is
an easement or dedication, it is control and access.
Mr. Martin said control is one thing, but access by the public is different. He thinks the school could
have control and still grant public access. He thinks the County wants the public to have access through
that area.
Mr. Rooker said the speakers said they want the open space to be available to their children for
classes. They want to assure that the property would remain in its natural state, and they dont mind having
=
access by the public at such time as the rest of the park is built. He feels those goals should be reachable
in some fashion. He read as suggested language for Condition 9c: The deed of dedication shall be
A
subject to review and approval by the County Attorney and may restrict the use of the property to park, open
space and greenway uses. He said that would assure the school the property could not be used for any
@
other purpose. He asked if it could also be stated that the school retains the right to use the property
A
consistent with park purposes or its own educational purposes.
@
Mr. Martin said he thinks the question is whether the applicant is willing to accept that definition of
control.
A@
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Wardell if he wished to speak to these questions. Mr. Wardell asked for a
recess in order to speak with his client before addressing the Board again. (Note: The Board recessed at
8:10 p.m. and reconvened at 8:17 p.m.)
Mr. Wardell said after discussion with the schools steering committee, he will address the two
=
issues just raised by the Board. In Condition No. 3, the flexibility that Ms. Thomas suggested of 15 degrees
on either side of that orientation gives them the flexibility they need in order to design a building that can use
the specific kind of environmental mechanisms they may want to use. If that flexibility is incorporated, No. 3
would be agreeable. If the school retains ownership, but provides dedication as set out in Condition 9A and
9B (that at such time as the linear park is established on the north and south of this property), they would be
willing to grant an easement of public access to that 1.81 acres. They would like to define that no buildings
can be built on that property. That is their concern. If it just says use consistent with a park that could be
A@
something like Darden Towe park. That is why that language is too general. If language restricting
construction of any structure on that property is included, they would be willing to do that. He said the
discussion has been very positive this evening, and he thanked the Board.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the request should be deferred in order to allow crafting of the appropriate
wording of the conditions.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Wardell was happy with the Boards suggestion that the path in Condition
=
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
No. 8 will be shown on the final site plan. Mr. Wardell said the language suggested does not restrain the
County from requesting it at the time a site plan is submitted. Ms. Thomas said there is little bit of trust
involved.
Mr. Rooker asked if 15 degrees is what Ms. Thomas recommended. Ms. Thomas said that is what
the solar experts said. Mr. Bowerman asked if that should be incorporated into the conditions. Ms. Thomas
said the northern wing building having a northern orientation with a 15 degree leeway is the consensus.
Mr. Martin said as to the last comment about when the County would call for Condition No. 8 to be
put in place, Mr. Davis has said it would only be called into play when everything is ready as reflected in the
minutes. The minutes show that as the good faith of the Board.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board is telling everybody here tonight that it is leaning toward approval,
there just needs to be some wording worked out.
Ms. Thomas said she hates to close the meeting without a definitive vote, but this matter will be on
the next agenda for final action.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to defer SP-2001-040,
Crossroads Waldorf School, to the March 6, 2002, Consent Agenda. By voice vote, the motion carried:
AYES: All present.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2001-052. John Decarlo (Signs #91 & 92). Public hearing on a request to
allow activity w/in the floodway. Znd RA. TM26, P33, contains 75.3 acs. Located on Rt 810 at its intersec
with Rt 673. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on
February 4 and February 11, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report. He said the applicant constructed a driveway and
=
culvert in the floodplain of a tributary of Doyle's River (for access to an existing house) without the
necessary special use permit. This special permit application is intended to rectify the violation. The small
scale of this project should prevent any significant impacts on the flood plain of the Doyles River. The one
=
thing which does need to be addressed, and is provided for through conditions, is that the culvert installed
as part of this project needs to be stabilized. Staff recommended approval with two conditions. The
Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 15, 2002, unanimously recommended approval of SP-
2001-052 subject to the same two conditions.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. John Decarlo, applicant, said he and his wife support the recommendation of the Planning
Commission. They obtained a permit from VDOT and were told they needed this special permit also. He
asked the Board to approve the permit.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Rooker offered motion to approve SP-2001-052, subject to the conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The applicant shall provide a copy of a signed Army Corps of Engineers permit
for this project, or a written confirmation from the Corps of Engineers that a
permit is not required, within four (4) months of the approval date of this permit;
and,
2. The applicant shall stabilize the area around the culvert pipe to the satisfaction of
the Albemarle County Erosion and Sediment Control inspector within four (4)
months of the approval date of this permit.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2001-055. Albemarle Farm Store (Signs #98 & 99). Public hearing on a
request to operate a farm sales fac on approx 22.75 acs. Loc at SW intersec of Carter's Mountain Rd (Rt
726) & Blenheim Rd (Rt 727). Znd RA. TM103, P10A. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on February 4 and February 11, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report. He said the applicant has requested approval of a
=
special use permit for a farm sales facility. The total floor area will contain 2587 sq. ft. with no more than
1500 sq. ft. being devoted to retail sales. The facility would serve as an outlet for neighboring farms to sell
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
their produce, as well as for agricultural/horticultural products produced on the applicant's farm (Albemarle
Estate Farm). In addition, the proposed facility would provide an outlet for wine tasting and wine sales for
the Kluge Estate Winery located on an adjacent property. The proposed hours of operation would be
Monday through Friday, between approximately 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and on weekends, if there were a
demand. There would be a maximum of three employees.
Mr. Cilimberg said this property is located within the Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District. It is also
located in the Rural Areas. Farm sales as a use are considered compatible with the rural area. The
property is heavily wooded, and the applicant would preserve as many of the existing trees as possible,
maintaining a natural buffer to minimize any effects the farm store would have on adjacent property
owners.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant appeared before the Agricultural & Forestal Committee on
November 12, 2001. The Committee recommended that the agricultural products sold by the farm store,
not produced on the applicant's farm, be produced within Albemarle County. The applicant requested
before the Planning Commission that they be allowed to also sell products produced in surrounding
counties. Staff felt it would be better to have a broader application of sales than just in Albemarle, and
recommends approval subject to two conditions, one having to do with commercial entrance approval by
VDOT, and the second regarding the number of employees.
Mr. Cilimberg said that on January 29, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
SP-2001-055, but added two more conditions. One condition recommended that development be in
general accord with the site plan and in the second set out the hours of operation.
Mr. Rooker asked about the number of square feet which will be devoted to wine tasting and to
sales. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant should address that question. He said the farm sales part will be
related to the 1500 square feet.
Mr. Rooker asked if the sale of wine is considered separately from the sale of other products
produced on the farm. Mr. Cilimberg said the Zoning Department told staff it should concentrate on the
area which would be devoted to retail sales. Mr. Davis said if the wine is actually produced on the property,
it could be included. Mr. Cilimberg said the winery is actually on the adjacent property. In reality, if 50
percent of the 1500 square feet is from the farm and the additional sales are from the winery, that is well
over 50 percent being produced locally.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jim Grigg, architect with Daggett & Grigg, said they had prepared the site plan for the project.
The building is of less than 3000 square feet, with less than 20 parking spaces, on approximately 22 acres
of heavily wooded property. County staff recommends approval and the Planning Commission also
recommended approval. The applicant intends to operate the property according to the rules and
regulations outlined in the Zoning Ordinance which established the 1500 square foot rule; the balance of
the building would be bathrooms, offices and service type storage. He was confused at the Commission
meeting about the hours of operation. He thought the hours would be daylight hours, i.e., 7:00 a.m. to dark
which could be 10:00 p.m. in the summertime. He asked that the condition be clarified. He thought the
Commission recommended that the store be allowed to sell products from other farms in the area, as well
as from farms in surrounding counties. Those are two things which he thinks are important, and he
believes they were recommended by the Commission.
Mr. Martin asked if the hours of operation set at between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. year-round,
would be preferable, instead of saying dark and then having a definition of the word dark. Mr. Grigg said
A@
he believes the Zoning Ordinance says 10:00 p.m. Mr. Perkins noted that it actually says 9:00 p.m.
Ms. Patricia Kluge said this building is on her farm, and 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. would be fine with
them.
Ms. Tara Hodges said she is a resident of the area. When she learned about the winery and store
proposed for the area, she was concerned about the enormous increase in traffic it could create. She does
not think Route 627 is an appropriate location. She understands this attraction will be marketed as a
natural addition to tours of Monticello and Ash Lawn. This would create intolerably heavy tourist traffic
between Ash Lawn and Albemarle Farm on a section of road which is narrow, winding and poorly
maintained. There are no shoulders and in some areas two cars can barely pass. If this project is
approved, Route 627 will bear increased traffic. The section of Route 627 between Albemarle Farm and
Route 20 is the route commercial traffic would utilize. She said Route 20 between the intersection of Route
627 and I-64 is a treacherous 10-mile stretch of road. According to published by
Traffic Crash Facts
VDOT, in the year 2000, there were a total of 10 traffic fatalities in Albemarle County, and three of these
occurred on Route 20 south of Charlottesville. She said if Albemarle Farms sticks with this endeavor, and
does not become bored with it in a couple of years, it might generate tax revenues, but is it worth the cost
that will be paid in the meantime by the citizens who are forced to utilize Route 627 and Route 20 every
day. She said if Albemarle Farms wishes to operate a tourist attraction, she would ask that the Board
require them to do it in some other location.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board. Ms. Thomas asked if the applicant had any closing remarks.
Mr. Grigg said VDOT has signed off on this proposal, and it is their opinion that any additional traffic
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
generated by the farm sales store will be of no substantial impact on the road.
Ms. Thomas said she does not want anyone to be confused about what could be sold at this facility.
The Zoning Ordinance says that 50 percent of the retail sales must be agricultural or horticultural produce
or merchandise produced on the premises. She assumes that produced on the premises is a qualifier to
A@
agricultural and horticultural. Mr. Davis said that is correct.
A@A@
Ms. Thomas said that means 50 percent must be produced on the farm. There is no way to do
what the Ag/Forest Committee proposed because the Board has nothing to say about the other 50 percent.
Mr. Davis said that is correct. Mr. Cilimberg said this is a section of the ordinance which is subject to
modification, if needed. The applicant has not made that request. It was not said what the remaining 1275
square feet will be used for, but the applicant is asking for 1500 square feet of retail sales. That is all they
can have by ordinance, and 50 percent or more of the products must be from the farm.
Mr. Rooker said the staff report notes that the remainder of the space would be used for a variety of
things including the sale of wine from the next-door property and wine tasting. He interprets sale of wine
A@
to be a retail sale. Mr. Cilimberg said the rest of the square footage would be used for other activities.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks this proposal is consistent with farm store usage. The applicant did
not indicate any problems with the requirements in the ordinance. He, personally, does not find Route 627
to be that bad of a road. Mr. Perkins said it is worse coming north than it is going south. Mr. Bowerman
said that from Route 20 it is not bad. Mr. Perkins said that section was improved in recent years.
Mr. Rooker said the proposal is consistent with enabling uses in the rural areas. It allows people to
maintain open spaces even though it is difficult to farm and make a living. He thinks it is consistent with
rural planned development.
Mr. Martin then moved to approve SP-2001-055, Albemarle Farm Store, subject to the four
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. All requirements of VDOT, including sight distance requirements
[four-hundred-fifty (450) feet for the forty-five (45) MPH on Rt. 627], commercial
entrance standards [minimum thirty (30)-feet wide, forty-eight-(48) feet tapers],
and a one hundred (100)-foot taper on the right approach, shall be completed
before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
2. There shall be a maximum of three (3) employees on-site at any particular time;
3. The Albemarle Farm Store's improvements and the scale and location of the
improvements shall be developed in general accord with the site plan entitled,
Albemarle Farm Store, prepared by Daggett & Grigg Architects, and dated
December 8, 2001; and,
4. The hours of operation shall be 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2001-74. Bartelt Office Park. Public hearing on a request to allow
residential uses w/in CO district. Znd CO. TM45, Ps 158, 159, 166 & 167. Contains 2.25 acs. Loc on N sd
of Rio Rd (Rt b/t intersec of Berkmar Dr & Woodburn Rd). Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on February 4 and February 11, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report. He said the applicant, John Bartelt and Sycamore
=
Homes, Inc., has proposed a mixed-use development consisting of three office buildings, a five-unit
townhouse, and a single-family dwelling on 2.25 acres of commercially-zoned land on the north side of
Route 631 (Rio Road) between the intersections of Berkmar Drive and Woodburn Road. The property is in
Urban Area Neighborhood 1.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has several goals for this project. First, he wishes to soften the
transition between the residential neighbors to the west on Woodburn Road and the existing commercial to
the east along Rio Road and Greenfields Terrace behind. A second goal is to protect two very large oak
trees on Parcel 166. A third goal is to provide for an alternate connection between Greenfields Terrace and
Rio Road so that users would have the option of using either road and avoid left-turn movements onto Rio
Road during heavy traffic periods. Finally, the applicant wants to provide for a mixed-use development on
the commercially-zoned parcels.
Mr. Cilimberg said this area is currently designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Office Service.
Staff noted several factors as being favorable to the request. It is a form of in-fill development and reduces
the number of curb cuts along Rio Road. It would provide for interconnectivity. It retains two large homes
and two large trees on the property, and has the potential for providing affordable housing. He said staff
noted that the open space should have additional amenities, and the grass on the slopes directly behind the
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
townhouses should be supplemented with shrubs and trees planted on the slopes to reduce the visual
impact to the rear of the townhouses.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval with two conditions. The Planning Commission, at
its meeting on January 22, 2002, unanimously recommended approval of SP-2001-074, subject to those
two conditions, plus two additional conditions. One requires porous pavement, and the other has to do with
aeration of the existing oak trees during construction. Since that meeting, Planning staff has received
information from a couple of different sources expressing reservations about the requirement for porous
pavement. He said that neither Jeff Thomas or David Hirschman recommend porous asphalt, grass pave,
or gravel pave for use in non-overflow parking areas. He said Engineering has said their experience is that
porous asphalt tends to clog easily reducing effectiveness, and that maintenance is the main issue. It has
been found through experimentation that because of clay soils in this area, porous pavers do not work well.
Mr. Hirschman noted that the County has experimented with technologies and many of them may not be
suitable for small commercial sites due to maintenance and cost issues.
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Hirschman is recommending that Condition No. 3 be removed. Mr.
Cilimberg said he is only providing information, not making a recommendation. Mr. Davis said that is the
inference.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing, and invited the applicant to speak.
Mr. Mark Keller with McKee Carson was present to represent Mr. John Bartelt and his family who
own this series of parcels. They need a special use permit in order to allow residential uses in a
commercial zone. This is a unique situation. They have commercial zoning on the property. There have
been historic residential uses on the property and they wish to reserve those. They are asking to add
additional residential uses. They see this site as having two complexions. The front two parcels relate to
Rio Road, whereas the two parcels in the back are significantly lower in elevation and relate much better to
Greenfields Terrace. They want to develop the property as a whole, sort of as a campus, but focus most of
the commercial aspects toward Greenfields Terrace because that is a commercial cul-de-sac, then
preserve more of the residential feel on the front end of the property. The front of the property is largely
wooded with a few older trees, but the back is basically denuded because of grading that took place in a
pad-ready type of approach by former developers. He referred the Board members to a copy of the site
A@
plan on display.
Mr. Keller said he believes their site plan is in order. They issued a letter today. They hired a soil
scientist last month when they found out that the porous paving issuing was of interest to the Planning
Commission. The soil scientist went out yesterday and looked at the property and sent a letter indicating
there is no reason why the soil would not support a porous paving application. If there were clay soils they
could not do that. Both Jeff Thomas and David Hirschman have noted the liabilities of porous asphalt
pavement, the clogging, etc.,and said that this application is used where there is two-percent or less slope
so the water runoff typically sits on the pavement and is allowed to perk. On this site, most of their parking
spaces are on a five-percent grade. They do not expect the water to sit and wait to be absorbed. They
have a storm system collecting the water. In terms of an environmental effect on the site, in the little elbow
of Greenfields Terrace, there is an area which has been set aside for a bio-filter. In terms of a water quality
measure, they have incorporated that into the preliminary plan, and will fully develop it during the final site
plan stage with staffs help. He offered to answer questions.
=
Ms. Thomas said she understands that often the porous paving system works only if the area is dug
out and then filled with sand (at least in areas of clay), and then pavers are put on top which basically
defeats the purpose of trying to protect the trees. Mr. Keller said he is not an expert so cannot contradict
anything Ms. Thomas said. He said the porous paving issue did not come about in relation to saving the
trees. There are probably four to six parking spaces underneath some part of the drip line of the big trees.
There are more than 50 total parking spaces, most of which are near Greenfields Terrace. There was a
suggestion that on the final plan a manifold system be provided where breathable pipes are incorporated
before the paving and/or sidewalk or fill is put down, to protect the trees. The reason the client did not
choose to bulldoze the front of the site and take out the trees, taking the property to its highest and best
use, is that he feels a personal attachment to those trees. He lives in the house right behind the trees, and
he does not wish to see this property totally demolished.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Keller has an objection to Condition No. 3. Mr. Keller said they wrote a
letter today (which he will distribute later) in which he explains that they had spoken with Jeff Thomas in
Engineering. Mr. Thomas is aware of the effectiveness of asphalt-based porous paving, and also realizes
that the preliminary plans include a bio-filter through which the vast majority of the sites runoff will flow. He
=
is suspect of asphalt-based porous paving in general, and Mr. Kellers engineers agree with that
=
assessment. This form of paving is only measurably effective when applied to nearly level situations. All or
most of the parking spaces on the proposed plan are at a roughly five-percent slope in one direction. Mr.
Keller said they believe this constitutes an ineffective environment for asphalt-based porous paving. It is Mr.
Thomas opinion that the bio-filter proposed is much more desirable than a porous paving alternative.
=
However, if the Supervisors deem the use of both a bio-filter and asphalt-based paving necessary, the
applicant is willing to concede to that request.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board might consider deleting Condition No. 3. It appears to impose
an additional cost on the applicant for no environmental gain, given the circumstances.
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Perkins said it would catch some water, which would percolate into the ground. Although most
of it would runoff, what did percolate through the asphalt would recharge into the ground. He said
groundwater recharge is a concern in this County. The more impervious surface there is, the less recharge
area there is.
Mr. Rooker said he thought that with the bio-filter this would not improve the situation. But, if there
is some feeling that it would, he is willing to go along with the recommendation.
Mr. Martin said he trusts Mr. Perkins and Mr. Hirschman, so it makes sense to him to leave
Condition No. 3 in place, but with the idea that if further study indicates it is a bad idea, the Board then
remove the condition. Mr. Davis said going back through the special use permit process to get a condition
removed is probably not desirable.
Mr. Rooker asked if there could be a condition stating that parking outside of the travelways shall
A
be constructed of porous pavement if requested by the Engineering Department. Mr. Davis said the Board
@
knows what the Engineering Department thinks of this idea.
Mr. Bowerman said he understands it is a good theory, but in practice it becomes less porous
quickly. Some of the design characteristics of it have not been solved yet by the industry, so it has limited
application unless the ground is prepared as suggested by Ms. Thomas.
Mr. Martin said because of the incline the water does not stay long enough to reach the sand.
Mrs. Thomas said everyone has been talking about asphalt-based porous pavements, but there
are other forms of porous pavement. There are things which look like a grid, and things that look like fancy
cinder blocks turned on edge.
Mr. Cilimberg said he would read what Mr. Hirschman had sent him by E-mail late today: It may
A
be important for the Board to know that the County has experimented with some of these technologies, and
many of them may not be suitable for a small commercial site due to maintenance and cost issues. The
grass pave and gravel pave did not work at Monticello High School, but have been used elsewhere with
success. I dont think we can say they wont work, but much care would have to be taken with design and
==
installation. The concrete paver blocks we have down in the County Office Building parking lot seem to be
more durable, but the cost is unknown for a larger application. If they are game to give it a try, that is fine.
My larger concern is that the Commission not make conditions like this a standard practice without knowing
the technical suitability and implications. Mr. Cilimberg said it is an unknown; it may work, it may not work.
@
It would vary from site to site, and condition to condition. It will also vary in cost in terms of achieving
effectiveness.
Mr. Martin said the issue boils down to approving the special use permit itself, and whether the
Board wants to get bogged down on a question it may not have an answer to tonight. He wonders how to
get over this hurdle.
Mr. Rooker said he does not feel strongly about it. He just did not want to impose the cost on the
applicant if there would be no positive impact from imposition of this condition.
Mr. Perkins asked if anyone knew what the additional cost would be for the porous asphalt
pavement, versus standard asphalt. Mr. Keller said he does not know that much about this subject, but
information he has received through telephone calls in the past indicates that the cost is based on the scale
of the application. On a large parking lot (such as at Food Lion at Forest Lakes), the cost is two to two and
one-quarter times the cost of normal asphalt. That is for an entire parking lot where the same equipment
can be used for the whole job. In this situation, they would be bobbing and weaving just into the parking
areas, not the paving strip, and having to put it in little spots. Compared to a large shopping area, they are
not talking about a lot of square yardage. Because of the small scale of the job, it would probably be three
to four times more expensive than the normal asphalt they put on. He said they did not bring up cost at the
hearing because he and staff had decided that would not be of concern.
Mr. Bowerman said some of these will be housing units. The Board has talked about not
unnecessarily increasing costs in the urban area of housing types, and if it were a method that was proven
and shown to work, it would be great. But, he does not see that it has been proven, and Mr. Hirschman and
Engineering have not signed off positively on it. He recommends dropping Condition No. 3.
Mr. Bowerman then offered motion to approve SP-2001-074 subject to Conditions 1, 2 and 4 as
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks there is information which the Engineering Department can get from
VDOTs Highway Research Council on how long it takes water that gets under the asphalt to move out.
=
The Council has done a lot of research on that subject.
Ms. Thomas said she found Mr. Hirschmans statement My larger concern is that the Commission
=A
(Board) not make conditions like this a standard practice without knowing the technical suitability and
implications interesting. Maybe this is a cry to staff to educate the Board or staff members so it will be
@
known when it is appropriate to impose such a condition. She gets a magazine called and gets
Stormwater
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
excited about porous paving after reading articles. It looks like something the Board may want to do, but
making this applicant a guinea pig does not seem fair.
Roll was called at this point, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The applicant shall provide recreational amenities, such as a picnic table, grill,
and/or benches, in the southeastern portion of the property. These amenities
shall be shown on the final site plan and installed with the construction of the
townhouses;
2. The applicant shall landscape the reconstructed slopes behind the townhouses
and 10,000 square foot office building with screening trees, small shrubs, and
ground cover, as approved by the County's Landscape Planner; and,
3. The applicant shall use construction techniques, approved by the Planning Staff,
that provide adequate aeration to the existing oak threes.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-2001-16. Bargamin Park (Sign # 57). Public hearing on a request to
rezone 9.59 acs from R-2 to PRD to create 19 single family detached dwelling units & 23 townhouses. The
applicant has submitted a request for preliminary plat approval as well (SUB-01-255). TM55, P67. Loc on
Jarmans Gap Rd (Rt 691) approx .25 miles from intersec of Jarmans Gap Rd & Crozet Ave (Rt 240). (The
Comp Plan designates this property for Urban Density [6.01-34 du/ac] in the Crozet Community.) White
Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on February 4 and February
11, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report. He said the applicant, Roger Katcham, proposes to
=
develop the property with 19 single-family detached dwellings (including the existing Bain House) and 23
townhome units, on a modified grid street pattern, as shown on the Application Plan. Proffers are provided
with this rezoning proposal, which include the right-of-way dedication necessary for improvements to
Jarmans Gap Road, a traditional internal street section, Design Planner review and approval of exterior
alterations to the Bain House, and vehicular and pedestrian connections to adjoining properties. More
recently there have been proffers which include the elevations as requested by the Planning Commission.
Staff has confirmed with the Zoning Administrator that the open space provided as part of the Plan is in
accordance with Ordinance requirements.
Mr. Cilimberg said the proposal includes public streets with detached sidewalks and street trees,
the preservation of a local landmark, the preservation of the view of the historic Bain house for the larger
community to enjoy and the residents to use as passive open space, a mixture of housing types, and
parking relegated to the rear of lots or behind buildings. This area is designated in the Comprehensive Plan
for urban density, with a recommended 6.01 to 34 dwelling units per acre. The proposal is in the
Community of Crozet.
Mr. Cilimberg said there are a number of areas covered in the staffs report as the proposal relates
=
to the Comprehensive Plan and the Neighborhood Model. Factors noted as favorable are: The plan meets
many of the principles of the Neighborhood Model. There were questions at the Commission hearing about
affordability of the units and concerns were raised concerning timing of improvements to Jarmans Gap
Road. He said the historic house will be restored, the historic view of the house is maintained, a greenway
connection is provided, the rights-of-way necessary for improvements to Jarmans Gap Road are being
dedicated, and connections are being provided to adjacent parcels.
Mr. Cilimberg said one factor not favorable is that the Crozet Master Plan is not completed, in fact,
has not yet begun. Ideally, staff would like to entertain development after that master planning process is
complete. He said that after discussion by the Planning Commission on January 29, 2002, and by a 4:2
vote, it recommended approval of the rezoning with the understanding that 1) the proffers would be
modified to include the elevations as revised at the Planning Commission meeting; and, 2) the Zoning
Administrator would confirm and approve the Planned District open space calculation. Mr. Cilimberg said
there are a couple of revisions to the Application Plan which are necessary: 1) label the right-of-way at the
right-turn lane as 40 feet; and, 2) label the 20-foot access easement as an alley. He said those two items
A@
can be taken care of if the Board approves the proposal.
Mr. Cilimberg said the primary concern of the two people who did not vote in favor of this rezoning
had to do with Jarmans Gap Road and the timing of those improvements with construction of this particular
project. This petition requests 23 more units than current zoning would allow on this site.
Mr. Rooker asked the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan at this time. Mr. Cilimberg
said it actually shows a density greater than the density being requested. The lower end of the density
recommendation in the Plan is 6.01 dwelling units per acre. This proposal is for about 4.5 units per acre.
Mr. Martin said it appears that staff recommended against approval of this petition in the beginning
citing the four unfavorable factors, then pulled out two of those factors which could be changed. It looks
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
like the Planning Commission voted 4:2 and used those two factors which could be changed as things
which should change between their meeting and this meeting. Now, after the proffers have been modified
to include elevations and the Zoning Administrator confirmed the Planned District-Open Space calculation,
staff recommends approval. Mr. Cilimberg said those were the two things staff said needed to be
addressed in order for an approval to be recommended by staff. They were amended after the
Commission meeting.
With no further questions for staff, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and requested that the
applicant speak.
Ms. Kathy Galvin said she represents Roger Katcham of Thornbirck Development. She introduced
Tim Miller, Engineer for the project, and Steve Blaine, Attorney. They have been working on the design of
this 10-acre site for two years. When she first began work on the project, it was a by-right development of
19 units. The original scheme was for units on a cul-de-sac. She is well aware of the Neighborhood Model.
Her client said he wanted to be apprised of the design and development of the principles embodied in the
Neighborhood Model. In the course of those two years, they met with the Crozet Community Association.
They raised several items which the applicant has tried to address. They were concerned about the density
of this development increasing traffic on Jarmans Gap Road, as well as the impact on local schools. They
were pushed by the community to either do nothing at all, or stay with the by-right density of R-2. The
compromised to be more akin to what was going on in a nearby development called Waylands Grant.
=
That is the basis for the R-4+ density.
Ms. Galvin said they looked at what the community asked for in a range of housing types to include
some range for affordability. In their discussions with the community, there were some people who wanted
high-end housing, and some who wanted to allow for more moderate income residents. That is why they
have this mix of townhouses, as well as detached single-family. She said the historic building on the site is
an historic landmark in Crozet. The original plan she saw obliterated the house. The house is currently
being renovated. It became their design strategy to create an open space in front of the house framed by
townhouses that kind of funneled the vision looking at the house.
Ms. Galvin said she would like to summarize some of the design principles that they formulated to
help come up with the schematic drawings. They are not final drawings because there is a lot more which
has to go on to determine the specifics of the site, as well as what units and what unit looks are more
marketable than others. They strove for a spacial enclosure that was between one and two and one and
three to give a more urban streetscape. There are entrance details throughout. There are porches and
stoops. they are exploring a range of styles, and most of them have some historic precedent. The
townhouses were designed to wrap around the parking so that all public streets, be it Jarmans Gap Road or
the internal street, would have a front facade, not a back facade. To conclude, their overarching goal was
to strike a balance in terms of density. They also tried to follow the design guidelines embedded in the
Neighborhood Model.
Mr. Rooker said the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of having a proffer which would
provide for phased development based on improvements to Jarmans Gap Road. He asked for comments
on that suggestion.
Mr. Steve Blaine said residents of the Crozet community expressed concern about the schedule for
improvements to Jarmans Gap Road. He said all they can do is report what the current Six-Year Plan is for
that road. He understands there is a lot of frustration in the community about the Six-Year Plan, but the
developer can't do anything about that schedule. This is a unique plan which involves a small development.
It is not a plan which lends itself to phasing. There will be a lot of up-front infrastructure costs which makes
phasing impractical. The cost of the project will be front-loaded. Any phasing tied to the Jarmans Gap
Road improvements would leave the developer out of control in terms of marketing the project. They are
sensitive to the concerns of the community, but, the additional density submitted under this plan will
generate an average of 135 vtpd. That is a marginal contribution to traffic. They ask that the Board
consider that fact tonight.
Mr. Rooker asked how quickly this development will move forward. Mr. Blaine said he cannot
answer that question.
Mr. Katcham said it was his idea to do the townhouses first. Then to finish with the single-family
homes. If this application is approved tonight, it would take a couple of months to get bids on the
infrastructure work. Once a bidder is chosen, it would take the entire summer, maybe six months, going
into the winter before the infrastructure would be finished. That would not be a good time to start building.
That puts building into the spring of 2003. This is his first project in Albemarle County, and he wants it to be
a nice project. He is not pushed financially to hurry, so the lead time could be such that it would correspond
to the time when the road is finished. When they met with the Commission, and the issue about the road
was mentioned, a few weeks later he saw all kinds of VDOT trucks on the road doing surveying, etc.
Speaking as a citizen he would like to say that he travels the road daily, and at this time, he does not see it
as a hazard to anybody. The Grayrock development is built out, Waylands Grant is built out, and when this
=
project is built out, there will be more traffic. But, that is out of his control. Ff it were a problem, he feels the
Commission would have stated that clearly.
Mr. Rooker said the Commissions minutes indicate that some of the people in the Crozet area
=
were concerned that development would get out in front of improvements to the road. One way to reach a
middle ground would be to agree that no more than 19 units would be built until the earlier of some period
of time, or when the Jarmans Gap Road improvements are done. Mr. Katcham said they have complied
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
with everything the Commission requested. When this idea was first mentioned, he thought it might be
feasible. But, when he thinks of building only a certain number of units and then waiting for the road
improvements for an indefinite period of time, it would not work.
Mr. Rooker said he was suggesting a definite period, which would be either a definite date or an
earlier date if the road improvements were completed sooner. Mr. Katcham said it is an interesting idea,
but he does not think it will work for him. He has never done anything like that. A larger project can be
phased much easier. On a small project, if he asked the contractor to come in and do only half of the
roads, and half of the sewer and water, the costs would be prohibitive.
Mr. Martin said he would like to hear from the public before the Board gets too involved in a back
and forth conversation.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mike Marshall, President of the Crozet Community Association, said the applicant has been
responsive to its requests. The Association has three requests: that the Bain House not be destroyed, that
the house not be obscured, and that there be some affordable units. He said there are probably three
affordable units included which is not the mix they had hoped for, but is a gesture. They are still distressed
about the density of the project feeling it is out of keeping with densities in general in Crozet. The other
problem for the Association are the improvements to Jarmans Gap Road. There is a lot of other
development in the area, and it adds a considerable amount to traffic. He said the developer of Redfields
has bought the McNeeley property, and also bought the Clayton property across the street from this, and he
intends to put in 800 houses with two entries, one on Route 250 and one opposite the property in question
tonight. That developer has said he is submitting a plan for a golf course later this spring
Mr. Marshall said the Association does not understand why the public is not taken into consideration
when talking about Jarmans Gap Road. When these new units are built and the developer gone, the public
will be left with a macadamized wagon track carrying a lot of construction traffic, a lot of new residents,
A@
and the road would still be unimproved. They think that phasing the project is a fair compromise. He asked
that the Board put some pressure on the applicant to agree to phasing. In looking at the master plan, the
rezoning of properties like this in advance of drafting the Master Plan subverts the plan. It allows
fait
development of significant parcels inside the planned area without acknowledgment of the plan,
accompli
and makes the planning pointless. The Community Association adopted a resolution asking for only by-
right development during the period the plan is being made, or during the next year. The phased plan
would honor that concept since the developer could build 19 units, his by-right allowance. They also think
that infrastructure should be tied to development, and if a lot of development is going to be allowed,
attention needs to be paid to infrastructure, i.e., roads and schools.
Mr. Allison Thompson-Triplett said she lives on Jarmans Gap road. She would like to attest to the
fact that the road is not as safe as some other roads in Albemarle, where those road have been paved and
fixed without this much development being planned. She did not know she was moving to a place which will
be considered a city. She hopes the area will continue to be beautiful. She thinks it is acceptable for the
A@
Board to think about phasing the development with the infrastructure. She said Mr. Katcham has to put in
infrastructure in order to build the houses, so why is it not important for the citizens of Crozet to have their
infrastructure put in before the road gets clogged.
Ms. Jamie Hughes said she came for two reasons. First, she brought some pictures to show the
Board what the road looks like. She asked that the Board consider the safety of the citizens of Crozet.
They are scared because the Governor has said that projects will be dropped from Six-Year highway plans.
This road has been on the Six-Year plan for the last six years, so they do not know when the project will
actually take place. She said if the Board approves this request, she asks that a privacy fence be built
along the property line. She agrees with the Neighborhood Model in theory, but you cant make a
=
neighborhood just by calling it that. When there is density like that requested in close proximity to homes
where people have valued their privacy, she feels it will take a long time to make it a neighborhood. She
said the stormwater retention pond is close to the edge of the property. She is asking that when this kind of
development is done, there be some feeling for the people next door, and the rights of those people be
protected.
Mr. Tom Loach said he is a resident of Crozet. He read from the Neighborhood Model. Land
A
development in the Development Areas generates needs for streets, roads, schools and other County
facilities. Usually construction of these facilities follows land development at a slow rate. To retain a high
quality of life in the Development Areas, and to make the Development Areas a place where more of the
population wants to live, construction of these facilities is needed at the same rate as the development
occurs. He said if this is what the Board voted for, it is what the Board will follow, so it will have to turn this
@
application down. He said when Grayrock was developed, and it went from 37 approved homes to 127 on
that road, it was predicated on the road being improved by 2002. When Waylands Grant was approved, it
=
went from 49 homes to 85 homes predicated on those same road improvements. Now, it is being said the
road improvements will be put off until 2004 and nobody can guarantee those things will happen in a timely
fashion. The Governor has called the Six-Year Highway Plan, false advertising. If he sees it as a fraud,
there is no reason for the citizens to see it any differently. He said that when Waylands Grant was
=
proposed, he supported the development even though Mr. Perkins thought the density was too high, and
there were concerns about the road. He said the R-2 density by-right is not much different from that in
other developments which have been approved in Crozet in the past (Cory Farm, Western Ridge), and is
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
probably equal to or as high a density as Still Meadows. That was an in-fill development with road
concerns. He said the residents are asking for some equity. As Mr. Marshall said, a phasing program
would be acceptable because it is a good plan. But, this is unique because the burden is not on the
community to prove why this should not be built, but how the Board can prove to the community how it can
support the infrastructure called for in the Neighborhood Model. One thing that has not been mentioned is
that the Schools intend to redistrict this small section of Crozet to Brownsville Elementary. That is against
the Crozet Community, and is against the Neighborhood Model which calls for neighborhood children to go
to neighborhood schools. The proposal fails in a couple of infrastructure areas, not just roads and schools.
He said the community has drawn a line in the sand and we are not going to cross it because it will mean
A@
the degradation of our quality of life and the safety of our children.
Mr. Martin said Mr. Loach said the Schools are going to redistrict. He said the developers of this
property have nothing to do with that. Mr. Loach said when the developers go to Planning, they have to ask
where the kids from their development will go to school. In the staff report, it said the children will go to
Brownsville School, and he checked that out, and it is true. But, if you are looking for neighborhood
schools, the rest of that neighborhood goes to Crozet Elementary now, which means that these kids won't
be going to the same school.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to have a clarification. On Page 4 of the staff report, it says these
kids will go to Crozet Elementary. Mr. Loach said in the original staff report it said Brownsville.
Mr. Martin said no one can presume to know what the future holds. Mr. Loach said he would point
to Western Ridge where the children still go to Brownsville. What they did in Western Ridge is what they
plan to do here. In order to prevent the overcrowding of Crozet Elementary, they took the children from
Western Ridge and sent those children to Brownsville.
Mr. Martin said there are other places where the children go to different schools. That makes
sense. He thought Mr. Loach was saying that this would affect only this neighborhood.
Mr. Cilimberg said he did not see the reference to Crozet Elementary on Page 4. Ms. Thomas said
it is in Attachment A to the staffs report. Mr. Cilimberg said that was from the original school section which
=
was changed after it went to the Planning Commission. He said the increased capacity for the Crozet
Community is to be provided for at Brownsville Elementary. Expansion of Brownsville Elementary is part of
the CIP. No one can guarantee which part will go to Brownsville or Crozet Elementary, based on that
expansion.
Mr. Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council, said he does not have any specific issues to
argue either for or against this proposal. He has a lot of respect for Kathy Galvin, and if anybody can turn
DISC into a design, it is her. He did talk with Mr. Blaine, and this project is a victim of timing and the
schedule. He would like to mention some of the things which have been going on. He has been impressed
with the people from Crozet the past couple of months. They have attended Planning Commission
meetings and have been well informed and articulate. That is why some supported Crozet as being the first
area for master planning. But, those people are frustrated. Incrementally, there have been many projects
approved, so they are wondering what will be left for their Master Plan. He said the cumulative impact
needs to be addressed, and that is what these people are concerned with. He said affordable housing was
an issue that occupied many hours during drafting of the Neighborhood Model. He said numerous projects
tout the principles of the Neighborhood Model, including the affordable housing objectives. This applicant
did not need to include those words in their proposal, and he respects an applicants right to refer to, or
=
ignore it as a component in a project, but the words are here. As more DISC-like proposals come to the
Board in the rush to beat the larger scale master planning, PEC believes the County should seek more
specific language from applicants on how true affordable housing will be addressed. A mix of housing
types and sizes, in a range of prices just being referred to, is simply not a guarantee that the true intent of
this provision in the Model will be met.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 9:44 p.m.)
Mr. Perkins asked about the request for privacy fencing. Mr. Katcham said a lot of trees would
have to be removed along property line in order to do that. At the Planning Commission meeting he was
asked if he intended to keep trees, and he said he would keep as many as possible.
Mr. Rooker said Ms. Hughes concern seemed to be a temporary concern about what would go on
=
during construction. He asked if there were any temporary measures which could be taken to alleviate that
concern. Mr. Katcham said he agrees that construction workers can be careless, but he provides good
oversight during construction. Also, there are liability issues if his people get onto the adjoining property.
Something could be put up, but it might not be attractive. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at
9:45 p.m.)
Mr. Perkins said Mr. Katcham probably decided it was more profitable to do this project, than a
by-right project. He talked with Mr. Blaine about this, and he knows it affects affordable housing, but from
Grayrock the County got a cash proffer to go toward sidewalks and bikepaths to be built on Jarmans Gap
Road. Mr. Keller said sidewalks and bike lanes are in the proffers all ready.
Mr. Perkins said he was talking about cash proffers ($500 per unit) which would go into a fund to be
used to benefit the total community. Mr. Katcham said he had no objection to that. He would be willing to
help out if he could. He said for the townhouses, he would suggest there be a difference of about $100
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
since the units are not as expensive as the single-family units; put $400 on the townhouses and $500 on the
single-family. Instead of having to escrow the money, he would prefer to have it paid out with each building
permit.
Mr. Perkins said Mr. Blaine is familiar with this idea. Mr. Blaine said there was a comparable cash
proffer with Grayrock and the money was to be used for any improvements necessary on Jarmans Gap
Road. The idea was to tie the contribution to a lot formula. Mr. Katcham asked who would manage the
funds. Mr. Davis said the funds would be utilized by the County through the CIP program. Mr. Blaine said
his client has violated all of the rules of proffer discussion, and that is to hear all of the questions before he
agrees to anything. He said this is an example of a developer who wants to do right by the community. Mr.
Katcham said he thinks it is a reasonable request.
Mr. Blaine said he had a procedural question. Does the public hearing need to be reopened to
accept the proffer. Mr. Davis said no, a proffer can be amended, but there would need to be specific
A@
wording added to the proffers regarding disposition of the money if it is not used for the intended purpose.
The Board would probably need to defer action on this petition until the proffers can be reduced to writing
and executed properly.
Mr. Rooker mentioned a memorandum which was E-mailed by Mr. Cilimberg today regarding
traffic. Only Ms. Thomas had seen the E-Mail, so Mr. Cilimberg explained the information contained
therein. He said staff was not able to obtain a determination of a level of service from any source. He said
the VDOT road plans for Jarmans Gap project a design year which is greater than what the added traffic
from the developments will generate. Staff did find that in the later 1980s, VDOT put a service volume on
this road of 2733. It is not a true capacity figure, but was just estimated by VDOT at that time. He said the
improvements to Jarmans Gap Road will be the same as the improvements proposed for Georgetown
Road which services many more vehicles each day.
Mr. Bowerman asked what distinguishes this development from other approved developments
which access Jarmans Gap Road, other than the proximity of a master plan being developed.
Mr. Perkins said Jarmans Gap Road was originally scheduled to be improved in 2002, but that will
not happen. It just keeps being pushed further into the future.
Ms. Thomas said the Board still has control of the Six-Year Plan because it can still put projects in
priority order. But, there are roads which have been waiting longer. If the Countys allocation is cut by 36
=
percent, that will slow everything down further. Mr. Cilimberg said no one will know how the Six-Year Plan
will be affected by the change in funding until March. The Jarmans Gap project is high up in the plan.
Mr. Rooker said this development plan is one of the better plans seen recently. Also, the developer
said he is willing to make a proffer to cover some improvements to Jarmans Gap Road. Mr. Davis said the
proffer should not be limited just to improvements to Jarmans Gap Road since it is possible that VDOT
funding may pay for all the improvements without a local contribution. It might be worded so that the money
could go to public improvements for the Crozet community and then there may be some more specific
projects where the money could make a difference. Mr. Perkins said that is a good idea. Ms. Thomas
agreed.
Mr. Rooker said he likes the project. His only issue is the concept of phasing. Unfortunately the
developer indicated that does not work for him. If it did, phasing the second half of the development would
be a natural thing to do. He is prepared to make a motion on that basis, but the Board does not have a
proffer to that effect.
Ms. Thomas said all the Board can do is turn down the petition, or make it evident that it will be
turned down without a proffer. Proffers are supposed to be voluntary.
Mr. Perkins said the Board can't hold people hostage because the road has not been built, or
because the community will be Master Planned. Maybe these projects should make sure that the master
planning is finished in a timely fashion. He does not think the Board can speed up VDOT. The project
could certainly slip again.
Mr. Bowerman said this project had been allocated funds for preliminary design. Mr. Cilimberg said
there has been preliminary engineering, and he thinks there will be a public hearing on the project this
summer. Mr. Davis said his information says the public hearing is scheduled for August, 2002, and the
advertisement date is December, 2004, as currently scheduled.
Mr. Rooker said there is a caveat to that. How far does the Board allow rezonings to go
incrementally while the master planning process is underway? That probably frustrates the master
planning process, or even makes it moot. What happens if the Board gets a request for the property on the
other side of the road with the proposed 800 units?
Ms. Thomas asked if any of the projects mentioned by the public tonight are in the pipeline yet.
A@
Mr. Martin said he has to leave the meeting, but before he goes he wishes to state that he agrees
with Mr. Perkins. If that idea carries, it looks like the petition will be deferred. If that does not carry, it would
be a 2:2 tie vote, but he has to leave the meeting at this time.
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board can defer this petition to the next meeting. Ms. Thomas said she
thinks the Board needs to give more guidance to all concerned. Mr. Rooker said it can be brought back for
discussion. He would prefer that Mr. Martin be present when the Board votes.
Mr. Martin said he will go along with Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman. If Mr. Perkins puts a motion
on the floor to defer to March 6, with the idea in mind that it is being deferred for the purpose of accepting
the proffer that was offered, he would support that motion.
Mr. Perkins said he would make that motion. Mr. Martin gave second to the motion.
Mr. Bowerman said he wants to hear some articulation about the Board deciding not to do anymore
approvals until the master plan process is over. Mr. Martin said Mr. Bowerman is making a good point. If
the Board is going to do that, it needs to be stated now so there are not people coming through the pipeline
anticipating that they will be treated like the last person. That needs to be put through, and not just
arbitrarily say enough is enough.
A@
Mr. Bowerman said he asked Mr. Davis if that would be a moratorium. Mr. Davis said no, the
A@
Board would just have to look at each project on a case-by-case basis if anymore projects are presented
for approval.
Mr. Thomas said the Board could announce what it will be looking for in new projects. That is why
she asked if other projects are eminent. Mr. Cilimberg said no application has been filed for the project
across the street which was mentioned tonight. He said staff has advised that on those projects which are
strategic, or large and significant in terms of their impact on Crozet, the process they will have to go through
independently, will probably be as long or longer as the master planning process, and that they really
should be part of the master planning process. That is the Planning Commissions point. On projects of
=
that scale, magnitude, significance, strategic location, they are advising that people become part of the
master planning process rather than coming through independently. He thinks that Mr. Bates, based on
that advise, is going to separate the golf course from the residential, commercial development.
Mr. Rooker asked if staff feels this project does not fall within that category. Mr. Cilimberg said he
mentioned at a Planning Commission meeting that this project is of less significance, and that it could be
looked at independently.
Mr. Rooker said this application has been in the process for a couple of years according to what the
applicant said earlier.
Ms. Thomas said she believes there is a consensus. It has been moved and seconded that this
petition be deferred to March 6 to give staff and the applicant time to develop the proper language for the
revised proffer, and in order to further discuss the petition before taking action.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
(Note: Mr. Martin left the meeting at 10:00 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-2001-14. Shoppers World (Signs #38 & 39). Public hearing on a
request to rezone 1.529 ac from HC to PD-SC to allow incorporating the property into the adj Shoppers
World Development znd PD-SC. TM61U-01, P15. Loc on Seminole Trail (Rt 29) at intersec of Rt 29 S &
Berkmar Dr. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Community Service in Neighborhood 1.) Rio
Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on February 4 and February 11,
2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report. He said the applicant is proposing to rezone a parcel
=
of land adjacent to the Shopper's World Shopping Center on U.S. Route 29 North from HC to PD-SC.
Proffers have been provided to proffer an Application Plan and make improvements to the entrance along
U.S. Route 29. He said this is developed with a 13,740 square foot retail building as well as appurtenant
parking and landscaping. The area is Highway Commercial in zoning. It has been a commercially-
designated area for Community Service in the Comprehensive Plan. He said the applicant has provided for
improved pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress. The rezoning allows for a compatible use to be
incorporated into an existing shopping center.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval to the Planning Commission provided the applicant
agreed to proffers as anticipated, and they were provided for the Commission. The Commission, at its
meeting on January 29, 2002, unanimously recommended approval subject to the proffers as amended at
the January 29, 2002, Planning Commission meeting.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Mike McGowan, managing member of SW29, spoke. He said they purchased this property last
year. They are going to connect the property to Shoppers World; the connection has been approved.
=
They want the zoning to be consistent throughout the area so they can run the center in an efficient
manner.
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman said he is glad to see that this property is being incorporated into the shopping
center which has been completely redeveloped by the applicant. He said coordination between this piece
of property and the rest of the shopping center is long overdue. He then offered motion to approve ZMA-
2001-014 subject to the proffers dated January 29, 2002.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Mr. Dorrier.
(Note: The approved proffer is set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: 02/20/2002
Tax Map and Parcel Number 61U-01-00-15
1.529 Acres to be Rezoned from HC to PD-SC
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its
duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall
be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the
requested rezoning and it is agreed that:
1. The property shall become part of the PD-SC zoning district, which includes the
following properties: Tax Map 61M Parcels 12-1C, 12-1C2 and 12-1D, which
were rezoned as PD-SC in 1980, and are depicted on the Shopper's World plan
prepared by Muncaster Engineering dated 12/17/01. Vehicular access to the site
from adjoining properties zoned PD-SC shall be as shown on the plan prepared
by Muncaster Engineering dated 12/17/01;
2. The development of the parcel shall be in general accord with the application
plan entitled "Rezoning Application Plan Tile Properties Tax Map 61U Parcel
01-15" dated 01/07/02; and,
3. The owner shall provide signage for the entrance to Tax Map 61U Parcel 01-15
from the U.S. Route 29 Southbound Lane to eliminate egress to the U.S. Route
29 Southbound Lane. The location shall be in general accord with the
application plan. The signage at the entrance shall be modified prior to the
issuance of a zoning clearance for any new tenant requesting clearance for the
use of the building after the Board of Supervisors' approval of this Zoning Map
Amendment or within 90 days after this approval, whichever occurs first, and
shall be done in accordance with VDOT requirements.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: September 27(A) and October 3, 2001.
No minutes had been read.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the Italians from Albemarles sister city are coming for a visit soon.
=
She encourages the Board members to attend any events which are scheduled because they are sending
their city councillors and board members. There will be an informal supper, and then a fairly formal supper
at Michie Tavern.
__________
Mr. Rooker commented that he received a notice regarding public comments on the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) of the Route 29 Western Bypass, and that the time period provided
differed from the information VDOT had provided to the Board. It says responses are due by April 1. He
asked Mr. Tucker to check on that date.
Ms. Thomas said it has been decided that as a county, a statement will be made at the public
hearing.
_______________
February 20, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 06/05/2002
Initials: LAB