HomeMy WebLinkAboutDAIS Final Report - Volume 3 County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC)
THE DEVELOPMENT AREA.
INITIATIVES PROJECT
VOLUME 3 OF THE FINAL REPORT
,SUPPORTING DocUMENTS
PRELIMINARY REPORT ON CONFLICTS BETWEEN
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND EXISTING
COUNTY REGULATIONS
SUMMARY OF COUNTY BUILDOUT ANALYSIS
BUILDOUT ANALYSIS TABLES
FOCUS GROUP REPORT1: GROUPS A&B
TOWERS CHARaETTE REPORT (JANUARY 10, 1998)
PANTOPS/CROZET CHARRETTE REPORT (MAY 16, 1998)
FOCUS GROUP REPORT 2
March 22, 2000
Torti Gallas and Partners · CHK, Inc.
Dodson Associates
Center for Watershed Protection
McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC)
PRELIMINARY REPORT ON CONFLICTS BETWEEN GROWTH
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND EXISTING COUNTY REGULATIONS
August 20, 1999
Torti Gallas And Parmers · CHK, Inc.
Conflicts Memo
1
PRELIMINARY REPORT ON CONFLICTS BETWEEN GROWTH
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND EX/STING COUNTY REGULATIONS
Background:
The County first adopted its ordinances in 1969. The ordinances were not contemplated
for urban development. Although the ordinances were largely rewritten in 1980, they still
generally reflect a rural county straggling with growth issues similar to those facing many
rural counties throughout the Commonwealth. To the credit of the County's Planning and
Community Development Department-staff, the Countyhas attempted to keep pace with
the various challenges presented byrapid commercial andresidential growth in the 1980's
and 90's. Most amendments to the ordinances, however, have been reactive to specific
issues, such as architectural control, historic and mountain protection, or watershed man-
agement. The ordinances have not been reexamined to address macro issues such as those
raised by the Development Areas Initiatives Study.
One of the challenges for the DISC will be to determine whether fundamental changes need to be made
to provide sufficient incentives for developers to pursue design characteristics that the DISC identifies
as desirable. The ordinances likely will needto be amended or rewritten ifa more urbane character is
desirable for certain areas of the County. The ordinances are simply not equipped to promote the types
of innovative designs discussed throughout this Land Use Plan.
One of the problems is that the Zoning Ordinance reflects a "minimum standards" bias, rather than a
"Performance" bias. Rather than describing where the County wants to be, and allowing developers a
certain amount of flexibility regarding how to get there, the ordinance dictates, what can and can't be
done, leaving little room (or incentive) for doing anything more.
An anlsyis of the objectives and strategies articulated in the Land Use Plan are found below. Areas in
grey boxes are statements from the Land Use Plan.
Conunents:
We are unable identify any incentive for developing within the designated Development
Areas, as compared to rural areas. The site plan approval process is identical regardless of
the location of the property.
Outside of the designated Development Areas, the minimum lot size is 2-acres. ~
Generally, 2-acre zoning is sprawl zoning. '
County of Albemarle, Department of Planning and Community Development
Conflicts Memo
Comments:
At present, such flexibility is supposed to come from the P.R.D./P.U.D designation, where a
rezoning in required, This is of course, a time consuming process, and entails substantial
risk and expense on the developers' part. The larger the piece the more likely the risk-
reward will warrant the substantial expense involved compared to smaller infill projects.
For large projects this may be worthwhile, but for smaller, "infill" projects, this may be too
onerous a process, especially in light of potential opposition to any change of zoning as
many adjacent homeowners are likely to View a change in zoning as breach of faith.
Furthermore, the PRD which seems to be designed for residential development excludes any
sort of retail activity, a restriction that discourages such flexibility. While the PUD does
allow a bit more flexibility, it is only available for development of 100-acres or more. This
may not be viable in most infill areas.
Comments:
Following on the comments above, existing zoning categories may have to be rewritten in
order to provide at least some of the benefits derived from the P.R.D. Overlay zoning can be
crafted, which provide incentives likely to be used by developers and may allow those
characteristics called for in the Comprehensive Plan to emerge.
Furthermore, the "Street Access" standard in the Subdivision Ordinance, and the "Street
Layout" standard in the same ordinance seem to contradict each other. The former seems to
require interparcel connectivity while the latter favors sole access. In addition, a bonus
exists in the Zoning Ordinance for Single access to new subdivisions which prioritize sole
access developments. Not only dOes this represent a conflict in the ordinance, it represents
· a practice that has come under serious criticism.
In general, the lack of any set of goals or vision to accompany the Zoning renders the specific
provisions a set of uniform standards without an obvious purpose. Indeed they make the
possibility of creating a development as nice as the histOric residential area of downtown
area of Charlottesville impossible because of, among other things, standards regarding:
Torti Gallas and Partners. CHK, Inc., McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLC
Conflicts Memo
3
-Yards: Except in PUDs and PRDs, front yard setbacks are a minimum of 25'. No maximum is
established.- Side yard requirements of 10' (20' between) structures is large; and
- Covered Porches, which may only encroach up to 4' in a yard and must be at least 6' from
any lot line.
A
prohibition exists on accessory apartments in freestanding structure, e.g., over garages.
Accessory apartments are an excellent way to disperse affordable housing throughout a
commumty, and to have it self policing.
The provision that no parking space, when provide in bays, shall be located further than 100'
from the entrance of the dwelling that such space serves seems unnecessary and problem-
atic. In addition parking space requirement under option A are too wide (10'), and option B,
the drive aisle is too wide (24').
Comments:
In general, provisions of all residential zoning classifications that specify a gross density and
then also in a seemingly redundant provision specify a minimum lot size, (i.e. for R- 1 zoning,
the minimum lot size is 40,000 s.f.) effectively prevents the kind ofirmovative development
being requested in the Comprehensive plan.
The County's definition of Open Space and Recreation Areas may also serve to impact density.
For example limiting Recreation areas to grounds with slopes of less 10% regardless of any
recreation facilities that may be nearby, e.g., public parks, schools, etc., takes an additional
5% of the land area out use over and above areas impacted by steep slopes, wetlands, flood
plains, and forested areas.
While the Co/mW does not have a cluster development ordinance as such, Cluster develop-
ment is a defined term in the ordinances. However, the cluster option, as applied in the
residential districts (with the exception of the PRD discussed below results only in smaller
lot sizes. Because of the provision stating: "....with the decrease in lot width or area compen-
sated by maintenance of equivalent common open space." in effect little benefit of the
cluster actually accrues to the developer. There is no benefit to the urban design either as,
in almost all cases, the minimum set-backs (front, side and rear) are the same whether the
build-out occurs in the standard level, or in the cluster level development. Perhaps this
explains, why to our knowledge, no one has the used the cluster option.
Enhanced density is another way to provide incentives to developers to pursue designs which
are in keeping with County aspirations. The residential district ordinances provide density
bonuses for some design characteristics. Low and moderate housing development can
receive up to a 30% increase in density for example, but how often is that bonus used?
Unfortunately, the other bonus factors promote only limited categories of good design and
few of the bonuses written into the zomng ordinances have also not had much effect. How
County of Albemarle, Department of Planning and Community Development
4
Conflicts Memo
many take advantage of street tree bonus? we saw little evidence of it in our drive around
the county. How about other bonuses?
Projects may receive bonus density for unspecified road improvements. For example: one
provision states that that the Zoning Commission may require sidewalks on one or both
sides of the street though we saw little evidence of this, One problem with the lack of
specificity o.f the road improvements is that they may not present a clear enough guide to
provide a meaningful incentive for developers. Up until now they have not been concerned
about maximum density as much as they've been with What to will pro forma out. As land
values begin to creep up, this may begin to change.
As that happens, it may be nice to have other types of incentives in place, for example, those
that promote sustainable development.
Colnrnents:
At present, the commercial zoning categories allow for only up to 20% of the total developed
area for residential uses. At that prgportion, a real mixed-use orientation is difficult to
achieve. In addition, required buffers, prevent the integration of such projects into a larger
fabric, futher impacting on the mixed-use~' orientation of a district.
Furthermore, in PD-MC, a requirement "To encourage visual cohesiveness and park-like
atmosphere,..." seems to bias any development proposal toward that end. While this
provision, is intended to address parking orientation, its interpretation, might be to discon-
nect any such project from adjacencies that might benefit from a tie-in.
Furthermore, in the PD-MC district, a requirement that "multiple access to existing public roads
be discouraged" tends to further isolate the project.
No option exists for reducing parking totals in a shared parking arrangement e.g.., mixing office
and retail.
No option exists nor is the following encouraged: allowance of a certain portion of the require
commercial parking to be on pervious surface, to reduce storm water runoff.
Commercial districts require a 30' set back to any public street or right of way. This effectively
prevents any development being designed to create the feeling of a street.
Torti Gallas and Partners - CHK, Inc., McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLC
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC)
SUMMARY OF BUILDOUT ANALYSIS
June 8, 1999
Torti Gallas And Partners · CHK, Inc.
Summary of Buildout Analysis
SUMMARY OF BUILDOUT ANALYSIS
Methodology
In order to determine the adequacy of the Designated Growth Areas to meet the expected population of
Albemarle County in the year 2015, an analysis of the developable parcels was undertaken to determine
the remaining capacity of the growth areas.
Four types of parcels were considered in determining the developable acreage in the "buildout" area:
1) Parcels that were completely vacant;
2) Parcels whose improved assessment was less than $ 20,000.00;
3) Parcels with a density of- equal to, or less than - one house per fifteen acres; and'
4) Parcels with nonresidential land uses that were in the judgement of the consultant team or
the County staff, underutilized.
The County's Department of Planning and Community Development provided the information used to
make these determinations. It is important to note that vacant parcels for which there are approved site
plans were not included in this analysis.
For each of the growth areas developable properties were mapped according to these three criteria:
1) Existing zoning;
2) Comprehensive Plan designations; and
3) Environmental constraints effecting the development of a developable parcel.
In calculating the overall capacity ora parcel, various methods can be utilized. Density can be based
upon the "gross" or total area of a site including all of those areas that cannot be built upon. In such
an example a 1 O-acre site developed at 3-units / acre were yield 30-dwelling units regardless of any
environmental constraints. Density can also be calculated on the "net" area of a site. Under this
scenario a 10-acre with 4-acres of flood plain or steep slopes and a density of 3 units per acre would be
allowed 18- dwelling units.
For this analysis the consultant'team has also devised a "net / net" analysis, which discounts the net
area of a site still further, by deducting usable open space (common areas, greenways and parks) that
would be required under the Zoning Ordinance. It also deducts 20% of the forested areas that are within
the usable area as additional tree save. Under this scenario, if the site referred to above had an addi-
tional 3 acres of forest in the six usable acres, 0.6 acres of that land would be set aside as tree save.
Additionally, another 0.5 acres or so nUght be set aside for recreation area. This would leave 4.9 acres
available for development. Basing the density according to this "net / net" determination would yield
14 units. AlternatiVely, using the original determination of 30 units would yield a "net/net density" of
30 units / 4.9 acres = 6.12 units / acre.
The Comprehensive Plan suggests the possibility of redevelopment of some existing commercial areas,
particularly shopping centers, with a mix of uses including residences. Because such areas are already
developed, they did not meet the Consultant's criteria for inclusion into the list of developable sites.
However, any undeveloped parcel designated as transitional or commercial that could achieve at least 70-
residential units was included in this analysis. Approximately 15% of the total number ofumts considered
possible lie in such mixed-use areas.
County of Albemarle, Department of Planning and Community Development
2
Summary of Buildout Analysis
Analytical Tables
Using these various methods for determining density, the consultant team prepared five methods for
determining the capacity of the designated growth areas, and the density that would result from each.
These methods are as follows:
Existing Zoning:
In this analysis, existing densities (which are, in effect, based upon the net
area of a site), have been applied to the Consultant's determination of
developable parcels. This method may be seen as a baseline.
Alternate 1:
Applies the Comprehensive Plan designations to the developable parcels
and is based upon the Gross area available in the Consultant's determina-
tion of developable parcels.
Alternate 2:
Represents the County's original buildout analysis. It is taken from Table II,
page 35 of the Comprehensive Plan. This table applies the Comprehensive
Plan to the County's original determination of the Net area remaining to be
developed. The Gross and Net areas in this table differ from those deter-
mined by the Consultants.
Alternate 3:
Applies the Comprehensive Plan designations to the developable parcels
and is based upon the Net analysis of the remaining developable parcels as
determined by the Consultants.
Alternate 4:
Applies the Comprehensive Plan designations to the developable parcels
and is based upon the "net / net" analysis of the remaining developable
parcels as determined by the Consultants.
Alternate 5:
Applies the expected population as determined by the County in its original
buildout analysis (from Table II, page 35 of the Comprehensive Plan) and
applies it to the Consultant's determination of developable land in its "net !
net" analysis. This provides the Net Density of the County's original
formulation.
These alternates are summarized on the Buildout Summary Analysis, page 1 of the tables. For each
alternate, a low and a high number of Dwelling Units (Columns D and E) are presented. The low number
represents:
Neighborhood area dwellings @ 3-units / acre
Urban area dwellings ~ 6-units per acres
Additional units in transitional or other commercially zoned areas @ 10-units per acre - up to
20% of the land area available.
Column D
Torti Gallas and Partners - CHK, Inc.
Summary of Buildout Analysis
The high number represents:
Neighborhood area dwellings @ 6-units / acre
Urban area dwellings ~ 10-units per acres
Additional units in transitional or other commercially zoned areas ~ 1 O-units per acre - up to
· 20% of the land area available.
Column E-
An Environmental Constraints Summary is included in a table following the Summary Analysis.
Subsequent to that is a detailed breakdown of each of the neighborhoods followed by an analysis on a
parcel by parcel basis.
Results
From the Buildout SummaryAnalysis at the bottom of the first chart, there is a gross land area of 7849-
acres in 377 parcels within the Development Areas. Of this total, there is an effective net developable
area of 5157-acres. However, only 3028-acres of net developable land are zoned for residential use. The
neighborhood area detail charts that follow break this summary down by neighborhood and then by
individual parcel.
Of these parcels, 20% or 76 properties are under 2 acres, 40% or 164 properties are under 5 acres; 60% or
235 properties are under 10 acres, and 2/3 of them or 278 properties are under 20 acres. In fact, only 5%
of the remaining parcels or 17 properties in total are over 100 acres and only I0 of these are designated
as residential in the Comprehensive Plan.
The significance of these statistics are several fold. There is an inherent inefficiency in the development
of small parcels. Idiosyncracies in lot shapes, topography and other features are exaggerated as a
percentage of total area on such lots. Furthermore, small lot development faces greater challenges in
achieving a majority of features of the "Neighborhood Model~' with its emphasis on compact, mixed-use
pedestrian friendly characteristics, as outlined by the DISC, and as a result, unlikely to achieve higher
the higher densities that make such neighborhoods work well. Furthermore, developers of smaller
parcels are unlikely to attempt to achieve the regulatory relief required by the Neighborhood Model, as
the "risk/reward" ratio is simply too high on such parcels.
Of course in addition to the land designated for residential use by the Comprehensive plan, an addi-
tional 2130-acres of net developable land in the growth area is designated for nonresidential uses:
roughly 460-acres for retail uses, and 1670-acres for office and industrial'uses. Based upon the expected
population increase, then there are about 320-acres of land zoned for retail uses and 400 acres of land
zoned for Office and/or Industrial uses in excess of the necessary capacity. Combined, this provides an
additional reservoir of 720-acres of land that could be available for some residential uses in mixed-use
format. This assumes that growth in retail, industrial and office uses is planned to match the growth in
population.
The County's estimated 1995 population is 75,500. Its expected population by the year 2015 is 96,162,
resulting in a need to accommodate 20,662. It is clear that under Existing Zoning, with its expected
capacity of 11,700 to 15,700, the Growth Areas are inadequate to meet the required supply of housing.
County of Albemarle, Department of Planning and Community Development
Summary of Buildout Analysis
4
Using the most conservative of the Alternate methods for determining capacity, Alternate 4, with its
total population capacity of 25,523 to 45,020, the total land area is, in the abstract, sufficient to accom-
modate this capacity.
This capacity is a theoretical one. The relatively few parcels of large size within the designated growth
areas (the ones most likely to be sought after for development) constitute a serious obstacle to achiev-
ing this capacity.
Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests that the mere designation of these growth areas, coupled
with the scarcity of large parcels, has already had an inflationary effect on land prices. As more of these
sites begin to be developed, the remaining undeveloped ones will likely connnue to escalate in price at
a rate far in excess of the prevailing rate of inflation. The result will be to reduce the supply of moder-
ately priced housing units within the Growth Areas, forcing many new purchasers or renters to rural
areas of the County or to neighboring Counties.
Moreover, each of the Alternates assumes that the densities suggested in the Comprehensive Plan will
be achieved. There are two reasons to suggest that this assumption may be overly optimistic. Owing
to the uncertainties of the rezoning process, many devblopers are likely to opt for a "by-right" develop-
ment. This is especially the case with small parcels, where the "risk/reward ratio" is too high to justify
the rezoning attempt. Secondly, while sufficient evidence exists that some part of the market for
housing in Albemarle County is probably interested in these higher densities, it is not clear that the
entire market can be provided for in this manner.
The County may want to consider a comprehensive rezoning as a response to both of these concerns.
In a Comprehensive Rezoning, referred to in some states as a "Specific Plan", large areas covering
multiple properties are planned and rezoned as a whole. In this way, the risk to individual landowners
and developers is reduced considerably and evened out. In addition, ~n a market where only such
higher densities are offered, the effect is a transforming one; i.e. the expectations of the buyer are
transformed to the product supplied, especially in the close-in areas of major metropolitan areas. In
such situations, buyers choose the higher densities in return for convenience and other "urban"
amenities, such as being able to walk to shops and schools and being close to employment centers.
The County may want to acknowledge an additional capacity of up to 700 acres of excess commercially
zoned land, which, at a density of 3 units to the acre, would result in an additional 2100 households or
5'250 people. -
Conclusions
The Designated Growth Areas have sufficient capacity for the moment. Furthermore the analysis did .
not include any additional capacity that may exist within the City of Charlottesville and within the Town
of Scottsville. However, even after acknowledging this additional capacity, the expected population
growth in the County through the year 2015 will seriously challenge the ability of Designated Growth
Areas to provide enough developable land area. In fact it is clear that unless densities achieved on the
remaining developable parcels are at the high end of the designated range, as in Alternate 4 above, at
some point well before the year 2015, a serious housing shortage will exist. Moreover, if the Growth
Area boundaries are to have a reasonable chance of remmnmg in tact through the year 2015, the
following conditions must be met:
Torti Gallas and Partners - CHK, Inc.
Summary of Buildout Analysis
a. Significant zoning changes must be implemented, in conformance with the "Neighborhood
Model" described by the DISC;
b. Every effort is made to ensure that the capacity of the Designated Growth Areas suggested in
the Comprehensive Plan is achieved; including the realization of higher densities on develop-
able parcels than is currently being provided by the marketplace;
c. Redevelopment of underutilized retail and office parcels into mixed-use environments that
include residential uses must be strongly encouraged and achieved;
d. Up to 700-acres of industrially zoned land, is made available for residential deveiopment.
(reflecting, an oversupply of such land) and / or a mix of uses is allowed and encouraged on
'most industrially zoned parcels, and
e. Efforts to plan and consu'uct the additional the additional infrastructure demanded by this
increased population (e.g., schools, and water supply), take place simultaneous with the new
development, so as to assure existing residents that this increased density will not detract from
the delivery of services already provided.
Even if all of these conditions are met, expansion of the growth boundaries, or the creation of new detached
growth areas may still require consideration, but only in coordination with and contingent upon the
implementation of these other efforts, not as a substitute for achieving these other objectives.
County of Albemarle, Department of Planning and Community Development
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas BUildout Analysis
BUILDOUT SUMMARY ANALYSIS
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL AREA DESIGNATED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ~ NON-RESIDENTIAL COMP. PLAN
Gross Residential Gross Residential Net Effective Effective ' 'Total Non-Residential Non-Residential
Area Available Area Available Area Available ?~ip~!!!~§ii~!!g?ii!i Gross Densities Net Densities ! Population Gross Area Net Area
(in acres) (in acres) (in acres)i!!iiiiiiiiii ?ili ?i?iiiiiiiiiiiii!ili? i!iiii} (in acres) (in acres)
Baseline/Existing Zoning-Consultant Team Analysis of Existing Zoning applied to 7,849.3 4917.0 3,028.2 !i~i~i3i~i?i?i?i~i~.9....~?ii 0.9 1.3 1.4 2.1 10,783 15,733 ~2,931.8 2,129.5
Remaining Parcels That Can Potentially Be Developed in the Development Area
Alternative 1 - Comprehensive Plan Densities Based Upon Net Acreage's N/A N/A 4,476.0 , ?~6i~6~8i!ili::!::!39~i3~7;~i N/A N/A 3.6 8.8 40,171 98,795 N/A 2,092.0
(Table II Page 35 of Comprehensive Plan-Planning Commissions Recommendations)
Alternative 2 - Consultant Team Analysis of Comprehensive Plan Densities Based Upon 7,849.3 4917.0 3,028.2 ii~t~i525iiiiiiii::~!~7~..S:i 3.8 6.9 6.1 11.1 46,.305 84,313 2,931.8 2,129.5
Gross Area on Remaining Parcels that can be Developed in the Development Area
Alternative 3 - Consultant Team Analysis of Comprehensive Plan Densities Based Upon 7,849.3 4917.0 3,028.2 .i~!~!i;~2~iiiiiiiii~t~i9~i: 2.3 4.3 3.7 6.9 28;~320 52,300 2,931.8 2,129.5
Alternative 4 - Consultant Team Analysis of Comprehensive Plan Densities Based Upon 7,849.3 4917.0 2,616.6 ?:'ll)::::::::?:::::::::::~l::::~i::: 2.~ 3.7 3.7 6.9 25,523 45,020 2,93~ .8 2,010.9
Net/Net Analysis of Remaining Parcels that can be Developed in the Development Area ·
Note: There are a total of 377 remaining parcels in the Development Area
Net Land Area for Alternative 3
Gross land minus the following
1. Slopes greater than 25%
2. Stream valleys (100 year flood plain plus steep slopes along stream valleys)
Net Land Area for Alternative 4
Gross land area minus the following
1. Slopes greater than 25%
2. Stream valleys (100 year flood plain plus steep slopes along stream valleys)
3. Poor soils
4. Existing significant woodlands retained at 20% of the net residential tract area and 10% of the net non-residential land area.
5. Useable Open Space at 5 % of the net lot area
6. WetlandsMarch 25, 1999
CHK Architects and Planners Inc., D0ds.on Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP., Center for Watershed Protection
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
EXISTING ZONING
Remaining Parcels to be Developed in the Development Area
RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL
Residential Areas Added Dwelling Units Added Population
Total
Gross Area ' Net Areas
Gross Area Neighborhood i Urban Total Neighborhood Urban Other Total Effective Gross Effective Net Neighborhood Urban Other Total Gross Area Net Land Area
Areas Areas Net Area Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Density Ranges Density Ranges Population Population Population Population
Neighborhood I 86.9 15.6 0.0 15.6 15.6 0 0 61 91 43 64 104 236 6.7 15.1 6.7 15.1 0 0 153 0 228 108 0 160 260 388 71.2 70.9
Neighborhood2 753.6 670.0 186.8 126.8 313.6 341 511 308 456 151 226 760 1,135 1.1 1.7 2.4 3.6 853 1278 770 0 1140 378 0 565 2,000 2,983 83.6 60.6
Neighborhood 3 861.1 466.6 270.2 68.4 338.6 133 158 158 544. 0 0 291 702 0.6 1.5 0.9 2.1 333 395 395 0 1360 0 0 0 728 1,755 394.4 277.7
Neighborhood4 1,337.3 616.7 270.0 36.9 306.9 122 170 301 301 36 41 458 512 Q7 0.8 1.5 1.7 305 425 753 0 753 90 0 103 1,148 1,280 720.6 407.7
Neighborhood5 585.6 471.9 172.9 75.8 248.7 84 126 682 1,023 24 37 790 1,185 1.7 2.5 3.2 4.8 210 315 1705 0 2558 60 0 93 1,975 2,965 113.6 85.8
Neighborhood 6 468.4 309.7 178.0 0.0 178.0 107 160 0 0 63 94 '170 · 255 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.4 268 400 0 0 0 158 0 235 425 635 158.7 127.0
Neighborhood 7 162.6 149.9 120.0 27.2 147.2 12 12 245 367 0 0 257 379 1.7 2.5 1.7 2.6 I 30 30 613 0 918 0 0 0 643 948 12.7 12.7
Subtotal 4,265.5 2,700.4 1,197.9 350.7 1,548.6 799 1,137 1,755 2,782 317 462' 2,871 4,381 1.1 . 1.6 1.9 2.8 1998 2842.5 4388 6955 793 1155 7,178 10,953 1,554.8 t,042.4
Crozet 1416.5 1,174.1 634.3 180.8 815.1 472 700 138 167 231 345 841 1,212 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.5 1180 1750 345 0 418 578 0 863 2,103 3,030 242.3 189.6
Hollymead 1713.3 794.1 447.8 55.6 503.4 148 212 32 47 59 79 239 337 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 370 530 80 0 118 148 0 198 598 845 919.1 706.4
Piney Mountain 215.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 340 340 340 340 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 850 0 850 850 .850 215.6 191.1
Subtotal 3345.4 1968.2 1082.1 236.4 1,318.5 620 912 170 214 630 764 1,420 1,890 0.7. 1.0 1.t 1.4 1550 2280 425 535 1575 1910 3,550 4,725 1377 1087.1
Rivanna 248.4 248.4 161.1 0.0 161.1 22 22 0 0 0 0 22 22 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 - 55 55 0 0 0 0 55 55 0.0 0.0
Subtotal 248.4 248.4 161.1 0 161.1 22 22 0 0 0 0 22 22 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 55 55 0 0 0 0 55 55 0 0
~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:.:~:~:.:~:~:.~:~..:.:~:~:~:~:~:.:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:.:.:~:~:. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::' ..................... '"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"" :.:`:.:~x`~:~:~:.x~:.:~:~:~:.x.:.:.:.x.~.:.:~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:~:.:.~.````:.~.`:.`...~ i!::i??i!i
Totals 7,849.3 4,917.0 2,441.1 587.1 3,028.2 1,441 2,071 1,925 2,996 947 1,226 4,313 6,293 0.9 1.3 1.4 2.1 3,603 5,178 4,813 7,490 2,368 3,065 10,783 15,733 2,931.8 2,129.5
ALTERNATIVE 1
Comprehensive Plan - Densities Based Upon Gross Acreages of Potential Vacant Parcels That Might Be Developed
RESIDENTIAL i -._ NON-RESIDENTIAL
Residential Areas Added Dwelling Units Added Population
Total
Gross Area Gross Areas
Gross Area Neighborhood Urban Net Area Neighborhood Urban Other Total Effective Gross Effective Net Neighborhood Urban Other Total Gross Area Net Land Area
Areas Areas Dwellin~l Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units, Dwelling Units Density Rankles Density Ranges Population Population Population Population
Neighborhood 1 86.9 15.6 0.0 15.6 15.6 0 0 94 156 0 0 94 156 6.0 10.0 6.0 10.0 0 0 234 390 0 0 234 390 71.2 70.9
Neighborhood2 753.6 670.0 510.3 159.7 313.6 1,531 3,062 960 1,597 0 0 i 2,491 4,659 3.7 7.0 7.9 14.9 3827 7655 2399 3993 0 0 6,227 11,647 83.6 60.6
Neighborhood 3 861.1 466.5 346.2 120.3 338.6 1,039 2,077 723 1,203 880 880. 2,642 4,160 5.7 8.9 6.4 13.3 2597 5193 1808 3008 2200 2200 6,604 10,401 394.4 277.7
Neighborhood 4 1,337.3 616.7 561.1 55.7 306.9 1,683 3,367 335 557 18 18 I 2,036 3,942 3.3 6.4 6.0 11.6 4208 8417 837' 1393 45 45 5,090 9,854 720.6 407.7
Neighborhood 5 585.6 471.9 348.8 123.1 248.7 1,046 2,093 740 1,231 224 224 2,010 3,548 4.3 7.5 6.6 11.6 2616 5232 1850 3078 560 560 5,026 8,870 113.6 85.8
Neighborhood 6 468.4 309.7 309.7 0.0 178.0 929 1,858 0 0 61 61 990 1,919 3.2 6.2 5.6 10.8 2323 4646 0 0 153 153 2,475 4,798 158.7 I 127.0
Neighborhood 7 162.6 149.9 120.0 29.9 147.2 360 720 180 299 0 0 :t 540 1,019 3.6 6.8 3.7 6.9 900 1800 449 748 0 0 1,349 ,2~548 12.7 12.7
I
Subtotal 4,255.5 2,700.3 2,196.1 504.3 1,548.6 6,588 13,177 3,031 5,043 1,183 1,184 10,802 19,403 4.0 7.2 7.0 12.5 16471 32942 7577 12608 2958 2958 27,005 48,507 1,554.8 1,042.4
0 0
Crozet 1416.5 1.174.1 952.0 222.1 815.1 2,856 5,712 1,335 2,221 0 0 I . 4,191 7,933 3.6 6.8 5.1 9.7 7140 14280 3337 5553 0 0 10,477 19,833 242.3 189.6
Hollymead 1713.3 794.1 701.0 93.1 503.4 2,103 4,206 560 931 480 480 3,143 5,617 4.0 7.1 6.2 11.2 . 5258 10515 1399 .2328 1200 1200 7,856 14,043 919.1 706.4
Piney Mountain 215.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 215.6 191.1
Subtotal 3345.4 1968.2 1653.0 315.2 1,318.5 4,959 9,918 1,894 3,152 480 480 i 7,333 13,550 3.7 6.9 5.6 10.3 12397.5 24795 4735.9 7880 1200 1200 18,333 33,875 1377 1087.1
o
0 0
Rivanna 248.4 248.5 248.5 0.0 161.1 746 1,491 0 0 0 746 1,491 3.0 6.0 4.6 9.3 1864 3728 0 0 0 0 1,864 3,728 0.0 0.0
Sub~ui~i 248.4 248.5 128.8 0 161.1 386 773 0 0 0 0 386 773 1.6 3.1 2.4 4,8 966 1932 0 0 0 0 966 1,932 0 0
Totals
7,849.3 4,917.0 3,977.9 819.5 3,028.2 11,934 23,867 4,925 8,195 1 663 1,663 18,522 33 725 3.8 6.9 6.1 11.1 29,834 59,669 12,313 20,488 4158 4158 46,305 84,314 2,931.8 2,129.5
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc., Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection
Page 1
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
ALTERNATIVE 2
Comprehensive Plan - Densities Based U pon Net Acreages (Table II, page 35 of the Comprehensive Plan - Planning Commissions Recommendations)
RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL
Residential Areas Added Dwelling Units Added Population
Total
Gross Area Net Areas
Gross Area Neighborhood Urban Total Neighborhood Urban Other Total Effective Gross Effective Net Neighborhood Urban Other Total Gross Area Net Land Area
Areas Areas Net Area Dwelling Units Dwellin~l Units Dwelling Units Dwellin9 Units Density Ranges Density Ranges Population Populati6n Population Population
Neighborhood 1 2,0 65.0 67.0 397 1,312 5.9 19.6 992 3,280 142.0
Neighborhood 2 270.0 160.0 430.0 1,772 4,820 4.1 11.2 4,429 12,050 57.0
Neighborhood 3 254.0 88.0 342.0 1,291 3,284 3.8 9.6 3,227 8,210 84.0
Neighborhood 4 456.0 132.0 588.0 2,161 5,376 3.7 9.1 ; 5,403 13,440 284.0
Neighborhood 5 380.0 112.0 492.0 1,813 4,520 3.7 9.2 ~
4,533 11,300 187.0
Neighborhood 6 276.0 9.0 285.0 882 1,836 3.1 6.4 2,205 4,590 17.0
Neighborhood 7 122.0 38.0 160.0 594 1,492 3.7 9.3 ', 1,486 3,730 4.0
Subtotal 1,760.0 604.0 2,364.0 8,910 22,640 3.8 9.6 ~ 22,275 56,600 775.0
Crozet 640.0 154.0 794.0 2,846 6,920 3.6 8.7 7,114 17,300 178.0
Hollymead 580.0 149.0 729.0 2,635 6,460 3.6 8.9
6,589 16,510 207.0
Piney Mountain 30.0 0.0 30.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 i 0 0 932.0
SubtotalI 1,250.0 303.0 1,553.0 5,481 13,380 3.5 8.6 13,703 33,810 1,317.0
Rivanna 559.0 0.0 559.0 1,677 3,354 3.0 6.0 .
~ 4,193 8,385 0.0
Subtotal 559.0 0.0 559.0 1,677 3,354 3.0 6.0 ;~ 4,193 8,385 0.0
Totals 3,569.0 907.0 4,476.0 16,068 39,374 3.6 8.8 40,171 98,795 2,092.0
ALTERNATIVE 3
CHK Consultant Teams Net Analysis
RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL
Residential Areas Added Dwelling Units Added Population
' Total
Gross Area Net Areas
Gross Area Neighborhood Urban Total Neighborhood Urban Other Total Effective Gross Effective Net Neighborhood Urban. Other Total Gross Area Net Land Area
Areas Areas Net Area Dwellin~l Units Dwelling Units* Dwellin~l Units Dwellin~l Units Density Ranges Density Ranges Population Popula{ion Population Population
Neighborhood 1 8'6.9 15.6 15.6 0.0 15.6 47 94 0 0 0 0 47 94 3.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 117 234 0 .0 0 0 117 234 71.2 70.9
Neighborhood 2 753.6 670.0 186.8 126.8 313.6 560 1,121 762 1268 0 0 1,322 2,389 2,0 3.6 4.2 7.6 1,401 2,802 1,905 3,t70 0 0 3,306 5,972 83.6 60.6
Neighborhood 3 861.1 466.6 270.2 68.4 338.6 811 1,621 411 684 944 944 2,166 2,956 4.6 6.3 6.4 8.7 2,027 4,053 1,028 1,710 2,360 2,360 5,414 8,123 394.4 277.7
Neighborhood 4 1,337.3 616.7 270.0 36.9 306.9 810 1,620 222 369 18 18 1,050 2,007 1.7 3.3 3.4 6.5 2,025 4,050 554 923 45 45 2,624 5,018 720.6 407.7
Neighborhood 5 585.6 471.9 172.9. 75.8 248.7 519 1,037 456 758 229 229 914 1,483 1.9 3.1 3.7 6.0 1,297 2,594 1,139 1,895 573 573 3,008 5,061 113.6 85.8
Neighborhood 6 468.4 309.7 178.0 0.0 178.0 534 1,068 0 0 61 61 580 1,129 1.9 3.6 3.3 63 1,335 2,670 0 0 153 153 1,488 2,823 158.7 127.0
Neighborhood 7 162,6 149.9 120.0 27.2 147.2 360 720 163 272 0 0 523 992 3.5 6.6 3.6 6.7 900 1,800 409 680 0 0 1,309 2,480 12.7 12.7
Subtotal 4,255.5 2,700.4 1,213.5 335.1 1,548.6 3,641 7,281 2,014 3,351 1,252 1,252 6,906 11,884 2.6 4.4 4.5 7.7 9,101 18,203 5,035 8,378 3,130 3,130 17,266 29,710 1,554.8 1,042.4
Crozet 1416.5 1,174.1 634.3 180.8 815.1 1,903 3,806 1,087 1808 0 0 2,596 4,851 2.2 4.1 3.2 6.0 4,757 9,515 2,717 4,520 0 0 7,474 14,035 242.3 189.6
Hollymead 1713.3 794.1 447.8 55.6 503.4 1,343 ' 2,687 334 556 408 408 1,342 3,651 1.~ 4.6 2.7 7.3 3,359 6,717 835 1,390 1,020 1,020 5,214 9,127 919.1 706.4
Piney Mountain 215.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 215.6 191.1
Subtotal 3345.4 1968.2 1082.1 236.4 1,318.5 3246.3 6492.6 1420.8 2,364 408 408 3,938 8,502 2.0 4.3 3.0 6.4 8,116 16,232 3,552 5,910 1,020 1,020 12,688 23,162 1377 1087.1
Rivanna 248.4 248.4 161.1 0.0 161.1 483 967 0 0 0 0 483 534 1.9 2.1 3.0 3.3 1,208 . 2,417 0 0 0 0 1,208 2,417 0.0 0.0
Subtotal 248.4 ] 248.4 I 161.1 I 0 161.1 J483.3 966.6 0 0 I 0 0 483 534 J 1.9 2,1 I 3.0 3.3 1208 2417I 0 0 I 0 0 I 1208 2417 J 0 0
Totals
7,849.3 4,917.0 2,456.7 571.5 3,028.2 7,370 14,740 3,435 5,715 1,660 1,660 11,328 20,920 2.3 4.3 3.7 6.9 18,425 36,851 8,587 14,288 4,150 4,150 28,319 52,300 2,931.8 2,129.5
CHK Architects and Planners, Inc. Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP., Center for Watershed Protection Page 2
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
ALTERNATIVE 4
CHK Consultant Teams NeUNet Analysis
RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL
Residential Areas Added Dwelling Units Added Population
Total
Gross Area Net Areas
Gross Area Neighborhood Urban Total Neighborhood Urban Other Total Effective Gross Effective Net Neighborhood Urban Other Total Gross Area Net Land Area
Areas Areas Net Area Dwellin~l Units Dwelling Units* Dwelling Units Dwellin~l Units Density Ranges Density Ranges Population Population Population Population
Neighborhood I 86.9 15.6 0.0 14.8 14.8 0 0 89 148 0 0 89 148 5.7 9.5 6.0 10.0 0 0 223 371 0 0 223 371 71.2 65.7
Neighborhood 2 753.6 670.0 162.2 114.8 277.0 486 973 690 1148 0 0 1,176 2,121 1.8 3.2 4.2 7.7 1,216 2,432 1,725 2,870 0 0 2,941 5,302 83.6 58.0
Neighborhood 3 861.1 466.6 232.1 62.0 294.1 696 1,393 186 684 880 880 1,762 2,957 3.8 6.3 6.0 10.1 1,741 3,482 277 1,048 2,200 2200 4,218 6,730 394.4 ~' 256.8
Neighborhood 4 1,337.3 616.7 240.9 35.0 275.9 211 405 210 350 18 18 439 773 0.7 1.3 1.6 2.8 529 1,012 526 875 45 45 1,100 1,932 720.6 I , 404.1
Neighborhood 5 585.6 471.9 145.9 56.9 202.8 343 686 342 569 224 224 909 1,479 1.9 3.1 4.5 7.3 857 1,714 855 1,422 560 560 2,272 3,696 113.6 80.1
Neighborhood 6 468.4 309.7 158.5 0.0 158.5 476 951 0 0 61 61 537 1,012 1.7 3.3 3.4 6.4 1,111 2,221 0 0 152 152 1,263 2,373 158.7 117.7
Neighborhood 7 162.6 149.9 114.0 24.1 138.1 342 684 145 241 0 0 487 925 3.2 6.2 3.5 6.7 855 1,710 361 601 0 0 1,216 2,311 12.7 12.2
Subtotal 4,255.5 2,700.4 1,053.6 307.6 1,361.2 2,554 5,092 1,662 3,140 1,183 I 153 5,399 9,415 2.0 3.5 4.0 6.9 6,309 12,571 3,967 7,187 2,957 2,957 t3,233 22,715 1,554.8 994.6
Crozet 141615 1,174.1 581~9 167.3 749.2 1,603 3,202 1,006 1,673 0 0 2,609 4,875 2.2 4.2 3.5 6.5 4,007 8,006 2,514 4,184 0 0 6,521 12,190 242.3 184.3
Hollymead 1713.3 794.1 359.9 50.3 410.2 1,080 2,159 303 503 480 480 1,863 3,142 2.3 4.0 4.5 7.7 2,699 5,398 756 1,258 1,200 1,200 4,655 7,856 919.1 651.2
Piney Mountain 215.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 215.6 180.8
Subtotal 3345.4 1968.2 941.8 217.6 1,159.4 2683 5361 1309 2,176 480 480 4,472 8,017 2.3 4.1 3.9 6.9 6,706 13,404 3,270 5,442 1,200 1,200 11,176 20,046 1377 1016.3
Rivanna 248.4 248.4 112.8 0.0 112.8 338 576 0 0 0 0 338 576 1.4 2.3 3.0 5.1 720 1439 0 0 ' 0 0 720 1 439 0.0 0.0
Subtotal 248.4 246.4 96.0 0 96.0 338 576 0 0 0 0 338 576 1.4 2.3 3.5 6.0 720 1439 0 0 0 0 720 1439 I 0 0
Totals 7,849.3 4,917.0 2,091.4 525.2 2,616.6 5,575 11,029 2,971 5,316 1,663 1,663 10,209 18,008 2.1 3.7 3.9 6.9 13,735 27,414 7,237 12,629 4,157 4,157 25,523 45,020 2,931.8 2,010.9
iiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiliiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiiiiil ............................................. ~:~::~:~::~i~i~i~:~i~:~:~:~:~i~i~i~i~i~i~:~ ~:~:~:~ .................................................... ~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~ ................................................................ ....,..,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ....,,....,...,.,...,.... .............. - ................................................... ,..,.,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. . ........................................................ ~~ ~::~:~i~i~i~i~::~::~::~::~:~;~;~!~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~:
ALTERNATIVE 5
CHK Consultant Teams Analysis to Match Comprehensive Plan Densities Based Upon Net Acreages on
Table II, page 35 of the Comprehensive Plan - Plannin~l Commissions Recommendations
RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL
Residential Areas Added Dwelling Units Added Population
Total
Gross Area Net Areas
Gross Area Neighborhood Urban Total Neighborhood Urban Other Total Effective Gross Effective Net Neighborhood Urban Other Total Gross Area Net Land Area
Areas Areas Net Area Dwelling Units Dwellin~ Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Density Ranges Densit~ Rankles Population Population Population Population
Neighborhood 1 86.9 15.6 0.0 14.8 14.8 397 1,312 25.4 84.1 26.8 88.6 992 3,280 71.2 65.7
Neighborhood 2 753.6 670.0 ' 162.2 114.8 277.0 1,772 4,820 2.6 7.2 6.4 17.4 4,429 12,050 83.6 58.0
Neighborhood 3 861.1 466.6 232.1 62.0 294.1 1,291 3,284 2.8 7.0 4.4 11.2 3,227 8,210 394.4 256.8
Neighborhood 4 1,337.3 616.7 240.9 35.0 275.9 2,161 5,376 3.5 8.7 7.8 · 19.5 5,403 13,440 720.6 404.1
Neighborhood 5 585.6 471.9 145.9 56.9 202.8 1,813 4,520 3.8 9.6 8.9 22.3 4,533 11,300 113.6 80.1
Neighborhood 6 468.4 309.7 158.5 0.0 158.5 882 1,836 2.8 5.9 5.6 11.6 2,205 4,590 158.7 117.7
Neighborhood 7 162.6 149.9 114.0 24.1 138.1 594 1,492 4.0 10.0 4.3 10.8 1,486 3,730 12.7 12.2
Subtotal 4,255.5 2,700.4 1,053.6 307.6 1,361.2 :i 8,910 22,640 3.3 8.4 6.5 16.6 22,275 56,600 1,554.8 994.6
Crozet 1416.5 1,174.1 581.9 167.3 749.2 2,846 6,920 2.4 5.9 3.8 9.2 7,114 17,300 242.3 184.3
Hollymead 1713.3 794.1 359.9 50.3 410.2 2,635 6,460 3.3 8.1 6.4 15.7 6,589 16,510 919.1 651.2
Piney Mountain 215.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 215.6 180.8
Subtofal 3345.4 1968.2 941.8 217.6 1,159.4 ' 5,481 13,380 2.8 6.8 4.7 11.5 13,703 33,810 1377 1016.3
Rivanna 248.4 248.4 112.8 0.0 112.8 1,677 3,354 6.8 13.5 14.9 29.7 4,193 8,385 0.0 0.0
Subtotal 248.4 248.4 96.0 0 96.0 1,677 3,354 6.8 13.5 17.5 34.9 4,193 8,385 0 0
Totals 7,849.3 4,917.0 2,091.4 525.2 2,616.6 ~ 16,068 39,374 3.3 8.0 6.t 15.0 40,171 98,795 2,93t.8 2,0t0.9
CHK Architects and Planners, Inc., Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP., Center for Watershed Protection
Page 3
I
i
.I
,t
I
I
I
I
County of Albemarle. Virginia
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS SUMMARY
Neighborh~ 1 15.6 0.0 0.4 0.4 1.9 0.4 0.4 1.2 Neighborhood I 7~.2 0 4.5 4.5 ~ 81.8 8,2 0,0 12.7 13.9
Neighborh~ 2 670.0 330.1 26.4 356.5 104.6 20,9 15.7 393.1 Neighborhood 2 83.6 17.9 5.1 23.0~ 19,4 2.6 0.0 25.6 418.7
Neighbo~ood 3 466.6' 69.5 58.5' 128.0 143.4 27,5 16.9 172.4 Neighborhood 3 3~.4 71.5 45.2 116.7 ~ ~,2 8.4 12.4 137.5 3~9.9
Neighborhood 4 616.7 209,8 100.2 310.0 98.4 15.6 15.3 340.9 Neighborhood 4 720.7 221.7 91.2 312.9 ~ 35.5 3.6 0.0 316.5 657.4
Neighborhood 5 471,9 175.2 48.0 223.2 167.6 33,5 12.8 269.5 Neighborhood 5 113.6 17.1 10.8 27.9 ~ 19.2 1.9 3.7 33.5 303.0
Neighborhood 6 309.7 86.0 45.7 131.7 52.9 10.6 8.9 151.2 Neighborhood 6 158.7. 9.0 28.6 37.6 ~ 95.2 9.5 0.8 47.9 199.1
Neighborhood 7 149.9 0.0 2.7 2.7 8.8 1.8 7.4 11.9 Neighborhood ~ 12.7 0 0 0.0 ~ 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 __~__.___ 12.1
Crozet 1.174.1 270.0 89.1 359.1 125.2 25 40.8 424.9 Cr0zet 242.4 15.8 37 52.8 52,2 5.2 0 58.0 482.9
Hollymead 794.1 151.7 139.0 290.7 352.7 68.0 25.2 383.9 Hollymead 919.1 93.9 118.9 212.8 ~ 489~7 ~ 47.1 8 267.9 651.8
Piney Mountain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 ' 0.0 Piney Moun~in 2~,5.6 13 11.5 24.5 ~ 104.0 10.4 0 34.9 34.9
Rivanna 213.9 21.2 49.3 70.5~ 111.6 40,2 7,2 117.9~ Rivanna 0.0 0 0 0.0~ 0' 0 0 0.0~ 117.9 ..,
213.9 2~.2 49.3 70.5 ~ 111.6 40.2 Subtotal 0 6 0 0 ~ 0 0 0.0 ~ t17.9
Totals 4,882.5 1,313.5
~ ~ ~ ~~~243.5 Totals 2,932.0 352.8 24.9
5/6/97
CHK Architects and Planners~ Inc., Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP, Center for Watershed Protection
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
NEIGHBORHOOD 1
6-May-98 ACREAGE CRNT COMP TAX MAP STRM VLL SOILS NET LOT SIGNFICN-~ WDLNDS OPEN NET/NET ADDNAL DWELLING UNITS (Capacity) ADDED POPULATION (Capacity) LEGEND
ZONE PLAN /PARCEL # WTLNDS SLPES AREA WDLNDS SAVED SPACE AREA CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN*** CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN
STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX.** STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX. Current Zoninq
LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL 06- R-6 Residential
Developable Residential Properties07 - R-10 Residential
H. C. M. F. XV 4.810 6 2 045000000026A2 0 0 4.8 0 0.0 0.2 4.6 17 26 27 155 46 43 65 69 388 114 08-R-15 Residential
MINOR, GLENNA E & BERNICE M HARGIS 1,920 7 2 6100000001900 0,0 0,0 1.9 1.9 0.4 0,1 1.4 12 17 9 49 14 29 43 22 123 36 11 - Commercial
NUTTYCOMBE, LOUISE C 8.908 6 2 045000000026A0 0 0 8.9 0 0 0.1 8.8 32 48 53 300 88 80 120 132 749 220 13 - Highway Comme
' 16 - Light Industry
Neighborhood 1 Totals for 15.638 0.0 0.0 15.6 1.9 0.4 0.4 14.8 61 91 89 504 148 152 228 223 1260 371
Residential Areas
. Comprehensive Plal
Developable Non-Residential Properties 32 - Urban Density
· ;)7 - Neighborhood SE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 5.908 6 11 4500000009400 0 0 5.9 5.7 0.6 "' ' $.3 21 32 53 80
STEIN JOHN ELLSWORTH OR 0.700 11 9 4500000010000 0 0 0.7 0 0,0 0.7 Current Zoning cape
STEIN, JOHN ELLSWORTH OR 1.414 11 9 4500000010100 0 0 1.4 0 0.0 1.4 based upon using th~
VIRGINIA LAND L L C 1.905 13 12 4500000010900 0 0 1.9 1.9 0.2 1.7 ~
Convential Developm
WOOD, STUARD R JR & MARGARET E 2.642 6 9 4500000011200 0 0 2.6 2.6 0.3 2.4 10 14 24 36 @ 60% of the net de'
CHARLO'I-rESVlLLE REALTY CORP 5.731 13 9 045000000068C0 0 0 5.7 4.3 0.4 5.3
WORRELL FOUNDATION INC 4.536 13 9 045000000068D4 0 0 4.5 0 0.0 4.5 Urban Areas plus the
WORRELL FOUNDATION INC 1.603 13 9 045000000068D6 0 0 1,6 0 0.0 1.6 density density in the
GREEN, JOHN T 0.771 11 9 045000000100A0 0 0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 Neighborhood Area
GREEN, ALLEN E 0.755 11 9 045000000100B0 0 0 0,8 0 0.0 0.8
WILSON, WILLIAM ESTATE, HELEN O 0.749 11 9 045000000100C0 0 0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 ***Comp. Plan in No~
NUNLEY, RICHARD L OR JULIA G 0.918 13 9 045000000112A0 0 0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 Zones is based upon
NUNLEY, RICHARD L OR JULIA T 4.423 13 9 045000000112B0 0 0.4 4.1 2.9 0.3 3.8 Net Area @ 20 units/~
SHONGALA scHuILING T INC 1.310 13 9 061000000120L0 0 0 1.3 0 0.0 1.3
WESTFIELD, LLC 1,046 11 8 061W0010C001A0 0 0 1.0 0 0.0 1.0
VAN DER LINDE HOUSING, INC 1.312 8 8 061W0030000400 0 0 1.3 1,2 0.1 1.2 12 18 30 44
CHARLOTTESVILLE LAND TRUST ETAL 1,339 11 8 061W00300006A0 0 0 1.3 1.3 0.1 1.2
SPERRY MARINE INC 29.100 16 13 061W00300019A0 0 0 29,1 29.1 2,9 26.2
SPERRY MARINE INC. 5.051 16 9 061W00300019B0 0 0 5.1 2.5 0.3 4.8
Neighborhood 1 Totals for 71,213 0 0.4 70.9 51.4 5.2 0.0 65.7 43 64 0 0 0 106 160 0 0 0
Non-Residential Areas
GRANDTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD 1 [ 86,851 J 0.0 0.4 86,5 53.3 5.6 i 0.4 I 80.5 103 155 89 504 I 148 259 388 223 1260 I 371
, is
standards
~pment area
[ih
Non-Residential
~on 20% of the
CHK Architects and Planners, Inc., Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP., Center for Watershed Protection
page 1
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
NEIGHBORHOOD2
6-May-98
ACREAGE
CRNT
ZONE
Developable Residential Properties
STILL MEADOW LAND TRUST;
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST; CHARLES WM
CARl:{ BENJAMIN F ESTATE & ANNA C
769 LAND TRUST, THE, CHARLES WM
WETSEL, THOMAS & CLARENCE
LANE, THOMAS A JR
HURT INVESTMENT COMPANY
SPROUSE, HENRY NELSON ETAL
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST; CHARLES WM
BROWN, PHILLIP ESR OR BARBARA J
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST; CHARLES WM
BROWN, SUSAN D, ESTATE
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST; CHARLES WM
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST; CHALRES WM
LEVENSON, JACOB C & CHARLOTTE G
SMITH, LLOYD JR
LAMB, LEWIS EARL & JOHN GARTH
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST; CHARLES WM
PHILLIPS, E L & ANN P PHILLIP,S
PEARCE, FRANK LEWIS JR
ADAMS, MATTHEW T
135.760 3
3,100 5
3.000 5
0.950 5
1.250 5
2.142 5
54.930 5
2.980 5
1.740 .5
7.500 5
4.750 5
7.750 5
7.500 5
4,310 5
10.760 5
17,240 5
35.900 5
4,400 5
80.880 5
108.500 5
15.000 5
Totals for Neighborhood Areas
510.342
ESTES, GEORGE WILLIAM 11.220 5
651 LAND TRUST CHARLES WM HURT & 5.500 5
WETSEL, DAISY D ESTATE; MARY W 35.017 5
WILHOIT, JAMES N JR OR NOR'MA N 2.918 5
WILLOW HEIGHTS LAND TRUST; 36.100 5
BROWN, PHILLIP ESR & BARBARA 1.500 5
BROWN, SUSAN D, ESTATE & PHILIP 2,650 5
CHARLO'Fi'ESVILLE REALTY CORPORATION 9.289 8
FOWLER, MARGARET P 27,970 5
WOOD, L E 3.300 5
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST; CHARLES WM 3.285 46
WOOD, LAURICE EUGENE 3.829 5
BALLARD. RUBYV&'CECIL:A:' .: ."..': : 17.090 · .5
Totals for Urban Areas 159.668
Neighborhood 2 Totals for
Residential Areas 670.010
COMP
PLAN
TAX MAP
/PARCEL #
4600000002100
6100000016000
61000000161 O0
062000000007B0
062000000007A0
6100000019100
6200000000200
6200000000300
6200000000400
6200000000800
6200000000900
6200000001000
6200000001100
6200000001500
062000000002A0
062000000002B0
062000000002C0
062000000005A0
062000000016A0
062000000016C0
062000000016D0
2 6100000015800
2 6100000016200
2 6100000016700
2 6100000018300
2 6100000016800
2 061000000159A0
2 6100000015900
2 061000000129F0
2 061000000164A0
2 061000000179A0
2 061Z0030000900
2 6100000017300
2 061A0000002900
STRM VLL SOILS NET' LOT SIGNFICN'] WDLNDS OPEN NET/NET ADDNAL DWELLING UNITS (Capacity) ADDED POPULATION (Capacity) LEGEND
WTLNDS SLPES AREA wDLNDS SAVED SPACE AREA CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN*** CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN
STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX.** STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX. Current Zonin,q
LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL 03- R-1 Residential
05 - R-4 Residential
11 - Commercial
74.3 1,8 59.7 32.8 6.6 3.0 50.1 36 54 150 301 89 134 376 752 13 - Highway Comm~
0.0 0.0 ' 3.1 3.1 0.6 0.2 2.3 7 11 7 14 t9 28 17 35 46- PUD R-6
0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.6 0.2 2.3 7 11 7 14 18 27 17 34
0,0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 2 3 3 5 6 9 7 14 Comprehensive Pla,
0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 3 5 4 7 8 1 t 9 18 01 - Neighborhood D~
2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 02 o Urban Density
21.0 0.0 33.9 11.7 2.3 1.7 29.9 81 122 90 · 179 204 305 224 449 07 - Neighborhood SE
0.0 0.0 3.0 1.8 0.4 0.1 2.5 7 11 7 15 18 27 19 37 . 08 -Com mu nity Servi
0.0 0.0 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.6 4 6 5 10 10 16 12 24
0.0 0.0 7.5 5.8 1.2 0.4 6.0 18 27 18 36 45 68 45 89 Current Zoning cap;
0.0 0.5 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.0 10 15 12 24 25 38 30 60 based upon using th~
3.5 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.1 10 15 12 25~' 26 39 31 61 Convential Developm
0.0 6.4 1.1 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.8 3 4 2 5 7 10 6 12 @ 60% of the net de'
0.0 2.5 1.8 1.2 0.2 0.1 1.5 4 7 4 9 11 16 11 22
2.1 0.0 8.7 4.2 0.8 0.4 7.4 21 31 22 44 52 78 55 111
16.7 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.4 1 2 I 2 3 5 3 6 ,** Maximum ideal is I:
35.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Units to the net ac
0.0 0.0 4.4 0.9 0.2 0.2 4.0 11 16 12 24 26 40 30 60 Urban Areas plus the
50.1 0.0 30.8 0.0 0.0 1.5 29.2 74 111 88 175 185 277 219 439 density density in the
102.5 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 5.7 14 22 17 34 36 54 43 86 Neighborhood Area
4.2 0.0 10.8 10.0 2.0 0.5 8.3 26 39 25 50 65 97 62 124
· **Comp. Plan in Non
312.4 11.2 186.8 76.4 15.3 9.3 162.2 341 511 486 973 852 1278 12~16 2432 Zones is based upon
Net Area @ 20 units/;
0.0 0.0 11.2 7,7 1.5 0.6 9.1 27 40 55 310 91 67 101 137 775 228
0.0 0.6 4.9 ' 4.9 1.0 0.2 3.7 12 18 22 125 37 29 44 55 312 92
0.0 0.0 35.0 2,7 0.5 1.8 32.7 84 126 197 1113 327 210 · 315 492 2782 818
0.4 0.9 1.6 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.3 4 6 8 45 13 10 15 20 114 33
13.2 0.0 22.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 21.8 55 82 131 740 218 137 206 327 1849 544
0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.3 0.1 1.1 4 5 7 38 11 9 14 17 96 28
0.0 0.0 2.7 2.7 0.5 0.1 2.0 6 10 12 67 20 16 24 30 168 49
0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 8.8 22 33 53 300 88 56 84 133 750 221
3.3 13.1 . 11.6 7.6 1.5 0.6 9.5 . 28 42 57 323 95 70 104 143 808 238
0.0 0.6 2,7 0.2 0.0 0.1 2.5 6 10 15 86 25 t6 24 38 215 63
0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.1 11 12 19 106 31 28 30 47 265 78
0.0 0.0 3.8 0.2 0.0 0.2 3.6 9 14 22 124 36 23 34 55 309 91
: · 0.8 0.0 16.3 0.3 ~ 0.0 0.8 15.5 : 39 59 : 93: 526 155 98 ' .i47. I 1233:::ii; 1316 :i;i=..;; 387 : ::;i .=i' :" · :':
17,7 15,2 126,8 28.3 5.7 6,3 114.8 308 456 690 3903 1148 769 1141 1725 9759 2870
330.1 ° 26.4 313.6 104.6 20.9 15.7 277.0 649 968 1176 4876 2121 1621 2420 2941 12191 5303
Density
standards
pment area
ed upon
in the
the high
Non-Residential
~on 20% of the
G:'~k?.9715100.alb'~EVFINAL12798 CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP.. Center for Watershed Protection page 2
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
NEIGHBORHOOD2
6-May-98 ACREAGE CRNT COMP TAX MAP STRM VLL SOILS NET LOT SIGNFICN'I WDLNDS OPEN NET/NET ADDNAL DWELLING UNITS (Capacity) ADDED POPULATION (Capacity) LEGEND
ZONE PLAN /PARCEL # WTLNDS SLPES AREA WDLNDS SAVED SPACE AREA CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN*** CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN
STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX.** STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX. Current Zonin,q
LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL 03 o R-1 Residential
Developable Non-Residential Properties 05 - R-4 Residential
FIRST GOLD LEAF LAND TRUST, ROBERT 8.187 13 8 4500000011000 0.0 1,0 7.2 6.0 0.6 6.6 08-R-15 Residential
FIRST GOLD LEAF LAND TRUST, 6.630 13 8 4500000011100 0.0 0.0 6.6 3.2 0.3 6.3 11 - Commercial
CHARLO'I-i'ESVILLE REALTY CORPORATION 19.030 8 8 6100000012400 0.0 2.3 16.7 9.0 0.9 15.8 151 226 376 565 13 - Highway Corem(
CHARLOTTESVILLE BROADCASTING 8.960 11 7 6100000019200 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46 - PUD R-6
RIVER HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES LTD PTN 0,740 13 8 045000000110A0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.7
FIRST GOLD LEAF LAND TRUST; ROBERT 0.300 13 8 04500000011 lA0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0,0 0.3 Comprehensive Pla,
FIRST GOLD LEAF LAND TRUST; ROBERT 0.150 13 8 04500000011 lB0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 01 - Neighborhood D,
JA-ZAN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 5.566 11 8 061W0020000200 0.0 0.3 5.3 0.2 0.0 5.2 02 ~ Urban Density
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST; CHARLES WM 3.829 46 8 061Z0030001 lA0 0.3 0.5 3.1 0.0 0.0 3.1 05 - institutional
WOOD, L F, JR & PATRICIA E 19.960 13 11 61000000124E 5.1 1.0 13.8 0.0 0.0 13.8 07 - Neighborhood S,
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 3.503 5 5 061000000193A0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . · 08 - Community Ser~
COi~Li~;:~.I:~':' :. ~:.; !!:::::~.. ~: :::::::::::::::::::::::' ;' 3;040' ::: 045B0040000100' i '0.0 : 00 · 3.0 3.0 0.3 2.7 ' . ."' . : :.' ..... i'~ i' .:~!i!::;i;'ii:~ii;:i. :i:"" :.'i::::i'" '~::'i~!' 08:'~(i~b~
~'.~:.~ ::;. ill! ~!'!' ~ ':.:! :! : i~!: i:':~ i; ::; ;~; .i:030-'::: 'i! ;';~3::::. i 8 '045B00400002C0' ': 0.0 : '0.0 i.0 :':~.~ 0.1' ' 0.9 ' ' ' : ' ; '::!';':i: ;!:;!!! :!::ii:~:.!::: ;i ;:i! ? ':~:!iii~::;!i!;~i~iiii:!:;:::;ili~::i~::::~;=;
'~;;'~S~[~:.=::i.:i' .:i:!!!:i:;i ;!~[: ~ · · ' :: ::'(~.670 .: : 8 045B00400002D0 0.O : 0.0 0.7.: :::0.7 0:1 0.6 , · ' .: :" ='":::' '::::' :ii:=:: ::' :: :":i:::'
~i~'~'~.D'~AF;:[~,Nb~Ru~,-: :'; '':: ;;!;::'i :':.'2:000 ~1i" ' 8 '045B0080000100 0:0' :'i:: 0,0' ' 2.0' ; 2.0 :' 0.2 · 1.8 . ' :' ::.:~::' :"'::..i:" :::::; :i:.; :! ::' ::~::;'~i-: ':ii~iQ~!:~ii:i
Neighborhood 2 Totals for
Non-Residential Areas 83,595 17.9 5.1 60.6 26.1 2.6 0.0 58,0 151 226 0 0 0 376 565 0 0 . 0
Current Zoning cap
GRANDTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD 2 [ 753,605 J 347,9 31,4 374,2 130.7 23,5 15.7 I 335.0 799 1194 1176 4876 I 2121 1998 2984 2941 12191 I 5303 based upon using th
Convential Developn
Y
)ment standards
@ 60% of the net development area
"Maximum ideal is based upon
10 Units to the net acm in the
Urban Areas plus the high
density density in the
Neighborhood Area
***Comp, Plan in Non-Residential
Zones is based upon 20% of the
Net Area @ 20 units/acre.
G:,,131~9716~O0.alb,,REVFiNALl~798 CHK Architects and Planners, Inc., Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP.. Center for Watershed Protection page 3
NEIGHBORHOOD3
6-May-98
Developable Residential Properties
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST; CHARLES WM
WHEELER, MARY R
HURT INVES'I:MENT COMPANY
HARTMAN FAMILY CORPORATION .
MOORE, T R JR & LAVESE V
DEANE, ELMER H & HELEN WOOD
BROADUS MEMORIAL BAPTIST CHURCH
CASON, RALPH C &
DORRIER, JOHN R & MARY C
SANSONE, PHILIP A
MOORE T R JR & LAVESE V
Totals for Neighborhood Areas
BRANHAM, GLENN E OR VICTORIA C
UPPER PANTOPS LAND TRUST CHARLES
SOUTH PANTOPS II LAND TRUST;
CHARLOTTESVILLE LODGE #389 OF THE
HURT INVESTMENT COMPANY-
SAMPERTON, J TODD & NOVELLA D
PHWH LAND TRUST; CHARLES WM HURT &
BRAY, NIGEL OR DARYL E
Totals for Urban Areas
Neighborhood 3 Totals for
All Residential Areas
ACREAGE CRNT COMP
ZONE PLAN
21.493 1 1
77.300 I 1
130.000 1 1
18,660 3 1
31.910 1 1
1.010 I 1
5.531 1 1
3.660 1 1
0,900 I 1
7.870 7 t
9.000 1 1
346.234
0.250 3 2
9.568 8 2
48,173 8 2
1.519 3 2
11.100 8 2
6.211 7 2
1:3.400 7 2
t .377 11 2
120.348
466.582
TAX MAP
/PARCEL #
6200000002800
6200000003100
7800000005700
7800000005800
7800000005900
062000000025A0
062000000025C1
062000000026B0
062000000031 A0
07800000005810
078000000059A0
078000000051'A0
78000000058E
7800000001200
7800000002000
078000000008A0
078000000012B0
078000000055A1
078000000055A4
07800000005500
7800000005300
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
STRM VLL SOILS NET LOT SIGNFICN'I WDLNDS OPEN NET/NET ADDNAL DWELLING UNITS (Capacity) ADDED POPULATION (Capacity) Current Zoninq
WTLNDS SLPES AREA WDLNDS SAVED SPACE AREA CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN 01 - Rural Areas
STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX.** STNDRD* BONus LOW HIGH MAX. 93 ~ R-1 Residential
LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL 97 - R10 Residential
08-R-15 Residential
: 1 - Commercial
0 4.3 17.2 17.1 3.4 0.9 12.9 6 6 39 77 16 ~ 6 97 194 12 - Commercial Offi¢
29.8 8.5 39.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 37.1 23 23 111 222 58 ,58 278 556 13 - Highway Comme
0,0 8.1 121.9 78.6 15.7 6.1 100.1 39 39 300 601 98 98 751 1501 14 - Planned Shoppin
1 ! .3 0.0 7.4 4.3 0.9 0.4 6.1 4 7 18 37 11 :17 46 92 15 - Planned Mixed C
0.0 4.6 27.3 10.3 2.1 1.4 23.9 10 10 72 143 24 24 179 358
1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 i 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
0.0 1.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.3 2 2 13 26 4 4 32 65 Com~)rehensive Plat
0.0 1.7 2.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 1.7 1 1 5 10 3 3 13 26 01 - Neighborhood D~
0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.7 0 0 2 4 1 1 5 10 02 - Urban Density
0.0 0.4 7.5 7.4 1.5 0.4 5.6 45 67 17 34 112 168 42 84 07 - Neighborhood Se
0.0 5.3 3.7 3.7 0.7 0.2 2.8 3 3 8 17 7 7 21 41 08 - Community Servi
: 0.0,:':, : 0 0 38 9. 0 0 0 0 1:g - 37 0: ~ i2 ;: .:'I::[1'~!::: :::L:: :. 22~ ::i !:i) :.: ?:; : :~:ili;: ii!ii~ili?~9.;:;i;!;,i~!:,i:l ?.i!,:!: ;~!~i~i;:i:,iii!!i~,~::.: :,i;: :ii;~ .::!~i~i~:; ~:~i~l~ ~eW!
10 - Office/Regional ~
42.1 33.g 270.2 123.0 24.8 13.5 232.1 145 170 696 1393 363 424 1741 3482
· Current Zoning capa
0 0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0 0 1 8 3 0 ~1 2 20 6 based upon using the
0.0 8.1 1.5 1.4 0.3 0.1 1.1 13 18 3 38 15 33 44 8 95 37 Convential Developm~
27.4 9.4 11.4 11,3 2.3 0,6 8,6 102 136 26 291 114 256 · 341 64 726 284 @ 60% of the net de~
0 0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 1 I 4 49 15 2 3 11 123 38
0 4,58 6.5 0.0 0.0 0,3 6.2 59 78 19 211 65 147 1,96 48 526 163
0.0 0.1 6.1 2.0 0.4 0.3 5.4 . 37 55 16 184 61 92 {37 41 459 153 ** Maximum ideal is b;
0.0 0. t 13.3 0.0 0,0 0.7 12.6 80 120 38 430 133 200 299 95 1074 333 10 Units to the net act
0 0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 0 0 4 44 14 0 0 10 111 34 Urban Areas plus the
0.. 4.4 2,3 ": 26.5 '. 57 O0 :::': :~'~3 251'.:. : 0 · : 0 ': : 75 854 : 265 ~ i i~ 0 :: '~ 2i36 66~i I~:;A~s.pii~th~
density density in the
27.4 24.6 68.4 20.4 2.9 3.4 62.0 292 409 186 2108 684 729 1022 277 3135 1048 Neighborhood Area
.... Comp. Plan in Non-
69.5 58.5 338.6 143.4 27.5 16.9 294.1 437 578 882 3501 2076 1092 1446 2017 6617 4529 Zones is based upon ~
Net Area @ 20 units/a
Center
mercial
'ce
! IS
~ment standards
,pment area
ased upon
high
Non-Residential
3on 20% of the
G:'~k~7161(X),~tb',REVRNAL12798 CHK Architects and Planners, Inc., Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP., Center for Watershed Protection page 4
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
NEIGHBORHOOD3
6-May-98 ACREAGE CRNT COMP TAX MAP STRM VLL SOILS NET LOT SIGNFICN1 WDLNDS OPEN NET/NET ADDNAL DWELLING UNITS (Capacily) ADDED POPULATION (Capacity) Current Zoninq
ZONE PLAN /PARCEL # WTLNDS SLPES AREA WDLNDS SAVED SPACE AREA CURRENT ZONE ***COMP PLAN CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN !01 - Rural Areas
STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX, STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX. 03 - R-1 Residential
LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL 07- R10 Residential
08-R- 15 Residential
Developable Non-Residential Properties 11 - Commercial
12 - Commercial Offi(
HURT INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC 1.870 13 9 7800000001100 0.0 0.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 t.! 13 - Highway CommE
WORRELL LAND & CATTLE COMPANY 63.140 15 10 7800000003100 1.7 0.4 61.0 27.5 2.8 3.1 55.2 244 244 244 610 610 610 14 - Planned Shoppir
WORRELL LAND & CATTLE COMPANY 14.185 15 10 7800000003200 1.0 1.5 11.7 13.4 1.3 0.6 9.8 I 15 o Planned Mixed (;
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 1.096 12 10 7800000006600 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 0.921 12 10 7800000006700 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 0.918 12 10 7800000006800 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 Comprehensive Pla;
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 0.918 12 10 7800000006900 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 ' 0.7 01 - NeighborhOOd D~
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 1.968 12 10 7800000007000 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 02 - Urban Density
HURT INVESTMENT COMPANY 4.820 15 9 7800000007600 0.0 0.3 4.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 07 - Neighborhood S;
HURT INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC 0.100 13 9 078000000011C0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 08 - Community Serv
SPOONER, MICHAEL E OR AVA C ~1.313 13 9 078000000013A0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.7 0.1 1.2 09 - Regional Service
DOMINICK, HAYNE W JR 1.631 13 8 78000000014E 1.6 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 - Office/Regional ,(
PAVILION AT RIVER BEND ,L L C, THE 15.278 11 8 078000000015C1 15.3 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0,0
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST; CHARLES WM 1.259 13 8 078000000015C3 1.3 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0
103 SOUTH PANTOPS DRIVE LAND TRUST; 1.379 13 8 078000000016A0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 * Current Zoning cap~
PAVILION AT RIVER BEND, L L C, THE 20,556 11 8 078000000017A0 19.0 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 4 4' 4 11 11 11 based upon using th,
RIVERBEND DRIVE LAND TRUST; CARLO - 0.475 14 8 078000000017D2 0,0 0,0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0,5 Convential Developr~
HURT INVESTMENT COMPANY 2.683 13 9 078000000020A0 0,0 0,9 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.8 @ 60% of the net de
WORRELL LAND & CATTLE COMPANY 7.116 15 10 078000000020B0 0.0 0.0 7,1 0,0 0.0 7,1
WORRELL LAND & CATTLE COMPANY 46.470 15 10 078000000020C0 1.0 2,7 42.8 0.0 0.0 2.1 40.6 171 171 171 428 428 428
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE t5.631 8 10 078000000020F1 4,0 11.6 0,0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0 0 0 0 ** Maximum ideal is t
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INS CO 0.576 12 10 078000000020H0 0.0 0,0 0.6 0,0 0.0 0.6 10 Units to the net ac
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE CO 30.749 12 10 078000000020J0 20.5 4,7 5.5 6.5 0,7 0.3 4,6 22 22 22 55 55 55 Urban Areas plus the
WORRELL LAND & CATTLE COMPANY 102.550 12 10 078000000020M0 4,7 12,5 85,4 18.7 1.9 4.3 79.2 341 341 341 854 854 854 density density in the
WORRELL LAND & CATTLE COMPANY 4.148 12 10 078000000071A0 0,0 0.3 3.8 0.0 0.0 3,8 Neighborhood Area
HURT INVESTMENT COMPANY 31.545 15 9 078000000073A0 0,0 7,3 24.2 17.4 1,7 1.2 21.3 97 97 97 242 242 242
KIMCO, L C 2.236 15 10 7800000006500 0,0 0.0 2,2 0.0 0.0 2,2 ***Comp. Plan in Nor
1,800 13 8 78-14E 0.0 1.3 0,5 0.0 0.0 0.5 Zones is based upon
~J.L, ;',!:.;; 11 . :9 · 078000000058G0 :.:'~i0 = 0.0 · 7.1 0.0 ] 0.0 0.4 6.7
Neighborhood 3 Totals for Net Area @ 20 units/~
All Non-Residential Areas 394,431 71,5 45.2 277,7 84.2 8.4 12,4 256,8 0 0 880 880 880 0 0 2200 2200 2200
GRAND TOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD 3 [ 861.013 J 141.0 103.7 616.3 227.6 36.0 29.4 I 550.9 437 579 1762 '4381 I 2956 1092 1446 4217 8817 I 6730
g Center
Commemial
y
Sen/ice
Service
~acity is
~ment standards
)pment area
based upon
~ high
~sidential
~% of the
~0n:'20% Of the
G:~11~97161CO.alb~R EVFINAL12798
CHK Architects and Planners, Inc., Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP., Center for Watershed Protection
page 5
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
NEIGHBORHOOD4
6-May-98 ACREAGE CRNT COMP TAX MAP STRM VLL SOILS NE~ LOT SIGNFICN1 WDLNDS OPEN NET/NET ADDNAL DWELLING UNITS (Capacity) ADDED POPULATION (Capacity) LEGEND
ZONE PLAN /PARCEL # WTLNDS SLPES AREA wDLNDS SAVED SPACE~ AREA CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN
STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX*** STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX. Current Zonin.q
LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL 01 - RuralAreas
Developable Residential Properties 03 - R-1 Residential
04 - R-2 Residential
ANDREWS, STEPHEN COTTON OR PHYLLIS 6.060 3 1 9000000002900 010 0.4 5.6 2.3 0.5 0.3 4.9 3 5 15 29 8 13 37 73 14 - Planned Shoppin
BROOKS, SUSAN NORA LIFE ESTATE 1.970 3 1 090000000030A0 0.0 0.0 * 2.0 1.2 0.2 0.1 1.6 1 2 5 10 3 4 12 25 16 - Light Industrial
BROOKS, SUSAN NORA, LIFE ESTATE 2.120 3 1 090000000030B0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.0 1 2 6 12 3 5 15 30 38 - PRD - R15
FOREST LODGE LAND TRUST 120.695 4 1 090A0000000300 61.4 11.3 48.0 48.0 9.6 2,4 36.0 58 86 108 216 144 216 270 540 44 - PUD - R-2
FOREST LODGE LAND TRUST', HILDA M 36.233 4 1 090A0000000200 7.2 6.0 23.1 23.1 4.6 1.2 17.3 28 41 52 104 69 104 130 259 Comprehensive Plaf
SOUTHWOOD MOBILE HOME ESTATES INC 4.000 4 1 090A0000000400 0.4 0.1 3,5 3.5 0.7 0.2 2.6 4 6 8 16 11 16 20 39 01 -Neighborhood D(
BREEDEN, HILDA M 390.000 1 16 9000000000600 129.8 74.6 185.7 0.0 0.0 9.3 176.4 18 18 18 18 45 45 45 45 02 - Urban Density
05 - Institutional
Totals for Neighborhood Areas 561.078 198.8 92.4 270.0 78.1 15.6 13.5 240.9 113 161 211 405 283 403 529 1012 08 - Community Servi
13 - Industrial
HURT INVESTMENT COMPANY 32.071 - 3 2 091000000002C0 11.0 7.8 13.3 6.5 0.0 0.7 12.6 199 199 76 429 126 498 498 189 1072 315
Current Zoning cape
Totals for Urban Areas 55.651 11.0 7.8 36.9 6.5 0.0 1.8 35.0 553 553 210 1190 350 1382 1382 526 2976 875 based upon using th(
Convential Developm,
Neighborhood 4 Totals for @ 60% of the net de~
All Residential Areas 616.729 209.8 100.2 306.8 84.6 15.6 15.3 275.9 666 714 422 1595 755 1665 1784 1055 3988 1888
Developable Non-Residential Properties ** Maximum ideal is b
10 Units to the net ac~
HURT INVESTMENT COMPANY 19.163 16 13 7700~00000700 19.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Urban Areas plus the
FRANKLIN STREET LAND TRUST, THE 7.520 16 13 ' 7700000002000 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 density density in the
FRANKLIN STREET LAND TR~ST, THE 13.440 16 13 7700000002100 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Neighborhood Area
RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY 157.486 1 5 7700000002500 0.0 7.2 150.3 0.0 0.0 150,3 7 7 18 18
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST; CHARLES WM 8.680 16 13 7700000004000 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ***Comp. Plan in Non
KENNEDY, CARL H JR 7.410 3 5 9100000001400 0.0 2.3 5.1 5.1 0.5 4.6 3 5 8 11 Zones is based upon
BRASS INC 4.516 16 13 076M10000002A0 3.5 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 Net Area @ 20 units/;
BRASS INC 46.943 16 13 076M10000002B0 18.8 2.7 25.5 25.5 2.6 23.0
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST; CHARLES WM 5.220 16 13 077000000040B0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0
C & O RAILWAY CO. 4,231 16 13 077000000040C1 0.0 0.0 4,2 0,0 0.0 4,2
BREEDEN, HILDA M 390.000 1 16 9000000000600 129.8 74.6 185.7 0,0 0.0 185.7 18 18 18 18 18 45 45 45 45 45
TANDEM SCHOOL, THE 8.040 3 5 091000000002B0 0.0 0.0 8,0 0.0 0.0 8.0 5 7 12 18
HILLCREST LAND TRUST; CHARLES wa 4.911 14 8 09100000000200 0,0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0
V A S OF VIRGINIA INC 1.335 16 13 077000000040J0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0,0 0.0 1.3
V A S OF VIRGINIA INC 1.496 16 13 077000000040L0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1,5
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST; CHARLES WM 4.595 16 13 077000000040P0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0'.0 4.6
WOOD, MELVIN W 5.060 3 13 090000000035F0 0,0 0.0 5.1 0.2 0.0 5.0 3 5 8 11
RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY 13,91 16 13 077000000040A0 13.9 0 0.0 0 0,0 0.0
KEYSER, ARTHUR B OR SUE C 1.809 16 13 077000000020A0 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0,0
SNOW, DUANE E OR ROWENA M 8.167 16 13 9000000003500 0.0 0.2 7,9 4.7 0.5 7,4
Neighborhood 4 Totals for
All Non-Residential Areas 720.649 . 221,7 91,2 407,7 35.5 3.6 0.0 404,1 36 41 18 18 18 90 !03 45 45 45
I
GRAND TOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD 41 1337.378 431,5 191,4' 714,.5 120,1 19,2 15.3 I 680,0 702 755 440 1613 I 773 1755 1888 1100 4033 I 1933
Center
)merit standards
'elopment area
~pon
; in the
;ih
ntial
20% of the
G;'~P~n',9716100.alb'iJ~EVFINAL12798 CHK Architects and Planners, Inc., Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP., Center for Watershed Protection page 6
NEIGHBORHOOD 5
6-May-98
Developable Residential Properties
GRANGER GORDON IV
FOREST LODGE LAND TRUST THE
BOWEN. CLARENCE W OR NANCY H
SHIFLE'Fr, ROBERT JR
WINTERGREEN FARM LAND TRUST;
WINTERGREEN FARM LAND TRUST;
WINTERGREEN FARM LAND TRUST;
KNOB HILL SUBDIVISION
Totals for Neighborhood Areas
SUNSET LAND TRUST, THE; LARRY J
FORNES, GASTON G REVOCABLE TRUST
CAPITAL LAND TRUST, THE
WRIGHT, J W JR
FORNES, GASTON G REVOCABLE TRUST
MOUNTAINWOOD PROPERTIES, L.L.C.
MOUNTAINWOOD PROPERTIES, L.L.C.
MOUNTAINWOOD PROPERTIES, L.L.C.
Totals for Urban Areas
Neighborhood 5 Totals for
All Residential Areas
ACREAGE
68.96
t93.791
1.477
0.750
33.000
5.520
5.303
348.801
40.981
11.810
24.528
1.370
20.407
9.631
7.200
7.215
123.142
471.943
CRNT
ZONE
COMP
PLAN
TAX MAP
~ARCEL#
7600000002400
9000000000500
076000000022D0
076000000024A0
076000000049B0
076000000049C0
076000000051C0
0760000076B
7600000004400
7600000004500
7600000004600
076000000044A0
076000000046B0
076000000046C0
076000000046C2
076000000046C3
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
STRM VLL SOILS NET LOT SIGNFICNT WDLNDS OPEN NET/NET ADDNAL DWELLING UNITS (Capacity) ADDED POPULATION (Capacity) LEGEND
WTLNDS SLPES AREA WDLNDS SAVED SPACE AREA CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN
STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX.** STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX. Current Zonin.q
LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL 91 - Rural Areas
03 - R-1 Residential
16,4 13.9 38.6 32,6 6.5 1.9 30.2 23 35 91 181 58 87 226 453 04 - R-2 Residential
116.0 9.0 68.8 48.8 9,8 3,4 55.6 41 62 167 334 103 155 417 834 07 - R-10
0.0 0.2 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.9 1 1 3 6 2 3 7 14 08-R-15 Residential
0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 - Commercial
11.1 0.2 21.7 -4.7 0.9 1.1 19.6 13 19 59 118 32 49 147 294
0.0 0.0 5.5 4.5 0.9 0.3 4.3 3 5 13 26 8 12 33 65
0.0 1.5 3.8 0.0 0;0 0.2 . 3.6 2 3 11 22 6 8 27 54 Comprehensive Pla~
01 - Neighborhood D,
03 - Open Space
10.0 8.8 22.2 22.2 4.4 1.1 16.6 199 299 100 565 166 498 748 249 1411 415 09 - Regional Service
11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 - Transitional
0.0 7.1 17.5 17.5 3.5 0.9 13,1 157 236 79 445 131 393 590 197 1113 327 ' 16- Rural Areas
0.0 0.3 1.1 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.8 9 14 5 27 8 24 35 12 67 ' 20
5.1 4.2 11.1 11,1 2,2 ' 0.6 8.3 100 149 50 282 83 249 374' 125 705 207. * Current Zoning cap
0.0 0.0 9.6 9.6 1.9 0.5 7.2 87 130 43 246 72 217 325 109 615 181 based upon using th
0.0 0.0 7.2 7.2 1.4 0.4 5.4 65 97 32 184 54 t62 243 81 459 135 Convential Developn
0.0 0.0 7.2 7.2 1.4 0,4 5.5 65 97 33 185 55 162 244 82 464 136 @ 60% of the net d(
26.9 20,4 75.8 75.9 15.1 3.8 56.9 682 1023 342 1934 569 1705 2558 855 4834 1422
· * Maximum ideal is I
10 Units to the net a(
175.2 48.0 255.4 167.6 33.5 12.8 209.2 766 1149 685 2619 1254 191 5 2872 1712 6549 3136 Urban Areas plus the
Y
ment standards
pment area
is based upon
~cre in the
high
density density in the
Neighborhood Area
**'Comp. Plan in Non-Residential
Zones is based upon 20% of the
Net Area @ 20 units/acre,
G:'~1~97161C~ alb',REVFINAL12798 CHK Architects and Planners, Inc., Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and' Boothe, LLP. Center for Watershed Protection page 7
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
NEIGHBORHOOD5
6-May-98 ACREAGE CRNT COMP TAX MAP STRM VLL SOILS NET LOT ~IGNFICN~ WDLNDS OPEN NET/NET ADDNAL DWELLING UNITS (Capacity) ADDED POPULAT ON (Capacity)
ZONE PLAN /PARCEL if WTLNDS SLPES AREA WDLNDS SAVED SPACE AREA CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN LEGEND
STNDRD* BONUS LOW HiGH MAX.** STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX.
LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL Current Zoninq
Developable Non-Residential Properties 01 - Rural Areas
03 - R-1
COLONNADE ASSOCIATES LIMITED 28.517 7 12 7600000005400 0.0 4.2 24.3 2.0 0.2 24.1 146 219 96 96 96 365 547 241 241 241 07 - R-10
CASON, RICHg, RD C SR OR SHARON T 8,800 1 4 76000000055E 8.8 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 3 3 08 - R-15 Residential
MEDLIN MOTOR COMPANY INC 3.665 3 3 7600000001800 0.0 0.0 3.7 3.7 0.4 2.9 0.4 0 0 1 1 11 - Commercial
MEDLIN MOTOR COMPANY 0,540 3 3 7600000001900 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.1 0 0 0 0
J.W. SlEG & COMPANY 36.347 3 9 7500000005300 1.8 2.7 31,9 0.0 0.0 31.9 19 29 127 127 127 48 72 319 319 319 Comprehensive Pla~
WRIGHT, JOSEPH W JR 1.502 11 9 7500000005400 0.0 0.4 1.1 1.1 0.1 1.0 01 - Neighborhood D{
J W SIEG & COMPANY INC 2,269 11 9 7500000005500 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.4 0.0 2.2 92 - Urban Density
WRIGHT JOSEPH W JR 10.795 11 9 7500000005600 0.0 3.5 7.3 6.9 0.7 6.7 ; 03 - Open Space
KIRBY, CORA F 0.540 1 3 7600000002100 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0 0 0 0 94 - Parks and Green
J. W. SIEG & CO. INC. 0.900 11 9 075000000055C0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.8 09- Regional Service
SOUTHEAST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 0.165 4 12 076000000054A0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0 0 0 1 12 - Transitional
TRAINUM, ROBERT L & ALICE H 0.000 4 12 076000000054J0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 16 - Rural Area
TRAINUM, ROBERT L & ALICE H 0.136 4 12 076000000054J1 0,0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0 0 0 1
TRAINUM, ROBERT L & ALICE H 0,374 4 12 076000000054J2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0 1 1 2
H &.H, L.C. 1.530 · 4 12 076000000055B0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.2 1.4 2 3 5 7
STROTHERS, MARY DEBUTTS, W!LLIAM J 15,370 1 16 090000000001B0 6.5 0.0 · 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.4 8.5 11 16 27 40
J W WRIGHT JR 2.163 4 12 076000000055D0 0.0 0 2.2 2.2 0.2 1.9 3 4 6 10
Neighborhood 5 Totals for. 113.613 17.1 10.8 85.8 19.2 1.9 3.7 80.1 35 53 224 224 224 88 '131 560 560 560
Non-Residential Areas
I
GRANDTOTAL FOR NEI61HBORHOOD51 585.556 J 192.3 58.8 341.2 186.8 35.4 16.5 I 289.3 801 1201 909 2843 I 1478 2002 3003 2272 7108 I 3696
I
Density
ays
G:'~PIn~7'J6100.alb~FLEVFIN.a~L12798 CHK Architects and Planners, Inc., Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP., Center for Watershed Protection page 8
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
NEIGHBORHOOD 6
6-May-98 ACREAGE CRNT COMP TAX MAP STRM VLL SOILS NET LOT SIGNFICN~ WDLNDS OPEN NET/NET ADDNAL DWELLING UNITS (Capacity) ADDED POPULATION (Capacity) LEGEND
ZONE PLAN /PARCEL # WTLNDS SLPES AREA WDLNDS SAVED SPACE AREA CURRENT zoNE COMP PLAN CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN
STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX.** STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX. Current Zonin!
LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL 03- R-1 Reside
Developable Residential Properties12 - Comm~rci~
HURTT, WILLIAM J OR CHARLENE B 56.900 3 I 7500000005900 9.0 14.1 33.9 19,0 3.8 1.7 28.4 20 30 85 170 51 76 213 426 Comprehensi~
HE DG EROW CORPORATION 54.640 3 1 7500000005800 26.6 12.0 16.0 7.2 1.4 0.8 13.7 10 14 41 82 24 36 103 206 01 - Neighborh(
HARLOW, THOMAS L, SHIRLEY H BROWN, 12.000 3 1 7500000006100 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 - Institutiona
RECTORS & VISITORS OF THE UVA 11.684 3 1 7600000001000 0.0 0.0 11.7 11.7 2.3 0.6 8.8 7 11 26 53 18 26 66 131 11 - Office Sen
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE 16.059 3 1 7600000001700 6.5 1.0 8.5 8.5 1.7 0.4 6.4 5 8 19 38 13 19 48 96 14 - DevelopmE
MAKIELSKI, ALICE LEE 5,000 3 1 075000000047A0 4.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HEYWARD, JANE L LIFE ESTATE 18.090 3 1 076000000010C0 15.5 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.5 2 2 7 15 4 6 18 37
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE 16.560 3 1 076000000010F0 0.0 2,1 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 13.7 9 13 41 82 22 32 103 206 * Current Zonin
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE 5.360 3 1 076000000010H2 0.5 0,0 4,9 0.8 0.2 0.2 4.5 3 4 13 27 7 11 33 67 based upon us
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE 29.110 3 1 076000000010H3 13.5 0.7 14.9 5.8 1.2 0.7 13.0 9 13 39 78 22 34 98 195 Convential Dev
HEYWARD, JANE L. LIFE ESTATE 73.290 3 1 076000000013B0 9.6 3.5 60.2 0.0 0.0 3.0 57.2 3~ 54 172 343 90 136 429 858 @ 60% of the
11.00 3 1 76-1082 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 10.5 7 10 31 63
Neighborhood 6 Totals for 309.693 86.0 45.7 178.0 52.9 10.6 8.9 158.5 107 160 476 951 251 376 1111 2221 ** Maximum
All Residential Areas " 10 Units to the
Urban Areas pl;
Developable Non-Residential Properties density density
· Neighborhood
HEYWARD, B. HENDERSON LIFE ESTATE 83.270 3 14 7600000001300 0.0 1.8 81.5 71.6 7.2 74.3 49 73 122 '183
RECTORS & VISITORS OF THE UVA 1.000 3 5 076000000009A0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.7 0 1 1 2 ***Comp. Plan i
RECTORS & VISITORS OF THE UVA 12.250 3 5 076000000010B1 0.0 5.5 6.8 6.8 0,7 ~ 6,1 4 - 6 10 15 Zones is based
RECTORS & VISITORS OF THE UVA 3.295 3 5 076000000010D1 0.0 0.6 2.7 2.7 0.3 2.4 2 2 4 6 ' Net Area @ 20
RECTORS & VISITORS OF THE UVA 6.720 3 5 07600000001012 0.0 6.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0
3.7 3 5 76-t081 0.0 0,2 3.5 3.5 0.4 3.1 2 3 5 8
UREF RESEARCH PARK INC 27.666 12 11 076000000017B0 9.0 2,7 16.0 0.0 0.0 0,8 15.2 61 61 61 152 152 152
UREF RESEARCH PARK INC 16.888 12 11 076000000017B1 0.0 2.7 14.2 0.0 0.0 14.2
UREF RESEARCH PARK tNC 3.930 12 11 076000000017B3 0.0 2.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.6
Neighborhood 6 Totals for 158.719 9.0 22.7 127.0 85.5 8.6 0.8 117.7 57 86 61 61 61 143 214 152 152 152
Non-Residential Areas
I
GRAND TOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD 61 468.412 ] 94.9 68.4 305.1 138.4 19.1 9.7 I 276.2 164 246 536 1012 I 1012 393 590 1263 2373 I 2373.
Density
)merit Area Profile
g capacity is
he
)pment standards
)pment area.
ideal is based upon
net acre in the
plus the high
' in the
Plan in Non-Residential
upon 20% of the
cre.
G:~PIn~9716100 alb~R E VFINAL12798
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc., Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Booths, LLP., Center for Watershed Protection
page 9
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
NEIGHBORHOOD7
6-May-98 ACREAGE CRNT COMP TAX MAP/PARCEL # STRM VLL SOILS NET LOT SIGNFICN'~ WDLNDS OPEN NET/NET ADDNAL DWELLING UNITS (Capacity) ADDED POPULATION (Capacity) Current Zon nf
ZONE PLAN WTLNDS SLPES AREA WDLNDS SAVED SPACE AREA CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN*** CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN 01 - Rural Area
STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX.** STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX. 08 R-15 Resid~
LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL t 1- Commercia
Developable Residential Properties12 - Commerci-~
UNIVERSITY OF VA REAL ESTATE TRUST 120.000 1 1 060000000024D0 0 0.0 120,0 0.0 0.0 6.0 114.0 12 12 342 684 30 30 855 1710
,~ C0mprehen~i~
Totals for Neighborhood Areas 120,000 0 0 120.0 0 0 6.0 114.0 12 12 342 684 0 30 30 855 1710 01 - Neighborh(
02 - Urban Den
UNIVERSITY VILLAGE LIMITED PART 24.873 8 2 060000000024C0 0 2.7 22.2 6.9 1.4 1.1 19.7 200 299 118 670 197 499 749 296 1674 492 11 - Office Ser~
COLONNADE ASSOCIATES LIMITED 5.000 8 2 060000000024Cl 0 0.0 5.0 1.9 0.4 0.3 4.4 45 68 26 148 44 113 169 66 371 109
Totals for Urban Areas 29.873 0.0 2.7 27.2 8.8 1.8 1.4 24.1 245 367 145 818 241 612 917 361 2045 601 * Currant Zonin
based upon us
Neighborhood 7 Totals for Convential Dev
All Residential Areas 149.873 0.0 2.7 147.2 8.8 1.8 7.4 138.1 257 379 487 1502 925 642 947 1216 3755 2311 @ 60% of the ~
Developable Non-Residential Properties
· * Maximum idE
IVY PROFESSIONAL CENTRE 0.488 11 11 060000000046A0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 10 Units to the
RINEHART, RODGER R JR & TORRANCE 6.130 12 11 6000000002600 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 6.1 Urban Areas pl~
COLONNADE ASSOCIATES LIMITED 0.647 11 11 060000D00046B0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 density density
BARLOW, GEORGE W II & REI~ECCA 2.021 11 11 060000000048A0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.2 1.8 Neighborhood ~
Neighborhood 7 Totals fo.r
All Non-Residential Areas 12.736 0.0 0.0 12.7 2.0 0.5 I 12.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 tO 0 0 0 ***Comp. Plan
Zones is based
GRANDTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD7[ 162.609 ] 0.0 2.7 159.9 10.8 2.3 7.4 I 150.2 257 379 487 1502 I 925 642 947 1216 3755 I 2311 NetArea @ 2O
~.ial Office
~ Plan
Density
g capacity is
the
~pment standards
~pment area
based upon
net acre in the
plus the high
~ in the
n in Non-Residential
pon 20% of the
20 units/acre.
G:\PIn\9716100.eJb',REVFINAI.12798 CHK Architects and Planners, Inc., Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP., Center for Watershed Protection page 10
CROZET COMMUNITY
6-May-98
Developable Residential Properties
PIEDMONT VIRGINIA LAND TRUST;
WAFF, ,J0~EPH ~J'iii o¢i ELLEN S'
TOMBS, ROY LESTER OR PAMELA SUE
ARMSTRONG, ROBERT OR
SHIFFLETT, JOHN G & JACKIE B
PIEDMONT VIRGINIA LAND TRUST;
PIEDMONT VIRGINIA LAND TRUST;
WOODSON. DAN
MOYER, JOANNE L G & RICHARD W MOYER
MOYER, JOANNE L G & RICHARD W MOYER
JARMAN, WALTER M & HAZEL B
ANDERSON, JOHN W OR AGNES J
MOYER, JOANNE L G & RICHARD W MOYER
SHIFLETT, ELMER L ESTATE
GERSTL, HANS A L TRUSTEE UNDER THE
SNEAD, WILLIAM A OR MICHELLE
FRAIZER, GEORGE B OR JANE E
SHIFLETT, ETHEL F
WASHINGTON. EMMETT LESTER &
UNGER PHILLIP W, TRUSTEE UNDER
MAUPtN, RICHARD D OR CATHY D
ADCOCK, WILLIAM LEWIS &
MAUPIN, MAUDE J
BRANDT, RICHARD & MA'Iq'ICE F
WILCOX. STANLEY P
WILLIAMS, CATHARINE MOYER
RAMSAY, JAMES H
BALDWIN. BARBARA G.
HAYDEN, BRUCE P & KAREN M
TOMS, ALVIN L OR ANN R
TOMS, ALVIN L OR ANN R
TOMS. ALVIN L OR ANN R
TOMS, ALVIN L OR ANN R
HIGHLANDS WEST LP.
KEYES, HELEN A, JEROME W KEYES JR,
KEYES, HELEN A, JEROME W KEYES JR,
SHIFLE'I-r, ELMER L ESTATE
SHIFLETr. ELMER L ESTATE
HOOVER, HARRY A & ELEANOR S
UNGER, PHiLLIP W, TRUSTEE UNDER
KEYES. JEROME W JR TRUSTEE, ERIC
NEWMAN, CORNELIUS OR ROBIN D
SAM ENTERPRISES L.LC.
CROSS. ROBERT L OR JEANNE KERR
SHIFFLETT1 KENNETH C & LENORA R
ACREAGE
133.900
64:200
8,760
5.000
46,039
120.000
7.160
2.300
24.570
28.310
16.400
7.397
0.520
5.060
1.905
2.858
2.810
36,040
2.190
48,850
2.740
2.140
4.600
7.898
8.000
5.001
13.960
7.842
2,100
0.655
0.621
0,764
2.516
12.730
2.256
26,560
38.600
76,100
6.000
13.750
24,600
20.520
14.090
5.121
1.700
CRNT
ZONE
COMP
PLAN
TAX MAP/
PARCEL#
5600000001400
056000000099A0
56000000035
5500000006100
5500000007800
5500000008300
5500000010400
5600000000900
5600000001100
5600000001300
5600000003600
5600000003800
5600000004100
5600000004600
5600000004700
5600000005000
5600000005200
5600000005300
5600000005500
5600000010000
055000000060A1
055000000062A0
055000000074A0
055000000079A0
055000000079A2
056000000014D0
056000000035C0
056000000035D0
056000000035G0
056000000040A0
056000000040B0
056000000040C0
056000000040D0
056000000093B0
056000000093C0
056000000093D0
056000000095A0
056000000095B0
056000000098A0
056000000100C0
056000000100F0
5600000009200
5600000010800
056000000097A0
056000000098D0
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
STRM VAL SOILS NET LOT
WTLNDS SLPES AREA
20,3 12.8 100.9
36.0 :...2.0 26.2
2.8 1.6 4.4
0.0 0.0 5.0
3.3 0.0 42.7
23.8 1.9 94.3
0.0 0.0 7.2
0.0 0.0 2.3
9.8 1.2 13.6
7.3 0.0 21.0
7.2 0.0 9.2
7.4 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.5
0.0 0.0 5.1
0.0 0.0 1.9
0.0 0,5 2.4
0.0 0.8 2.0
1.8 3,0 31.2
0.0 0,5 1.7
4.6 6.1 38.2
0.0 0.0 2.7
0.0 0.0 2.1
0.0 0.0 4.6
5.7 0.0 2.2
8.0 0.0 0.0
5.0 0.0 0.0
0.4 5.2 8.4
0.0 0.6 7.2
0.0 0.0 2.1
0.0 0.0 0.7
0,0 0,0 0.6
0.0 0.0 0.8
0.0 0.0 2.5
12.2 - 0.0 0.5
2,3 0.0 0.0
10.2 8.6 7.8
16.8 10.1 11.7
34,6 4.1 37.4
3.8 0.2 2.0
6,4 0.4 7.0
1.4 2.8 20.4
0.3 0.7 19.5
0 0 14.1
0 0 5.1
0 0 1.7
WDLNDS OPEN NET/NET
SAVED SPACE AREA
1.0 5.0 94.8
1.3 1,3 23,6
0.5 0.2 3.7
1.0 0.3 3.8
0.0 2.1 40.6
6.3 4.7 83.3
0.0 0.4 6.8
0.0 0.1 2.2
0.0 0.7 12.9
0.0 1.1 20.0
0.4 0.5 8.3
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.5
0.0 0.3 4.8
0.2 0.1 1.6
0.0 0.1 2.2
0.0 0.1 1.9
2.1 1.6 27.6
0.0 0.1 1.6
0.0 1.9 36.2
0.0 0.1 2.6
0.0 0.1 2.o
0.8 0,2 3.6
0.0 0.1 2.1
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
1.5 0.4 6.5
1.4 0.4 5.5
0.2 0.1 1,8
0.0 0.0 0.6
0.0 0.0 0.6
0.0 0.0 0.7
0.0 0.1 2.4
0.0 0.0 0.5
0.0 0.0 0.0
1.6 0.4 5.8
0.9 0.6 10.2
0.0 1.9 35.5
0.0 0.1 1.9
0.0 0.3 6.6
0.0 1.0 19.4
0.3 1.0 18.2
0.0 0.7 13.4
0.0 0.3 4.9
0.2 0.1 1.4
ADDNAL DWELLING UNITS (Capacity)
CURRENT ZONE
STNDRD* BONUS
LEVEL LEVEL
61 91
16 24
3 4
3 5
26 38
8 8
1 1
3 4
16 . 24
25 38
6 8
0 0
I 1
18 27
7 10
6 8
5 7
19 28
2 3
2 2
2 2
1 2
3 4
1 1
1 1
0 0
5 8
4 7
1 2
1 1
1 1
3 4
1 1
0 0
1 1
7 11
22 34
1 2
4 6
12 18
1 1
34 51
3 5
I 2
COMP PLAN
LOW HIGH
284 569
71 142
11 22
11 23
122 244
250 500
20 41
7 13
39 77
60 120
25 50
0 0
1 3
14 29
5 9
7 13
6 11
83 166
5 10
109 217
8 15
6 12
11 21
6 13
0 0
0 0
19 39
16 33
5 11
2 4
2 4
2 4
7 14
2 3
0 0
17 35
31 61
107 213
6 11
20 40
58 116
55 109
40 80
15 29
]4 8
CHK Architects and Planners, Inc., Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP., Center for Watershed Protection
MAX.**
IDEAL
ADDED POPULATION (Capacity)
CURRENT ZONE
STNDRD* BONUS
LEVEL LEVEL
151 227
39:: ,=':"59
7 10
8 11
64 96
20 20
3 3
7 10
41 61
63 95
14 21
0 0
2 2
46 68
17 26
14 21'
12 18
47 70
5 8
5 5
4 6
3 5
7 10
3 3
3 3
0 0
13 19
11 16
3 5
2 3
2 3
2 3
7 11
3 3
0 0
3 3
18 26
56 84
3 5
10 16
31 46
3 3
85 127
8 12
3 4
LOW
711
177
28
28
3O5
624
51
16
97
150
62
0
4
36
12
17
14
2O7
12
272
19
15
27
16
0
0
48
41
14
5
4
5
18
4
0
44
76
266
14
50
145
137
100
36
lO
COMP PLAN
HIGH
1422
354
55
56
609
1249
102
33
193
299
125
o
7
72
24
34
29
414
24
544
38
30
54
31
0
0
97
82
27
9
9
11
36
8
-1
87
153
533
29
99
291
274
201
73
21
MAX.
IDEAL
LEGEND
Current Zoninq
01 - Rural Area
03 - R-1 Residential
04- R2 Residential
05 - R5 Residential
06 - R6 Residential
13 - Highway Commercial
33 - PRD - R1
Comprehensive Plan
01 - Neighborhood Density
02 - Urban Density
05 - Institutional
13 - Industrial
16 - Rural Area
* Current Zoning capacity is
based upon using the
Convential Development standard~
@ 60% of the net development area.
10 Units to the net acre in the
Urban Areas plus the high
density density in the
Neighborhood Area
***Comp, Plan in Non-Residential
Zones is based upon 20% of the
Net Area @ 20 units/acre.
page 11
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
)
I
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
CROZET COMMUNITY
6-May-98 ACREAGE CRNT COMP TAX MAP/ STRM VLL SOILS NET LOT .~IGNFICN~ WDLNDS OPEN NET/NET ADDNAL DWELLING UNITS (Capacity) ADDED POPULATION (Capacity) I~LEGEND
ZONE PLAN PARCEL # WTLNDS SLPES AREA WDLNDS SAVED SPACE AREA CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN
STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX.** STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX. Current Zonincl
LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL 01 - Rural Area
UNGER, PHILLIP W, TRUSTEE UNDER 20.000 3 1 56000000100E? 0.0 8.3 11.7 1.6 .0.3 0.6 10.8 7 11 32 65 18 26 81 162 33 - PRD - R1
MECHUM RIVER LAND TRUST; 56.770 5 16 5700000002900 6.5 8.5 41.8 2.7 0.5 2.1 39.1 100 150 2 2 251 376 5 5
HARDING, JOSEPH D III OR LAURA E 10.097 1 16 056000000109C0 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 9.6 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 Comprehensive Pla~
01 - Neighborhood D~
Totals for Neighborhood Areas 952.000 237.9 79.9 634.3 103.0 20.6 31.7 581.9 445 669 1603 3202 1112 1647 4007 8006 02 - Urban Density
05 - Institutional
SAVAGE, ROBERT S OR ANN S 40.020 33 2 5500000006500 2.5 1.5 36.0 1.0 0.2 1.8 34.0 40 40 204 1157 340 100 100 511 2892 850 {37 - Neighborhood Se
BARGAMIN, ROBERT E JR & LEANNE C 10.500 6 2 5500000006600 0.0 0.0 10,5 10.5 2.1 0.5 7.9 28 43 47 268 79 71 106 118 669 197 13 - Industrial
PIEDMONT VIRGINIA LAND TRUST; FRED 128.860 1 2 5500000007100 26.7 6.3 95.9 0.0 0.0 4.8 91.1 6 6 547 3096 911 15 15 1368 7741 2277 16 - Rural Area
SAVAGE, ROBERT S OR ANN S 33.710 33 2 055000000065A0 2.9 0.8 30.0 2.9 0.6 1.5 27.9 33 33 168 950 279 83 83 420 2374 698
BARGAMIN, ROBERT E JR & LEANNE C 9.040 6 2 055000000066A0 0.0 0.6 8.4 7.8 1.6 0.4 6.5 30 46 39 220 65 76 114 97 549" 161 Current Zoning cape
based upon using the
Totals for Urban Areas 222.130 32.1 9.2 180.8 22.2 4.4 9.0 167.3 138 167 1006 5690 1673 344 418 2514 14225 4164 Convential Developm
, . @ 60% of the net de'
Crozet Totals for All Residential Areas 1174.130 270.0 89.1 815.1 125.2 25.0 40.8 749.3 583 826 2608 8892 4876 1457 2065 6521 22230 12189
~* Maximum ideal is b
Developable Non'Residential Properties10 Units to the net ac
Urban Areas plus the
SANDRIDGE, MALCOLM W JR OR EFFIE M 4.330 6 13 056000000057A0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 :lensity density in the
PIEDMONT VIRGINIA LAND TRUST; 6.578 3 5 056000000017B0 0.0 0.0 6.6 6.6 0.7 5.9 4 6 10 15 Neighborhood Area
PIEDMONT VIRGINIA LAND TRUST; 16.174 6 5 056000000017B1 8.2 0.0 8.0 8.0 0.8 7.2 29 43 72 .108
DAILY, RICHARD B TRS 47.460 6 13 5600000005700 4.5 0.7 42.3 8.4 0.8 41.4 .152 228 380 571 '**Comp. Plan in Non
STRONG. DEAN A 2.650 3 7 5600000010700 0 0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 2 2 4 6 Zones is based upon
SPAINHOUR, ADELAIDE W 12,190 1 13 056000000091A0 0 0 12.2 0 0.0 12.2 ! 1 3 3 Net Area @ 20 units/~
BARNES, ANNE R 21.350 1 13 5600000009100 1.2 0.7 19.5 1.3 0.1 19.3 1 1 3 3
CARR, HOWARD M 2.130 4 13 056A2010006200 0 0 2.1 0 0.0 2.1 3 4 6 .10
CHRISTWORKS MINISTRIES 3.070 16 13 056A2010006800 0 0.3 2.8 0.6 0.1 2.7
CONAGRA INC 90.012 , 3 13 5600000009500 0.5 23.7 65.8 13.3 1.3 64.5 39 59 99 148
WILSON JONES COMPANY 36.423 16 13 5600000009400 1.4 7.3 27.7 14.0 1.4 26.3
Crozet Totals for Non-Residential 242.367 15.8 37.0 189.6 52.2 5.2 0.0 184.3 231 345 0 0 0 576 862 0 0 0
GRAND TOTALS FOR CROZE'r [ '1416.497 ] 285.8 126.1 1004.6 177.4 30.3 40.8 933.6 813 1171 2608 e892 I 4876 2033 · 2927 6521 22230 I 12189
Density
[y is
standards
pment area
is based upon
in the
;Ih
in Non-Residential
3on 20% of the
G;'~;~I~'~9716100.alb"REVFINAL12798 CHK Architects and Planners; Inc., Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP., Center for Watershed Protection page 12
County of Albemarle, virginia-
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY
6-May-98
Developable Residential Properties
VIOLET HILL ASSOCIATES
VIOLET HILL ASSOCIATES
HAUGH, CHARLES R & E J OGLESBY JR
CROCKETT CORPORATION
CHEN, CHARLES S & SHIN-MING CHEN
CURRIER, WILLIAM M
REID, DONALD L TRUSTEE UNDER THE
COLES, DANIEL*
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST; CHARLES WM
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST; CHARLES WM
VIOLET HILL ASSOCIATES
VIOLET HILL ASSOCIATES
VIOLET HILL ASSOCIATES
VIOLET HILL ASSOCIATES
VIOLET HILL ASSOCIATES
VIOLET HILL ASSOCIATES
VIOLET HILL ASSOCIATES
VIOLET HILL ASSOCIATES
MEADOWS, GEORGE ESTATE &
BURTON, VICTORIA H & ROBERT O
HAUGH, CHARLES R & ELIZABETH ANN
BROWN,.FA&HATTi~j~::..'.'''. :
KIMCO L C *
MAY, ALFRED & MELBA M *
REID, LORRAINE S & JIMMIE LOU
CHEN, CHARLES S & SHIN-MING CHEN
CLARK, JANE D
FARINHOLT, JOSEPH JOHN OR LtNDA M
Totals for Neighborhood Areas
GENTRY, PEYTON & RUBY J
ESTES, HORACE O
GALLAGHER, BLANCHE VERONICA
HALL, JEAN E
ZOULIS, THERAPHIA CYNTHIA &
BIRCKHEAD. WlLLARD H & FRANCES M
COLLIER, ELVlN & GEORGIA M
SNOW, JANICE L
SPROUSE, FRANKLIN RUBEN
BIRCKHEAD, WtLLARD H & FRANCES B
BIRCKHEAD. WILLARD H & FRANCES B
BIRCKHEAD, WILLARD H & FRANCES B
HOUCHENS, ERNEST L JR & RUBY B
MOONEY, RUSSELL D JR TRUSTEE
Totals for Urban Areas
Residential Totals for the
Hollymead Community
ACREAGE
CRNT
ZONE
5.000 I 1
98.958 1 1
38.000 3 1
194.741 3 1
41.50O 3 1
27.482 3 1
43.5OO 1 1
11.25O 3 1
21.210 I 1
25.320 1 1
5.790 1 1
5.460 1 1
5.120 I 1
5.000 1 1
5.070 1 1
5.030 1 1
5.040 1 1
5.000 1 1
2.000 1 1
23.620 1 1
28.741 3 1
50.000 3 ::..;;: 16
3 1
3 1
13,888 3 1
11.7OO 3 1
2,247 3 1
20.357 3 1
701.024
COMP
PLAN
2.610 3 2
6.000 3 2
5.290 1 2
3.380 I 2
5.090 3 2
2.970 3 2
t .270 3 2
3.220 3 2
7.350 3 2
1.630 3 2
13.840 3 2
2.530 3 2
6.180 3 2
31.730 3 2
93.090
794.114
TAX MAP
/PARCEL #
32000000023E
3200000002300
4600000001800
4600000001900
4600000002500
4600000002600
4600000003000
4600000OO44OO
032000000022H0
032000000022K0
032000000023A0
032000000023B0
032000000023C0
032000000023D0
032000000023F0
032000000023G0
032000000023H0
032000000023J0
032000000056A0
032C0030000200
046000000018A0
4600000003500
046000000044A0
046000000044B0
046000000023A0
046000000023B0
046000000026C0
046000000026F0
46000000028E
3200000003300
032000000022F0
032000000022G0
046000000028A0
046000000028B0
046000000028F0
046000000028G0
046000000028H0
04600000002810
046000000028J0
046000000028K0
046000000029A0
046000000029B0
STRM VLL SOILS NET LOT SIGNFICN' WDLNDS OPEN NET/NET ADDNAL DWELLING UNITS (Capacity) ADDED POPULATION (Capacity) LEGEND
WTLNDS SLPES AREA WDLNDS SAVED SPACE AREA CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN
STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX.** STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX. Current Zoninf:l
LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL 01 - Rural Area
03 - R-1 Residential
0.0 0.9 4.1 0.9 0.2 0.2 3.7 1 1 11 22 3 3 28 56 11 - Commercial
9.5 19.7 69.8 29.7 5.9 3.5 60.4 4 4 18 t 362 10 10 453 906 16 - Light Industry
7.2 4.3 26.5 26.5 5.3 1.3 19.9 16 24 60 119 40 60 149 298 18 - Planned Industri;
45.2 51.9 97.7 93.8 18.8 4.9 74.0 59 88 222 444 146 220 555 1110 Park
0.0 16.1 25.4 25.4 5.1 1.3 19.0 15 23 57 114 38 57 143 286
6.0 7.3 14,2 14.2 2.8 0.7 10.6 9 13 32 64 2t 32 80 ,159 Comprehensive Pla,
0.0 5.6 37.9 37.9 7.6 1.9 28.4 4 4 85 170 10 10 213 426 01 - Neighborhood D;
8.8 0.0 2.4 2.4 0.5. 0.1· 1.8 I 2 5 11 4 5 14 27 32 - Urban Density
10.2 0,0 11.0 11.0 2,2 0.5 8,2 1 1 25 49 3 3 62 123 11 - Office Service
16.9 3.3 5.2 5.2 1.0 0.3 3.9 1 1 12 23 3 3 29 58 13 - Industrial
1.2 0.0 4,6 4.6 0.9 0,2 3.4 1 1 10 21 3 3 26 52 16 - Rural Area
0.8 0.0 4.7 4.7 0.9 0.2 3.5 1 1 ' 11 21 3 3 26 53
0.0 1,7 3.5 3.5 0.7 0.2 2,6 1 1 8 16 3 3 19 39
0.0 1.2 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.7 1 1 11 22 3 3 27 55 Current Zoning cap;
0.0 1.0 4.1 2.8 0.6 0.2 3.3 f 1 10 20 3 3 25 49 based upon using th~
0.0 0.5 4.5 4.5 0.9 0.2 3.4 1 1 t 0 20 3 3 26 51 Convential Developm
0.0 1.2 3.9 3.9 0.8 0.2 2.9 1 1 9 18 3 3 22 44 @ 60% of the net de'
0.0 1.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.5 1 1 11 21 3 3 27 53
0,0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.4 0.1 1.5 1 1 5 9 3 3 11 23
0.0 0.3 23.4 20.8 4.2 1.2 10.0 1 1 54 108 3 3 135 271 '* Maximum ideal is I:
t6.4 0.6 11.7 11,7 2.3 0.6 8,8 7 - 11 26 53 18 26 66 132 10 Units to the net ac
0.0 '"' 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 47.5 30 45 143 · 285 · : ':75 i:" ':' i13~. .356' '/~ ?i '~ :: '~ :~!~'~!: ~:'.:i':
0,0 Urban Areas plus the
0.0 density density in the
0.0 4.5 9.4 9.4 1.9 0.5 7.1 6 8 21 42 .. 14 21 53 106 Neighborhood Area
0.0 8.5 3.3 3.3 0.7 0.2 2.4 2 3 7 15 5 7 18 37
0.Q 0.9 1,4 1,3 0.3 0.1 1.0 1 1 3 6 2 3 8 15 '**Comp. Plan in Non
0.0 0,5 19.9 8.2 1.6 1.0 17.2 12 18 52 103 30 45 129 258 Zones is based upon
Net Area @ 20 unitsh
122.2 131.1 447.8 327.5 65.5 22.4 359.9 178 257 1080 2159 445 641 2699 5398
0.0 0,1 2.5 1.0 0.1 0.1 2.3 ~ 2 14 77 23 4 6 34 192 57.
0.0 0.3 5,7 5.8 0,6 0.3 4.9 3 5 29 ~65 49 9 13 73 414 122
2.7 0.0 2.6 2.6 0,3 0.1 2.2 1 1 13 75 22 3 3 33 187 55
2.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.1 0.1 1.2 1 1 7 . 40 12 3 3 18 100 29
1.6 1.1 2.4 2.0 0.2 ' 0.1 2,1 1 2 12 70 21 3 5 31 176 52
0,0 0.4 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.5 1 2 15 84 25 4 6 37 209 62
0.0 0,0 1,3 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 1 1 7 41 12 2 3 18 103 30
0.0 0.3 3.0 1.0 0.1 0,1 2.7 2 2 16 92 27 4 6 41 230 68
2.6 1.1 3.7 0.6 0.1 0.2 3.5 2 3 21 118 35 5 8 52 296 87
0.0 1.0 0.7 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0 1 4 21 6 1 1 9 53 16
8.2 0.8 4.9 4.9 0.5 0.2 4.2 2 4 25 141 42 6 9 62 353 104
0.0 0.3 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.2 1 2 13 74 22 3 5 33 184 54
4.1 0,4 1.7 1,5 0.2 0.1 1.5 I 1 9 50 15 2 3 . 22 125 37'
8.5 2.3 21.0 4.5 0.4 1.0 19.5 13 19 117 663 195 31 47 293 1657 487
29.6 7.9 55.6 25.2 2.5 2.8 50.3 32 47 303 1711 503 79 116 756 4278 1258
151.7 139.0 503.4 352.7 68.0 25.2 410,2 209,8 303.1 1382 3871 2663 524 758 3455 9677 6657
acity is
)ment standards
,pment area
is based upon
~t acre in the
high
Non-Residential
3on 20% of the
CHK Architects and Planners, Inc., Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP.. Center for Watershed Protection
page 13
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Development Area Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY
6-Mayo98 ACREAGE CRNT COMP TAX MAP I STRM VLL SOILS NET LOT SIGNFICN~ WDLNDS OPEN NET/NET ADDNAL DWELLING UNITS
(Capacity)
ADDED
POPULATION
(Capacity)
LEGEND
ZONE PLAN /PARCEL it~ WTLNDS SLPES AREA WDLNDS SAVED SPACE AREA CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN CURRENT ZONE COMP PLAN .
· STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX.** STNDRD* BONUS LOW HIGH MAX. Current Zonin~l
LEVEL LEVEL iDEAL LEVEL LEVEL IDEAL 01 - RuralArea
Deve, lopable Non-Residential Properties I 03 - R-I Residential
I
11 - Commercial
MMS LAND TRUST; M CLIFTON MCCLURE 3.750 I 9 32000000042E I 0,0 0.0 3.8 3.8 0.4 3.4 1 1 3 3 13 - Highway ComTe
UREF RESEARCH PARKINC 48.060 18 13 3200000000600 ~ 0.0 4.1 44.0 17.4 1.7 42.2
FIRST & MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK 34.300 16 13 3200000001700 0.0 0.8 33.6 24,1 2.4 31.1 17 - Heavy ~ndustry
SMITH, LOYD E OR WILMA L 27,000 1 13 3200000001800 0.0 0.0 27.0 16,2 1.6 25.4 1 1 3 3 18 - Planned Industri~
UREF RESEARCH PARK INC 282,025 18 13 3200000001900 71.3 89.9 120.9 79.9 8.0 112.9 Park
TOWERS LAND TRUST, CHARLES ROTGINS 63,102 I 11 3200000002000 0.0 7,3 55.8 55.8 5.6 2.8 47,5 3 3 223 223 223 8 8 558 558 558 35 - PRD R-4
ESTES, WINSTON 25.000 1 13 3200000004400 1.3 0.7 23,0 23.0 2.3 20.7 1 1 3 3
S-V ASSOCIATES 25,000 1 13 3200000504500 6.0 0,4 18.6 18.6 1,9 16.7 1 1 3 3 .
GEER, GEORGE W OR G LOUISE 3.250 I 13 3200000004900 0.0 0.2 3.0 5.0 0.5 2.5 1 I 3 3 Comprehensive Plal
N Y C LAND TRUST; M cLIFTON MCCLURE 10.000 1 11 3200000005000 0.0 0.2 9.8 9.8 1.0 8,8 1 1 3 3 01 - Neighborhood D(
ELMORE, JAMES F 5.000 1 11 3200000005100 0.0 0.4 4.6 4.6 0.5 4.2 1 1 3 3 [:)2 - Urban Density
NICHOLAS, JAMES & PAULINE I ELMORE 3,320 1 11 3200000005200 0.0 0.5 2.9 2.8 0.3 2.6 1 1 3 3 [:)8 - Community Servi
BROWN, F A & HATTIE J 50.000 3 16 4600000003500 5,4 2.9 41.7 66.7 6.7 2.t 32.9 25 38 3 3 3 63 ~94 8 8 8 ~9 - Regional Service
UREF RESEARCH PARK INC 185.220 18 13 032000000004B0 9.2 5.4 170,7 31.8 3.2 167.5 : 11 - Office Service
RIVANNA PARTNERS L P 25.540 16 13 320~000002200 0.7 1.3 23,6 20.9 2.1 21.5 16 - Rural Area
ROUTE 649 CHARLO'FrESVILLE 4.000 16 13 032000000017B5 0.0 0.0 4.0 7,0 0.7 3.3
JEFFERSON NATIONAL BANK. 19.707 16 13 032000000019B0 0.0 0.0 19.7 3.3 0.3 19.4
TOWERS LAND TRUST, CHARLES ROTGIN 2.500 1 11 032000000020A0 0.0 0.3 2.3 2.3 0.2 2.0 1 1 3 3 * Current Zoning caps
TOWERS LAND TRUST, CHARLES ROTGIN 2.500 1 11 032000000020A1 0.0 0.3 2.3 2.3 0.2 2.0 '1 1 3 3 based upon using the
TOWERS LAND TRUST, CHARLES ROTGIN 2.500 1 11 032000000020A2 0.0 0.5 2.0 2.0 0.2 1.8 1 1 3 3 Convential Developm
TOWERS LAND TRUST; CHARLES ROTGIN 8.067 1 9 03200.0000020A3 0,0 0.8 7.3 7.3 0.7 6.6 1 1 3 3 @ 60% of the net de~
WRIGHT, JOSEPH W JR 37.000 11 11 032000000041 DO 0.0 1.6 35.4 43.6 4.4 1.8 29.3 142 142 142 354 354 354
SHIELDS, CHRISTOPHER T &, THOMAS 6,000 13 11 032000000041 H1 0,0 1.7 4.3 4.3 0.4 3.9
NYC LAND TRUST; M CLIFTON MCCLURE 2.882 1 9 032000000042A0 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.9 0.3 2.6 t 1 3 3 ** Maximum ideal is b
GLF LAND TRUST, THE; M. CLIFTON 5,000 1 9 032000000042B0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 0.5 4.5 1 1 3 3 10 Units to the net ac~
NYC LAND TRUST; M CLIFTON MCCLURE 2.416 1 9 032000000042C0 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.4 0.2 2.2 1 1 3 3 Urban Areas plus the
GLF LAND TRUST, THE; M. CLIFTON 5,000 1 9 032000000042D0 0.0 0,0 5.0 5.0 0.5 4.5 1 1 3 3 density density in the
3.000 16 8 32-17E3 0 0 3.0 3 0.3 2.7 Neighborhood Area
Totals for Non-Residential 919,139 93.9 118.9 706.4 470.9 47.1 8.0 651.2 45 58 480 480 480 113 144 1200 1200 1200 *.**Comp. Plan in Non.
Hollymead Community Zones is based upon:
Net Area @ 20 units/a
GRAND TOTALS 11713.2531 245.6 257.8 '1209.8 823.7 115.1 33.2 11061.5 '255 361 1862 4351 I 3143 637 902 4655 1087717856
FOR HOLLYMEAD
PINEY MOUNTAIN
Develol3able Non-Residential Properties
VALENTE, ANTHONY D OR MARY KATHERYN 5.023 17 13 32000000005E 0 0 5.0 0 0.0 5.0
NEXT GENERATION L L C 8,300 1 13 3200000000500 2.2 0 6,1 0 0.0 6.1 1 1 3 3
NEXT GENERATION L L C 35.900 1 t3 032000000005C0 6.5 0 29.4 0 0.0 29.4 2 2 5 5
NEXT GENERATION L L C 117.900 35 13 ' 033000000001D0 0 8.3 109.6 89.7 9,0 100.6 241 241 604 604
NEXT GENERATION L L C 48.500 35 16 3300000000100 4.3 3.2 41,0 14.3 1.4 39,6 95 95 238 238
TOTALS FOR PINEY MOUNTAIN I 215,623 I 13,0 11.5' 191.1 lO4.O 10.4 0.0 I 180.8 340 340 0 0 I 0 849 849 0 0 I 0
¥ is
)Tent standards
)pment area
~DOI~
gh
)on 20% of the
G:~n',9716100.alb'~REVFINAL12798 CHK Architects and Planners, Inc., Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP., Center for Watershed Protection page 14
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Development Area .Initiatives Study
Growth Areas Buildout Analysis
VILLAGE OF RIVANNA
6-May-98
Developable Residential Properties
BURRUSS, ROBERT L & SUSIE C
COLEMAN, MARY H
HOWARD, MARY E; ESTATE
LANE, ALEXANDER G OR CATHERINE J
CLARK, LESTER L OR MEREDITH ANN
COSNER, B L & E GRANT
WASHINGTON, JANNIE
SWIFT, CLARENCE H
MEANS, G NElL OR SUSAN LESLIE.ROARK
KIMCO, L C
MEANS, G NElL OR SUSAN LESLIE ROARK
TRADITIONAL HOMES OF ALBEMARLE INC
MCCRAY, HARRY C JR, TRUSTEE &
GLENMORE ASSOCIATES LIMITED
GLENMORE ASSOCIATES LIMITED
KEY, ARNOLD W
LIVENGOOD, ROBERT D & CAROLYN
KIRBY, RONALD LEE & WILLIAM MONTY
KEY, ARNOLD W
KIRBY, EDITH S
CAREY, CARL RICHARD OR
SARGENT, EVELYN G
HALL, RICHARD W
Totals for Villa~ of Rivanna
ACREAGE CRNT COMP
ZONE PLAN
TAX MAP
~ARCEL#
2.060 1
2.000 1
9,82O 1
3.520 1
8.722 1
20.290 1
1.422 1
i .208 1
3~,:600::; .. 1
6.785 1
5.648 1
1.620 1
2.000 1
9.760 32
37,880 32
2.884 1
28.130 1
4,260 1
10.000 t
2,500 1
3.395 1
47,949 1
2.000 1
7900000002800
7900000003000
7900000003400
7900000003500
8OOOOOOOO49OO
8000000005000
8000000005200
80OOOO0005300
80OOO00OO56OO
8000000005700
9400000000300
08OOOOOOOO55B0
08OOOOOOOO58A0
093A10OO0003OO
093A1000OO0400
094000000001A0
9400000000100
9400000001000
9400000000500
9400000005100
9400000000800
094000000008A0
9400000000900
] 248.453 J
I STRM VLL SOILS NET LOT WDLNDS OPEN NET/NET
W-rLNDS SLPES AREA SAVED SPACE AREA
0 0 2.1 0.4 0.1 1.6
0 0 2.0 0.4 0.1 1.5
0 3.8 6.0 1.9 0.3 3,8
0 0.7 2.8 0.7 0.1 2.0
0 1.5 7.2 1.7 0.4 5,2
0 0.6 19.7 4.1 1.0 14.6
0 0 1.4 0 0.1 1.4
0 0 1.2 0 0.1 1.1
16,9 0 34.6 0 1:7 32.9
2.8 0 4.0 1.4 0.2 2.4
3.3 0.6 1.7 1.1 0.1 0.6
0 0 1.6 0,3 0.1 1.2
0 0 2.0 0.4 0.1 1.5
0 8 1.8 0.0 0,1 1.7
0 9.8 28.1 7.6 1.4 19.1
2.1 0 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.1
3.8 4.6 19.7 5.6 t.0 13.1
0 1.6 2.7 0.8 0,1 1.7
5.9 0 4.1 2.0 0.2 1.9
0 1.3 1.2 0.5 0.1 0.6
0 0.6 2.8 0.7 0.1 2.0
3.3 15.9 28.7 9.6 t.4 17.7
0 0.3 1.7 0.4 0.1 1.2
38.1 49.3 178.0 40.2 8.9
ADDNAL DWELLING UNITS (Capacity)
CURRENT ZONE
STNDRD* BONUS
LEVEL LEVEL
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
' 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
COMP PLAN
LOW HIGH
5
5
11
6
15
44
4
3
99
7
2
4
5
5
57
0
39
5
6
2
6
53
4
23' 23 387
MAX.**
IDEAL
9
9
23
12
31
88
8
7
197
14
3
7
9
10
114
1
79
10
11
4
12
I06
7
773 ' ~
ADDED POPULATION (Capacity)
CURRENTZONE
STNDRD* BONUS
LEVEL LEVEL
COMP PLAN
LOW HIGH
3 3 12 23
3 3 11 23
3 3 29 57
3 3 15 30
3 3 39 77
3 3 110 219
3 3 10 20
3 3 9 17
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3'
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
55 55
18 36
4 8
9 19
11 23
13 25
143 286
I 2 .
98 197
13 25
14 28
5 10
15 30
133 266
9 18
MAX.
IDEAL
720 1439
.EGEND
;urrent Zonin~
01 - Rural Area
~2 - PRD - VR
.~om rehensive Plan
01 - Neighborhood Density
* Current Zoning capacity is
based upon using the
Conventlal Development standards
@ 60% of the net development area
** Maximum ideal is based upon
10 Units to the net acre in the
Urban Areas plus the high
density density in the
Neighborhood Area
page 15
CHK Architects and Planners, Inc., Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP., Center for Watershed Protection
County of Albemarle
Department of. Planning and Community Development
Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC)
Focus GROUP REPORTI: GROUPS A&B
October 21, 1997
Torti Gallas and Partners · CHK, Inc.
Dodson Associates
Center for Watershed Protection
McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP
MEMORANDU
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
M
Development Area Initiatives Study Committee
The CHK Team
21 October 1997
Summary of Focus Group A: October 7, 1997
Focus Group Meeting A was held on October 7, 1997, at 7:00PM at Westminster
Canterbury in Albemarle County. Ten participants were in attendance in addition to
Stephen Gang, Neal Payton, Beth Hesler and Julius Levine of the CHK team.
Composition of the Focus Group:
Focus Group A was designed to for citizen input. Neighborhood leaders, Civic leaders.
School officials and Environmental advocates were intended participants.
The following people were in attendance: Francis Fife, Jody Webber, Bob Kirschman,
Dave Halley, Diane Behrens, Karen Dame, Lisa Harmon, Robert McAdams, James Estes
and Don Lyons.
Introduction
The CHK team thanked the participants for attending the event and explained both the
Development Area Initiatives Study as well as the purpose of the Focus Group. The
participants were encouraged to speak openly and to represent only their own opinions.
They were then asked to comment upon a series of questions which are reported on below.
Question: The Land Use Component of the Comprehensive Plan calls for
infill development and an increase in density on many sites within the
Growth Area. How should that be accomplished, if at all?
Responses:
There is a concern that land zoned at relatively Iow densities, say R-1 or R-2 will be
rezoned at higher densities when sufficient infrastructure. (e.g., schools and roads) is not
in place. It was said that every year the County school system grows by 200 to 300-
students.
While the issue of supporting infrastructure was acknowledged as a serious problem by
virtually everyone, many in the focus group voiced the feeling that the level of density
deemed to be acceptable would depend on benefits that accrue from such higher densities.
i,e.. the amenity value. Such amenities might include: preservation of visual open space,
particularly in the rural areas; greater transportation options, increased public services
(.particularly maintenance) and enhanced public spaces (London was mentioned as an
example). Having said that, it was acknowledged, that few people in existing
neighborhoods would be likely to support the infill policy when a particular vacant parcel
of land next to their own subdivision was proposed for higher density (especially when one
had been used to gazing out at fields or forests), unless some demonstrable benefits
accrued.
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP.. Center for Watershed Protection
Albemarle County-Development Area Initiatives Study
Summary of Focus Group A- October 7. 1997
page 2
A concern heard often was that the County seemed to have only half of an infill policy.
Infill was seen as a positive step only if there were corresponding reductions in densiiies in
the rural areas. "Are we preserving green space in the rest of the County as a result of this
policy" was the refrain heard repeatedly. This was seen as important for the County's
economic health as well, as tourism is an important industry and one that is dependent, in
part, on the County's rural beauty.
Still others said that density itself wasn't the whole issue. Rather there was a concern for
the nature of the development, its quality and relationship to the land. The opinion held
that a mix of housing types could coexist and form, nice villages, in a more or less
"organic" fashion in keeping with a tradition of rural villages. Importantly, this needed to
be played in three-dimensions, not in plan alone. In this scenario, the single family house
would still be available, but it would sit upon a smaller lot, perhaps mixed in with attached
houses and townhouses. What is critical is the overall sense of place, it was stated, not
density, per se.
Redevelopment was also stressed as part of the infill process. For example, added den sity
was seen as a positive around areas that are built to accommodate it, for' example around
schools and shopping centers. At this point there was a real desire expressed that schools
be surrounded by housing so that children and their parents walking to and from would add
a sense of safety and vitality. Apparently, the land around one school that was meant to
have housing-has been rezoned to commercial. This was action was poorly regarded.
The notion of service roads along heavily traveled arterials was suggested as a way to allow
through traffic and interparcel connectivity that is pedestrian friendly. At the same time it
was wondered, why commercial areas had to be totally separated from residential areas. It
was argued that small scale retail could be integrated nicely into residential areas. In some
cases they might provide transitions to the .larger scale retail of the type that no one wants
within one's own neighborhood
Question: What do you think of the development process as it now exists in
Albemarle County?
Responses:
There was a perception that it was "heavy handed." that developers, "get everything they
want," was how one person put it, and others seemed to agree. The cards seemed "stacked
against the citizens," the argument went on. Citizens must be vigilant in obtaining
information about development proposals and then going to meetings. Even then.
commissioners seem to listen, "but then give in to the developers," was the concern.
This led to a discussion of the process, and a consensus opinion seemed to lament the lack
of any formal process for neighborhood participation in the formulation of development
proposals. This process was seen as seriously flawed. The example of Kellytown, as a
planning process was then offered as a welcome exception, and seen as an appropriate
process model.
Developers were seen to be short sighted and driven by profit alone.
VDOT was also seen as a problematic agency, insensitive to local needs and/or concerns.
The County Planning staff was thought to be overworked. One thought (which someone
seemed to think was being implemented) was to have Area Planners as part of the County
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP.~ Center for Watershed Protection
Albemarle County-Development Area Initiatives Study
Summary of Focus Group A- October 7. 1997
pag9 3
staff. In this way, the staff member would be more familiar with a given area, the issues.
the projects and the neighbors. When a citizen called, he/she would know with whom on
staff to speak, and would be certain of getting informed responses.
One person stated that if no more people moved to Albemarle County that would be just
fine. Erecting a wall around the county was how another phrased the desire. Seven out of
ten participants voted in favor of the wall. However, others stated that no growth drives
away business and ultimately, the grown children of residents. Slowly, the County would
become the exclusive domain of the wealthy, and that this was clearly unfair. Opinions
overall seemed to moderate at this point, and one person stated that growth meant change.
and that the issue was not how to stop it, but how to manage it. Another put it this way,
"couldn't we market environmentally sensitive or "green" development practices as a plus
for the County?"
Question:. How well do you think current regulations regarding
development work in protecting the environment?
Responses:
Broadly speaking, it was suggested that the only environmental planning in the County
takes place on an impact level, with concerns as to what percentage of the County is
forested or in permanent agriculture being dominant. The county, it was argued was doing
a poor job of even protecting forested areas ("New York City is 20% forested." was a
comment offered by way of comparison). It was further suggested that a minimum of 60%
open space be required in new development, with the density being transferred within the
site resulting in a higher density on the portion of the developable land.
Others offered the opinion that it was not clear that the County had an environmental
policy. An example offered was that of a forested area site near the airport that was clear cut
to make way for a mobile home park. At the bottom of the property lay a stream.
Developers should pay impact fees for environmental degradation caused by their
developments was the conclusion. Other examples include the proposal at Still Meadows,
where erosion control was not included in the design submission, and the UVA
development at North Fork, which, it was alleged, has been offered more than its fair share
of water resources available to the area.
The availability of water was raised as a serious concern especially in the outlying areas.
One pamcipant expressed the difficulty with doing laundry there due to the iron content of
the water.
Environmental protection was felt to be enforced even less in rural areas as County
resources are simply stretched too thin to provide adequate oversight.
Other concerns regarding the grading on roads and throughways were expressed. VDOT
standards were implicated as being excessive and environmentally destructive.
Concern was expressed as to whether there was a policy on adding land to the growth area.
One participant pointed out that there was already an attempt in Crozet to do just that. This
was not seen favorably by the participants.
Question: What ways and means do you suggest for increasing the
County's supply of affordable housing?
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP.. Center for Watershed Protection
Albemarle County-Development Area Initiatives Study
Summary of Focus Group A- October 7. 1997
page 4
Responses:
One concern with affordable housing grew out of a study that showed parents of children
in affordable housing were not as involved with their children's schooling.
This prompted a discussion as to what was meant by "affordable housing." The general
consensus was to consider affordable housing as being in the $70.000 to $90,000 range.
Given this as the defining characteristic, many spoke of the need 'for affordable housing'
and cited stories of those who've grown up in Albemarle County. but have been forced to
move to neighboring jurisdictions because they cannot afford to buy a home in the County.
There was
groupings
possibility
was small.
concern that affordable housing in small groupings was preferable to large
so as not to make an affordable housing ghetto. The thought was that the
for integrating incomes was greater when the groupings of affordable dwellings
40-units or less was the defining characteristic of what is small.
Affordable dwellings should be within walking distance of some services, i.e, schools,
shops, etc. so as to lower total living costs.
Affordable housing should look like everyone else's housing, only smaller. Quality of
materials should be the same the typical market rate housing in the area. Affordable housing
should be thought of in the tradition of bungalows, in the early part of the century, or even
the post-war Levittowns which were composed of affordable starter houses, onto which
were added additions as resources became available.
Accessory housing was also seen as a positive feature, especially atop detached garages
(currently not allowed in County Zoning ordinance) and even detached cottages were also
seen being especially attractive. Several in the group had actually lived in such apartments
at one time in their lives, and as they take no additional footprint were seen as an especially
clever way to increase affordable housing stock with little environmental impact. With
UVA student population expected to grow, such housing was seen as an alternative to
building more student oriented apartment complexes.
Question: What is your reaction to recent developments within the area that
have either been built or are proposed?
"The Crozet charrette was great!" The citizens devised a plan for Crozet that is supported
by a large majority of the residents. The process of developing the plan was inclusive and
the result, it was argued, is an impressive document. However. the document has no legal
standing. "How does that plan get implemented," it was wondered. Perspective
renderings, produced at the charrette were then exhibited, including one of the proposed
light rail stop at the Crozet RR station linking Crozet with Charlottesville. It was thought
that programming with such public amenities would improve the appeal of the Crozet town
center.
Kellytown was also offered as a model of a developer going out of his way to treat nearby
residents with respect, to include them in the process of designing a community. It was
suggested, that the process ought to be a requirement for planning approval in the County.
Furthermore, the proposed design solution seems to offer the prospect of a community
with the quality of place sought by many of the participants of the focus group. A
traditional looking town with narrow streets, small front yards, meaningful public open
spaces are all desired characteristics that seem to be included in the Kellytown proposal.
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP.. Center for Watershed Protection
Albemarle County-Development Area Initiatives Study
Summary of Focus Group A- October 7, 1997
page 5
The CHK team then asked for examples that are actually built, and the following were
offered as tentative examples:
Mill Creek South: The site plan did not adequately address the rather steep slopes and
County regulations do not adequately address the matter of how to build on steep slopes.
On the positive side, the houses are relatively affordable.
H011ymeade was offered as providing large amounts of green space with race walking trails
throughout the site.
Slide Survey -
Following the discussion period, the participants were asked to evaluate 30-pair of slides
and rate from 1-5 (with 1-being the least favored and 5-being the most favored.) An index
of the slides and the survey results are included as an addendum.
Concluding Remarks
One of the participants stated the belief the County is zoned to accommodate over 320,000
people. It was felt that this was entirely too much zoning potential and played into the
sprawl being experienced in the County. Speculation was that this "over zoning" had
spurred a development industry that "had to be fed."
The consultant team was asked what impact will this meeting would have? The Team
explained the value of this input and suggested that they will be asked to come back for
another session sometime in the winter.
Finally, another participant suggested that the region be considered, i.e., neighboring
counties.
The consUltant team thanked everyone for their participation and encouraged them to attend
the public meetings to be held throughout the study.
CHK Architects and Plarmers. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP.. Center for Watershed Protection
MEMORAN
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
DUM
Development Area Initiatives Study Committee
The CHK Team
21 October 1997
Summary of Focus Group B: October 8. 1997
Focus Group Meeting B was held on October 8. 1997. at 11:30 AM at the Golden Coral
Restaurant in Albemarle County. Fourteen participants were in attendance in addition to
Stephen Gang, Neal Payton. Beth Hesler and Julius Levine of the CHK team.
Composition of the Focus Group:
Focus Group B was designed to be for industry input. Development community
representauves, business leaders, bankers, Realtors and affordable housing specialists
were intended participants. The following people were in attendance: Cliff Fox. Ken
Schwartz. Mike West, Carol Clark. Theresa Tapscott, Sandy Wilcox. Jack Stoner. Frank
Stoner. Wendell Wood. Hunter Craig, Rip Cathcart, Charles Barco. Ian McGregor and
David Turner.
Introduction
The CHK team thanked the participants for attending the event and explained both the
Development Area Initiatives Study as well as the purpose of the Focus Group. The
parncipants were encouraged to speak openly and to represent only their own opinions.
They were then asked to comment upon a series of questions which are reported on below.
Question: The Land Use Component of the Comprehensive Plan calls for
infill development and an increase in density on many sites within the
Growth Area. How should that be accomplished, if at all? In particular,
man), areas currently zoned R-1 are proposed for densities from 3 to 6-
units per 'acre. Other propePties have been designated for apartment
densities. Do you find this increase in density to be of value? Do you view
the effort and risk of rezoning as worth the benefit?
Responses:
As there is no flexibility in .the current zoning especially for any mixing of uses or housing
types, it bluntly was stated, the only chance of achieving such higher densities was
through the PUD/PRD process.. However. the unspoken approach of the County PUD
process is-to require a lot of the developers. The process itself takes a long time which adds
enormous risk. There is no mechanism for expediting the process, which is, in the end a
disincentive for development, even if it is of the type articulated in the Comprehensive
Plan. "The County acts like it is doing you a favor." was one response.
Achieving higher densities through PUD process is difficult politically. According to one
participant this has led to the County having achieved a reputation as a "no growth" area.
Many citizens, it was alleged, and several public officials'oppose any increase in density
anywhere in the County.
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP.. Center for Watershed Protection
Albemarle County-Development Area Initiatives Study
SummaD, of Focus Group B- October 8. 1997
page 2
In fact. it was argued, in many instances, developers are having trouble getting the by-right
project approved, let alone higher densities. Area neighbors want to keep vacant land
open. Examples were given of parcels around. "Raintree." and "Fieldbrook" where infill
possibilities exist, but the expectation is that any such attempts to develop there would meet
with strong opposition.
In' addition, despite the designation of certain properties for apartment densities, there is. in
reality, little land actually available for such projects, it was argued. By example, property
on Avon Street that is zoned high density is controlled by eleven separate owners and there
are 15-houses ex~sting on the properties.
Taking a broader view. another participant argued that the designation of the growth
boundaries, ironically, may have a detrimental effect on achieving growth in the area
intended. Because of the special status conferred on properties within the growth areas and
because of a relatively finite supply of large parcels, land owners of those parcels within
the designated areas, have. in some cases raised their selling prices 100% and in other
cases they have become reluctant to sell property at any cost. assuming the value will
continue to rise at a rate considerably faster than land prices overall. "Just because you zone
it. doesn't meant that it will happen." was the summary comment in this regard. The
conclusion, by several of the participants was that land econormcs alone will force the
County to enlarge the designated development areas.
Having acknowledged all of the above, it was stated that here is certainly a market for
houses on smaller lots. Indeed. the question was asked "why do we have to have all these
houses on 2-acre lotsT' More diversity is required in the marketplace. Smaller lots sell
quite rapidly was the message and Forest Lakes is a market example of just that fact.
Question: One way to achieve higher densities by-right under current
z. ontng is to take advantage of some of the bonuses available, for example
clustering, planting street trees, etc. There do not seem to be many
examples of these bonuses being utilized. Are they of value to you.
Responses:
"The greatest bonus would be to make the approval process more predictable." At present.
even if you play by the rules, you may not get what you ask for. and in many cases, it is
almost impossible to predict, was the follow-on assertion. Parallel with that thought, was
the desire to expedite the process. This would be an enormous bonus for most developers.
exceeding the value of any higher densities that may be permitted. With the cost of money
an enormous expense for developers, saving time. means saving money.
Density bonuses themselves have only a modest appeal, at least for the moment. Forest
Lakes was cited has having about the highest density that the market will allow at this point
in time.
Question: What do you think of the development process as it now exists in
Albemarle County?
Responses:
There is tremendous frustratton with the site plan approval process. It was stated that a very
small, but determined group of people can stop a project. Vocal opponents, even if they
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection
Albemarle County-Development Area Initiatives Study
Summary of Focus Group B- October 8. 1997
page 3
are in the minority, will come out to voice concern with a project, and decision makers, are
greatly influenced by that minority, was the refrain. "Still Meadows." was given as a
recent example. The project mav not actuallv be opposed by that many. but supporters
never come out to plead the case like opponents do. Others suggested, that this holds true
of every project, "regardless of the quality."
Building On that perception, was the comment that if this is true for upper income housing.
it is especially true of affordable housing. The opposition to such projects can be ~ntense.
One participant expressed that view the result of this political realitv is that the County
grows where it can. but not necessarily where it should. One example is the problen~ of
water and sewer, which is not in place for all of the growth areas, the CHK team was told.
Often rimes, the off-site work required for development is prohibitively expensive, and the
County requires the developer to pay for all of it. This. tends to add to the cost of housing,
reducing the possibility of affordable dwellings. A major development incentive, it was
suggested, was help from the County in this area. with a Service Authority fronting or atl
least sharing in construction cost.
On the subject of water and sewer. ~t was argued, the County has no logical plan for the
extension of these services. Mention was made of new pipes not being eXtended in
coordination with new roads or road widenings, and of pipes being located in the wrong
place. One of the participants related how the County had commissioned an expensive and
comprehensive study for water and sewer service extensions, but that the report was
effectively shelved due to political pressure The result, it was suggested, is that there is no
strategy for extension of these services, and thus. no strategy for guiding development in
the areas desired by the Comprehensive plan. In the absence of that guidance, and as it
was stated earlier, growth occurs where it can, not where it should.
Another obstacle is VDOT. They can deem roads unsatisfactory, and require expensive
improvements that many view as excessive, and even undesirable.
In summary, the participants found the approvals process burdensome and time
consuming, even if one meets with no opposition. Opposition elongates the process. Even
a by-right proposal can take a year for approval. "The only answer is to proffer the moon,"
one participant exclaimed.
Question: How well do you think current regulations regarding
development work itt protecting the environment?
Responses:
Whether or not the current regulations adequately protect the environment was addressed.
only minimally. One participant, acknowledging the newly constructed stormwater pond in
Crozet. expressed some concern as to whether County sediment control measures were
adequately evaluated, measured and understood. Another participant took a broader view
pointing out that the developers of Albemarle County lived in the County and were
dependent upon a clean environment as much as anyone.
There was some concern as to the effect on certain environmental regulations on housing
development costs. For example tree save requirements now-in effect would make a
development like Forest Lakes impossible to build from scratch today.
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Assocmtes. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP.. Center for Walershed Protecnon
Albemarle County-Development Area Initiatives Study
Summary.. of Focus Group B- October 8. 1997
page
It was pointed out the Albemarle County is now subject to regulations intended to protect
the Chesapeake Bay. 100-foot set-backs from perennial streams for example, reduce
available development areas on parcels within the growth areas and increase land costs on a
per unit basis.
On that note. there was concern that much of the land. within the Growth Area of Crozet is
actually unbuildable as it is within either the 100-year flood plain, wetlands or other critical
areas of the watershed.
Question: What ways and means do you suggest for increasing the
County's supply of affordable housing?
Responses:
The problem of affordability in the housing market was ac 'knowledged as a real concern.
One person lamented the lack of housing diversity available in the marketplace and
indicated the negauve effect it has. The grown children of lifelong residents cannot afford
to purchase a home in the County. Construction workers who are building the homes find
themselves commuting from neighboring counties.
However. in citing causes for this lack of affordable dwellings, many of the participants
went back to citing the various onerous pracnces and obstacles to development.
documented above, as impacnng the affordability question by raising costs considerably.
Site development costs of the type mentioned earlier and even overly large parking
standards raise costs still further. Only on large parcels, say 500-acres or more. was it
possible, one participant said, to supply a reasonable quantity of affordable dwellings. On
smaller parcels, any affordable housing provided would be a token effort at best. This
focus group member went on to say, that there was no possibility of intermixing
moderately priced {affordable) dwelling units with market rate units. The affordable ones
would have to be ~n specific neighborhoods or sub-sections of a development.
By contrast, another focus group member offered the prospect of a "village" concept, in
which some smaller units could be mixed into the ensemble, creating an authentic feel while
accommodating affordable units within a market rate development.
The CHK Team askedif higher density bonuses, of the type provided in Montgomery
County, Maryland would provide enough of an incentive to provide affordable dwelling
units. This question actually attracted a series of questions from the participants back to the
CHK team regarding details of the program. While little in the wav of a definitive response
to the CHK team's initial question emerged, there was certainly a high level of curiosity
expended on the concept.
Slide Survey
Following the discussion period, the participants were asked to evaluate 30-pair of slides
and rate from 1-5 (with 1-being the least favored and 5-being the most favored.) An index
of the slides and the survey results are included as an addendum.
Concluding Remarks
One of the participants reminded the CHK team that the County is.going to grow, because
it is a desirable place to live. It is a destination for .many. Elaborating, the focus group
member asserted that zoning designanons, do not create more growth into the County,
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP.. Center for Watershed Protecnon
Albemarle County-Development Area Initiatives Study
Summary of Focus Group B- October 8. 1997
pagc 5
they simply move it around. A resident of New York. who decides to move to
Charlottesville. does not make that decision because a certain piece of land was just rezoned
one way or another.
The consultant team thanked everyone for their participation and explained the v',flue of this
input. They also indicated that the focus group members will be asked to come back for
another session sometime in the winter.
Finally. the consultant team and encouraged them to attend the public meetings to be held
throughout the study.
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP., Center for Watershed Protect:on
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE~ VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
CHK ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.
DODSON ASSOCIATES
McGU~RE Wooos BATTLE AND BOOTHE, LLP.
CENTER FOR WATERSRED PROTECTION
DESIGN WORKSHOP REPORT - JANUARY 10, 1998
l
I. INTRODUCTION
Utilizing the "Towers Land Trust," (Figure 1.1)
a site. in Hollymead. as a testing ground for the
dav's efforts, the goals were twofold:
· The identification of principles and tech-
niques for the physical development of the
growth areas of the County appropriate to
the aspirations of its residents;
· The development of a process by which
citizens can actively participate in the
creation of model neighborhood plans.
Figure 1.2. Group discussions centered around
tables, where ideas could be drawn and "what-if"
questions could be tested immediately.
The bulk of the dav's efforts took place in
groups, ten in all, randomly formed, with the
goal of determining which strategies could
elicit a consensus of support (Figure 1.2).
Each group was staffed by a facilitator and a
designer -- a design professional from the
Charlottesville /Albemarle area who volun-
teered their time for the day. The facilitators
included County staff, members of the Consult-
ant team and additional volunteers from the
community who had extensive facilitation
experience.
Each group was asked to offer written com-
ments and drawings in response to a series of
questions posed regarding appropriate methods
for development in the designated growth areas
of the County. Recognizing that many groups
would not be able to reach consensus on all of
the questions posed, each was assigned a
different question on which to begin their
discussion, assuring each issue would receive
equal attention.
The Development Area Initiatives Study was
conceived, in part, to help implement the vision
of the Land Use Plan. a "blueprint" prepared by
the County for guiding its growth into the next
CHK ARCHITECTS &XiD PL.~NNERS. [NC.. DODSON ASSOC~TES. McGL'mE WOODS BAITLE AND BOOIHE. LLP.. CEN-fER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ° DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
decade and beyond. Aimed in part at articulat-
ing the principles with which future neighbor-
hood plans will be drawn, its relevant portions
were explained to the attendees in a morning
briefing. Its parameters for development were
given as a starting point and. in effect, served
as the ground rules by which each team oper-
ated. However, because the document is
intended to be periodically revised, partici-
pants were encouraged to question those
specific aspects of the Land Use Plan that they
felt were inconsistent with its grander vision.
The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances,
documents which are in some wavs inconsis-
tent with the emerging "vision" of the Land
Use Plan, were not offered as additional rules.
Instead, groups were encouraged to think
"outside the box," to envision the type of
development they would hke to occur rather
than what is possible under existing practice.
Many of the schemes developed would likely
fall outside of existing "by-right" or standard
regulation (though some could be accom-
plished under PUD or PRD provisions). The
prospect of "testing" existing zoning provisions
in this way will likely stimulate future discus-
sions on changes required of the zoning ordi-
nances necessitated by the vision of the Land
Use Plan.
In order to 'stimulate such "visioning," the
Consultant team provided additional morning
briefings touching on some of the more tradi-
tional concepts of town planning that may have
applicability in this context, as well as site
planning strategies to preserve rural areas and
reduce the impact of development on the
natural environment. These briefings, which
also included detailed site'information, were
merely prelude to the day's primary activity:
the group design work session.
Following the work session, each group re-
ported its results to a gathering of all the
participants. This process required documen-
ting ideals on which consensus in each group
Figure 1.3 Verbal reports allowed all
participants the opportunity to hear from
each of the groups.
was reached (Figure 1.3). It is significant that
on a number of questions, near unanimity
across all ten groups was achieved, while on
other issues, a variety of equally viable strate-
gies emerged.
These results, as well as other materials related
to the day's events (surveys, briefings by the
Consultant team, and site information), are
documented on the following pages. Copies of
many of the original workshop drawings are
included in this report. These are supplemented
by additional drawings produced by the Con-
sultant team in order to illustrate the written
goals of the various groups.
The professional designers and facilitators who
volunteered their efforts for thi5 workshop are
listed 'below. The Consultant team, the DISC
and the staff of the Department of Planning and
Community Development extends gratitude and
appreciation for their work.
C['-[K ARCI~fl'rECT$ 3,','D PL.q-'~'N~_R$. INC.. DOD$ON ASSOCIATES. McGvmE Woovs BATTLE .q.ND BOOTHE, LLP.. CE.~q'ER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
DESIGN WORKSHOP REPORT - JANUARY 10, 1998
l
Facilitators
Yadira Amarante
Bruce Dotson
Elaine Echols
Marcia Joseph
Nancy O' Brien
Margaret Pickart
Susan Thomas
Designers
Bob Anderson
Paul Hanson
Jo Lawson
John Matthews
Alan Scouten
Martha Stockton
Mike Stoneking
Anna Towns
Stephen von Storch
Design Workshop Attendees
William H. Albrecht. Jr.
Linda Balnave
Ray Beard
Mrs. Beard
Steven Blaine
Jana Briedis-Ruiz
Vincent Burins
Patrick Ciccone
Larry Crawford
Nina Crawford
Jerry Deily
Regina Dodd
Jo-Anne Ebersold
Alice Feehley-Maus
Cliff Fox
Don Franco
Chris Gensic
Fred Gerke
Audrey Gottlieb
Gerald Gottlieb
Paul Grady
Peter Hallock
Chris Harrison
Marsha Howard
Babs Huckle
William Jarvis
Mrs. Jarvis
Robert Laughlin
Mr: Licker
Mrs. Licker
Jared Loewenstein
John McDonald
David McCarthy, Jr.
Mrs. McCarthy
Wilber McHenry
Bill. Murrav
Ken Namkung
Brent Nelson
Bill Nitctunan
Tom Olivier
Mark Parry
Mildred Prelle
Ann Price
Gary Ray
Chris Regan
Frank Rice
Chuck Rotgin '
Mrs. Rotgin
Nelson Shaw
Ida Simmons
Stephanie Snelll
Bob Sover
John Stack
Bruce Stouffer
Frank Stoner
Donna Shaunesey
Caroline' Stewart
Sally Thomas
Glenn Wait
Susan Wist
Hunter Wood
Lucille Wood
Nam Zamorsky
Anthony Valente
Mrs. Valente
CHK ARCHrrECTS ).ND PLA~X;NERS, INC., DODSON ASSOC~TES. McGc'mE WOODS B^rTLE ~'qD Boorlm. LLP.. CENqa~g FOR WATERSI-IED PROTECTION
I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ® DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
DISC Members Present
Pete Anderson
David Bowerman
Brian Broadus
Sherry Buttrick
Kathy Galvin
Katie Hobbs
Satyendra Huja
Karen Lilleleht
Tom Loach
Charles Martin
Beth Meyer
Cindy Parry
Ivo Romenesko
Eric Strucko
Babette Thorpe
Don Wagner
Bob Watson
County Staff
David Benish
Wayne Cilimberg
Miranda Darden
Toby Reiter (extem)
CHK Team
Jan Albaum
Stephen Gang
Beth Hesler
Neal Payton
Center for Watershed Protection
Deb Caraco
Dodson & Associates
Brock Cutting
Harry Dodson
Peter Flinker
CHK ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS. I:,'C.. DODSON ASSOCIATES. McGL'mE WOODS B^rrLE ~ND BOOT~. LLP.. CENTER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
DESIGN WORKSHOP REPORT - JANUARY 10, 1998
1
II. QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY
2. What are some of your favorite places in the
Charlottesville/Albemarle area? *
65% Downtown Mall
13 % mountains
7% Sugar Itollow
5% campus of UVA
5% church
3% Keswick
3% Rivanna River walk
12 % no answer
How many minutes by car does it take to get
there?
25 minutes - median
3. What are some of your favorite places
outside of this area (include other countries if
applicable) and why are they your favorite
places?*
20 % Washington, DC
17 % "walkable cities; public
spaces"
8 % San Francisco
8 % National Forests
8 % Outer Banks, NC
2-4 % Paris, Germany, New York,
Portland, England,
Williamsburg,
Savannah and Seattle
SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
i. Are you a native of the Charlottesville /
Albemarle area?
16% Yes
84% No
If no. how long have you been here?
Avg. 10.75 yrs.
What brought you to live here?
33 % University of Virginia
28% employment
5% retirement
5 %. family or marriage
4. When you selected your current residence.
what was the most important criteria in the
. selection? *
35 % location: proximity to essential
things - jobs, shops, etc. - possibly
walkable
21% cost
25 % historic or character of architec-
ture
Il % rural or natural environment
* Many respondents listed multiple favorites
leading to a percentage over 100%
CHK ARCHn'ECXS .'MND PL~-MqNERS. INC.. DODSON ASSOC~TES. McGt;mE WOODS B^rrra .aND Boomz, LLP., CENq-ER FOR WATERSHED PROTECrtoN
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ® DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
5. How many of your neighbors do you know?
2 % none
26% few
42 % many
30% most
If you answered many or most, do you have the
opportunity to see and greet your neighbors
regularly?
73 % yes 27 % no
6. Do you believe that there is a sense of
"community" in your neighborhood?
73 % yes 27 % no
If not,
why not?
-"no interaction"
· -"scarcely populated"
-"no activities to bring us together"
If ves. what makes you feel that there is a sense
of community?
-"proximity of houses"
-"porches, sidewalks, walkable
streets-people walk by"
-"maintain streets and open space
together"
-"look out for each other - work to
maintain sense of community"
7. Are there sidewalks in your neighborhood?
50% Yes. Do you use them frequently?
65 % yes 35 % no
50 % No. Do you wish there were
sidewalks or bikepaths in your neighbor-
hood?
41%yes 59%no
8. Do you jog, walk or bike in your neighbor-
hood?
91% Yes. Is the route safe and pleasant
to experience?
90% yes 10%no
9 % No. How many minutes (by car)
does it take to get to a place
where you can do these things?
10-15 minutes
9. How many minutes does it take to walk from
your home to a playground or other recreation
amenities (such as tenms courts, basketball
courts, parks or gardens)?
24% "not possible"
10-15 minutes was the mean for the
remainder of respondents
10. If you have school age children, is your
children's school within walking distance of
your home?
30 % yes 70 % no
(of those responding)
11. If you have school age children, do your
children use the bus to get to school?
56 % Yes 44 % No
(of those responding)
If so, how long is the commute?
20 minutes (mean)
12. Do you consider your home to be your
permanent residence (i.e., the place you will
live until you retire or the place in which you
hope to remain for the rest of your life)?
77 % Yes 23 % No
13. Does your family (i.e., parent or grown
children) live nearby?
30 % Yes 70 % No
If no, are there housing opportunities for them
to do so (affordable prices, appropriate size and
amenities) if they wanted to?
71% Yes 29 % No
CHK ARCHITECTS AND PLAN'N'ERS. ][NC., DODSON ASSOCtaTES. McGumE WOODS BATTLE AND BOOTHE. LLP.. CEN-rER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
DESmN WORI~S}IOP REPORT - JANUARY 10, 1998
14. Do you consider traffic to be a problem in
your neighborhood?
20 % Yes 80 % No
15. Do you consider it a problem on major -
roads in the area?
67 % Yes 33 % No
16. If traffic is a problem do you consider it to
be (choose one)
27 % A source of stress in your life?
73 % Merely an inconvenience?
17. How many hours do you spend in your car
each weekday? 1.95 hrs. avg.
each weekend day? 2.21 hrs. avg.
18. How many car trips (each time you get in
and start your car from home) do you make
on a typical weekday? 1.69
on a typical weekend day? 1.93
19. What percentage of these trips on average
are for the purpose of running errands (i.e, not
for commuting to and from work)?
47% average
21. Are convenience stores, groceries and/or
restaurants within walking distance of your
home?
43 % Yes. Is it a safe walk and
comfortable distance?
70 % yes 30 % no
57% No. If no, do you wish they were?
35 % yes 65 % no
22. When you grow older would you like to
remain in your neighborhood?
70% Yes
30% No
23. Do you miss .any characteristics of the
neighborhood you grew up in?
55 % Yes. What are they?*
40 % proximity to corner store
or shops
30% natural environment
20% safer
20% less traffic
I
ti*ma
20. Do you typically use any other form of
transportation to commute or accomplish
errands (i.e.. transit bus, bicycle, walking,
etc. ) ?
20 % Yes. What types of transportation
do you use?
75% walking
12 % bus
12 % bicycle
80 % No. What other options for trans-
- portation would you like to have
access to or use, other than your
car?
44 % no answer
16 % bus
16 % train or light rail
14% bicycle
8 % walk
24. If you were to change anything about your
neighborhood what would it be?
12 % less traffic
12 % sidewalks
12 % shops within walking distance
9% easier access to parks
6 % more mixing of uses
3-5 % each: higher density, live/work
opportunities, improved schools,
10% no response
* Many respondents listed multiple answers
leading to a percentage over 100%
CHKARcmrEcrs x'4o P~.x,4~s. INC., DoDso,x' ASSOCIATES. McGc'IRE WOODS BAITLE &'~V BOOTHE. LLP.. CEN-rER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ® DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT GOALS
As STATED IN THE LAND USE COMPONENT OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
B. Designating Development Areas where
a variety of land uses. facilities and
services are planned to support the
County's future growth, with emphasis
placed on infill development.
II Strongly support and effectively imple-
ment the County's growth management
priorities in the planning and provision of
transportation, public facilities and public
utilitieS.
GOALS
I Protect and efficiently utilize County
resources by:
A. Emphasizing the importance of pro-
tecting the elements that define the
Rural Area.
OBJECTIVES
· Direct growth into designated Develop-
ment Areas.
· Establish functional descriptions of the
Urban Areas, Communities and Villages.
· Develop and adopt an infill policy for the
County. Facilitate infill development.
including redevelopment of existing
structures or new development of vacant
and under-utilized areas, within existing
Development Areas.
- Plan/provide for necessary infrastruc-
ture improvements that are currently
impediments to development of vacant
sites.
- Provide for greater flexibility in type
of use and density of development.
- Consider greater flexibility in develop-
ment regulations which may limit
development opportunities i without
compromising issues of general health
or safety).
· Establish flexible residential land use
densities for the designated Development
Areas.
· EStablish a mix of commercial, industrial.
open space and public land uses in the
designated Development Areas to support
County needs,
CHK ARCHIII/CTS AN'l) PL.~NN'ERS. INC,. DOOSON Assoct:ff~S. McGcmE Woor)s BattLE ~'~'o Boon-m, LLP., CF_'~-rER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
DESIGN WORKSHOP REPORT - JANUARY 10, 1998
I1
IV. TaE CONCEPT OF CLUSTERING
Prior to beginning the Group work sessions,
two presentations were offered to the attend-
ees. Highlighting a series planning principles
that are consistent with the goals of the
GrOwth Management Plan, these presenta-
tions are included in Sections IV and V of this
report. The first of these deals specifically
with "clustering" and is printed below.
costs over the conventional methods. Clustering
also resulted in a 40% reduction in added pollu-
tion to the Chesapeake Bay watershed as com-
pared to the loads generated by the conventional
method.
Remlik Hall Farm.
Middlesex County, Virginia
Figure 4-1.
Recent
development itt
the foreground
with Remlik
Hall Farm in
the back-
ground.
Remlik Hall Farm is a working farm located in
Middlesex County on the banks of Lagrange
Creek, entering the Rappahannock River on its
north side about 70 miles southeast of
Fredericksburg. A study comparing conven-
tional "build-out" development with a more
clustered and context driven approach required
the two design approaches to be drawn in both
plan view and in aerial perspective allowing a
visual comparison. A comparison of develop-
ment costs for each design found the cluster
approach saving over 50% in road construction
2~:, Figure 4-2.
~:i~.i Plan view of
~'~'[ existing road
layout and
settlement
pattern.
CHK ARcmTECTS ~..';O PL~'¢NERS~ INc.. DODSON ASSOCL-WES. McGumE WooDs BATILE AND BOOTHE. LLP.. CE>n~R FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
Figure 4-4. Plan
of Conventional
"Build-Out."
Figure 4-5.
Recommended
Plan with three
distinct clusters.
each with a
different focus.
character and
market niche.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE~ VIRGINIA ·
DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
Figure 4-7. Aerial perspective vtews of Conventional Design.
OPen space and natural resources are consumed. Houses
evenly carpet the site. Long individual driveways create
excessive amounts of runoff and pollutants entering the
Chesapeake watershed, Individual docks maxitnize environ.
mental impacts to the shoreline through clearing and
armoring of the shore to protect nearby structures. F~ews
from the water and from the land are severely impacted and
fragmented by shoreline strip development. Continued
far~nland use is made impossible by even sprawl.
Figure 4-8. 4-9. The same amount of development is
located on the site in discrete compact clusters each
with a separate focus (the existing Remlik hall hamlet,
the complex of historic racetrack and stables, and the
existing complex of farm buildings and its adjacent
existing hedgerows). A single communal dock is
located to tertninate the pedestrian.oriented space of a
new gravel lane. The existing buffer of shoreline
vegetation is retained and acts to filter run-off before
it
enters
the
peake i:~'~..'~ ' ,. . ~ -:-'~~
system.
~..
CHK A~c~cxs ~ ~xx~s. [xc.. D6mo~ Assoc~s. McGcm[ Wooos Bn~ .~ B~. LLR. C~ Fo~ Wnm~s~ P~o~c~o~
DESIGN WORKSHOP .REpoRT - J$~ARY 10, 1998
Mansfield Training School Site
Mansfield, Connecticut
The Mansfield Training School site is made up
of multiple parcels owned by the State of Con-
necticut, totaling approximately 950 acres. The
site of a former state facility, it contains over 97
existing buildings - some dating back to the
1840s.
Mansfield
never had
a single
strong
town
center.
Instead.
develop-
Figure 4-10. Existing hamlet of Mansfield merit
Depot and adjacent Amtrak rail line.
clustered
into 12 hamlets. The existing hamlet of
Mansfield Center is located within a five-minute
walk of much of the site.
The Masterplan for the redevelopment of this
property was prepared in response to the desire
of the Town and State to create a new, mixed-
use, pedestrian friendly village very much like
the traditional 19th century hamlets and villages
of the area. Large areas of prime farmland
soils and wetlands within the site complicated
the design.
In consultation with the Town and State and
after exploring a "build-out" under existing
zoning, as well as various design alternatives.
the decision was made to hold all new develop-
ment and traffic entry points back from the
comer of the property where town roads inter-
sect. This allowed for increased safety and
visibility, as well as preserving the expansive
open space traditionally found at this intersec-
tion.
Figure 4-11. Connecticut Route 44 to left and discontin-
ued OM Colony Road heading up from historic adminis-
tration building. This existing right-of-way becatne the
main access and organizing "spine" of the new village.
CHK ARctuTEcxs ~xn PL,~X~,~RS. [NC.. DODSON ASSOC~XTES. /vlcGuIRE WOODS BATTLE ,*'4D BOOTHE, LLR. CE.N~ER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE~ VIRGINIA ® DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
Figures 4-13,
4-14. Important
buildings are
located at focal
points of
community
commons and
greens. The
streets foITn an
interconnected
network that
encourages
pedestrian
activity.
Comparing
sketch alterna-
tives can help to
visualize and
explore
different mixes
of building
types, massing
and relation to
the streetscape.
Figure 4-16. Perspective view of final option and layout selected for village.
CHK ARCltlTECTS &';D PL~'~'NERS, INC.. DODSON ASSOCL~XES. McGt:mE Worms BATILE .*'~'D BOOTHE. LLE. CE~Xq'ER EOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
DESIGN WORKSHOP R~Ot~T - JANUARY 10, 1998
V. COMMUNITY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
ElM
Jlm
While the design of any site involves numer-
ous design considerations, eleven specific
questions were identified for study at the
workshop. These questions were considered
specific to the "Towers" site and, at the same
time, remain typical to other available sites
in the designated development areas of
Albemarle County. Rather than focusing on
a design for the overall site, each group was
asked to respond to as many of these ques-
tions as time permitted. This approach was
taken with the anticipation of creating a set
of principles applicable to other sites in the
growth areas. A discussion of each of these
issues preceded the workshop and is summa-
rized below.
Current practice tends to spread development
evenly across a site. placing nearly all available
land into private ownership. Under such prac-
tice. it is difficult to preserve environmentally
significant areas, especially forested lands.
Continuing agriculture is also impractical under
Figure 5.2. The two
alternatives depict an
equal number of
houses, i.e., an equal
density overall. The
top half illustrates the
clustering or "village"
option, while the lower
depicts current
practice. (Illustration
courtesy of Duany/
Plater-Zyberk.
Architects ~
such development conventions. An alternative
to this model is one that clusters new construc-
tion closer to village centers. This density
results in larger amounts of open space pre-
served as forest, meadow or farmland elsewhere
(See Figure 5.2). In this scenario, densities
within individual clusters (net density) will be
higher than conventional' development, but the
overall density (gross density) is the same. If
the goal is the preservation of green space, then
such clustering is essential. An added benefit of
this opt_ton is a significant reduction in the
construction of roads. Shortened travel dis-
tances between homes and businesses reduce
the amount of paved surface, lowering levels of
rain water runoff.
In application, such practice can result in
communities of unique character. Well defined
public spaces, and clear breaks between the
village and the open landscape are two of the
characteristics that may result from this cluster-
ing technique. Note the differences between the
conventional subdivision on the left and the
clustered village on the fight (Figure 5.3a and
Figure 5.3b).
CHK AgcmTEcrs AND PLANNERS. [NC., DODSON ASSOC[aTES. MCGUtRE WOODS BATTLE ~';D BOOTHE. LLP., CENTER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
1
Figure 5.3a. Typical North
American suburb. The little
greenspace that exists is
parceled off into private
manicured lawns, controlled
by individual homeowners.
While pleasant to look at, it
preserves no forests or open
space. Moreover, there is no
community center and no
defined edge.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE~ VIRGINIA
Figure 5.3b. Village of
Stenton, Scotland. This is a
planned community with a
variety of housing sizes and
prices clustered aroumt a
village green set within
rolling pastures. This
practice enables retention of
open space and agricultural
uses.
Figure 5.4a.
Conventional
development in
Albetnarle County as
seen from the air.
Natural preserves
appear as leftover
space.
Figure 5.4b.
Concept plan for
site in Orange
County, VA. The
stream valley park
is' made an integral
part of the
development
providing a focus
for a town center.
Conventional subdivision practice places natural
preserves and other areas of environmental
sensitivity behind houses. This provides green
buffers for the few homeowners whose proper-
ties happen to back onto these spaces, but
effectively hides these spaces from public view.
making them feel private (Figure 5.4a). An
alternative approach is to place these spaces in
DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
the front of houses, bordering them with public
lanes and streets, and creating an ammenity to
share(Figure 5.4b). Treating both the tributar-
ies of larger green space systems and smaller,
individual public parks as features can assure
these natural and recreational spaces remain an
important visual focus and source of identitY
for the entire neighborhood (Figure 5.5).
Figure 5.5.
Neighborhood
green in
Kentlands, a
new town in
Gaithersburg,
MD.
Sidewalks are necessary to every "pedestrian
friendly" community, but it is also important to
reduce obstacles for the pedestrian (Figure
Figure 5.6a below. Neighbor-
hood street in Albemarle
County lacking pedestrian
amenity of any sort.
Figure 5. 6b above right. Neighborhood street in Kentlands.
5. 6a). It is equally important to consider the
whole street in three dimensions. Houses with
front stoops or porches that sit closer to the
sidewalk provide "eyes on the street," enhanc-
ing a feeling of safety while promoting im-
promptu meetings among neighbors (Figure
5.6b). Narrow streets lined with trees and
parallel parked cars also enhance feelings of
CHK ARCHIlECTS .&.ND PLANNERS. I,~C., DODSON ASSOC~TES, McGcmE WOODS [~ATrLE &ND BOOTHE, LLP.. CE,',q'ER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
DESIGN WORKSHOP REPORT - JANUARY 10, 1998
safety for the pedestrian and have proven to
reduce the severity of auto accidents and
pedestrian injuries (as compared with conven-
tional traffic engineering practice) by "calm-
ing,'' or slowing traffic considerably. Consider
the difference between Figure 5.7a, a rather
typical suburban street, and Figure 5.7b, an
altered photograph, or "montage," of the same
street. Smaller front yards, narrower streets.
trees along the curb and sidewalks are all
features of the remade "pedestrian friendly"
street.
temporary development practice isolates each
Figures 5. 7a and b. Photograph and computer enhanced
montage courtesy of the Pennsylvania State University,
Department of Landscape Architecture.
The traditional American town was composed
upon a grid. Downtown Charlottesville is
typical of that arrangement. While land uses
tended to be grouped together (shops on Main
St., lawyers' offices near the courthouse, etc.), a
multitude of paths existed between any one
point and another. Often a mixing of compat-
ible uses occurred at transitional areas. Con-
land use into separate areas, or pods, discon-
nected from one another and linked only by an
arterial' highway (Fig ute 5. 8).
Figure 5.& The
two alternatives
depict identical
densities and land
uses; however, the
bottom half
provides greater
interconnectivity,
minimizing travel
distances and the
burden on any one
road, while
assuring discrete
locations for
differing land uses.
rlllustration courtesy of Duany/Plater. Zyberk, Architects ~
This pattern's effect on the landscape, traffic
and the creation of communities is profound.
The isolation of each land use separates chil-
dren from schools, senior citizens from their
children and grandchildren, and most of the
population, especially those who cannot afford
cars, from the daily conveniences of life. In a
typical community, a trip to the neighborhood
center, which in traditional towns would be a
short walk, becomes impossible to traverse
(Figure 5.9). Whereas the grid allows each
street to absorb a portion of the overall traffic.
the isolation of the pod in contemporary devel-
opment requires the arterial road to handle all
of the traffic.
Figure 5.9.
The
shopping
center
could have
been
designed a~
_~"~ a town
center.
t connect
into
residential
neighborhoods. As it is, residents of the adjacent community
could never just go buy a loaf of bread; the chain link fence,
6-foot high wall and drainage ditch separating the land uses
see to that. Instead, they are forced to make yet another car
trip, burdening already overtaxed roads, and necessitating a
large sea of asphalt parking in front of the shops.
CHK At,cra-mc'rs A?4D PtA.'~'ERS. l.xc.. DODSON ASSOCIATES. McGc'mE WOODS B^TrLE AND BOOTItE. LLR. CENTER FOR WATERSHED Pao~Ecno.x
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE~ VIRGINIA ° DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
It is common
practice to
isolate each type
~of housing into
separate devel-
opment pods.
Whether the Figure 5.10. Typical town house
product of development.
regulation or perceived market forces, the
practice results in the same, homogenous
Figures 5.1la and 5.1lb. Plan and view of Wyndcrest
in Sandy Spring, Maryland. This new development
mixes single fatnily housing selling at over $300,000
and subsidized town houses at $80.000 with a
number of products in between. Note that the brick
houses are also the most inexpensive. (Figure 5.1lb
courtesy of Duany/Plater-Zyberk. Architects)
communities made up of residents with similar
incomes and of similar ages. Unfortunately, it
is always easier to recognize the more "afford-
able" neighborhoods.
Traditional American towns, however, provide
a mix of housing types within close proximity,
often next door. It is still possible to provide
such a mix, achieving diversity within a highly
marketable development, as Figures 5.1 la and
5.1lb suggest.
Living or working "above the shop" has re-
emerged as a desirable housing choice. This
mixing of uses provides more of a "24-hour
environment," with office workers running
errands and eating out during the day
crossing use patterns with residents running
errands and eating out in the evening. These
offices, apartments, shops and cafes provide an
added benefit -- the size of parking areas can be
reduced when lots are shared and utilized at
different times of the day (Figures 5.12a and b).
Figures 5.12a
and 5.12b. Plan
and view of
Uptown Village in
San Diego. The
apartments (to
the right in the
plan) are linked
to a supermarket
(large object to
the left in plan) at
a village center
resembling Main
Street (view) with
small offices
above shops and
cafes. Contrary
to popular
retailing
convention, the
supermarket and
its parking lot are not all that visible frown the street, yet it is the
most profitable outlet in the chain.
CHK ARCHITECTS A.'qD PL.~XN~RS. INC., DODSON ASSOCIATES. McGcmE Woovs B^rr~ ,~'m Boortm, LLR. C~x-rE~ Fo~ W;,xe~smm P~orEca2o.~
DESIGN WORKSItOP.; .REPQRT - JANUARY 10, 1998
Il
Perhaps the most ubiquitous image of develop-
ment in post-war America is that of the "strip."
an arterial highway lined by "big-box" retailers
(e.g., Wal-Mart, Target. Home Depot. etc.
acres of parking and fast food restaurants. While
such retailing may be a fact of contemporary
life, it is not necessarily the only possibility for
detail within a community. Older, domestically
scaled neighborhood shopping centers abound
(Figure 5.13)
and. indeed,
several
national retail
developers
have identi-
fied "Main I.
Street Retail" ---'?'~
as the focus Figure 5.13. Village green with shops and
of their own a variety of uses above, Princeton, NJ.
new develop-
ment efforts. £t may be possible to have both a
place for the "big-box retailers," albeit with
more humane design standards, and smaller
scale neighborhood shops located in close
proximity to. and designed in sympathy with, the
residences they serve (Figure 5.14).
Figure 5.14. Mizener
Park ~s a new
mixed-use develop-
ment in Boca Raton.
FL built on the site
of a bankrupt
shopping mall.
Retailers include
national chains as
well as local
merchants. Above
the ground floor
retail, one can find
office space and apartments. The project also includes a park
with outdoor amphitheater and a museum.
While parked cars are little danger to pedestri-
ans, they can create a bamer to pedestrian
activity and contribute to making dull and
Figure 5.15a. Lining
the fronts of houses
with garage doors
tends to create an
unfriendly street for
pedestrians.
Figure 5.15b.
Placing garages
behind houses
allows the front to be
available ,for
porches, stoops,
landscape and the
amenities that make
a street pedestrian
Jkiendly.
lifeless spaces. The location of garages for
single family houses plays a critical part in
determining the feel of a street (Figures 5.15a
and 5.15b). Townhouses also seem more
humane, when they are not fronted by big
garage doors and a sea of parking (Figures
5.16a and 5.16b).
Figure 5.16a.
Large parking lots
itt front of these
townhouses
render the scale
more appropriate
to the car than the
pedestrian.
Figure &16b. A
street of townhouses
in Kentlands has
cars parallel parked
to shield the
pedestrian from
oncoming traffic.
Rear alleys alIo}~
access to garages.
CHK ARcmr~cxs ,c-4v PL,~,e,'~t~S. I3'c.. Dot~so.~ ASSOC~XTES. McGcrR~ Woor~s B^'rrLE &'er BooTing. LLP., CE.NV[ER FOR WATERSFIED PRO~EC'nO.X
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ° DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
To accomplish better streets, many new develop-
ments have rediscovered the alley as a place to'
park cars and store trash cans. (Figure '5.17).
Figure 5.17.
While they
are extraor-
dinarily
functional,
alleys can be
places of
great charm.
Figure 5.18 below. Courthouse
Square in Frederick, ,,VID.
Figure 5.19 right. Post Office in
Bedford, NY.
At the heart of traditional towns are civic spaces
and buildings that serve the general public
(Figures 5.18 and 5.19). Alas. village post
offices seem to be a thing of the past and court-
houses have long outgrown their original sta-
tion. However. other forms of public space have
been devised, for example, the neighborhood
green formed by clustering houses around a
central space. Though such civic amenities
have made a comeback, it has not been without
struggle. Such embellishments are impossible
unless net densities higher than conventional
norms are allowed (Figures 5.20 and 5.21).
Figure 5.21
right. A small
court, created
by the grouping
of four houses
at Sessions
Village in
Columbus. OH.
a 1930s era
development.
Figure 5.20 left.
Neighborhood
green itt Harbor
Town, Memphis.
TN. The"zero lot
line" homes in the
background are not
permitted in
Albemarle County
under existing
regulation.
Typical of many suburban arterial highways
around the nation, Rt. 29 serves primarily those
commercial and service uses which are oriented
to the automobile. It is a pattern that precludes
any coherent civic space and is, generally
speaking, unsightly and wasteful of land.
Figure 5.22 The
two alternatives
depict conven-
tional highway
development on
the bottom, and
alternative
highway
development
scenarios above.
In place of
continuous
islands of
shopping centers
are towns and
green space.
~lllustration
courtesy of
Duany/Plater-
Zyberk. Archi-
tects I
CHK ARCHITECTS .*N'D PLANNERS, INC., Douso.'~ Assoc[4~s. McGuma WOODS BATTI~ AND BOOmE. LLP.. Ce.',T~a ro~t WArEaSH~D PaOTECT~ON
DESIGN WORKSHOP REPORT- JANUARY 10, 1998
Moreover, it perpetuates a universal dependence
on the automobile (Figure 5.22). Alternatives to
this type of development may include clustering
whole towns either along or just off of such
highways. Buffering individual commerical
developments from the view of the road and
conceiving of them in three dimensions can also
enhance the overall character of the highway
and the town (Figures 5.23a and 5.23b).
these towns, or at least on one edge, prohibit-
ing additional construction within a specified
zone. in order to perpetuate this condition.
Figure 5.23a. AeHal view of
~pical highway commercial
developmem.
Figure 5.23b. AeHal ~&w of
alternative high~a~ commer-
cial &eelopment after
significant clusteHng of
&vebpmem and buffeHng
~ith tan&cape.
Among other
patterns, traditional
towns tend to be
characterized by
precisely defined
borders, or edges.
These clear breaks,
where town meets
country, are made
more profound by the
density of the town at
its edge, in contrast
to a pristine land-
scape beyond the
border (Figure 5.241.
Often there are
"~eenbelts" around
Figure 5.24. View of traditional
village in the English country-
side. Note the clear break
between town and countryside.
Figure 5.25. View of "transitional zoning" in
the Hollymead area, near the Towers site.
By con-
trast,
contempo-
rary North
American
develop-
ment has
tended to
"blur" the
distinction
between
these two contrasting places, substituting
"transitional zoning" for sharp distinctions
(Figure 5.25). Unfortunately, transitional
zoning and "sprawl" are difficult to distinguish.
Perhaps distinctions between the growth areas
and the rural areas of Albemarle County are
possible to establish with densities appropriate
to the County. (Figure 5.26)
) <..-1'5'. I..,
Figure 5.26. Plan of Shincliffe in
Durham. England. a roadside village
with a namow green. ~e ho~es
have no front gardens (they are built
to the proper~ line), but ~rge rear
yards which fo~ a natural buffer to
the town. t Illustra~on from ~omas
Sha~, ~atomy of the Village.)
CHK A~cm'rEcrs AND PLA,N'NERg. [NC.. DODSON ASSOCiaTEs. McGcma WOODS BA'FYLE AND Boonm. LLP.. CEN'rER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
I~! COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ° DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
VI. SITE
The "Towers --'
Land Trust" ~?
sits in the <¢~;~,,t
Community
of Hollymead,
east of Route
29 and north
of Proffit ~
Road. It is Figure 6.1: View of site frotn Pritchett
bordered to Lane.
the north by the North Fork of the Rivanna River
and to the east by Pritchett Lane (Figure 6.2).
The Land Use Component of the Comprehensive
Plan designates a multitude of uses for the
property, including moderate density residential
(3-6 units per acre), high density residential (6-
32 umts per acre), regional service and office
service (Figure 6.3). Each is assigned a discrete
area within the overall site. with the latter three
zones located adjacent to Route 29. It is likely
that in any RU.D. application made for this site.
these disci'ete designations would be considered
somewhat flexible with some movement and
intermixing of land use zones allowed.
".'~Iia[zc o/'l'ine.x ~.hmntam ~ .
-~--_- .....>.
./
/
.ri
Figure 6.3: Plan of Towers Land Trust site showing land use
as per the Comprehensive Plan Designation.
CHK ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.. DODSON ASSOC~TEs. McGcmE WOODS BATTI.E .a,'X,'D BOOTHE, LLP.. CENTER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
DESIGN WORKSHOP REPORT - JANUARY 10, 1998
Figure 6.4: Plan of Towers Land
Trust site. Grey areas are those
identified as either flood plains
or steep slopes, and cannot be
built upon.
".'Laced by
stream
'?:--:i:. valleys,
the site is
contrasted
by areas of
wooded
slopes and
gently
rolling
Figure 6.5. Aerial view of Towers
site from above Pritchet Lane.
Figure 6.6. Aerial view of Towers site.
meadows (Figures 6.5 and 6.6). Current
environmental regulation prohibits buildings
of any sort within the 100-year flood plain,
within 100 feet of a perennial stream and on
slopes greater than 25%. The remaining land,
is available for development (Figure 6.4).
Preservation of any area that does not fall
within the protected zones is not required
under existing regulation, though, in practice.
Zoning Boards are likely to require some
additional tree preservation.
CHK ARC~UTEC~rS .~.'~D PL,,,'~.';ERS. INC.. DODSON ASSOCL~,TES. McGu1RE WOODS BAITLE ~XD BOODLE, LLP.. CENTER FOR W^TERSt~Et) PROTECTION
~ll COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE~ VIRGINIA ° DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
VII. GROUP REPORTS
The site is characterized by stream val-
leys, flood plains and steep slopes, leaving
a series oflongfinger-like parcels of land
for buiMing. In addition, the site has a
number of cleared areas, some areas of
pine forest, which are relatively new
growth, and some areas of deciduous
forest. How do you imagine minimizing
roads and travel distances while preserv-
ing the environmentally sensitive land and
some of the forested areas and achieving a
reasonable densi~ consistent with the
comprehensive plan ?
/
/
· Cluster development in buildable areas.
CHK ARCHITECTS AND PL.~'4NERS. INC.. DODSON ASSOCLaTES. McGumE WOODS B^TrLE ,~'4D Boonm, LLP.. CE~X'rER FOR W,x'reRs~mD PROTECa~ON
DESIGN WORI~SI~OP Rv. PORT- JANUARY 10, 1998
· Use topography and slopes to an advan-
tage, do not flatten the site.
· Provide a wildlife corridor.
' '_'.... ' ', r'"~,~. !l',,.I '.,_..- 1~ 17'v,.-,~ ',,
/' t~.~..,,.,, ..... . ..... , ,,.,, . ..4~%'"~ ~ ', .. ,, -,- ~l , ~ 'I ' ' ;
..... "ti'~'-.' ''.. . t,. 'k-" ;/' ~, .,-t.. "., , ~ ,.. ~, , .~'
· Consider environmental elements as
"features," rather than "constraints." · Avoid channeling streams.
· Orient development off central spine road.
· Preserve forested character.
· Loosen road grid farther from central
spine to accomodate natural features.
· Minimize road width to reduce impervious
surface.
CHK ARCHITECTS &'~D PLA:~NE, RS. I.~c., DODSON ASSOCtnrES, McGL1RE WOODS Bn.T~LE .~'D BOOTHE, LLP.. CEnteR ~OR WATERS~EV PROTECTION
I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE~ VIRGINIA ° DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
What kinds of recreational spaces and/or
environmental preserves are appropriate to
this site ? How shouM they be related to the
residential areas, if at all? What kind of
public access to these areas is appropriate ?
· Provide alleys and continuous greenways
for access without crossing roads.
· Plan recreation areas to take advantage of
existing natural systems.
Drawing provided by Consultant team
· Streams or rivers become a front or "focal
point" of development rather than a rear.
Provide natural paths along them.
'
....... ~ .... , - :_-'-- --_ -:''
· Preserve views.
Use recreation~ areas as buffers.
CHK ARcmmcxs ~'~D Pt~x'N'~RS, I.~c., DODSON ASSOCIAIES, McGum£ WooDs B^rr[~ a,'~'~ BOOTSm. LLP., C£,,,"r~ FOR W^ZmRSrmD P~o~Cno'.x
o
DESIGN WORKSHOP REPORT - JANUARY 10, 1998
What are the characteristics of a ''pedes-
trian friendly" community ? How can these
be accommodated in your proposal?
· All areas should be safely accessed on foot.
· Town Centers within 1/4 mile from any
dwelling. Locate neighborhood conve-
niences in the center.
· Provide a safe, alternate, pedestrian access
across Rt. 29.
· Keep cars on
streets and in
allevs behind
houses.
· Don't face
garages to the
street.
· Provide sidewalks with trees between
sidewalks and the street.
· Houses close to the street with porches so
pedestrians talk to homeowners.
~'~"*' Drawing p~v~ded by Consultant team
CHK ARClIlrECTS ,~';D PLANNERS. INC.. DODSON ASSOCraTES, McGuIRE WOODS BAITLE ,~'qD BOOTHE. LLP.. CE~-n~R FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ® DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
4. The comprehensive plan designates four
different land use classifications for this
property. Each classification has a specific
location. ShouM such land uses be sepa-
rated in this way or mixed and blended?
What should the transition between differ-
ent land uses look like?
· Regional commercial and
neighborhood retail should
not be mixed.
· Mixing of uses encourages a
diversity of experiences
within the same space.
· Bed and breakfasts can serve
as a transition between
commercial and residential
uses.
CHK ARCHITECTS .&X'D PLANNERS. INC.. DODSON ASSOCIATES. McGt;ma WooDs BAITLE AND BOOTHE. LLP., CENTER FOP, WATERSHED PROTECTION
DESIGN WORKSHOP REPORT - JANUARY 10, 1998
5. The Comprehensive plan designates the bulk
of this property to be developed at a density
of 3-6 units/acre. What degree of flexibility
in the mixing of different housing types, i.e.
single family houses, duplexes, town houses.
and apartments or condominiums is appro-
priate? Can you provide examples of desir-
able mixes ?
· Make avail-
able many
sizes of lots to
accomodate
varying costs
and housing
types. Yet keep
in mind mar-
ket realities.
· Drawing provided bv Consultant team
· A large open green space in front of high
density residenti~ units can provide an
open gathering place for residents.
Provide residential near [major employ-
meat centers, like/uVa~orth Fork so
employees may walk or b~e to work.
Consider different setbacks for d~erent
housing types. · Add density in village center adjacent to
Integrate affordable housing t~es within shopping/offices and lower density as you
others, get farther out.
Maximize density in keeping with aesthetics
of community while preserving open space.
CHK ARCHITECTS .~ND PLANNERS. INC., DODSON ASSOCIATES. McGumE WOODS BATTLE AND BOOTHE. LLP.. CE,hq'ER FOR W'ATERSFLED PROTECTION
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE~ VIRGINIA · DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
6. An area permttting a mixture of uses includ:
ing office space and even residential is also
permitted. What would such a mix of uses
look like in reality?
· MLxed-use should occur only in village
center.
· Integrate neighborhood commercial with
residential districts.
/~
Drawing provided by Consultant team
· Residences can be placed over offices and
over retail.
· This should be part of a comprehensive
area design and in dude combined com-
mon space for residents and office users.
CHK ARctm~ecTs ~,'4D PLAN:','ERS. INC.. DODSON ASSOCIATES. McGvmn WOODS BATILE .~'~'D BOOmE, LLR. CE.X'TER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
DESIGN WORKSaOP REPORT - JANUARY 10, 1998
7. One of the land uses designated for this
property is retail. How should retail be ! . ..
related to the street, and to the neighbor- ~ i .
hoods ? Do you imagine that there are
different kinds of retail uses, and if so. i · '
shouM they be designed differently and/or
located in different places ?
i' " ~-~ } } · - __ .. ..... _~ vtaea__ '~'-'Z nt team
· Locate regional service/retail center to
infill existing development on corner of
· Physically, retail should be integrated within
- not segregated from - the neighborhood
· Shopping should be located within easy
walking distance of residents.
· Small convenience shopping area needed
within neighborhood.
· A local "job center" is not needed, enough
jobs are located nearby.
· Local retail should reduce dependence on
Route 29.
CHK A~cm-r~cTs axu PL~x:x'~ag. INC.. DODSON ASSOCIATES. McGumE WOODS B^ITLE AND BOOTHE. LLP.. CEN-m~ FOa W^TE~Sm:~D PROTECTION
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ® DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
How should parking be handled for each
type of buiMing: e.g., single family houses,
town houses, apartments or condominiums,
office buildings and retail?
· On street parking.
Drawing provided by Consultant ream
· Parking should occur behind or inside
commercial.
· Parking should be concealed in small lots.
· Provide alleys for parking, garbage truck
access and play areas.
Drawing provided by Consultant team
· Commercial parking areas should not take away from pedestrian experience.
CHK ARCHITECTS AND PL.&NNERS. INC.. DbDSON ASSOCIATES. McGc'mE Wooos B^rrLE ~'qD BOOT[IE, LLP.. CENTER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
DESIGN WORKSHOP REPORT - JANUARY 10, 1998 I
What kinds of public buildings and civic
spaces may be appropriate for a parcel of
this size and population, and where should
they be located? Are such things as neigh-
borhood or village centers appropriate and
what are their characteristics ?
Drawing provrded by Consultant ream
· Centralized village green.
· Community center-mixed access and use.
· Common green with road around it.
· Active recreation space.
· Provide center for public community
meetings.
Drawing provided by Consultant team
· Plan should incorporate: churches, post
office, fire/rescue, police substation, local
government offices.
CHK ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS. [NC., DODSON ASSOCbXlES, McGUIRE WOODS BATTLE ~D BOOTHE. LLP.. CENTER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ® DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
10.
The "Towers Land Trust" site abuts Rt. 29
North. What is an appropriate treatment
for this highway ?
i
I
I
Drawing provided by Consultant team
· Provide a buffer of trees.
· Provide for town center along Rt. 29 at
major intersections [like Profit Road].
· Provide multiple access points to Rt. 29 to
reduce congestion.
Drawing provided by Consultant team
· Orient toward service roads.
· Provide high density residential along Rt~
29, appropriately landscaped.
CHK Aecarmcxs AND PLANNERS. INC.. DODSON ASSOCiaTES. Mc(St;mE WOODS B^TrLE AND ]~OOTHE. LLE, CENTER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
DESIGN WORKSHOP REPORT - JANUARY 10, 1998
11. The site also sits at the edge of the urban
growth boundary: What should be the
character of this edge ?
· Connect Pritchet Lane with new develop-
ment via a pedestrian greenway.
· Blur boundary bY maintaining rural devel-
opment standards, e.g., less curb and gutter,
goats grazing to cut grass.
Drawing provided by Consultant team
· Provide. landscape buffer along rural edge.
· Low density and medium density housing
along Pritchet Lane.
· Buffer should be adequate to reduce views
and noise.
~"-~?
Drawing provided by Consultant team
· Provide hard edge between growth and
rural areas - so hard edge of growth area is
def'med, providing minimal access through
hard edge.
· Fill "edge" parcels to highest density.
CHK ARCHIItCIS AND PLANNERS, LNC.. DODSON ASSOCL~XES. McGuIRE WOODS BArrLE AND BOOTHE. LLE. CENTER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA · DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
VII. FOLLOW-UP AND NEXT STEPS
The Towers Land Trust Design Workshop
provided numerous valuable insights and ideas
regarding appropriate development patterns for
a range of sites throughout the growth areas of
the County. Equally important, it demonstrated
an enormous degree of consensus on nearly an
equal number of issues. This suggests that
there is an audience in the public at large that is
interested in sensitively designed development
projects which respond both to the natural
and man-made environment, and which are
conscientious about the making of humane and
unique places.
As fruitful as this workshop was. a second one
is necessary. A number of issues that could not
be explored on this site, remain to be examined.
Among them are:
· What should the relationship of new
development be to existing, whether it be
single family residences, apartments, or
commercial establishments?
· What should be the nature of develop-
ment outside of the designated growth
areas?
· How should multiple properties under
different ownership be considered?
Should they be interconnected, for ex-
ample? Where are separarations appro-
priate?
· Should one consider an entire Urban
Neighborhood, Community or Village, as
these words are defined in the Land Use
Plan, all together? Do these planning
areas have centers and, if so. where are
they and how should they relate to the
rest of the unit?
· Are there strategies for the "infill" of
existing development, particularly retail
and office developments, but also the
possibility of residential developments?
Because these issues are broader in context than
those considered at this workshop, consideration
should be given to the design of an entire Urban
Neighborhood or Community at a follow-up
workshop.
Combined, these two consensus building efforts
should provide ample guidance with which to
guide the Consultant Team in preparing a Model
Neighborhood Plan and its accompanying
guidelines.
CHK ARCmlEClS AND PL.~.'~'N'ERS. Lxc.. DODSON ASSOCbXTES. McG~zmE WOODS BAITLE &ND Boo,rrm, LLP., CE~-n~R FOe W^TEgSm~D PROTECTION
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE~ VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNINC; AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES STUDY
DESIGN WORKSHOP REPORT
.May 16, 1998
CHK ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.
DOI~ON ASSOCIATES
McGumE WOODS BATTLE AND BOOTHE, LLP.
CENTER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
Design Workshop Report · Ma)' 16. 1998
I o Section One
I } oi uc io
Bringing together a cross-section of Albemarle
County residents for a day of drawing and
discussion, the Design Workshop, part of the
County's Development Area Initiatives Study, was
the second of two' such events aimed at initiating
both a new way of thinking about development in
the County and a process to involve the general
public. The workshop attracted over 75participants
to the Jack Jouett Middle School to consider, among
other things, methods to curtail suburban sprawl
and develop vital, .pedestrian friendly communities,
with the end result being the preservation of the
County's rural legacy.
Figure 1.1 View of historic Crozet, one of two study areas
of the Workshop.
~ CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection I
County of Albemarle, Virginia · Development Area Initiatives Stud)'
Figure 1.2. Group dis-
cussions centered
'around tables and some-
times the floor where
ideas could be drawn
and "what. iJ" questions
couM be tested immedi-
ately.
Two of Albemarle County's development
areas (as identified in the Growth Manage-
ment Plan) were chosen for study, Urban
Neighborhood 3 to the east of Charlottes-
ville, known commonly as Pantops, and the
community of Crozet. These two areas
served as testing grounds for the day's ef-
forts whose goals were twofold:
· The identification of principles and
techniques for the physical develop-
ment of the growth areas of the County
appropriate to the aspirations of its resi-
dents;
· The development of a process by which
citizens can actively participate in the
· creation of model neighborhood plans.
The bulk of the da~ 's effOrts took place in
groups, five in ali, randomly formed, with
the goal of determining which strategies
could elicit a consensus of support (Figure
1.2). Each group was staffed by a facilita-
tor and a designer -~ a design professional
from the Charlottesville / Albemarle area
who volunteered their time for the day. The
facilitators included County staff and addi-
tional volunteers from the community Who
had extensive facilitation experience.
The Development Area Initiatives Study
was conceived, in part, to help implement
the vis~on of the Land Use Plan, a
"blueprint" prepared by the County for
guiding its growth into the next decade and
beyond. Aimed at articulating the principles
with which future neighborhood plans will
be drawn, its relevant portions were
explained to the attendees in a morning
briefing. Its parameters for development
were given as a starting point and, in effect,
served as the ground rules by which each
team operated.
However, because the Landu Use Plan is
intended to be periodically revised,
participants were encouraged to question its
specific aspects that they felt were
inconsistent with its grander vision. The
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances,
documents which are in some ways
inconsistent with the emerging "vision" of
the Land Use Plan, were not offered as
additional rules. Instead, groups were
encouraged to think "outside the box," to
envision the type of development they
would like to occur rather than what is
possible under existing practice. Many of
the schemes developed would likely fall
I CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection
outside of existing y- g or standard, :,~:,~?~ ~:?¥~$~;.O~rao~:e ~peopl.e is viewed as a
regUlation (though some could be
accomplished under PUD or PRD
provisions). The prospect of "testing"
existing zoning provisions in this way will
likely stimulate future discussions on
changes required of the zoning ordinances
necessitated by the vision of the Land Use
Plan.
In order to stimulate 'such "visioning," the
Consultant team provided morning briefings
touching on some of the more traditional
concepts of town planning that may have
applicability in this context, as well as site
planning strategies to preserve rural areas
and reduce the impact of development on
the natural environment. These briefings,
which also included detailed site
information, were merely prelude to the
day's primary activity: the group design
work session.
In order to stimulate the creative energies
of each of the groups' participants, the
following scenario was offered for
consideration:
It is the year 2015. Albemarle County
has 96,000 people, 15,000 more than
tn 1998. One might think that having
negative feature -- that people feel
crowded -- stressed by traffic and the
problems of urban life.
On the contrary, people are happy and
content. They love their community.
There is plenty of water. Schools are
not crowded. Traffic is manageable.
Creeks and rivers are clean. People
have their privacy. Taxes are not high.
And we have not expanded into the rural
.areas. - -
What has happened to: housing,
transportation and to neighborhoods.
Written responses followed by discussion
allowed each group to generate a series of
vision statements for which there was
consensus. They then concentrated on
illustrating these shared visions graphically
generating area maps, detailed plans, and
other diagrams representative of their ideas.
Following the work session, each group was
asked to display its work for all to examine
(Figure 1.3) and to report its results to a
gathering of all the participants (Figure 1.4).
It is significant that on a number of
questions, near unanimity across all five
Design Workshop Report * Ma3' 16. 1998
Figure 1.3 The display of
each group's drawings of-
fered the opportunity for
everyone to review each
other's efforts. Many
were pleasantly surprised
to find similar visions
across all the groups.
This suggested that a con-
sensus among virtually all
of the participants was
beginning to emerge.
~ CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection Introduction I
CounO, of AIbemarle. Virginia · Development Area Initiatives Study
Figure 1.4 Verbal reports
allowed all participants
the opportunity to hear
from each of the groups.
groups was achieved, while on other issues,
a variety of equally viable strategies
emerged. -
These results, as well as other materials
related to the day's events (surveys, briefings
by the Consultant team. and site
information), are documer{ted on the
following pages. Copies of many of the
original workshop drawings.are included in
this report. These are supplemented by
additional drawings produced by the
Consultant team in order to illustrate the
written goals of the various groups.
The professional designers and facilitators
who volunteered their efforts for this
workshop are listed on the next page. The
Consultant team, the DISC and the staff of
the Department of Planning and Community
Development extends gratitude and
appreciation for their work.
I CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection
Design Workshop Participants
Facilitators and Designers
Jeff Bushman
Peter Lorenzoni
Katie Hobbs
Dan Mahon
Nancy O'Brien
John Rhett
Mike Stgneking
Stephen von Storch '
Susan Thomas
Juan Wade
Bill Wanner
Mark Watson
Wayne Wilcox
Design Workshop Attendees
Allan Agins
Nancy Barnett
Kris Bean
Norman Beil
Rick Berman
Barbara Bmmback
Bob Cross
Joyce deMarco
John Dent
Beverly Ergenbright
James Ewell
Cliff Fox
George Gill
Jack Glasheen
Zoe Golladay
Paul Grady
Frances Hill
Aubry Juffman
David Key
Chet Lyons
Mary Mesz
Paul Minnerly
Nick Munger
John Nafziger
Tom Olivier
Walter Perkins
Joann Perkins
Anthony Potter
David Rash
Bill Roach
Cannon Russell
Munro Russell
Paul St. Pierre
Jay Shively
Michael Spooner
Preston .Stallings
Kelly Strickland
Stan Tatum
Sally Thomas
yvonne Vess
Barbara Westbrook
Frank Wood
Carol Young
DISC Members Present
David Bowerman
Brian Broadus
Sherry Buttrick
Brace Dotson
Marilyn Gale
Kathy Galvin
Satyendra Huja
Karen Lilleleht
Tom Loach
Charles Martin
Cindy Parry
Ivo Romenesko
Steve Runkle
Eric Stmcko
David Tice
Babette Thorpe
Don Wagner
Bob Watson
County Staff
David Benish
Wayne Cilimberg
Elaine Echols
Margaret Pickart
CHK Architects and Planners
Beth Hesler
Sarah Lewis
Neal Payton
Dodson & Associates
Brock Cutting
Design Workshop Report · May 16. 1998
,a~ CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP. Center for Watershed Protection Introduction I
Count. of Albemarle. Virginia · Development Area lnitiarives Study
Section Two
II. QUALITY OF LIFE
SURVEY
Subsequent to .registration for the workshop,
participants were sent a survey to complete.
Designed to assess various physical conditions of
their neighborhood affecting their quality of life,
many of questions were designed as "indicators,"
i.e., questions whose responses suggest something
of a larger phenomenon. Many dealt with
automobile use and proximity to services, and were
meant to determine ifa pattern of land development
exists which requires extenstve car travel and if
such use affects one's quality of life. The questions
were also designed to stimulate discussion.
Several related to the physical attributes of a
neighborhood that have been shown to impact
community life. These questions were meant to
.prompt parttcipants into the consideration of the
characteristics of their own neighborhoods.
particularly those that contribute to or detract from
a "sense of community."
I CHK Architects and Planners, Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP, Center for Watershed Protection
Design Workshop Report · May 16. 1998
SURVEY QUESTIONS AND
RESPONSES
I. Are you a native of the Charlottesville /
Albemarle area ?
24% Yes
76% No
If no, how long have you been here?
Avg. 12.75 yrs.
What brought you to live here?
33% employment
28 % quality of life
24 % family or marriage
16 % University of Virginia
2. What are some of your favorite places in
the Charlottesville/Albemarle area ? *
48 % Downtown Mall
32% UVA and the "corner"
30% mountains
22% restaurants of Char'ville
15% Mint Springs
8% Ciandius Crozet Park
How many minutes by car does it take to
get there ?
20 minutes - median
3. What are some of your favorite places
outside of this area (include other countries
if applicable) ? *
15% rural villages
13% western states
8% Outer Banks, NC
8 % various European locales
including, Barcelona, small vii
lages in Portugal, Venice and
Switzerland
5% Seattle, Savannah,
Charleston, SC, Boston,
Washington, DC
4. When you selected ,;our current resi-
dence, what was the most important crite-
ria in the selection ? * 23% cost
20% privacy or seclusion
20% rural village character of
neighborhood
11% close to Downtown
11% schools
9 % tree lined streets
5. How many of your neighbors do you
know?
2% none
24% few
50% many
24% most
Figure 2.1. Workshop
participants at the morn-
ing briefing.
~ Many respondents listed mul-
tiple favorites leading to a total
percentage over 100%
.,~ CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLE Center for Watershed Protection Quality of Life Survey I
Count.' of Albemarle, l~rginia · Development Area Initiatives Study
If you answered_ _.many or most, do you have
the opportunity to see and greet your neigh-
bors regularly?
66% Yes
34% No
9. How many minutes does it take to walk
from your home to a playg~:ound or other
recreational amenities (such as tennis courts,
basketball courts, parks or gardens)?
38 minutes
28% of those respon-
dents who said that
they knew few or
none of their neigh- -
bors answered, none-
theless, that they be-
lieved that there was
a sense of "commu-
nity'' in their neigh-
borhood.
6. Do you believe that there is a sense of
"community" in your neighborhood?
65 % Yes
35% No
If not, why not?
-"houses are too far apart"
-'`no sidewalks - cars go too
fast"
-"people keep to themselves"
If yes, what makes you feel that there is a
sense of community ?
-"street is one block long"
-"shops and schools are all
within walking distance"
-"Homeowners Association"
-"neighbors respect privacy
but look out for each other"
-"neighbors say 'hello' in street"
7. Are there sidewalks in your neighbor-
hood?
12% Yes.
Do you use them frequently?
75 % Yes 25 % No
88% No.
If no, do you wish there were side-
walks or bikepaths in your neigh-
borhood?
54% Yes 46% No
8. Do you jog, walk or bike in your
neighborhood?
62% Yes
Is the route safe and pleasant to
experience ?
58% Yes 42% No
38% No
How many minutes (by car) does
it take to get to a place where
you can do these things ?
15 minutes
10. If you have school age children, is your
children's school within walking distance of
your home?
15 % Yes
85 % No
(of those responding)
11. If you have school age children, do your
children use the bus to get to school?
100% Yes
If yes, how long is the commute on
the bus? 14 minutes
0% No
(of those responding)
12. Do you consider your home to be your
permanent residence (i.e., the place you will
live until you retire or the place in which you
hope to remain for the rest of your life)?
79% Yes
.21% No
13. Does your family (i. el parent, or grown
children) live nearby ?
47 % Yes
53% No
If no, are there housing
opportunities for them to do so (i.e,
affordable prices, appropriate s~ze
and amenities) if they wanted to live
nearby?
79% Yes
21% No
14. Do you consider traffic to be a problem
in your neighborhood?
31% Yes
69% No
I CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection
Design Workshop Report o May 16. 1998
15. Do you consider it a problem on major
roads in the area?
51% Yes
49% No
16. If traffic is a problem do you consider it
to be (choose one)
46% A source of stress in your
life?
54% Merely an inconvenience?
17. How many hours do you spend in your
car
each weekday? 1.3 hrs. avg.
each weekend day? 1.0 hrs. avg.
18. How many car trips (each time you get
in and start your car from home) do' you
make
on a typical weekday? 1.99
on a typical weekend day? 1.90
19. What percentage of these trips on aver-
age are for the purpose of running errands
(i.e., not for commuting to and from work)?
47 % average
20. Do you typically use any other form of
transportation to commute or accomplish
errands (i.e.. transit bus, bicycle, walking,
etc.)?
10% Yes.
What types of transportation do yOu
use .9
100% walking
90% No.
What other options for
transportation wouM you like to
have access to or use, other
than your car?
56% none or no answer
16% bus
16% train or light rail
13% bicycle
3% car pool
2]. Are convenience stores, groceries and/
or restaurants within walking distance of
your home ?
47% Yes.
If yes, is it a safe walk and com-
fortable distance?
53%yes 27%no
53% No.
If no, do you wish they were?
44%yes 56%no
22. When you grow older would you like to
remain in your neighborhood?
85% Yes
15% No
23. Do you miss any characteristics of the
neighborhood you grew up m ?
62% Yes.
38% No.
If yes, what characteristics do you
miss ?*
58% walkability, proximity
to corner store, cultural sites
and or parks
20% natural environment
20% less traffic
10% safer
5% stability of neighbor-
hood
24. If you were to change anything about
your neighborhood, what would it be?
24% no response
19% more town-like
19% sidewalks
12 % less traffic and speeding
12 % easier access to parks
9 % less development
6% more mixing of uses
3% each: more ethnic diversity,
more neighborhood get-
togethers, repair substandard
housing
* Many respondents listed
multiple favorites leading
to a total percentage over
100%
~ CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection Quality of Life Survey I
CounU of Albemarle, 14rginia * Development Area Initiatives Stud?'
Section Three
· GROWTH
M.ANAGEMENT
GOALS
As STATED IN THE LAND USE COMPONENT OF THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The "Growth Management Plan" links the char-
acter of the County's physical development with its
economic, social and environmental health. It maps
the location of future construction and sets goals
for the intensity of that development. Most impor-
tantly, it articulates a set of policy objectives to guide
the formulation of more detailed neighborhood
plans.
The "infill" policy is, perhaps, the Plan's most no-
table aspect. It is conceived to preserve the rural
character of the County by channeling growth to
areas already under development. At the same
timb this policy is intended to assure a density of
development consistent with the creation of vibrant,
pedestrian friendly communities.
The first Design Workshop, hem in January, pro-
vided illustrations of the physical characteristics
of what such an infill policy should look like by
examining, in detail, the design of one parcel of
land. This report describes the second Design
Workshop whose focus was the relationship of one
parcel of land to the next. and the physical charac-
teristics of a whole neighborhood.
For reference, the Goals and Objectives of the
County's Growth Management Plan are included
on the following page.
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc., Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection
LEGEND FOR AREA LAND USE
Design Workshop Report · Ma)' 16. 1998
\
GOALS
I Protect and efficiently utilize County
resources by:
A. Emphasizing the importance of
protecting the elements that de-
fine the Rural Area.
B. Designating Development Areas
where a variety of land uses, fa-
cilities and services are planned
to support the County's future
growth, with emphasis placed on
infill development.
II Strongly support and effectively
implement the County's growth man-
agement priorities in the planning and
provision of transportation, public
facilities and public utilities.
OBJECTIVES
· Direct growth into designated Devel-
opment Areas.
· Establish functional descriptions of
the Urban Areas, Communities and
Villages.
· Develop and adopt an infill policy
for the County. Facilitate infill de-
yelopment, including redevelopment
of existing structures or new devel-
opment of vacant and under-utilized
areas, within existing Development
Areas.
- Plan/provide for necessary infra-
structure improvements that are
currently impediments to devel-
opment of vacant sites.
- Provide for greater flexibility in
type of use and density of devel-
opment.
- Consider greater flexibility in de-
velopment regulations which
may limit development opportu-
nities (without compromising is-
sues of general health or safety).
· Establish flexible residential land use
densities for the designated Devel-
opment Areas.
· Establish a mix of commercial, in-
dustrial, open space and public land
uses in the designated Development
Areas to support County needs.
Figure 3.1 Land Use Plan
for Albemarle County -
The 2015 Plan
~ CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection Growth Management Goals
Counm_ of Albemarle, ~rginia * Development Area Initiatives Stud5
Section Four
SUBURBAN INFIkk
STRATEGIES
Prior to beginning the Group work sessions,
two presentations were offered to the attendees.
Highlighting a series ofplanning principles that
are consistentwith the goals of the Growth Man-
agement Plan, these presentations are included
in Sections IV and V of this report. The first of
these deals specifically with "clustering" and can
be found on the pages that follow.
Suburban Commercial Strip
This study, done for the Regional Plan
Association, studied a typical phenomenon
along a suburban state highway, similar to
the character beginning to dominate US-250
East in Albemarle County. Super markets,
fast-food restaurants, small office buildings
and gas stations compete loudly with neon
signs and billboards for the dwindling
business along the roadway. Traffic
congestion is severe as a result of the many
individual access roads creating chaotic
driving conditions. Several of the stores have
recently gone out of business and the strip
is suffering from a decline resulting, in part,
from the visual blight, traffic congestion and
poor overall shopping environment that
results from a prior lack of good planning
and design.
Figure 4-1. Aerial view °ftyP ical Suburban Strip.
CHK Architects and Planners, Inc., DOdson AssOCiates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP, Center for Watershed Protection
Figure 4.2 Suburban Commercial Strip
After Typical Development:
While some stores go out of business in the
foreground, new shopping centers are es-
tablished on previously undeveloped land
further on down the highway, which is zoned
strip commercial along its entire length. The
commercial strip continues to invade nearby
residential neighborhoods as homes, fields
and woodlands are rbmoved to create new
expanses of asphalt dominated by unattrac-
tive commercial buildings. Traffic along the
state highway becomes more congested and
less safe as a result of total dependence on
the automobile and the creation of many
more commercial access drives onto the
main road. Billboards, neon signs, over-
head utility wires, and glaring floodlights
destroy the little remaining beauty, environ-
mental quality and historic character once
enjoyed by this formerly civilized landscape.
Design Workshop Report · May 16. 1998
Figure 4.3 Suburban Commercial Strip
After Alternative Development:
An equivalent quantity of development as
shown above, is accomplished with in-
creased development densities tn distinct
centers along the highway, -separated by
expanses of rural or low density develop-
ment. These increased densities, along with
investments in infrastructure, careful site
planning and appropriate design guidelines
provide incentives for landowners and de-
velopers to build a mbo of new commercial,
office and multifamily residential buildings
orgamzed around a system of internal
streets. Many of the existing commercial
buildings are renovated to fit into the new
commercial center. Access roads to busi-
nesses along the highway are organized at
key intersections, helping to reduce traffic
congestion. Additional parking required by
the expanded commercial center is handled
through a combination of structured park-
ing garages and carefully screened parking
lots located behind the buildings.
CHK Architects and Planners, Inc., Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection
Suburban Infill Strategies
County of Albemarle. Virginia · Development Area Initiatives Study
Rail Suburb
Also completed for the Regional Plan
AssociatiOn, this study for a typical rail
suburb echoes, to some extent, some of the
characteristics of Crozet. Pictured here is a
200-year old isolated fanning community,
which developed as a mil suburb in the early
part of this century. Because Of its relative
distance from the center of the Region, it
has preserved a large portion of its farm and
forestland. Suburban development reached
the area during the boom of the 1980's and
a large field north of town became the site
of a large lot housing development laid out
according to the town's zoning and
subdivision regulations.
itl
FigUre 4.4 Aerial View of Rail Suburb
CHK Architects and Planners, Inc., Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP, center for Watershed Protection
Figures 4.5 and 4.6 Rail Suburb After '¥"¥~: ~'~: ~,:"~ ........
Typical Development:
During the development boom of the mid-
1990's suburbanization of the town in-
creased spurred by the construction of a
new freeway. Offices and shopping centers
sprung up along the major highways into
town, which are widened and straightened
to handle increased traffic loads. The pas-
senger rail line has been abandoned. The
renmining woodland and farm fields near
town are filled with large lot subdivisions,
offices and retail outlets. The fabric of the
town center is eroded by the demolition of
historic buiMings, the widening of Main
Street and the construction of inappropri-
ately scaled buildings and their associated
parking lots. The town's zoning regulations
have encouraged the separation of uses into
distinct areas and have mandated the
sprawling pattern of development shown.
Landowners and developers, however, have
taken most of the blame for having turned
an attractive and functional community into
just another part of the regional sprawl.
Figures 4.7 and 4.8 Rail Suburb After Al-
ternative Development:
To avoid development of the surrounding
countryside, the town channelled new de-
velopment into the existing 1980's develop-
ment north of town by increasing allowable
development densities therefrom two to one-
quarter acre per houselot. Homeowner
opposition to this was eventually offset by
the dramatic rise tn their property values
and the knowledge that new development
would be carefully located and designed to
enhance neighborhood character. A greater
variety of building types, scales and uses
has been introduced into the redeveloped
suburb to recreate the variety and scale of
the existing village. A new mixed use down-
town has been created around the revital-
ized rai! line. The same uses shown in the
typical development image have been incor-
porated into the mare traditional town cen-
ter. Parking is located in lots behind build-
ings or in new structure parking garages
with ground floor retail.
Design Workshop Report · May 16 1998
Figure 4. t~ Detail of
Town Center
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.8 Detail of
Town Center
Figure 4. 7
~ CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLR Center for Watershed Protection Suburban Infill Strategies
County of Albemarle. 14rginia · Development Area Initiatives Study
go Section Five
NEIGHBORHOOD
DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS
While the planning of commUnities involves a
whole host of design considerations, the Workshop
participants were asked to consider five issues in
some detail. These questions were not in fact spe-
cific to the Pantops or Crozet area, but were asked
to be considered in the context of those areas. A
discussion of several of those issues is summarized
below.
Figure 5.1. A traditional neighborhood is depicted
on the top half of this figure, while conventional
suburban development is illustrated below. Illus-
tration courtesy of DPZ Architects.
1. Neighborhoods
What are the physical characteristics
of a neighborhood? Is there an ideal
size~ What kinds of uses and housing
types wouM you find in an ideal neigh-
borhood?
The traditional neighborhood is limited in
size. roughly speaking, one-quarter mile from
its center to its edge, the distance an average
person can walk in five minutes. Beyond
this dimension, .one would find either coun-
tryside, or the. beginning of another neigh-
borhood. Within the neighborhood there
would be a mix of housing types as well as
other places for public or religious facilities,
particularly on prominent sites. Parks and
recreation areas also figure prominently in
such neighborhoods, often within a two and
one-half minute walk of any home. In Fig-
ure 5.1, two scenarios are depicted for the
diagram of a neighborhood. The top half
depiCts the scenario just described, while the
bottom half illustrates a practice more com-
mon in conventional development, where
cultural, civic and religious facilities as well
as parks and recreation areas are placed on
leftover or discarded land with little relation-
ship to the rest of the neighborhood.
CHK Architects and Planners_ Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection
It is common practice to isolate each type
of housing into separate development pods.
Whether the product of regulation or per-
ceived market fomes, the practice results in
the same, homogenous communities made
up of residents with similar incomes and of
similar ages. Unfortunately, it is always
easier to mcoguize the more "affordable"
neighborhoods.
Traditional American towns, however, pro-
vide a mix of housing types within close
proximity, often next door. It is still pos-
sible to provide such a mix, achieving di-
versity within a highly marketable devel-
opment as Figures 5.2 and 5.3 suggest. Mix-
ing other uses into a neighborhood, for ex-
ample into neighborhood centers, is also a
traditional component of historic villages.
A benefit of this option is a significant re-
duction in the construction of roads. Short-
ened travel distances between homes and
businesses reduce the amount of paved sur--
face, lowering levels of rain water runoff.
Design Workshop Report · Ma)' 16.-I 998
Figures 5.2 and 5.3 Plan and view of Wyndcrest
in Sandy Spring, Maryland. This new develop-
ment mixes single family housing selling at over
$300,000 and subsidized town houses at $80,000
with a number of products in between. Note that
the brick houses are also the most inexpensive.
(Figure 5.2 courtesy of DPZ Architects)
2. Community Gathering
Spaces:
Are community gathering places
needed? What form should they take?
What is their relationship with the im-
mediate neighborhood, surrounding
neighborhoods, and the entire jurisdic-
tion?
At the heart of traditional towns are civic
spaces and buildings that serve the general
public (Figures 5.4 and 5.5). Alas, village
Figure 5.4. Courthouse Square in Frederick, MD.
Figure 5.5. Post Office in
Bedford, NY.
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection Neighborhood Design
Count' of A]bernarle. ~irginia · Development Area Initiatives Stud5'
post offices seem to be a thing of the past
and courthouses have long outgrown their
original station, However, other forms of
public space have been devised, for example,
the neighborhood green formed by cluster-
ing houses around a central space. Though
such civic amenities have made a comeback,
it has not been without struggle. Such em-
bellishments are impossible unless net den-
sities higher than conventional norms are al-
lowed (Figures 5.6 and 5. 7).
Figure 5,6. A small court, created by the grouPing
of four houses at Sessions Village in Columbus,
OH. a 1930s era development.
3. Interconnectivity and
Boundaries
How should neighborhoods be linked
to neighborhoods? Should they be
linked to districts that are not residen-
tial? How can the "public landscape,"
£e., greenways, open space, river cor-
ridors, be used to connect neighbor-~..
hoods, and different uses ?
The traditional American town was com-
posed upon a grid. Downtown Charlottes-
ville is typical of that arrangement. While
land uses tended to be grouped together
(shops on Main St., lawyers' offices near the
courthouse, etc.), a multitude of paths existed
between any one point and another. Often a
mixing of compatible uses occurred at tran-
sitional areas. Contemporary development
practice isolates each land use into separate
areas, or pods, disconnected from one an-
other and linked only by an arterial highway
(Figure 5.9).
This pattern's effect on the landscape, traffic
and the creation of communities is profound.
The isolation of each land use separates chil-
dren from schools, senior citizens from their
children and grandchildren, and most of the
population, especially those who cannot af-
ford cars, from the daily conveniences of life.
In a typical community, a trip to the neigh-
borhood center, which in traditional towns
would be a short walk, becomes imPossible
to traverse (Figure 5.10). Whereas the grid
allows each street to absorb a portion of the
overall traffic, the isolation of the pod in con-
temporary development requires the arterial
road to handle all of the traffic.
Figure 5. 7. NeighborhOod green in HarbOr Town,
Memphis, TN. The,zero lot line,* hOmes in the
background are not permitted in Albemarle County
under existing regulation.
CHK Architects and Planners, Inc., Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP, Center for Watershed Protection
4. Redevelopment and Infill
What opportunities exist for
redevelopment in Pantops and Crozet?
What types of features should be
incorporated into redevelopment
proposals? What types of further
development or redevelopment should
take place in these neighborhoods ? What
connections are there between developing
the "infill" areas and redevelopment and
preservation of the rural areas ?
Perhaps the most ubiquitous image of de-
velopment in postwar America is that of the
"strip," an arterial highway lined by "big-
box" retailers (e.g., Wal-Mart, Target, Home
Depot, etc.), acres of parking and fast food
restaurants. While such retailing may be a
fact of contemporary life, it is not necessar-
ily the only possibility for detail within a
community. Older, domestically scaled
neighborhood shopping centers abound and,
indeed, several national retail developers
have identified "Main Street Retail" as the
focus of their own new development efforts.
It may be possible to have both a place for
the "big-box retailers," albeit with more hu-
mane design standards, and smaller scale
neighborhood shops located in close prox-
imity to, and designed in sympathy with, the
residences they serve (Figure 5.8).
Figure 5.8 Uptown l~llage is a new mixed, use de-
velopment in San Diego, built on the site of an old
Sear Roebuck Department Store. The apartments
(on the other side of the street depicted here) are
linked to a supermarket at a village center resem-
bling Main Street (view) with small offices above
shops and cafes. Contrary to popular retailing con.
vention, the supermarket and its parking lot are
not all that visible from the street, yet it is the most
profitable outlet in the chain.
Figure 5.9. The two alternatives depict identical
densities and landuses; however, the bottom half
provides greater interconnectivity, minimizing
travel distances and the burden on any one road,
while assuring discrete locations for differing land
uses. (Illustration courtesy of DPZ Architects)
Figure 5.10.. The shopping center could have been
designed as a town center, to connect into resi.
dential neighborhoods. As it is, residents of the
adjacent community could neverjust go buy a loaf
of bread; the chain link fence, 6-foot high wall and
drainage ditch separating the land uses see to that.
Instead, they are forced to make yet another car
trip, burdening already overtaxed roads, and ne-
cessitating a large dea of asphalt parking in front
of the shops.
Design Workshop Report * Ma5' 16. 1998
I CHK Architects and Planners. Inc, Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection Neighborhood Design
Count5, of Albemarle. Virginia. Developrnent Area Initiatives Stud),
5. Streets, streetscapes and
Blocks
Figure 5.11. This house in downtown Charlottes.
ville, would be illegal to build in Albemarle County
according to existing zoning regulations. It is set
too close to the front property line. Yet it is this
proximity and the presence of a front porch that
enhances both the character of the street and the
sense of neighborliness it engenders.
Figure 5.12. This house in Albemarle County, built
according to existing zoning regulations is de-
signed to minimize contact between inhabitants
andpassersby. It runs counter to design principles
aimed at factTitating the development of commu.
nity. The long Setback also increases site distur-
bance, and increases driveway length} adding ad.
ditional environmental degradation than 'would
have resulted from replicating the placement of
the house in Figure 5.9.
Do different uses require different
streets sizes and functions? What are
the advantages and disadvantages of
neighborhoods with cul-de-sacs and
'neighborhoods with grid street pat-
terns? How s. hould a network of streets
and blocks accommodate natural or
historic conditions? What features
shouM streets have either on the street
itself or in the unpaved right-of-way?
How can public transportation affect
the function of our streets and neigh-
borhoods?
Sidewalks are necessary to every-"pedes-
trian friendly" community, but it is also im-
portant to reduce obstacles for the pedes-
trian. It is equally important to consider the
whole street in three dimensions. Houses
with front stoops or porches that sit closer
to the sidewalk provide "eyes on the street,"
enhancing a feeling of safety while promot-
ing impromptu meetings among neighbors.
A comparison of two houses of similar size,
one in downtown Charlottesville, and one
in Albemarle County, illustrates this point
clearly. It would be normal, almost required,
to acknowledge a passerby if one were
seated on the front porch of the house de-
picted in Figure 5.11. Quickly one learns
who lives in the neighborhood, and who is
a stranger. The deep setback and the drive-
way for parked cars, effectively negates any
possibility of such encounters at the house
shown in Figure 5.12, thus reducing the
possibilities for knowing one's neighbors.
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc._ Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection
Design Wor'kshop Report · May 16. 1998
Section Six
Rather than focus on"individual properties or
sites, it was decided to concentrate on entire
sections of neighborhoods within the designated
growth areas of the County. Two such locales
were chosen: Urban Neighborhood 3, more
commonly known as Pantops, and the community
of Crozet. The areas chosen for study included a
variety of properties, some of which were already
developed, but may at some future date undergo
redevelopment. Small contiguous properties
owned by separate entities were also included,
and it was to be. determined if some benefit
accrues by thinking across property lines, to a
consideration of the whole.
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection
CounO, of Albemarle, lqrginia · Development Area Initiatives Study
MAP G
COMMUNITY OF CROZET
Figure 6.1. Crozet Comprehensive Plan Recommendations. Areas of light yel-
low are recommended as Residential - Neighborhood Density: 3-6 du/ac. Or-
ange is recommended at 6-34 du/ac. Blue areas are recommended as office/
regional service, while red areas are commun!ty service.
Site 1: Crozet
West of Charlottesville, bordering US-250,
Crozet is classified as a"community" in the
Albemarle County Growth Management
Plan, meaning it is not contiguous with the
City of Charlottesville. Unique among the
County's growth areas, Crozet has its own
town center, complete with a railroad line
and an historic passenger station. Because
the designated growth area of Crozet has a
large amount of urideveloped land (as com-
pared with the other growth areas), the com-
munity is likely to experience acute grow-
ing pains in the near future, making it an
important case study for this workshop.
Figure 6.2. Developable areas of Crozet. Gray areas have alreaclv been devel-
oped. Areas'in blue and red exhibit environmental constraints prohibiting devel-
opment. Areas in green are wooded but developable. Areas in yellow have no
development constraints.
Figure 6.3. Aerial view of Crozet town center.
CHK ArchitectS and Planners, Inc., Dodson Ass°Ciates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP, Center for Watershed Protection
Site 2: Pantops
Bordering Charlottesville on the east, Ur-
ban Neighborhood 3, or Pantops, lies di-
rectly in the Monticello view shed. With
US-250 East as its "Main Street," the Pan-
tops neighborhood has several large devel-
opable parcels and an enormous inventory
of zoned commercial real estate, allowing
it, conceivably, to develop in a pattern more
akin to traditional towns than as a conven-
tional suburb. To do so, future development
would have to break the pattern that has al-
ready been established in the area whose
main street is now dominated by strip shop-
ping centers and automobile dealerships.
Design Workshop Report · Ma)' 16. 1998
Figure 6.4 Urban Neighbor-
hood 3 Comprehensive Plan
Recommendations. Areas of
light yellow are recom-
mended as Residential -
Neighborhood Density: 3-6
du/ac. Orange is recom-
mended at 6-34 du/ac. Blue
areas are recommends as
office/regional service, while
red areas are community ser-
vice.
Figure 6.'5 Developable ar-
eas of Urban Neighborhood
3. Gray areas have already
been developed. Areas in
blue and red exhibit environ-
mental constraints prohibit-
ing development. Areas in
green are wooded but devel-
opable. Areas in yellow have
no development constratnts.
Figure 6.6 Aerial view of Urban Neighborhood 3.
CHK Architects and Planners, Inc.. Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection
Site
Count)' of Albemarle, ~qrginia · Development Area Initiatives Stua~v
VII Section Seven
· GROUP REPORTS
Each group was asked to keep a record of the
discussion and to determine those points on which
there was consensus. That record took the form
of both drawings and written notes which were
described in 5-minute presentations to all of the
participants at the concluding meeting of the
Workshop.
This section of the report presents a summary of
the responses made by each of the groups
organized according to the questions posed at the
beginning of the Worksh[~p and highlighted in
Section V of this report. It includes all of the
written responses, noted here by bullets, and
includes many, but not all, of the original
drawings produced at the wo~kghop. In the many
instances where different groups responded in
similar, ways, only one drawing has been
reproduced. In instances where bullet points
lacked adequate graphic representation
supplemental drawings have been provided by the
Consultant team. These diagrams are labeled
accordingly.
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP, Center for Watershed Protection
1. Neighborhoods
a. What are the physical characteris-
tics of a neighborhood?
b. What kinds of uses and housing
types would you find in an ideal neigh-
borhood?
c. Where do neighborhoods like Pan-
tops and Crozet begin and end?
d. Is there an ideal size ? Is being able
to walk to places in and around the
neighborhood tmportant to you ? '
e. Where wouM you want new -neigh-"
borhoods to be ?
Design Workshop l~eporto Mav 16 1998
· There is a mix of uses:
places ~o work, shop and
live minimizing depen-
dence on the automobile.
· Neighborhoods are
physically defined -often
by green space at the
edge.
· There is a wide variety
of housing types.
· New neighborhoods
can be distinct mixed-use
developments connecting
to existing town centers.
f
,\
m CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection Group Reports
Count)., of Albemarle, Virginia · Development Area Initiatives Study
2. Community Gathering
Spaces:
a. Are community gathering places
needed? What form should they take ?
b. How many centers should there be
in an urban neighborhood like Pantops
or in Crozet? .....
c. What should the center's relationship
be to the immediate neighborhood,
surrounding neighborhoods, and the
entire jurisdiction? What can
neighborhoods share with each other?
· Maintain and ex-
pand community and
civic services and fa-
cilities as anchors to
town centers.
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associales, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection
Design Workshop Report · May 16, 1998
· An urban neighborhood
or community the size of
Pantops or Crozet can
have multiple centers,
each del'reed by the limits
of a five minute walk.
,,,. CHK Architects and Planners, [nc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP. Center for Watershed Protection Group Reports
Count). of Albemarle, V~rginia · Development Area Initiatives Study
3. Interconnectivity and
Boundaries
a. How should neighborhoods be
linked to Other like neighborhoods ?
b. How shouM neighborhoods be
linked to other neighborhoods of a dif-
ferent housing type? . _
c. How should neighborhoods be
linked to different types of non residen-
tial developments ?
d. How can the "public landscape,"
i.e., greenways, open space, river cor-
ridors, be used to connect neighbor-
hoods and different uses ?
· Provide pleasant and
efficient pathways for
people to walk and bi-
cycle.
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc., Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLE Center for Watershed Protection
Design Workshop Report · May J6. 1998
· Provide interconnected
network of circulation for aH
modes.
· Provide well defined town
edge -bounded, perhaps, by
green spaces. Keep town
and rural areas distinct.
..~ CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection Group Reports
Count)' of Albemarle, ~qrginia · Development Area Initiatives Study
4. Redevelopment and Infill
a. What opportunities exist for
redevelopment in Pantops and Crozet ?
b. What types of features should be
incorporated into redevelopment
proposals ?
c. What types of further development or
redevelopment should take place in these
neighborhoods?
d. What connections are there between
developing the "infill" areas and
redevelopment and preservation of the
rural areas ?
· Local government
should support com-
munity vision.
· Keep stores small.
· There is an
opportunity to densify
Downtown Crozet
* Transportation sys-
tem should include
commuter raft.
· Communities
should be designed
with workplaces,
shopping, and
dwellings in close
proximity to reduce
dependence on
automobiles and
encourage pedestrian
activity.
ig ,,
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP Center for Watershed Protection
Design Work.~hop Report · Ma)' 16. 1998
· Preserve and enhance
beauty of Crozet.
Strengthen existing town
centers with
a. Ini'fll
b. Mixed-use Core
c. Services / work
places within a
walkable area.
· Provide opportunities
for community by rein-
forcing its heart.
~ CHK Architects and Planners, Inc.. Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection Group Reports
Count.' of Albemarle, Virginia · Developrnent Area Initiatives Study
5. Streets, Streetscapes and
Blocks
a. Do different uses require differknt
streets sizes and functions ?
b. What are the advantages and disad-
vantages of neighborhoods with cul-de-
sacs and neighborhoods with grid street
patterns ?
c. How shouM a network of streets and
blocks accommodate natural or historic
conditions?
d. What features shouM streets have. ei-
ther on the street itself or in the unpaved
right-of-way?
e. How can public transportation affect
the function of our streets and neigh-
borhoods ?
f. Should there be streets (or neighbor-
hoods)for which the housing develop-
ment should be uniform, i.e., all single
family detached within a particular
price range ?
g. Should there be streets for which
housing types and costs shouM or could
be mixed, i.e., single family detached
housing, single family attached hous-
ing, and townhouses ?
h. ShouM there be neighborhoods that
accommodate mixed uses?
i. Are there uses that should be sepa-
rated from each other? Are there other
uses that are compatible with one an-
other and sustain each other?
· Design residential
areas in the form of a
grid -- provide alleys
where possible.
/
I
1
f
CHK Architects and Planners, Inc., Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, LLP, Center for Watershed Protection
Drawing provided by Cot~su}/ant team
Drawing provided by Consultant team
· Residences can be
placed over offices and
over retail.
Design Workshop Report · Max' 16. 1998
· Neighborhoods should
provide a range of hous-
ing types - with lots and
houses of different sizes.
· Communities should
provide amenities such
as sidewalks, civic uses,
libraries and cultural
centers.
· Neighborhoods should
incorporate cultural and
other civic and religious
amenities.
Drawing provided by Consultant ~eam
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection
Group Repo~si
Count>, of Albemarle, Virginia · Development Area Initiatives Study
gm,.section Eight
FOLLOW-UP AND
NEXT STEPS
The Crozet and Pantops Workshop provided a
number of valuable insights and ideas for
generating appropriate development patterns
applicable to urban neighborhoods throughout the
growth areas of the County. Equally important, it
demonstrated an enormous degree of consensus on
nearly an equal number of issues. This suggests
that there is an audience in the public at large that
is interested in sensitively designed development -
projects which respond both to the natural and man-
made environment, and which are conscientious
about the making of humane and unique places.
With two workshops now complete, the consultant
team, working with the D[SC;' has been provided
ample guidance with which to begin the preparation
of a' Model Neighborhood Plan and its
accompanying guidelines and proposed regulatory
changes.
CHK Architects and Planners. Inc.. Dodson Associates. McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. LLP. Center for Watershed Protection
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Developmem
Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC)
REPORT ON FOCUS GROUP 2:
REACTIONS TO THE ~NEIGHBORItOOD MODEL" VERSION 2.1
June 8, 1999
Torti Gallas And Partners · CHK, Inc.
Focus Groups ]
REPORT ON FOCUS GROUP 2
Reactions to the "Neighborhood Model" Version 2.1
Participants in Focus Group 1 were invited to comment on the second draft of the Neigh-
borhood Model. As in the first Focus Group, participants were divided into two groups --
industry professionals, and taypeople -- so in order to elicit fi'ank responses. Comments
received at these sessions were used in the development of later versions of the document.
FOCUS GROUP A, "Citizens and Environmental Activists"
June 8, 1999
Number in attendance: 6
Q: What is your overall reaction to the document?
The commems as a whole were very positive.
"Neat kind of development if the developers buy into it,"
Like the common approach to open space," This is the big selling point.
It is "common sense,"
~'Makes commnnity friendlier,"
"Like the variety of housing."
Some thought it would cut down on crime and,
It would save land from development thus helping groundwater, and wildlife.
Q: Would you find this helpful in implementing a master plan?
Yes, but did not understand the implementation.
How long will this process take in before it is fully implemented, i.e. how many plans will be
approved beforehand?
Q: Did you understand whom the audience for this was?
Planning Commission
Will be helpful to neighborhoods facing imminent change
Citizens - however it may get too technical- needs summary sections.
Q: Were there areas that were difficult to understand?
Too intimidating
To what degree are the "cells" self sufficient." People still want their Wal-Mart.
Q: How close did this document come to focus group aspirations?
Very well (echoed by several)
County of Albemarle, Department of Planning and Community Development
Focus Groups
2
Q: Were the illustrations helpful?
Very good
Some were difficult to interpret (ex. Pg. 40 & 41)
Color for reproduction would help
Add more local examples (including bad examples)
Start with picture or rural landscape (i.e., this is what we're try/ng to save)
Need pictures of rural areas worth saving.
Need pictures with people in them (i.e., looking like a community).
Q: Could you imagine living in a community like this?
"Is this like Celebration?" (This was meant as a positive response)
Wouldn't sell and move, but good for the community.
Like the variety of choices
"Can I grow cherry trees?"
Q: What Specific Recommendations do you have?
Frequently Asked Questions (either in back or at end of every chapter)
Make the hurdles to implementation more obvious, i.e. VDOT, etc.
Acknowledge the difficulties in gaining political support.
Need to stress the provision of amenities within walking distance as compensation for less land.
Transect should be clearer
Transportation implications not clear specifically where you link the neighborhoods to rest of the
world - how many thoroughfares link to Crozet.
Rename Section 7 to "Sense of Place"
Needs more global context
Needs more summaries (perhaps in the beginning of each section)
Acknowledge policy implications on development in the rural areas.
Need to know the purpose of this document.
Miscellaneous Comments
What will this do to development in surrounding counnes?
Can we retrofit existing neighborhoods? Another person was skeptical of that.
Torti Gallas and Partners. CHK, Inc.
Focus Groups
3
FOCUS GROUP B, "Developers, Home Builders, Realtors"
June 9, 1999
Number in attendance: 8
Q: What is your overall reaction to the document?
The only way this will work is if the Rural Areas are effectively shut down
If that happens will it send people to Fluvanna?
Process needs to be evolutionary in order to be implemented.
Would I want to be the first to do this? Probably not, because it is riskier for the development
community
Concern that this represented another layer of bureaucracy without any reward.
Developers will expect incentives for this to occur.
How will county use this document?
Is the focus for infill or the whole Development Area?
Lost focus
Goal not clear
Dealt largely with aesthetics.
Did not deal with market side. (This dealt with the ease at being able to develop in the rural areas)
Multiple property ownershiP was not addressed.
Appeared to be a sales pitch for the New Urbanism
Strategy on how to implement was not clear - Rural areas!
Feeling that there is no Public commitment to perform regional obligations, i.e. infrastructure.
NIMBYism will always affect even the best plans, ex. no more cars through my roads and no
interconnecting roads.
Is the consumer ready for this? Will they live at higher densities?
Concerned that would further restrict land development even with the Development Areas.
Q: Who is theAudience?
Anyone interested in development
Anyone who wants to keep up with New Urbanism
Board of Supervisors
Not clear
Needs to be consensus on basic issues
Q: If public was involved in Master Plan Process would this be of value?
Yes
Need public involvement in Master Plan process in order to get buy in?
Master Plan should be an enabling document.
Q: What are the important Regulatory Changes required for implementation?
Process needs to be simple and fast.
By right is nice carrot more important than density.
County of Albemarle, Department of Planning and Community Development
Focus Groups
4
Q: How Flexible is this Document?
Flexibility actually creates more risk. Developers like certainty.
Saw flexibility in housing types.
Q: Were there areas that were difficult to understand?
Bullet progression will be helpful in getting people oriented.
Too long.
Q: What are your Specific Recommendations?
Need a philosophical statement.
Pays only lip service to affordable housing.
Density issues get lost in the charts.
What are the tax implications?
Need flexibility on 25% slopes. They said that the Master Plan might help with this by determining
which ones should be saved and which ones could be developed.
Torti Gallas and Partners. CHK, Inc.