HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201600002 Correspondence Special Use Permit 2017-04-12AN
Appoxin
\\
Locatior
\\
Electric
`\
DB 233
Stormwate r
Managemen t ,
Constkuction,
Landscape
asem nt
267`—551
S 56°42 '29"W
S55'35 '48 "W
14.01 '10' Electric
Easement
DB 233—421
Stream Easement Area
DB 2821—522
DB 2678—55 1
200
10
ASPHAL
GREENW/
TRAIL
BU
1-ST(
E.
20' Private Dr
DB 2821—522
WETLAND S
Area Dedication To Albemarle County (N MD)
Area Dedication To Albemarle County (PD—MC)
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January
12, 2011, at 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
NonAgenda.
Ms. Mallek said there are a few additional agenda items that need to be discussed that were not
included on the final agenda. The first is a resolution regarding onsite sewage disposal systems. She did
circulate to the Board a draft resolution for their consideration which was modified from one provided by
the Eastern Shore. She asked if Board members had any feedback or needed any additional information.
Mr. Rooker asked if a letter was being prepared to go with the resolution.
Mr. Boyd asked what the timeframe for this is. Ms. Mallek responded that this was discussed at
VaCo’s Agricultural and Environment Committee meeting in November, and different parts of the state are
getting organized.
Mr. Boyd asked if action needs to be taken on this tonight or can it wait until the next Board
meeting. Ms. Mallek said that the General Assembly Session is moving quickly so she does not want to
wait too long.
Mr. Boyd suggested discussing it at the end of the agenda.
Mr. Foley suggested that the additional items be added to the end of the meeting. Board
members concurred.
__________
Ms. Mallek then suggested that the Board reorder Agenda Items #7 and #8 and take them up in
reverse.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Rooker distributed information on upcoming training sessions being hosted by the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission, which will occur in the first one-half of the calendar year and
provide an opportunity for Board members or County staff to attend for free.
Ms. Mallek noted that those forums are also open to the public and are held in the conference
center next to the offices on Water Street.
__________
Mr. Thomas announced that the Fire and Rescue Ordinance meeting scheduled for last night was
canceled due to icy road conditions and rescheduled to next Tuesday, January 18th, 6:00 p.m..
__________
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Foley had made progress scheduling a joint water meeting with City
Council. Mr. Foley replied that he informed City Council that Board members were available on Tuesday,
January 18th, but has not received confirmation that Council was able to meet. The Board has the option
of setting the date and time, and then see if they show up.
Mr. Boyd commented that timeliness is important. Mr. Foley said the Board would have to call a
special meeting tomorrow if they do not adjourn to Tuesday tonight, as Friday and Monday are County
holidays.
Ms. Mallek suggested continuing this discussion at the end of the meeting. She added that the
Board could meet regardless if Council cannot because she has been trying to gather information on what
costs go where and the Board could use the meeting for that kind of discussion.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Board adjourns to January 18th but do not meet, how it would go about
cancelling the meeting. Mr. Davis responded that if the Board does not show up, there won’t be a
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
meeting, and the next regular meeting day would still be February 2nd. For purposes of the public, the
Board would want to notify the public if the meeting is cancelled.
__________
Mr. Snow reported that the County met with the City for the final meeting on Social Services
consolidation. They found that there are 16 major areas of cooperation on Social Services as well as
some small areas. The team decided that combining facilities more than has already been done would
yield no reduction on additional expenses. He added that a final report is being written and would be
distributed shortly.
__________
Ms. Mallek said that the joint City/County Fire and Rescue committee that she and Mr. Thomas
serve would be meeting in mid-February to wrap that up also.
Ms. Mallek said that Albemarle County has launched a prescription drug card. Information is
available on the County’s website at www.albemarle.org/drugcard. This card is available to citizens and
staff, and it could result in a 25% savings on prescription costs.
Mr. Thomas asked if this works with people’s copayments. Ms. Mallek said she does not know,
but suggested that more information can be found at caremark.com.
Mr. Foley added that Board members have been provided with additional Q&A information.
Ms. Mallek reported that there would be a workshop held here in the County Office Building on
January 26 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., with displays available all day in the lobby, on “Carbon, Our
Energy Future and You”. Ms. Mallek said that this event is the community outreach meeting for the local
Climate Action Planning Process Committee, comprised of City, County and University representatives.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Todd Nehimer, a member of the Rivanna Trails Foundation Board of Directors, said that the
Rivanna Trails Foundation is a local nonprofit foundation dedicated to the creation, promotion and
protection of footpaths, trails and greenways within the Rivanna River watershed. Mr. Nehimer said that
the group was incorporated in 1992 and believes that the community’s wild trails system serves as a
resource for nature-related recreation and environmental education for individuals, teachers, bird
watchers, walking clubs and other local groups with environmental concerns. He stated that well-
maintained neighborhood trails also provide children with a safe setting in which to play, a setting for
adults to exercise and a place for community members to get to know each other and enjoy the beauty of
natural areas. Mr. Nehimer said that the Rivanna Trails Foundation’s most important accomplishment to
date is the establishment and maintenance of a footpath running through both the City and County and
encircling the City by following Meadow Creek and Moore’s Creek.
Mr. Nehimer said that in 2002 the Collegiate Hall apartments on Sunset Avenue Extended along
southside of Moore’s Creek were approved by the County and was later named Eagle’s Landing. Mr.
Nehimer pointed out that one of the conditions of approval was dedication of a greenway trail corridor to
Albemarle County along Moore’s Creek as well as dedication of a pocket park on the City’s side of the
creek. Despite the fact that these two parcels are of critical importance to the maintenance, protection
and establishment of trail corridor in this portion of the urban area, it has been eight years since the final
apartment complex approval, the apartments have all been built and these parcels have yet to be
dedicated. Mr. Nehimer reported that City and County staff have now entered into discussions with the
apartment owners to begin the process of dedicating the trail corridor and pocket park to make it a reality.
The Rivanna Trails Foundation understands that the landowner is apparently now ready to make the
dedication, and according to the City of Charlottesville’s Bike and Pedestrian Trails Planner, Chris Gensic.
He added that Charlottesville is prepared to pay $4,500 for the survey of their pocket park and the
incremental cost to survey the County’s trail corridor would only be an additional $1,000. Albemarle
County Park’s staff has told them that Parks and Recreation does not have the funds to cover this. The
Rivanna Trails Board is requesting the Board make the dedication of this trail corridor a priority, allocate
the needed funds for this project and authorize staff to contribute the funds necessary to have the property
surveyed and dedicated as was required in 2002.
Ms. Mallek asked if it is standard for the County to pay for surveys for something that is proffered
to it. Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, responded that she is not certain but would look into it.
Mr. Rooker said that if the County does not typically pay for surveys, he would support spending
$1,000 to have it done so that there is not a big hole in the greenway. He added that the time to do it is
while the surveyor is out there doing the other work.
Mr. Boyd commented that he could support it as long as it does not take money away from
completing the Pantops trail.
Mr. Foley stated that this would be brought back to the Board as an agenda item.
__________
Mr. Daniel Bowman, a County resident and member of the Board of Directors of Advocates for a
Sustainable Albemarle Population, said as the Board continues to explore various ideas and proposals
regarding growth issues in the County, he would suggest two important documents for their consideration.
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
One report is from 2010 from Evan Fodor entitled Relationships Between Growth and Prosperity in 100
Largest U.S. Metropolitan Areas. The report asserts that faster growth rates are associated with lower
incomes, greater income declines and higher poverty rates. He said that the 25 slowest-growing metro
areas outperformed the 25 fastest growing in every category and averaged $8,455 more in per capita
personal income in 2009. Mr. Bowman stated that the second item is from a news story in The Daily
Progress, noting that Virginia’s two largest industries in 2010 were agriculture and forestry, trends that are
expected to continue in coming years. He stated that no more needs to be said to make the point that
protecting the forest lands and agricultural lands of Albemarle County should be the Board’s highest
priorities in promoting a healthy economy for the County.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Mr. Thomas moved for approval of the Consent Agenda.
Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________________
Item No. 6.1. Request from applicant to withdraw ZMA-2006-0008 – Berkmar Business
Park.
The following letter, dated December 20, 2010, from Mr. Frank Stoner, Project Developer,
Stonehaus Smart Solutions, to Ms. Elaine Echols, Albemarle County Planning Department, was
received:
“I am writing to notify you that, on behalf of the property owners involved with the Berkmar
Business Park rezoning, we would like to withdraw our current application which was scheduled to
go to the Board of Supervisors in January, 2011.
Unfortunately, we have been unable to get unanimous support for the revised proffers and
there is general concern among the owners about the prospect of increased taxes without viable
sale or development projects.
Thanks for all your work on the project. I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to submit a new
application and fee at some point in 2011 and understand that we’ll essentially have to start over at
that point.”
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the applicant’s request to withdraw
ZMA-2006-0008, Berkmar Business Park.
__________
Item No. 6.2. Housing Funds - Contingent Approval of Donations to Nonprofit Agencies.
The executive summary states that periodically, funding becomes available for completion
of specific activities aimed at enhancing/maintaining affordable housing in the County. Over the
past few years, these funds have supported construction of such projects as Crozet Meadows and
Treesdale and have also provided down payment assistance to low-income homebuyers. The
source of funds includes County general funds, proffered funds and repayments/recapture of loans
from previously funded activities.
At its meeting on October 6, 2010, the Board approved a reappropriation of $130,000 for the
Community Development Loan Fund. In addition, the County has approximately $90,000 in proffered
funds designated for housing, $64,345 in CDBG recaptured funds, and a balance of approximately
$10,300 in the Crozet Crossings Housing Trust Fund. The exact amount of proffered and CCHTF funds
will be determined once accrued interest is added prior to requesting appropriation.
In response to the Board’s action and in light of the availability of other designated affordable
housing funds, the Office of Housing issued a request for proposals on October 6, 2010 to Albemarle
Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA), Habitat for Humanity, the
Thomas Jefferson Community Land Trust (TJCLT), Jordan Development Corp., and Jefferson Area Board
for Aging seeking submittals on the use of approximately $245,000 for eligible housing initiatives/projects.
The following four proposals were received in response to this solicitation:
Thomas Jefferson Community Land Trust (CLT) - $80,000
Funds would be used to meet match requirements from a private funder (1 to 1). The resulting
$160,000 would support the purchase of one or two houses. Houses would be sold to income-eligible
households with the CLT retaining ownership of the land utilizing a 90-year leasehold interest. No specific
properties were identified in the application.
Habitat for Humanity - $200,000 for Southwood Mobile Home Park
Proposed uses include:
1. $75,000 for electric repairs replacing underground wires between the meters and junction
boxes. Habitat replaced breakers last year at a cost of $80,000.
2. $50,000 for repair of water and sewer lines.
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
3. $40,000 for road repairs and installation of 2 weather-proof enclosures for bus stops.
4. $35,000 for trimming limbs and removing trees
Piedmont Housing Alliance/Jordan Development Corp. - $120,000
Funds would cover approximately one-third of the estimated cost of $360,000 for renovations
focused on energy improvements and exterior preservation of the Meadowlands Apartments which were
constructed in 1993 and consists of 30 units of elderly housing in Crozet serving extremely-low income
and disabled persons. Proposed activities include:
1. Replacing the roof with 30-year asphalt shingles
2. Installing new gutters and downspouts
3. Installing Hardi-plank siding and trim
4. Adding insulation in roof
5. Replacing refrigerators with Energy-Star models
6. Installing a solar hot water array on roof
It is estimated that this would reduce energy costs by 10% to 20%. PHA has “lined up” $195,000
($6500 per unit) in weatherization funds from the stimulus and is seeking additional funds from local
Foundations.
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) - $245,000
Funds would support AHIP’s rehabilitation program by providing approximately $12,000 per unit
for up to 20 substandard, owner-occupied homes. The typical rehabilitation project averages $25,000 and
takes several sources of funding to complete. Typical funding sources include HOME funds ($125,000 in
FY11), the Virginia IPR program, USDA Rural Development loans and grants, and program income. The
funding sources typically approve funding on a job-by-job basis rather than committing a fixed annual
amount. AHIP has 135 households on their waiting list.
Staff reviewed the proposals and submitted the following recommendations to the Housing
Committee for review and comment at its November, 2010 meeting:
“Staff recommends providing $75,000 to both PHA and Habitat for Humanity to
support the proposed activities. Funding for PHA combined with weatherization
funds would support completion of all activities with the exception of the
installation of solar panels. Funding for Habitat for Humanity would be limited to
the replacement of underground electrical wires. Staff also recommends that the
balance of funds, (approximately $150,000), be approved for housing
rehabilitation projects to be completed by AHIP. Staff did not recommend funding
the request from the CLT because no specific project was identified and the per-
unit subsidy was significantly more than other proposals.”
Although a quorum was not present and no action was taken, agencies submitting applications
were available to answer additional questions.
All funds are available and designated for housing activities. Trustees of the Crozet Crossings
Housing Trust Fund will first have to approve the use of available funding prior to requesting Board
appropriation of CCHTF funds.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed donations to the three nonprofit agencies
listed above contingent upon appropriation of funds for this purpose and execution of agreements
between the Office of Housing and the agencies. Staff will bring the proposed appropriations to the Board
at a future meeting.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the proposed donations to the three
nonprofit agencies (Habitat for Humanity, Piedmont Housing Alliance/Jordan Development
Corporation and Albemarle Housing Improvement Program) contingent upon appropriation of
funds for this purpose and execution of agreements between the Office of Housing and the
agencies. Staff is also to bring the proposed appropriations to the Board at a future meeting.
__________
Item No. 6.3 FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriation.
The executive summary states that Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the
currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to
all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the requested FY 2011 appropriations itemized below is $11,276.00. A budget
amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not
exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of one (1) FY 2011 appropriation as follows:
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
One (1) appropriation (#2011062) totaling $11,276.00 to provide a part-time officer
working under the supervision of the Sheriff’s Office for Offender Aid and Restoration’s
Drug Court program.
The County and all parties associated with this appropriation have reached agreement on a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which clearly delineates responsibilities and protects the County
and Sheriff from any liability for partnering with OAR on this project. The County Executive will execute the
MOU after the Board approves this appropriation.
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $11,276.00 and the
approval of Appropriation #2011062.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the budget amendment in the amount of
$11,276.00 and Appropriation #2011062.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011062
APPROPRIATION DATE 1/12/2011
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Drug Court Officer
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1000 33000 330240 OAR-DOJ-DRUG COURT
PROGRM
J 2 $11,276.00
1 1000 21078 130000 PART-TIME WAGES J 1 $9,360.00
1 1000 21078 210000 FICA J 1 $716.00
1 1000 21078 600800 VEHICLE & EQUIP. FUEL J 1 $900.00
1 1000 21078 600900 VEHICLE & EQUIP.
REPAIRS
J 1 $300.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue $11,276.00
0701 Appropriation $11,276.00
TOTAL 22,552.00 11,276.00 11,276.00
__________________
Agenda Item No. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: ZTA-2009-00012. Home Occupations. Amend Secs.
3.1, Definitions, 4.15.2, Definitions, 4.15.6, Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement, 5.1,
Supplementary regulations, 5.1.34, Accessory apartment, 10.2.1, By right, 10.2.2, By special use permit,
31.5, Zoning clearance, 35.1, Fees; amend, reorganize and rename Sec. 5.2, Home occupations, 5.2.1,
Clearance of zoning administrator required, 5.2.2, Regulations governing home occupations, 5.2.3,
Certain permits required; repeal Sec. 5.2.4, Revocation; and add Sec. 5.2.A, Home occupations in the
rural areas zoning district, to Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would
amend Sec. 3.1 to make minor amendments to the definitions of Class A and Class B home occupations
(home occs) and the definition of nonconforming use to include certain home occs and to add definitions
of major and minor home occs; amend Sec. 4.15.2 to change the definition of home occupation Class B
sign to home occupation sign which includes signs for major home occs and adds a 4 square feet size
limitation; amend Sec. 4.15.6 to change the reference from home occupation Class B sign to home
occupation sign and delete the 4 square feet size limitation; amend Sec. 5.1 to not allow waivers or
modifications when expressly prohibited; amend Sec. 5.1.34 to add references to major and minor home
occs; amend, reorganize and rename the current regulations for home occs in Sec. 5.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and
5.2.3 and place them in a single section and provide that Sec. 5.2’s requirements apply only to home occs
in zoning districts other than the rural areas (RA) zoning district; repeal Sec. 5.2.4 pertaining to revoking
approved home occs; add Sec. 5.2A to establish regulations for home occs in the RA zoning district
pertaining to the location and area occupied, exterior appearance, sales, traffic generated, parking,
outdoor storage, days and hours of operation, open houses, number of vehicles, number of home occs,
prohibited home occs, matters that may be waived or modified, obtaining a zoning clearance and notice;
amend Sec. 10.2.1 to add major and minor home occs and delete Class A home occs in the RA zoning
district allowed by right; amend Sec. 10.2.2 to delete Class B home occs in the RA zoning district as a
special use; amend Sec. 31.5 to add major and minor home occs as commercial uses for the purposes of
requiring a zoning clearance; and amend Sec. 35.1 to impose a $25 fee for zoning clearances for major or
minor home occs, which is authorized by Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A)(6).
(Advertised in The Daily Progress on December 27, 2010 and January 3, 2010.)
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the key points with this Zoning Text Amendment are that it will apply only
to the Rural Areas zoning district. The existing Class A and Class B home occupation permits remain in
the non-RA districts. Existing lawful home occupation in the rural area would become non-conforming
uses and do not need to come in for additional zoning clearances.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff is proposing in the rural area a primarily administrative process for minor
and major home occupations. The Planning Commission would only be involved in waivers when a
request was made for a greater area than specified in the original permit, or if traffic would be above the
level specified in the ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg added that there would be allowance for identification,
directional signs, business signs, etc., and the Artisan Trail project is interested in having that kind of
signage available.
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
He said that staff has provided a chart for the Board showing a comparison of the current Class A
and Class B regulations and the proposed minor and major home occupations for the rural areas, with the
only special use permit for the home occupation Class B in other zoning districts. Mr. Cilimberg stated
that the provisions are relatively comparable among the various types of home occupations with the
provision that the major home occupations have a notice requirement because of the potential for the
accessory structure’s use, employees, and the possibility of customers coming to the residence and sales
of goods produced on the premises sold to customers at the site. He said that open houses would be
permitted in the major home occupations, adding that it is an administrative process beyond the
notification and only when there would be a waiver necessary would it come to the Planning Commission
for public input, with abutting neighbor notification.
Mr. Davis mentioned that there should be a sign posted on the property. Mr. Cilimberg
commented that the sign is not required under the current ordinance provision.
Mr. Rooker expressed concern that only a few people in the neighborhood would know about the
Commission hearing since there would be no legal advertisement.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the waivers pertain to exceeding the size limits of 25% of the dwelling
unit and 1,500 square feet total and cannot be more than 49% of the dwelling unit in the home occupation.
He also said that there are standards for traffic generation that require a waiver if they are exceeded,
adding that there is no limitation on how high that might go although the Commission will need to consider
that in their decision. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the traffic figures are generated from the number of
round trips per day and per week associated with a home occupation, noting that the limit is 30 per week
or 10 per day.
Ms. Mallek asked about special sales days such as open houses when customers come in to a
shop and visit and perhaps buy. Ms. McCulley responded that it is such an infrequent thing staff felt it
should not be written into the ordinance as if it were a regular occurrence. The intent is that open houses
would not be subject to traffic regulations because typically they might have an open house once a
season.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that it would be different if there were open houses every Sunday then a
waiver requirement would be required.
Mr. Rooker asked how that could be enforced realistically and whether it could be established in
the beginning whether a business is likely to exceed the standard. Ms. McCulley responded that it is
problematic now and staff can do the math with the information an applicant provides. She stated that
obviously it is very difficult to observe and enforce this regulation. Ms. McCulley added that it is no
different now, and it is complaint driven.
Mr. Rooker said he was wondering if there was a VDoT standard for traffic generation applied for
certain kinds of home occupations which then determined if a certain type of waiver would be required.
Ms. Mallek said she wonders if 30 is an appropriate number to use as a threshold without any
further requirement.
Mr. Cilimberg said the draft ordinance provided to the Board members is recommended for their
adoption. The ordinance does incorporate adjustments based on the Commission’s input.
Mr. Snow asked if there are provisions to ensure that someone storing materials outside does not
turn their property into a junkyard. Mr. Cilimberg replied that there are some uses not covered under this
ordinance as home occupations. This ordinance is not intended to be an opening for general contractors
in the rural area but is more for rural-based businesses inside the home. There could be some storage
related to the business.
Mr. Snow said he is just concerned about what the County might be doing to some of the
neighborhoods.
Ms. Mallek said that she called and spoke with her trash hauler about the vehicle limitations within
the ordinance and what that could mean in terms of waste generation.
Mr. Cilimberg added that personal use vehicles are not counted towards the total.
Ms. McCulley stated that Section 5.2A(g) addresses this issue. The ordinance states that storage
of goods, products, equipment other than vehicles, or any materials associated with the home occupation
other than natural landscaping materials such as mulch and plants outside of a closed structure is
prohibited. Vehicles, trucks and trailers are allowed, but other materials outside of a building are not
allowed.
Mr. Rooker commented that it is a question of how you read the language. He asked if the
language was clear that any materials associated with the home occupation is prohibited. Ms. McCulley
said that is the intent. Mr. Rooker said he could read the language either way. He does not know whether
it is excluded or included. Ms. McCulley said it is prohibited except for natural landscaping materials.
Ms. Mallek suggested the language be more direct and state “natural landscaping materials are
permitted, but all others should be in a building…”
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Rooker said that in Section 5.2A(d1) where it defines major home occupations, it states that
customers, clients and students may visit a major home occupation. The sale of goods by a major home
occupation to a customer who comes to the site is prohibited except for goods that are handcrafted onsite
and goods that are directly related to a major home occupation. He asked if there is anything that
prevents this from becoming a retail business. If the home occupation is selling things, does this permit
selling anything?
Ms. McCulley pointed out that the sales of non-handmade goods need to be a subordinate portion
of the sales. She added that these are only accompanying items, such as special furniture oil that might
go along with handmade furniture that a craftsman makes. The intent is not to open the door to general
retail sales. She suggested that maybe it needs to be clarified that those other items are intended to be a
subordinate portion of the sales on the site. She suggested amending the language to state: “…prohibited
except for goods that are handcrafted on-site and accessory sales of goods that are directly related to a
major home occupation…” Mr. Rooker said that would be fine.
Mr. Rooker asked how staff came up with the general list of items under section 5.2A.L,
Prohibited home occupations.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there is the general language that the Zoning Administrator can determine
that they are contrary to the purpose and intent of the section of the ordinance. Staff struggled to identify
every potential use that would not be considered with the intended purpose and intent.
Mr. Rooker asked if staff was comfortable that the language is inclusive enough for the Zoning
Administrator to make a determination. Ms. McCulley replied, “yes”.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is a form that someone can download relative to a zoning clearance and
the information that people will need to provide. Ms. McCulley replied, “yes”. Staff had hoped to have
done by now, but it will be completed very soon.
Mr. Boyd commented that this is not retroactive and does not apply to people who got approval or
never got approval. Ms. McCulley said that if a home occupation never got permission but is legally there
and in existence then it would qualify for a non-conforming use and could continue unimpaired.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that all of the Class A and Class B permits have gone through an
application process and those who have not are operating illegally.
Mr. Snow commented that the ordinance amendment would be helpful in creating the economic
environment that the County wants.
Ms. Mallek noted that the sign portion of the ordinance mentions a 10-foot setback limit, but in the
country many people hang a sign on their fence that is just four or five feet off the road. Ms. McCulley
said that she understands this point and would look into it.
Mr. Rooker asked her if there would be a sign posted when there is a waiver hearing. Ms.
McCulley replied that if that is the will of the Board, staff would certainly do that.
Ms. Mallek asked for clarification on which signs would require a waiver. Ms. McCulley explained
that a home occupation sign up to four square feet is allowed and is exempt from the requirement of the
permits. They do not need to go through the County for approval with either a sign permit or zoning
clearance. Separate from the home business sign, if they are in the Artisan Trail a sign can be posted as
a directional, incidental sign that does not need a permit and can be up to four square feet.
At this time the Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Sherry Smith, Executive Director of the Artisan Center of Virginia, said the Center is working
with Albemarle County on two initiatives - the Artisan Trail and the Studio School at Piedmont Virginia
Community College which will begin courses in the spring. She thanked the Board for their support. She
added that she thinks the proposed ordinance will have a great impact on a lot of the small businesses
that they represent, including crafters, agricultural artisans, and related businesses that will be on the
Artisan Trail. Ms. Smith said that there are 35 artists in Albemarle County who have inquired about the
project. The Center will continue to provide opportunities for these groups to come together and learn
more and provide connection to representatives who can help them go through the process to legitimize
their businesses. Ms. Smith said that on January 28th there will be a luncheon and learn event held in the
County Building, organized by the Center and Ms. Susan Stimart.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Rooker asked for clarification of the language to stipulate that a sign of notice be placed in the
neighborhood in which the home occupation is applied for.
Mr. Davis said that language could be included in the ordinance or staff could do it as a matter of
process. It is currently only required for zoning amendments and special use permits, which is in a
different section of the Zoning Ordinance than this amendment.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the only Commission action would be for waivers, and those would
be fairly infrequent, so that could be handled procedurally by staff.
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Thomas asked about the cost of putting up such a sign. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the
signs are reused, but there would be a labor cost for staff.
Ms. Mallek said she would not recommend doing this for zoning clearances.
Mr. Rooker said his suggestion was to post the sign when the Commission is holding a hearing on
a waiver. People should know that the hearing is taking place and the posting of the sign is the only way
they will know.
Mr. Davis explained that such signs are not posted for subdivisions and site plans, which are a
more similar proceeding to this than a zoning or special use permit, so to be consistent, these are not
advertised public hearings.
Mr. Rooker said the difference is that a site plan is purely administerial. In this case the
Commission would have discretion to approve or not approve a waiver.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that waivers and modifications under the site plan provisions go to the
Planning Commission and signs are not put up.
Mr. Rooker stated that the difference is a site plan is being done when something has already
been zoned and is in a commercial area. In this case the operation would take place in a neighborhood.
He emphasized that this is a good concept, but he could see the possibility of someone coming in for a
waiver where the decision is discretionary by the Planning Commission and people might be upset that the
forum for comment was even available to them. It is fine with him if it is just a policy.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff will handle it that way.
Mr. Foley said that it could be added to operating procedures.
Ms. McCulley added that it would be for all waivers.
Mr. Snow then moved for approval of ZTA-2009-0012 with the addition of the word “accessory”
before “goods” as stated in the discussion. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 11-18(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE
II, BASIC REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, Article III, District Regulations, and
Article IV, Procedure, are hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
Sec. 4.15.6 Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement
Sec. 5.1 Supplementary regulations
Sec. 5.1.34 Accessory apartment
Sec. 10.2.1 By right
Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit
Sec. 31.5 Zoning clearance
Sec. 35.1 Fees
By Amending, Reorganizing, Renaming and Incorporating the Substance into Another Section (old
section number first, followed by section number in which substance incorporated):
Sec. 5.2 Home occupations in zoning districts other than the rural areas zoning
district
Sec. 5.2.1 Sec. 5.2 Clearance of zoning administrator required
Sec. 5.2.2 Sec. 5.2 Regulations governing home occupations
Sec. 5.2.3 Sec. 5.2 Certain permits required
By Repealing:
Sec. 5.2.4 Revocation
By Adding:
Sec. 5.2.A Home occupations in the rural areas zoning district
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Home Occupation, Class A: An occupation, not expressly prohibited by section 5.2, conducted for profit
within a dwelling unit solely by one or more members of the family residing within the dwelling unit;
provided that nothing herein prohibits the occupation from engaging other persons who work off-site and
do not come to the dwelling unit to engage in the occupation. (Amended 8-5-09)
Home Occupation, Class B: An occupation, not expressly prohibited by section 5.2, conducted for profit
within a dwelling unit solely by one or more members of the family residing within the dwelling unit and up
to two (2) additional persons not residing within the dwelling unit, with or without the use of accessory
structures; provided that nothing herein prohibits the occupation from engaging other persons who work
off-site and do not come to the dwelling unit or to any accessory structure to engage in the occupation.
(Amended 8-5-09)
Home Occupation, Major: An occupation, not expressly prohibited by section 5.2A, conducted for profit
within a dwelling unit solely by one or more members of the family residing within the dwelling unit and up
to two (2) additional persons not residing within the dwelling unit, with or without the use of accessory
structures; provided that nothing herein prohibits the occupation from engaging other persons who work
off-site and do not come to the dwelling unit or to any accessory structure to engage in the occupation.
Home Occupation, Minor: An occupation, not expressly prohibited by section 5.2A, conducted for profit
within a dwelling unit solely by one or more members of the family residing within the dwelling unit;
provided that nothing herein prohibits the occupation from engaging other persons who work off-site and
do not come to the dwelling unit to engage in the occupation.
. . .
Nonconforming Use: The term “nonconforming use” means a lawful principal use of the lot or a Class A,
Class B, major or minor home occupation existing on the effective date of the zoning regulations
applicable to the district in which the use is located, or a more restricted use, that does not comply with the
applicable use regulations of that zoning district. A nonconforming use may have accessory uses, but an
accessory use, other than a Class A, Class B, major or minor home occupation, shall not be eligible to be
a nonconforming use. A use that is seasonal on the effective date of this chapter shall be eligible to be a
nonconforming use. A use that is casual, intermittent, or temporary on the effective date of this chapter
shall not be eligible to be a nonconforming use. (Amended 6-14-00)
. . .
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this section 4.15:
. . .
(25) Home occupation sign. The term “home occupation sign” means a sign on the premises of a
dwelling unit that has an authorized Class B or major home occupation that does not exceed four
(4) square feet in sign area and only states the name of the person occupying the dwelling and
identifies the product or service offered by the home occupation.
. . .
Sec. 4.15.6 Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement
The following signs are exempt from the sign permit requirement set forth in section 4.15.4 provided that they
comply with the regulations set forth below and all other applicable regulations of this section 4.15:
. . .
(7) Home occupation sign. A home occupation sign.
. . .
Sec. 5.1 Supplementary regulations
The following supplementary regulations apply to referenced uses in all districts whether or not such uses
are permitted by right or by special use permit. These supplementary regulations are in addition to all
other requirements of this chapter, the Code, and all other applicable laws. Unless a waiver or
modification is expressly prohibited, any requirement of section 5 may be modified or waived in an
individual case, as provided herein:
a. The commission may modify or waive any such requirement upon a finding that such requirement
would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety, or
welfare or that a modified regulation would satisfy the purposes of this chapter to at least an
equivalent degree as the specified requirement; and upon making any finding expressly required
for the modification or waiver of a specific requirement; except that, in no case, shall such action
constitute a modification or waiver of any applicable general regulation set forth in section 4 or any
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
district regulation. In granting a modification or waiver, the commission may impose conditions as
it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare.
b. The board of supervisors shall consider a modification or waiver of any requirement of section 5
only as follows:
1. The denial of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a modification or waiver with
conditions objectionable to the developer may be appealed to the board of supervisors as
an appeal of a denial of the plat, as provided in section 14-226 of the Code, or the site
plan, as provided in sections 32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9, to which the modification or waiver
pertains. A modification or waiver considered by the commission in conjunction with an
application for a special use permit shall be subject to review by the board of supervisors.
2. In considering a modification or waiver, the board may grant or deny the modification or
waiver based upon the finding set forth in subsection (a), amend any condition imposed
by the commission, and impose any conditions it deems necessary for the reasons set
forth in subsection (a).
(12-10-80; 9-9-92; Ord. 01-18(4), 5-9-01)
Sec. 5.1.34 Accessory apartment
Each accessory apartment shall be subject to the following:
a. An accessory apartment shall be permitted only within the structure of the main dwelling to which
it is accessory. Usage of freestanding garage or other accessory structure for an accessory
apartment is expressly prohibited. Not more than one (1) accessory apartment shall be permitted
within any single-family detached dwelling.
b. The gross floor area devoted to an accessory apartment shall not exceed thirty-five (35) percent
of the total gross floor area of the structure in which it is located.
c. The gross floor area of an accessory apartment shall not be included in calculating the gross floor
area of the main dwelling unit for uses such as home occupations as provided in sections 5.2 and
5.2A and other similar uses in this chapter whose area within a dwelling unit is regulated.
d. An accessory apartment shall enjoy all accessory uses availed to the main dwelling, except that
no accessory apartment shall be permitted as accessory to another accessory apartment.
e. Any single family dwelling containing an accessory apartment shall be provided with a minimum of
three (3) off-street parking spaces, arranged so that each parking space shall have reasonably
uninhibited access to the street, subject to approval of the zoning administrator.
f. A single-family dwelling which adds an accessory apartment shall be deemed to remain a single-
family dwelling and shall be considered one (1) dwelling unit for purposes of area and bulk
regulations of the district in which such dwelling is located.
g. A guest or rental cottage shall not be deemed to be an accessory apartment, but shall be deemed
to be a single-family detached dwelling, whether or not used as such, subject to area and bulk
regulations of the district in which such cottage is located. No accessory apartment shall be
permitted within any guest or rental cottage.
h. The owner must reside in any dwelling to which the apartment unit is accessory or the apartment
unit itself.
i. The provisions of section 4.1.6 notwithstanding, for lots not served by a central sewer system, no
accessory apartment shall be established without written approval from the local office of the
Virginia Department of Health of the location and area for both original and future replacement
fields adequate to serve the main dwelling and accessory apartment.
j. An accessory apartment shall be deemed to be a dwelling unit for the purposes of sections 14-
234 and 14-410 of the Code. (Added 8-10-94)
Sec. 5.2 Home occupations in zoning districts other than the rural area zoning district
Each home occupation authorized in a zoning district other than the rural areas zoning district shall be
subject to the following:
a. Purpose and intent. The purpose for authorizing home occupations in zoning districts other than
the rural areas zoning district is to encourage limited home-based economic development,
balanced with the need to protect and preserve the quality and character of the county’s
residential neighborhoods. The regulations in this section are intended to ensure that authorized
home occupations will be compatible with other permitted uses and the residential neighborhood
by regulating the scale, hours, external activities, external appearance and other impacts that may
arise from a home occupation.
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
b. Location and area occupied by a home occupation. A home occupation shall be located and
sized as follows:
1. Class A home occupations. A Class A home occupation shall be conducted entirely
within the dwelling unit, provided that not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the gross
floor area of the dwelling unit shall be used for the home occupation and further provided
that the gross floor area used for the home occupation shall not exceed one thousand five
hundred (1500) square feet.
2. Class B home occupations. A Class B home occupation shall be conducted within the
dwelling unit or an accessory structure, or both, provided that not more than twenty-five
(25) percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit shall be used for the home
occupation and further provided that the cumulative gross floor area used for the home
occupation shall not exceed one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet.
c. Exterior appearance. The exterior appearance of a parcel with a home occupation shall be
subject to the following:
1. Class A home occupations. There shall be no change in the exterior appearance of a
dwelling unit or other visible evidence of the conduct of a Class A home occupation.
2. Class B home occupations. There shall be no change in the exterior appearance of a
dwelling unit or other visible evidence of the conduct of a Class B home occupation,
except that one home occupation sign may be erected as authorized by section 4.15.
Accessory structures shall be similar in façade to a single-family dwelling, private garage,
shed, barn or other structure normally expected in a residential area and shall be
specifically compatible in design and scale with other residential development in the area
in which it is located. Any accessory structure that does not conform to the applicable
setback and yard requirements for primary structures shall not be used for a home
occupation.
d. Sales. No home occupation shall sell goods to a customer who comes to the site except for
goods that are hand-crafted on-site and goods sold that are directly related to a beauty shop or a
one-chair barber shop home occupation.
e. Traffic generated by a home occupation. The traffic generated by a home occupation shall not
exceed the volume that would normally be expected by a dwelling unit in a residential
neighborhood.
f. Parking. All vehicles used in a home occupation and all vehicles of employees, customers, clients
or students shall be parked on-site.
g. Performance standards. All home occupations shall comply with the performance standards in
section 4.14.
h. Prohibited home occupations. The following uses are prohibited as home occupations: (1) tourist
lodging; (2) nursing homes; (3) nursery schools; (4) day care centers; and (5) private schools.
i. Zoning clearance required. No home occupation shall commence without a zoning clearance
issued under section 31.5, subject to the following:
1. Class A home occupations. Prior to the zoning administrator issuing a zoning clearance
for a Class A home occupation, the applicant shall sign an affidavit affirming his
understanding of the requirements of section 5.2.
2. Class B home occupations. Prior to the zoning administrator issuing a zoning clearance
for a Class B home occupation: (a) there shall be a valid special use permit for the Class
B home occupation; (b) the applicant shall provide the zoning administrator evidence that
the Virginia Department of Transportation has approved the entrance to the site; and (c)
the applicant shall sign an affidavit affirming his understanding of the requirements of
section 5.2.
Sec. 5.2A Home occupations in the rural areas zoning district
Each home occupation authorized in the rural areas zoning district shall be subject to the following:
a. Purpose and intent. The purpose for authorizing home occupations in the rural areas zoning
district is to encourage limited home-based economic development, balanced with the need to
protect and preserve the quality and character of the county’s agricultural areas and residential
neighborhoods in the rural areas zoning district. The regulations in this section are intended to
ensure that authorized home occupations will be compatible with other permitted uses, the
agricultural areas, and the residential neighborhoods by regulating the scale, hours, external
activities, external appearance and other impacts that may arise from a home occupation.
b. Location and area occupied by a home occupation. A home occupation shall be located and
sized as follows:
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
1. Major home occupations. A major home occupation shall be conducted within the
dwelling unit or accessory structures, or both, provided that not more than twenty-five (25)
percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit shall be used for the home occupation
and further provided that the cumulative area used for the home occupation, including the
gross floor area within the dwelling unit or any accessory structure and the area used for
outdoor storage as provided in section 5.2A(g), shall not exceed one thousand five
hundred (1500) square feet. Plants that are planted in the ground that are to be used for
a major home occupation do not count toward the one thousand five hundred (1500)
square feet limitation.
2. Minor home occupations. A minor home occupation shall be conducted entirely within the
dwelling unit, provided that not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area
of the dwelling unit shall be used for the home occupation and further provided that the
gross floor area used for the home occupation shall not exceed one thousand five
hundred (1500) square feet.
c. Exterior appearance. The exterior appearance of a parcel with a home occupation shall be
subject to the following:
1. Major home occupations. There shall be no change in the exterior appearance of a
dwelling unit or other visible evidence of the conduct of a major home occupation, except
that one home occupation sign may be erected as authorized by section 4.15. Accessory
structures shall be similar in façade to a single-family dwelling, private garage, shed, barn
or other structure normally expected in a residential area and shall be specifically
compatible in design and scale with other residential development in the area in which it is
located. Any accessory structure that does not conform to the applicable setback and
yard requirements for primary structures shall not be used for a home occupation.
2, Minor home occupations. There shall be no change in the exterior appearance of a
dwelling unit or other visible evidence of the conduct of a minor home occupation.
d. Visitors and sales. Visitors and sales related to a home occupation shall be subject to the
following:
1. Major home occupations. Customers, clients and students may visit a major home
occupation. The sale of goods by the major home occupation to a customer who comes
to the site is prohibited except for goods that are hand-crafted on-site and accessory
goods that are directly related to a major home occupation, including but not limited to
tools for pottery making and frames for artwork.
2. Minor home occupations. No customers, clients or students may visit a minor home
occupation for a purpose related to the home occupation. The sale of goods or the
provision of services by the minor home occupation to a customer, client or student at the
site is prohibited.
e. Traffic generated by a major home occupation. The traffic generated by a major home occupation
shall not exceed ten (10) vehicle round trips per day or more than thirty (30) vehicle round trips
per week. For the purposes of this section, a “vehicle round trip” means one vehicle entering and
exiting the site.
f. Parking. All vehicles used in a home occupation and all vehicles of employees, customers, clients
or students related to a major home occupation shall be parked on-site.
g. Outdoor storage. The storage of goods, products, equipment other than vehicles used in a home
occupation, or any materials associated with a home occupation, other than natural landscaping
materials such as mulch and plants, outside of an enclosed structure is prohibited.
h. Days and hours of operation for major home occupations. Major home occupations may operate
up to six (6) days per week and the hours of operation shall be between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
for those home occupations that have employees, customers, clients or students visiting the site.
i. Number of vehicles used in a home occupation. The number of vehicles that may be used in a
home occupation that are parked or stored on-site shall not exceed two (2) motor vehicles and
two (2) trailers.
j. Number of home occupations. More than one home occupation is permitted on a parcel, provided
that the area occupied and the traffic generated by the home occupations shall be considered
cumulatively and all requirements of this section shall apply.
k. Performance standards. All home occupations shall comply with the performance standards in
section 4.14.
l. Prohibited home occupations. The following uses are prohibited as home occupations: (1) any
use requiring a special use permit under section 10.2.2; (2) animal rescue centers; (3) automobile
graveyards; (4) restaurants; (5) storage yards; (6) gun sales, unless the guns are made on-site by
one or more family members residing within the dwelling unit; (7) on-site pet grooming; (8) body
shops;
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
(9) equipment, trailers, vehicles or machinery rentals; (10) shooting ranges; (11) commercial
stables; (12) rummage or garage sales other than those determined by the zoning administrator to
be occasional; (13) veterinary clinics or hospitals; (14) pyrotechnic (fireworks or bomb) device
manufacturing or sales; and (15) any other use not expressly listed that is determined by the
zoning administrator to be contrary to the purpose and intent of section 5.2A.
m. Waivers and modifications. The waiver or modification of any requirement of section 5.2A is
prohibited except as provided herein:
1. Area. The area requirements in section 5.2A(b) may be waived or modified, provided that
the waiver or modification shall not authorize the home occupation to occupy more than
forty-nine (49) percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling. In granting a waiver or
modification of the area requirement, the commission shall make the following findings in
addition to those findings in section 5.1: (1) the nature of the home occupation requires
storage or additional space within the dwelling unit to conduct the home occupation; (2)
the primary use of the dwelling unit as a residence is maintained; and (3) the waiver or
modification would not change the character of the neighboring agricultural area or the
residential neighborhood.
2. Traffic. The traffic limitation in section 5.2A(e) may be waived or modified. In granting a
waiver or modification of the traffic limitation, the commission shall find, in addition to
those findings in section 5.1, that the waiver or modification would not change the
character of the neighboring agricultural area or the residential neighborhood.
n. Zoning clearance required; notice of request. No home occupation shall commence without a
zoning clearance issued under section 31.5. For each zoning clearance requested for a major
home occupation, the zoning administrator shall provide written notice that an application for a
zoning clearance has been submitted to the owner of each abutting parcel under different
ownership than the parcel on which the proposed home occupation would be located. The notice
shall identify the proposed home occupation, its size, its location, and whether any waiver or
modification is requested. The notice shall invite the recipient to submit any comments before the
zoning clearance is acted upon. The notice shall be mailed at least five (5) days prior to the action
on the zoning clearance as provided in section 32.4.2.5.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the RA district, subject to the applicable requirements of this
chapter:
. . .
7. Accessory uses and buildings including major home occupations (reference 5.2A), minor home
occupations (reference 5.2A), and storage buildings.
. . .
Article IV. Procedure
Sec. 31.5 Zoning clearance
The zoning administrator shall review requests for zoning clearances as follows:
a. When required. A zoning clearance shall be required in the following circumstances:
1. New use. Prior to establishing a new non-residential, other than an agricultural, use.
2. Change or intensification of existing use. Prior to changing or intensifying an existing non-
residential, other than an agricultural, use.
3. Change of occupant. Prior to a new occupant taking possession of an existing non-
residential, other than an agricultural, use.
4. Specific buildings, structures or uses. Prior to establishing any building, structure or use
for which a zoning clearance is required under section 5.
b. Approval. If the proposed building, structure, improvements, and site, and the proposed use
thereof, comply with this chapter, the zoning administrator shall issue the zoning clearance.
c. Circumstance when zoning clearance shall not be issued. The zoning administrator shall not
issue a zoning clearance if, after review of any site, the zoning administrator determines that
additional improvements are necessary to protect the public health or safety, regardless of
whether the improvements are shown on the site plan. (Added 9-9-92; Amended 10-3-01) (§
31.2.3.3, 9-9-92; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
d. Commercial and industrial uses defined. For the purposes of this section 31.5, production
agriculture is not a commercial or industrial use, and a class A, class B, minor or major home
occupation is a commercial use. (Added 9-9-92; Amended 10-3-01)
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
e. Effect of renumbering and renaming. Any other section of this chapter that refers to section
31.2.3.2 or to a zoning compliance clearance shall be deemed to be a reference to section 31.5 or
a zoning clearance.
(§ 31.2.3.2, 9-9-92; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
Sec. 35.1 Fees
Each applicant shall pay the following applicable fees, provided that neither the county nor the county
school board shall be required to pay any fee if it is the applicant:
. . .
g. Matters considered by the zoning administrator or other officials:
1. Official determinations regarding compliance: $185.00
2. All other official determinations, including development rights: $100.00
3. Zoning clearance for tourist lodging: $100.00
4. Zoning clearance for a home occupation, class A, a major home occupation, or a minor
home occupation: $25.00
5. Zoning clearance for temporary fundraising activity: No fee
6. All other zoning clearances: $50.00
7. Sign permits under section 4.15.4; no ARB review required: $25.00
8. Sign permits under section 4.15.4; ARB review required: $120.00
. . .
The fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the “County of Albemarle.” An application
presented without the required fee shall not be deemed to be submitted and shall not be processed.
(Amended 5- 5-82; 9-1-85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7- 8-92; Ord. 10-18(7),
adopted 8-5-10 to be effective 1-1-11)
_________________
Agenda Item No. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: SP-2010-00029. Hungarian Bakery (Sign
#65).
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for a Home Occupation Class B to allow a bakery within an
existing barn; no customers on-site.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2 (31) Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in
development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: 1850 Brown's Gap Turnpike (Rt. 680) at intersection with Luxor Terrace Dr.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 057000000001A0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
(Advertised in The Daily Progress on December 27, 2010 and January 3, 2010.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that with the Board’s approval of ZTA-2009-0012, this special use permit is no
longer necessary. A public hearing is no longer required and the applicant is aware of that. Mr. Cilimberg
noted that the County would refund some of the applicant’s money spent in the special permit process and
this request will be handled through a zoning clearance.
Mr. Davis noted that this application would have been a rural areas major home occupation under
the ordinance just adopted.
Ms. Mallek moved to cancel the public hearing for SP-2010-0029. Mr. Rooker seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
______________
Agenda Item No. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: ZTA-2010-00007. Body Shops. Amend Sec. 24.2.2, By
special use permit, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend
Sec. 24.2.2 by adding body shops as a use permitted by special use permit in the Highway Commercial
(HC) zoning district.
(Advertised in The Daily Progress on December 27, 2010 and January 3, 2010.)
Mr. Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning, said that this Zoning Text Amendment is intended to fix an
omission in the ordinance that was discovered in the review of a building permit application for an addition
to a dealership that had changed. He said that staff discovered that in the HC zoning district there was a
dealership that also did body work and repair that was incidental to the primary use, but the dealership left
and the body shop activity remained, thus becoming a primary use. Mr. Higgins noted that amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance as far back as 1992 allowed body shops by special permit in C-1, which in theory is
a less intense commercial use. He added that body shops are also allowed by special permit in LI and by-
right in heavy industrial. He said that by allowing this use in HC by special permit, staff looked at the
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
relative intensity of the district for appropriateness and determined that some of the by-right uses are as
intense.
Mr. Higgins stated that the Planning Commission agreed with staff’s recommendation and
unanimously recommended approval of the proposed ZTA.
The Chair opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak and the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Thomas moved for approval of ZTA-2010-00007. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 10-18(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 24.2.2 By special use permit
Chapter 18. Zoning
Ar ticle III. District Regulations
Sec. 24.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the HC district:
. . .
17. Body shops.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: ZMA-2010-00014. Hollymead Town Center (A-1)
(Signs #33,36&37).
PROPOSAL: Rezone 59.162 (portions) acres from Planned Development-Mixed Commercial
(PD-MC) zoning district which allows large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use
permit (15 units/acre) to Planned Development-Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) zoning district which
allows large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/acre), in order
to amend the existing proffers.
PROFFERS: Yes.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center-compact, higher
density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and
public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in Hollymead
Development Area.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: Hollymead Town Center Area A-1, the southwest quadrant of Seminole Trail (US 29)
and Towncenter Drive in the Hollymead Development Area.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 032000000042A0, 04600000000500, 03200000004400 (portion),
03200000004500 (portion)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
(Advertised in The Daily Progress on December 27, 2010 and January 3, 2010.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this item was originally scheduled to be heard by the Commission in
December but due to a staff error it was not heard until last night, so to accommodate the applicant the
item is now before the Board. He said that the amendment would be to existing proffers related to road
improvements and public transit operating expenses, noting that Hollymead’s original approval had
several areas, but the purview of the Board’s consideration tonight are the proffers associated with area A-
1, which went to Planned Development/Mixed Commercial when it was approved. Mr. Cilimberg stated
that the area encompasses the parcels on the south side of Town Center Drive west of Route 29 where
the Kohl’s is currently under construction, and A-2 is Planned Development/Neighborhood Model. He
explained that the request regarding the road is in the A-1 area and for part of Meeting Street south of the
traffic circle that ultimately would extend to become part of Berkmar Drive Extended. The current proffers
required this section to be built as of December 31, 2010 based on the plan approval for the Kohl’s store
on December 31, 2008. Mr. Cilimberg said that the proffers specifically state that the road be built within
two years of that site plan approval, and the new proffer language would have the road to the boundary of
A-1 built within one year of the County requesting that to be built. He emphasized that the road is not
necessary to serve the A-1 area and Kohl’s as there is access from Town Center Drive and from Route
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
29, but when A-2 is developed the road will need to be built to the point where access is provided for A-2
at the theater and into Kohl’s. Mr. Cilimberg said the proffer language would have that construction of
Meeting Street to the south boundary of A-1 within one year of the County requesting it.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that technically the road was supposed to be built last year. Ms. Mallek
commented that it has already been requested.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that Mr. Rooker is correct, noting that the ramifications of that are that
Kohl’s cannot get a certificate of occupancy until that road is built. He said that because it is not a
necessary road in association with this particular development, having it constructed would leave it without
any VDOT acceptance.
Ms. Mallek said that it would be a matter of months before it is needed for the next project - the
movie theatre complex. Mr. Cilimberg responded that it is the same owner, but a different set of proffers.
Mr. Davis pointed out that it would be required for A-2 by the site plan requirements, rather than
by this proffer.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the proffers are different in terms of what was provided in the
Board’s packets in terms of the wording of this road’s construction and for the transit. He presented the
new language in the proffers as signed today, with the construction of Meeting Street within one year of
the County accepting it.
Ms. Mallek asked what the trigger would be for the County to accept it and why it was agreeable to
the applicant when they got permission to build Kohl’s and now it suddenly is not.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that he cannot speak to the applicant’s intent previously, but he does know
where things stand now as far as certificates of appropriateness for Kohl’s when they will be open as it is
known that the road is not necessary to serve that building.
Mr. Rooker said that he wants to make sure Meeting Street is open before the certificate of
occupancy is granted.
Mr. Graham explained that Town Center Drive is the road that runs vertically coming off of Route
29 and going up. The proffer requires that it be completed all the way to Dickerson Road. He said that
the applicant is aware that no certificate of occupancy would be granted for Kohl’s until the road is ready
for VDOT acceptance, and similarly Meeting Street north of Town Center Drive also must be completed
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Kohl’s. Mr. Graham added that the applicant is
aware that those issues must be resolved.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was any flexibility granted because paving cannot be done in winter
weather. Mr. Graham responded that there is not, but the applicant/owners informed him today via email
that the final course of pavement has been put on Town Center Drive.
Mr. Boyd asked why Meeting Street would not be accepted by VDOT if it were completed now.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the only part that would be accepted would be the stretch from
Meeting Street south to the entrance that would serve the theatre as well as the entrance to Kohl’s. He
said that it is not required to have access off of Meeting Street to Kohl’s, but it will have access once the
theatre is developed as part of another site plan, essentially serving as a second entrance to theatre.
Mr. Boyd asked about the timeframe for the theatre. Mr. Cilimberg responded that he did not
know, but added that the applicant does have a site plan in and another rezoning for A-2 that would likely
come to the Board in March. That request is scheduled to go to the Commission in February.
Mr. Rooker asked if staff is satisfied that the road system would be built, with these modified
proffers.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that one assurance is that the Kohl’s certificates of occupancy are
contingent on completion of Town Center Drive and Meeting Street North. He added that Kohl’s is
advertising its opening for March.
Mr. Graham stated that staff has been meeting with the applicant, who is highly motivated to get
this completed because of the acceptance by VDOT of the roads prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for Kohl’s.
Mr. Rooker said that without those connector roads this never would have been approved. He
added it was extremely material to approval of this rezoning. Mr. Rooker stated the applicants would not
have had the votes, clearly, and they know that, if this whole connector road situation, which was carefully
worked out by staff, had not been proffered at the time of the development.
Mr. Snow stated that he does not have a problem with going forward as long as the other two
roads are done and approved by VDOT.
Ms. Mallek asked who would build from the Kohl’s/theatre junction to the property line, because it
was supposed to go to the property line in the original agreement.
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the proffer reads that within one year of the County requesting the
owner would need to build the road to the property line, but the County would not request it unless VDOT
would take it in for maintenance. He added that with A-2, construction of the rest of the road should be
revisited and it can be tied to any subdivision or development that occurs in the lower portion of the
property. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that there is a proffer in A-2 for a public area for a transfer station or
some other public use, and if that use was to be established the road would need to be further built and
maintained by VDOT.
Mr. Rooker commented that he is comfortable with what staff has worked out, but he just wants to
be certain that Berkmar is not brought north without a connection there.
Mr. Thomas asked what the trigger mechanism would be for one year. Mr. Cilimberg responded
that the County would establish when the road would need to be built, whether for Berkmar or for other
reasons.
Mr. Davis said that it could be triggered in order to establish use of the proffered public use parcel.
Ms. Mallek asked if the location of the road has already been established. Mr. Cilimberg stated
that it was established with the Kohl’s site plan. Mr. Graham said that it is partially in right now and is well-
established.
Mr. Cilimberg said there was a second proffer that came in regarding public transit.
Ms. Mallek said that she would like the consideration for the new public transit proffer to be
separate from the new road proffer.
Mr. Davis explained that it is a package because it is a proffer amendment that needs to be
accepted or not.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not understand that approach, as staff has said they support the
Meeting Street proffer but not the transit proffer.
Mr. Davis stated that that would require a new signed proffer.
Mr. Rooker asked if a new, revised proffer could be signed tonight. Mr. Davis replied that it could.
Mr. Rooker said that he supports staff’s recommendation for the new road proffer, but he does not
support what would essentially mean cutting out $250,000 contribution in transit money. He noted that the
proffers are different with every approval, and it seems that all of the sudden the County is saying it would
give back what was promised to be public money. He thinks the Board is being very accommodating to
deal with this request the night after the Planning Commission dealt with it, but he does not support that
change.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the current proffer does not have a sunset, with an agreement of $50,000
for ten years. W hen the applicant made his proffer re-submittal reflecting the change on the road as well
as this change he proffered a July 1, 2012 sunset which staff felt was practically going to remove any
possibility for funding public transit. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff recommended $50,000 for 10 years with
a January 1, 2021 sunset, as it seemed more reasonable to consider transit possibilities for the future in
that area. Last night, the Commission recommended $25,000 per year for 10 years with a July 1, 2018
sunset to reflect seven years from a certificate of occupancy granted this year on Kohl’s. Mr. Cilimberg
said that staff tried to provide comparables, but none of the proffers from other developments are really
the same and the conditions are different depending on location.
Mr. Boyd commented that he does not understand the language of the sunset provision.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the sunset is based on when the first year’s proffer is contributed,
adding that it is a 10-year commitment that needs to start within that time period.
Ms. Mallek stated that this was a contract made with citizens who were mostly very concerned
that there was a lot of cost associated with this project and not much being put forth except for their tax
dollars. She added that a commitment has been made to the County and to the citizens and she does not
think this proffer should be changed.
Mr. Boyd commented that the proffer system has been inequitable across the Board.
Ms. Mallek emphasized that the per-unit proffer for this facility was $300 per unit, and that went to
$3,000 per unit for North Pointe and $17,000 for Albemarle Place. She stated that proffers are floating,
but the County made that commitment.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that this rezoning came along two or three years after the first three
rezonings at Hollymead Town Center. He added that it was probably three years after this rezoning that
the cash proffer policy was adopted. He added it has been a work in progress over 10 years.
Mr. Rooker said that the applicant has a terrific deal when compared to other developments. This
development was less than $1,000 per unit.
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Ms. Mallek pointed out that Orange County was using a $30,000 proffer while the County was
figuring all this out.
Mr. Rooker noted that the only reason this is even before the Board is because the applicant
cannot meet the street requirements, and it is not really fair for the developer to tack on a provision to get
out of contributing $250,000 to public transit. He just does not support it.
Ms. Mallek stated that the Board was also convinced at the time that there would be millions of
dollars in tax revenue coming in every year to help offset all of the County’s expenses.
Mr. Davis explained that this is an application to amend a proffer and under normal proffer rules a
signed, written proffer has to be received by the Board prior to opening the public hearing. That signed
proffer was submitted today but with a version that relieves the commitment to transit. After the public
hearing begins, no material changes can be made to the proffer without another public hearing being
advertised and held. Mr. Davis added that the General Assembly has amended State law regarding
proffer amendments that allows Boards of Supervisors to waive the required public hearing necessary for
an amended proffer if the proffer amendment does not involve a change in use or change in density. This
particular proffer does not involve a change in use and a change in density. If the Board opens the public
hearing on this particular proffer amendment and determines that a change to the proffer is required
before it would be willing to approve it, the process would allow the Board tonight to waive the additional
public hearing and accept a changed proffer before it took action. He added that is a discretionary
decision of the Board.
Mr. Rooker said that he does not think another public hearing should be required. He added that
changes could be made before the public hearing is opened so that the public is commenting on the
actual proffers.
Mr. Davis responded that the applicant would have to make the decision on whether he wants the
Board to consider a changed proffer prior to the public hearing opening or roll the dice.
Mr. Rooker suggested that the Board take a break to give time for staff to speak with the
applicant.
__________
The Board then recessed at 7:27 p.m., and reconvened at 7:49 p.m.
__________
Mr. Davis reported that the applicant has now made a change to the proposed amended proffer
so that the transit funding proffer is back to the original language of the proffer. The only change before
the Board at this time is the change to the road proffer, which is the same as what staff presented earlier.
He added that it is now appropriate to open the public hearing on the proffer which is amending only the
proffer related to the road.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant, said that he finds what just happened very disturbing. He
signed off on the proffers with the understanding that he has the right to come back at a later date to
present his case. Mr. Wood said that he is disturbed at statements Board members made that are not
correct. He did not make these proffers but the previous owner did who went broke because of the
proffers. He stated that he does not agree that this project has not paid its fair share, noting that he
himself has paid $11.0 million for offsite improvements. The night this project got approved, it was
approved for a secondary road from behind Harris Teeter to Dickerson Road with Meeting Street as a two-
lane road with that approval. Mr. Wood said that the County subsequently requested that Meeting Street
be converted into a four-lane divided road, which is in place today. He pointed out that Mr. Rooker’s
condition on approving the rezoning was to extend Town Center Drive to Dickerson Road, which he
agreed to doing. Mr. Wood said that road today is built as an entirely different structure, curb, gutter,
sidewalk, and 60-foot right of way. He added the road got changed at a later date at an additional cost of
$1.5 million.
Mr. Rooker commented that his memory is a little bit different than what Mr. Wood is stating here.
He said that he does not think that the profile of the road was approved that night one way or another.
Mr. Wood replied that it was approved as a secondary road, with no curb and no gutter, and no
sidewalks. He added the road got changed.
Mr. Wood also said that Albemarle Place is paying $7,000 a year for transit for five years, a total
of $35,000; North Pointe is paying $250,000 for 10 years, and Martha Jefferson Hospital is paying a total
of $50,000. He said that when $500,000 is added to a project without a business assessment done and
when no one else around the project is paying a penny - nothing else in Hollymead Town Center has an
assessment to contribute anything - that puts a burden on this portion that makes rent go up $1.10 per
square foot. The bus service to this project would have to bring in $3,600 per day just to support paying
for it. Mr. Wood said that is okay if everybody else is in the same ballpark. Everyone should be on a level
playing field, but the tenants beside this project are not having to paying these costs. He added that Ms.
Mallek contends that this project has $300 proffered per residential unit, but he thinks it is closer to
$17,000 per residential unit.
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Ms. Mallek commented that the $300 was presented at the public hearing in 2004. Mr. Wood said
he never heard that number.
Mr. Rooker said that Albemarle Place is $3,000 per unit and his recollection is that this
development is about a one-third of that. He added that every development has different impacts and
every development has different road connections necessary to serve it. He asked for the total
commercial square footage of this property. Mr. Wood said the area has 250,000 square feet of
commercial. Mr. Rooker said that the cost for transit is about $1 per square foot as a one-time cost.
Mr. Wood said that it is a cloud on the title when you try to get financing. He stated that the cost
increase is based on revenue, and just to stay neutral it has to be additional revenue.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that raising the rent $1 per square foot would pay for it in one year.
Mr. Wood attempted to explain that the cost for transit would not come from rent, but would
instead come from the revenue. It would take sales revenue of approximately $1.5 million for the store to
cover it. He also said that the County should not air this type of attitude toward Kohl’s. The Board’s
position has put Kohl’s in jeopardy.
Mr. Rooker responded that this has nothing to do with Kohl’s. It has to do with giving back
$250,000 of public money that was proffered with respect to this and is not necessary for Kohl’s to open
its doors in March. He added they are not going to get this money.
Mr. Wood said that this is not giving him money back. He did not agree to these proffers, but he
got the property back from the previous owner and is trying to fulfill these obligations. He added there has
not been one project in this County that has moved forward since the Board instituted these proffers; they
do not work.
Mr. Rooker stated that Mr. Wood’s project was approved and moved forward, Albemarle Place is
getting ready to break ground, and a number of other smaller projects have been approved with higher
proffers than this property carries.
Mr. Wood contended that this is one section of commercial, and there is no residential in this
section, whereas Albemarle Place is twice as large and only paying $35,000 total for transit.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that they are also paying $3,000 per residential unit and are contributing to
have an extra lane on Route 29.
Mr. Wood responded that he spent $11.0 million on offsite.
Mr. Jeff Werner, speaking on behalf of Piedmont Environmental Council, said that PEC has
worked for years on getting transit built without having the community fund all of it. He said that the Board
has spent the past several weeks talking about a growth area expansion in this area, and a key argument
Board members have made is that it would send a message to developers and encourage them to help,
or even construct entirely, the Berkmar Extension. Mr. Werner stated that the trigger to have the road with
the development in question tonight developed was pulled when Kohl’s was started, and now that they
need a certificate of occupancy the County is being asked to be accommodating and establish a new
trigger. He said that this proffer provision was in place before the construction of Kohl’s so if they cannot
get its occupancy because that provision was not met that is not a matter between Kohl’s and the
residents of Albemarle County; that is a matter between Kohl’s and the developer that did not build the
road. Mr. Werner urged the Board to go ahead and get the road built even if it does not connect with
anything yet. He added that this portion of Berkmar Extension is critical.
Mr. Morgan Butler, speaking on behalf of the Southern Environmental Law Center, thanked the
Board for its resolve in this matter. He stated that the County needs to enforce the proffers because to do
otherwise shifts the burden to the taxpayer. He encouraged Board members not to proceed this way in
the future, as this project is getting pushed through in the dark without the public having adequate time to
review the new proffers and respond. These type situations need to be avoided at all costs.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Thomas asked if Mr. Wood was the original applicant on this piece of property. Mr. Davis
responded that Octagon Corporation was the applicant for the proffers that are being amended, and an
entity that Mr. Wood owned sold the property to Octagon, and then Route 29 LLC purchased the property
back.
Mr. Rooker clarified that when the original rezoning was done, there was a requirement that
Meeting Street north be completed. There is somewhat of a combination of what was originally proffered
and what was proffered when A-2 was approved. Mr. Rooker said he has no problem with what the Board
has done tonight to accommodate the request to make certain that the certificate of occupancy goes
forward.
Mr. Thomas said that he supports the road. He asked if the proffers transfer with sales of the
property. Mr. Davis explained that proffers run with the land, not the owner of the land.
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Boyd asked if this proffer only pertains to A-1. Mr. Davis responded that the proffer is a
requirement of the A-1 development. The County does not know how the costs get shared, but before the
A-1 can happen the proffers must be complied with.
Mr. Graham added that this section of Meeting Street was only proffered with A-1. Mr. Davis
added that there is an interrelation between the different sections.
Ms. Mallek said that one of the things that was praised back in 2004 was the fact that there were
four landowners who came together and did this joint application.
Mr. Thomas commented that he is leaning towards $25,000 in proffer money for transit.
Mr. Davis explained that it cannot be done that way, as the proffer is proposed at $50,000. The
applicant has withdrawn his request to amend proffer #4 which dealt with the transit funding. He added
that Mr. Wood can make another application to come back and amend the proffer at a separate date.
Mr. Rooker said that the proffer tendered tonight includes the transportation component as
presented by staff earlier tonight.
Mr. Thomas moved for approval of the proffers pertaining to ZMA 2010-00014 as signed and
dated January 12, 2011, incorporating the changes made tonight. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The proffers are set out in full below:)
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
__________________
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Board had had a chance to review the resolution for alternate sewer
systems, or if it should be postponed.
Mr. Boyd said that it does not obligate the County to any fees, but just leaves the authority locally
rather than at the State level.
Other Board members agreed that they support the measure.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt Resolution Regarding On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems. Mr.
Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted resolution is set out in full below:)
RESOLUTION REGARDING ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
WHEREAS the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors acknowledges that the Clean Water Act
(CWA) is the cornerstone of surface water quality protection in the United States and that the CWA
establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States; and
WHEREAS the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors acknowledges that major portions of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries within Virginia have been identified as not meeting water quality
standards and that Virginia has submitted a Chesapeake Bay TMDL Phase 1 Watershed Implementation Plan
to correct this; and
WHEREAS Albemarle County is beginning to see properties and neighborhoods with substantial
reliance on On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems (OSDS) and drinking water wells; and
WHEREAS clean water is vital for long-term economic viability and health of the population in
Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS the Commonwealth of Virginia has adopted laws and regulations that encourage the
proliferation of engineered OSDS; and
WHEREAS the net effect of these laws and regulations has been to reduce local control over land use
and water quality at the same time localities are being charged by the Commonwealth of Virginia with
improving water quality in the Chesapeake Bay;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Virginia Department of Health be required to
develop effective monitoring, expedited enforcement, and effective repair protocols; and the General
Assembly provide necessary funding to accomplish these actions before any additional engineered OSDS be
approved; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors requests that the
General Assembly reaffirm local zoning and land use authority to manage the location and timing of the
installation of engineered Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems and that General Assembly specify in the Code of
Virginia that the presence of each engineered OSDS must be recorded on the deed for the land where it has
been installed so a prospective buyer is aware of specific maintenance requirements, the transfer of
ownership is transparent, and the localities can track the installation of such devices in their areas of
responsibility.
__________
Mr. Foley said the VACo recently made a request for a special assessment of at least $3,000 to
help protect the current standard of proof in real estate and property assessment. This funding would help
offset contractual services for tax, real estate and property assessment consultants recently hired by
VACo/VML to assist in fighting legislation expected during this year’s General Assembly session. Fighting
this legislation is one of the priority issues identified by the Board in this year’s legislative program .
Funding for this could come out of the Board’s reserve. If the Board approves the request, an official
appropriation would come back on a future Consent Agenda.
Mr. Rooker moved to authorize the $3,000 special assessment allocation from the County. Ms.
Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________________
January 12, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn to January 18th, 2011 for joint meeting with City Council.
Ms. Mallek stated that the Board has been provided with a time for the joint meeting with the City,
which is Tuesday, January 18, 2011 at 2:00 p.m., in Room 241 in the County Building.
Mr. Foley said that the City had suggested the meeting be held in City Space which is available.
Board members expressed concern about the parking fees and the accessibility for citizens as the
County Office Building is on the bus route and has free parking.
Mr. Boyd commented that it should not be a deal breaker.
Mr. Davis commented that the Board needs to adjourn to a specific time and place.
At 8:17 p.m., Ms. Mallek then moved that the Board adjourn to January 18, 2011, 2:00 p.m.,
Room 241 of the County Office Building. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date
Initials
1
Elaine Echols
From:Elaine Echols
Sent:Tuesday, June 14, 2016 11:41 AM
To:Stephanie Mallory; Greg Kamptner; Rebecca Ragsdale
Subject:FW: HTC Proffer Amendment
FYI
From: Pete Caramanis [mailto:pcaramanis@rcmplc.com]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 5:40 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Nena Harrell <ulcwww@embarqmail.com>
Subject: HTC Proffer Amendment
Elaine,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the proffer amendment application schedule for the Planning
Commission on June 21. As I mentioned in my previous email, receiving the letter from the County
collecting on the existing proffer forced us to refocus our attention elsewhere. We would like to
indefinitely defer the proffer amendment application until we can resolve the matter regarding
interpretation of the existing proffer. Thank you.
Pete
Peter J. Caramanis
Attorney at Law
pcaramanis@rcmplc.com
Royer, Caramanis & McDonough, PLC
200-C Garrett St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 260-8767
(434) 710-4061 Fax
NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may constitute an attorney-client communication that is privileged at law. It is not intended for transmission
to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your system without
copying it, and notify the sender by reply e-mail, so that our address records can be corrected. Thank you.
IRS Circular 230 Notice: Unless specifically stated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments)
is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
1
Elaine Echols
From:Elaine Echols
Sent:Friday, May 06, 2016 11:40 AM
To:Rebecca Ragsdale; Ron Higgins; Mark Graham; Amelia McCulley; Greg Kamptner
Subject:RE: 29 express
Thanks for sending this info, Rebecca. I think that Wendell might have been scouting around for info to support his
request to reduce the cash proffer for transit from $500K to $70K when he goes to the PC on Tuesday.
I will talk to David about the request down at the bottom of the page and ask him to respond to all of us.
Elaine
From: Rebecca Ragsdale
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 11:06 AM
To: Ron Higgins <rhiggins@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>; Amelia McCulley
<AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Greg Kamptner <GKamptne@albemarle.org>
Cc: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: 29 express
I haven’t been involved in this so far.
The cash proffer for transit operating expenses must be requested within 30 days after public transit is provided to the
site. Has service been established to Hollymead Town Center already and what was the start date?
I recall some discussion when Gerald was working on this at legal as to whether we needed written agreement with the
property owner before the service was actually established. If something is still needed, we can make that request in the
letter.
We need to establish who will send the letter if it hasn’t been done already.
The proffer amendment to reduce the cash proffer contribution is going to the PC on Tuesday May 10 and I’ve copied
Elaine since she has taken over that rezoning from Gerald.
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/community_development/forms/PC_Reports/20
16/ZMA-16-2May1016StaffReport.pdf
From: Ron Higgins
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 9:09 AM
To: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>; Amelia McCulley <AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Greg Kamptner
<GKamptne@albemarle.org>; Rebecca Ragsdale <rragsdale@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: 29 express
Rebecca: Your thoughts?
From: Mark Graham
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 9:00 AM
To: Amelia McCulley <AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins <rhiggins@albemarle.org>; Greg Kamptner
2
<GKamptne@albemarle.org>
Subject: FW: 29 express
Thoughts on a letter?
From: Tom Foley
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 8:55 AM
To: Karen Davis <karend@ridejaunt.org>; Diantha McKeel <dmckeel@albemarle.org>; Board of Supervisors members
<bos@albemarle.org>
Cc: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>; Doug Walker <dwalker3@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: 29 express
Diantha,
I have already passed this on to Mark Graham and Doug Walker for their response
Get Outlook for iOS
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:39 PM -0700, "Diantha McKeel" <dmckeel@albemarle.org> wrote:
Tom,
With Gerald leaving to whom should this be directed?
Diantha
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Davis [mailto:karend@ridejaunt.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 10:47 AM
To: Board of Supervisors members <bos@albemarle.org>; Tom Foley <tfoley@albemarle.org>
Cc: Gerald Gatobu <ggatobu@albemarle.org>
Subject: 29 express
I am writing to let you know that yesterday afternoon Mr. Wood met the two 29 express buses at the Food Lion stop. He took photos,
spoke to the drivers, and stated that he was watching the express closely.
Perhaps, given his high level of interest, this might be a good time to send him a letter formally requesting the use of the transit stop at
the Hollymead Town Center. Using the stop, which Mr. Wood has already built, would draw even more attention to the businesses
located near there including Kohl’s. It’s a well know fact that commuters spend money where they board each day.
Best regards,
Karen Davis
Assistant Executive Director
JAUNT, Inc.
p. 434.296.3184 x102
c. 434.962.3362
1
Elaine Echols
From:Elaine Echols
Sent:Tuesday, June 14, 2016 11:41 AM
To:Stephanie Mallory; Greg Kamptner; Rebecca Ragsdale
Subject:FW: HTC Proffer Amendment
FYI
From: Pete Caramanis [mailto:pcaramanis@rcmplc.com]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 5:40 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Nena Harrell <ulcwww@embarqmail.com>
Subject: HTC Proffer Amendment
Elaine,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the proffer amendment application schedule for the Planning
Commission on June 21. As I mentioned in my previous email, receiving the letter from the County
collecting on the existing proffer forced us to refocus our attention elsewhere. We would like to
indefinitely defer the proffer amendment application until we can resolve the matter regarding
interpretation of the existing proffer. Thank you.
Pete
Peter J. Caramanis
Attorney at Law
pcaramanis@rcmplc.com
Royer, Caramanis & McDonough, PLC
200-C Garrett St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 260-8767
(434) 710-4061 Fax
NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may constitute an attorney-client communication that is privileged at law. It is not intended for transmission
to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your system without
copying it, and notify the sender by reply e-mail, so that our address records can be corrected. Thank you.
IRS Circular 230 Notice: Unless specifically stated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments)
is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
1
Elaine Echols
From:Sarah Baldwin
Sent:Wednesday, December 02, 2015 12:12 PM
To:Elaine Echols; Amelia McCulley; Francis MacCall; Wayne Cilimberg; Ellie
Ray; Margaret Maliszewski; Bill Fritz; Mark Graham
Cc:David Benish
Subject:RE: HTC A2
All:
I took the liberty of giving some preliminary responses to the questions posed by Wendell and group below to
help direct our conversation. Do the extent they need more information or I have captured it incorrectly
please feel free to edit.
1. What happened between the PC meeting and the BOS meeting to cause the changes to the Code of
Development that occurred? There appear to be comments/notes stating that changes to density in
blocks in between the PC and BOS. We don’t know the specifics or why, but this is also addressed in
the PC Action. We know that the COD and Application Plan contain conflicting and somewhat unclear
comments and it appears that the Application Plan did not get updated to reflect the changes to the
COD.
As an aside, I did confirm with Ella that the COD approved is the one on file containing the 9/12/07
date.
2. Why is there no written record? (I don’t know that there is no written record – I am still looking into
it). The minutes address the same type of comments as above, but no specifics.
3. Why didn’t we tell them at the preapp that they couldn’t submit an entirely residential site plan? The
initial pre-app was focused on changes to the proffers for affordable units. I glanced at several pages
in the COD and noted that mixed uses were allowed in these blocks and that multifamily dwellings
were permitted. However, the density table shows the majority of these blocks to be mixed
use. Zoning believes these blocks can moved around by special exception noting that the overall
density needs to remains the same.
4. What is eligible for a variation/special exception? From the ordinance. We have made similar changes
to density within blocks or other minor changes with other NMD’s.
2
5. What is the rationale for deciding on what constitutes a major element? These are identified in the
COD and we internally have noted them to be the central plaza, linear park, greenway and pocket
parks as well as the ability to have mixed uses in some blocks. The applicant has already been made
aware of this.
6. We have approved many variations that are more involved than what they would request – why is this
one different? Not sure what specifically the are speaking to.
7. What commercial uses are mandatory in which blocks? What can move around? (Is the hotel
mandatory?) I believe we have identified that we want commercial uses around the central plaza, but
that the rest of what is shown on the sdp could be eligible for variation, but they need to show us a
plan. This has also been told to the applicant previously. The COD gives flexibility to the hotel and we
believe it can be moved administratively.
8. What could be approved administratively? Hotel and parking structures.
9. What is the correct way of calculating 15% affordable units? This has been confirmed to be the total
number of units.
10. Why do they need a mandatory preapp to make changes to proffers, code, and plan if they want to
submit a ZMA on Dec. 7? (I told them that they have to have the preapp, they don’t have to do what
we say.) Would we allow them to forgo this, or have a pre-app on an alternate day?
Some decisions that need to be made involve:
1. What is the amount of commercial space we would require in the central plaza? Residential is more
marketable than commercial at this point.
3
2. Knowing that the COD, Application Plan and proffers are conflicting and the applicant has had numerous
pre-app’s on changing the proffers overall in the past, should we steer the Applicant in this direction? We
know they want to change the density, they have to change the greenway dedication or dedicate it with the
1st SDP and this is not variable, they want to amend the recycling center and amount of recreational space and
cash proffer for recreation.
3. Next Steps: SDP will have to be approved with conditions, denied and resubmitted with variations and who
is taking the lead?
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 9:47 AM
To: Amelia McCulley <AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Sarah Baldwin
<sbaldwin@albemarle.org>; Wayne Cilimberg <WCILIMB@albemarle.org>; Ellie Ray <eray@albemarle.org>; Margaret
Maliszewski <MMaliszewski@albemarle.org>
Cc: David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: HTC A2
Hi all,
I have Amelia, Sarah, Wayne, Margaret, and me as definite attendees. Ellie will be by conference call. David
and Francis are maybes. If the new submittal and distribution meeting is not happening in Room B, we can
meet there. I think the 5 or 6 of us will fit into Room A ok.
Thanks.
Elaine
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 9:39 AM
To: David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Amelia McCulley <AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall
<FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Sarah Baldwin <sbaldwin@albemarle.org>; Wayne Cilimberg <WCILIMB@albemarle.org>;
Ellie Ray <eray@albemarle.org>; Margaret Maliszewski <MMaliszewski@albemarle.org>
Cc: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: HTC A2
BTW - Today’s meeting is not with Wendell or anyone. It is to discuss internally so that we can have our
collective information available when we meet with Wendell, et. al.
Thanks.
Elaine
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 6:23 PM
To: David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Amelia McCulley <AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham
<mgraham@albemarle.org>
Cc: Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Sarah Baldwin <sbaldwin@albemarle.org>; Wayne Cilimberg
4
<WCILIMB@albemarle.org>; Ellie Ray <eray@albemarle.org>
Subject: HTC A2
Hi all,
I attended a meeting today with Wendell, Nena, Scott Collins, Todd Dofflemeyer, Hunter Wood, and Daniel
LaMay (Cathcart Construction) that was very unfortunate. It was unfortunate because there were 6 people in
attendance instead of the two that I expected (Wendell and Nena were the only ones who said they were
coming) and I was caught off guard about the purpose of the meeting. I was under the impression that we
were going to talk about the proffer changes they wanted to make. They wanted to talk about the site review
letter, the Code of Development that the PC recommended on, and that we should recommend approval of
special exceptions to allow for the development they had submitted for site review.
What they did, though, was to express extreme anger and dissatisfaction with the content of the SRC letter
about the site plan for apartments that Cathcart Construction planned to build and to make a case for why
they should be able to get approval for what they submitted. Scott, in particular, felt like he was being ignored
by the County because neither Mark nor David had returned his phone calls asking (?) for a meeting. He
wanted to express his anger in our not telling them until the letter that they were using the wrong Code of
Development. He wanted to make a case that the Board adopted the wrong Code of Development. Todd was
very angry and said that we had not provided any information about the relationship of the Code of
Development to their site plan at the preapp that occurred on Sept. 14. He said he had made many
commitments based on the information from that meeting. He stormed out of the meeting and indicated that
he was going to have to tell 11 people they were losing their jobs because of my/our ineptness. He said he
would be sending them to us to complain. He said he expected heads to roll here because we did not provide
reliable information that affected so many people. Before he stormed out, I said I understood his frustration,
but, the information I had received from staff was not the same of what they were telling me at the meeting.
All of this revolves around the collective belief that Scott should have been able to rely (for various reasons)
on the Code of Development that the PC reviewed and not the one the BOS approved, that there should be
more flexibility in what is eligible for a special exception (what constitute major elements and what can
change), and that they should be able to make an application to make substantive changes to their project
without having to go through a mandatory preapp. They dispute the methodology we use for calculating the
percentage of affordable units that are required. (Example, if 100 units are requested, we say that 15 of them
should be affordable. They say that if they propose 85 units, they only need to do 13 affordable units – 15% of
the 85 gets added onto the total.)
They want to meet with the top people to express their dissatisfaction and get answers about the following:
1. What happened between the PC meeting and the BOS meeting to cause the changes to the Code of
Development that occurred?
2. Why is there no written record? (I don’t know that there is no written record – I am still looking into it).
3. Why didn’t we tell them at the preapp that they couldn’t submit an entirely residential site plan?
4. What is eligible for a variation/special exception?
5. What is the rationale for deciding on what constitutes a major element?
6. We have approved many variations that are more involved than what they would request – why is this
one different?
7. What commercial uses are mandatory in which blocks? What can move around? (Is the hotel
mandatory?)
8. What could be approved administratively?
5
9. What is the correct way of calculating 15% affordable units?
10. Why do they need a mandatory preapp to make changes to proffers, code, and plan if they want to
submit a ZMA on Dec. 7? (I told them that they have to have the preapp, they don’t have to do what
we say.)
I won’t be in the office tomorrow and David will not be here either. I told them the soonest I could even get a
meeting together with David, Amelia, and Mark would be Wed., but, more likely Thursday. If they want to re-
express their dissatisfaction with us that is one thing. If they want answers, we need to meet before talking to
them.
I’m sorry to drop all of this on you right now. (And I’m trying to get ready to go to a meeting as well as not be
here tomorrow.) I will send out meeting invites and hopefully, we can at least discuss the situation before
setting up a meeting with whomever (they really want Mark in that meeting).
Elaine
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Principal Planner – Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252
1
Elaine Echols
From:Elaine Echols
Sent:Wednesday, June 01, 2016 1:47 PM
To:Rebecca Ragsdale
Cc:Greg Kamptner
Subject:FW: HTC A1 Transit Proffer Public Hearing
FYI –see highlighted area. I don’t know if it is relevant, but, I thought I would pass it on.
From: Pete Caramanis [mailto:pcaramanis@rcmplc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>; Nena Harrell <ulcwww@embarqmail.com>
Subject: RE: HTC A1 Transit Proffer Public Hearing
Elaine,
Sorry we have not reached out yet. We were thrown a bit of a curveball by receiving the County’s
demand under the existing proffer while this amendment was pending. We will be back in touch soon
regarding this application. Thanks.
Pete
Peter J. Caramanis
Attorney at Law
pcaramanis@rcmplc.com
Royer, Caramanis & McDonough, PLC
200-C Garrett St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 260-8767
(434) 710-4061 Fax
From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 12:58 PM
To: Pete Caramanis <pcaramanis@rcmplc.com>; Nena Harrell <ulcwww@embarqmail.com>
Subject: HTC A1 Transit Proffer Public Hearing
Hi Pete and Nena,
As you may remember, your request for a deferral of ZMA201600002 for HTC A1 – change to the transit proffer – was
approved for June 21. You wanted to schedule a meeting with us, but, so far, a meeting hasn’t been set. Do you still
want to meet with us?
Elaine
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
2
Acting Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252
1
Elaine Echols
From:Elaine Echols
Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2016 2:50 PM
To:Pete Caramanis
Subject:Mandatory Preapplication Meeting Comments
Attachments:Mandatory preapp comments 1-12-16.pdf
Dear Pete,
Please forgive the delay in my sending you the mandatory preapplication meeting comments from the preapp you had
with us on December 21, 2015. The comments are attached. I also know that you were in touch with Paul Bjornsen, our
records manager, about getting proffers from recent ZMAs, especially those with a transit component. I have burned a
CD with proffers from projects that are primarily non-residential and most likely have a transit component. These
projects are ones of which I am aware that may have a transit proffer. However, to know unequivocally if these are all of
the projects, you would need to review all of the proffers for all rezonings that have taken place over the last 16 years.
We received a request today from your client, Nena Harrell, for the information on proffers. I am providing her with the
CD and am copying her with the mandatory preapplication comment letter as well.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Elaine
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Acting Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252
1
Elaine Echols
From:Elaine Echols
Sent:Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:26 PM
To:Nena Harrell
Cc:Sarah Baldwin
Subject:Answers to questions about HTCA2
Hi Nena,
Please share this information with Wendell. We believe that if Wendell wants something to occur quickly
through the process, he needs to limit his request to the reduction from 20% to 15% and modify his affordable
housing proffers only to the extent that the words are current, but the substance does not change. We can
give him standard language to use.
If Wendell wants to change his affordable housing proffers in substance, most likely, it will take a while to get
through the process. This is because the PC needs to revisit the cash vs. units issue and provide staff guidance
on what to do in the interim while it is reviewing the cash proffer policy. The PC is putting together
recommendations to the BOS that we get the proffer policy for affordable housing on the work program to
revisit the issues of sale vs rental, credit for workforce housing, and cash vs units.
With regards to changing the other proffers, we would need to look into the value of the recreation proffer
and the 2 acre parcel of land to see how it shakes out in relation to the amount of cash proffer that would be
expected in a new rezoning. Sarah has been out sick and is out today, so I am unable to ask her what she has
uncovered in the review of the files relative to the cash proffers plus the additional proffers for recreation and
land for a recycling center/public facility. I note that in your proffer statement, the cash proffers become
effective with the 152nd unit. Maybe the 2 acre parcel and the recreation money was looked at as equivalent
to cash for units 1 – 151. I don’t know. I will get with Sarah when she returns. Because your proffer of land for
a recycling center also allows for other community facilities, we may desire to have the land rather than the
equivalent of its value in a cash proffer.
With regards to a mandatory preapp before submitting a ZMA, if all you are doing is to reduce the percentage
of affordable units from 20% to 15%, then you wouldn’t need another preapp. If you are doing more than that,
we would need to have you come in again with your proposed changes so that we can provide you formal
written comments. At that time, we can advise you on the value of the cash proffers.
I hope this information is what you need to move on to the next step.
Elaine
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Principal Planner – Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 11, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, January 11,
2010, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Duane Zobrist, Chair; Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, Don Franco
and Calvin Morris, Vice Chair. Russell (Mac) Lafferty was absent. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use
Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner;
Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; Glenn Brooks,
County Engineer; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Cilimberg, serving as temporary chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. and
established a quorum.
Election of Officers: Chairman and Vice-Chairman:
Mr. Cilimberg opened nominations for the election of Chair of the Planning Commission for the upcoming
year.
Mr. Morris nominated Duane Zobrist to be Chair for 2011.
Mr. Franco seconded the nomination.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if there were any other nominations. There being none, he closed the nominations
and called for the vote.
The nomination of Duane Zobrist as Chair of the Planning Commission for 2011 carried by a vote of (6:0).
Mr. Cilimberg turned the meeting over to Mr. Zobrist.
Mr. Morris publicly thanked our outgoing Chair, Tom Loach, for a fabulous job last year.
Mr. Zobrist agreed Mr. Loach was fantastic and he was anxious to follow him. He asked for nominations
for Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for the upcoming year.
Mr. Smith nominated Calvin Morris to be Vice Chair.
Mr. Loach seconded the nomination.
Mr. Zobrist asked if there were any other nominations. There being none, he closed the nominations and
called for the vote.
The nomination of Calvin Morris as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for 2011 carried by a vote of
(5:0:1). (Mr. Morris abstained.)
Set Meeting Time, Day, and Location for 2011 (Attached schedule memo)
Mr. Zobrist next asked for a motion to set the Commission’s Meeting Time, Day, and Location for the
upcoming year. He asked if everyone received the revised schedule submitted by Mr. Cilimberg
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
2
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there was also a paper copy before the Commission tonight. He thanked Ms.
Porterfield for her comments.
Mr. Zobrist asked if there were any objections to the schedule as posted by staff.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of the 2011 Planning Commission
meeting schedule that will be held in the auditorium beginning, unless otherwise noted, at 6:00 p.m.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Adoption of Rules and Procedures: (Attached Rules)
Mr. Zobrist noted the Commission had been given copies of the red line of the amended rules of
procedure, which Mr. Kamptner has revised in accordance with the Virginia statutes. He asked for any
discussion, questions, or comments on that.
Ms. Porterfield said in regards to the information on the tie vote she was curious about what happens if
the Commission can’t break a tie.
Mr. Kamptner replied ultimately the tie would need to be broken because there is a State statute that
requires and authorizes the Planning Commission to take action only by a majority vote. Therefore, this
amendment was intended to clarify that requirement in the rules and procedure to assure that it happens.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the item would have to be moved to the next agenda as opposed to done on that
agenda.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it is possible. When they encounter that problem, it may be that the motion
could be that the Planning Commission has no recommendation on the particular application, which
could achieve a majority vote.
Ms. Porterfield noted that would only work if it was going to the Board of Supervisors, and Mr. Kamptner
agreed.
Mr. Zobrist noted that was provision E at the top of page 5. A tie vote shall only defeat the motion voted
upon. Any matter receiving a tie vote shall not be deemed to have been acted upon and a tie vote shall
not be deemed to be either a denial or a recommendation of denial. The motion just fails.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that they would need another motion.
Mr. Zobrist asked if it couldn’t go on to the Board of Supervisors with a failed vote.
Mr. Kamptner replied no, based upon the State statute.
Mr. Zobrist suggested that they work on another way of saying that. They don’t outline a procedure for a
tie vote here.
Mr. Kamptner suggested adding a provision that would require additional voting until there is a majority.
Mr. Zobrist replied that seems to be a logical solution on it. It just says it defeats the motion voted on and
it is not a denial or recommendation. In their Rules of Procedure, the Commission can set the procedure
on how to break the tie.
Mr. Kamptner said that paragraph e with be read in tandem with paragraph b, which makes it clear that
there would have to be an approval or disapproval by a majority of the members.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out the problem was in that situation they tried the vote twice and it failed both
ways. It was a 3:3 vote with six members present.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
3
Mr. Franco said they would bring it back to the group to discuss it.
Ms. Porterfield noted that was why she asked that the issue be moved to the next meeting where seven
members would be present to vote.
Mr. Kamptner agreed that it would be one way to solve it. They do run against the clock in some cases.
The applicant would have to take additional steps in order to assert their rights in most cases. In the
interim, the Planning Commission could take the action.
Mr. Morris pointed out he could clearly see what Ms. Porterfield is saying that the three might be adamant
both ways in their opinions and if they cannot get a consensus on this thing they could go forever.
Therefore, it might have to be deferred until the next week until all seven members are present.
Mr. Zobrist noted that if he was an applicant and had a tie vote he may want to let the time run because
then it is deemed approved if it was not denied. That is the law.
Mr. Kamptner noted those items by which the Planning Commission may be directed to make a
recommendation if they don’t act within the 90 days would deemed to be recommended for approval
under the statute.
Mr. Zobrist noted that is why they get deferrals. If they wait, then it is deemed approved if they don’t
deny. Therefore, that is sort of a pocket approval if there is six people here and it was tied. He
suggested that the Commission think about it because they don’t have to resolve it right now. At least the
issue is on the table. He had never been on a tie vote in his time on the Commission.
Mr. Morris estimated that there had been at least 4 tie votes in the 7 years he had been on the
Commission. In a tie vote, the decision fails and the request is not approved. This is just the opposite.
Mr. Kamptner noted it requires an action by the majority.
Mr. Zobrist felt it was premature, but asked what the other Commissioners would like to do. He
suggested giving it back to Mr. Kamptner to work on so the Commission could talk about it some more.
At least he has the benefit of what the Commission had said.
Mr. Franco said the answer is that the Commissioners need to be walking in less entrenched in their
positions and really be prepared to discuss it openly and to find solutions. The things that have come
before the Commission have been items that they have had the ability to massage components of it.
Therefore, they really need to be able to express why they don’t or do like something and be able to
figure out a common ground in there as opposed to just figuring out how to push it down the road.
Mr. Loach said they were talking about the exception and not the rule. If they come up to a tie vote, they
now what the time element is to either prevent that. If there is not a time element, as Ms. Porterfield said,
then they go to the next meeting where they have seven members to vote on it. On the other hand, if
they don’t have the time, as said, the Commission would have to come to some modification of people’s
positions and go forward. That is just the bottom line.
Mr. Zobrist asked if they could put a provision in that in the event of the tie vote the Commission will
deliberate until they are able to break the tie.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out as the Chair he controlled the meeting and he did not think that needs to be in
the Rules of Procedure. Ultimately, the decision has to be made by a majority. Therefore, the Chair can
hold the other Commissioners here until that tie is broken.
Mr. Zobrist said they might want to add language that just says a decision has to be made. Reading it
together with b), he gets that. As Chair, he would want language in the Rule of Procedure that says they
have to come up with a vote.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
4
Ms. Porterfield said if they have the opportunity to move it to the next meeting where they could have a
full complement, she thought they should have that opportunity.
Mr. Zobrist agreed, but that is a new vote and motion. The motion is move it to when they have a
majority, and then they vote on that motion. That is the way he understands the language. The motion to
approve or deny is before them and they tied on it. Then a motion is made to defer. Mr. Kamptner will
tell the Commission yes they can defer, but here are the consequences of deferral. Then they vote on
deferring it to the next meeting when they have a majority.
Mr. Franco said he did not think they could make those deferrals in many cases. It has to be the
applicant that makes that deferral.
Mr. Zobrist said they could defer it, but have to take the consequences if the time is short.
Mr. Kamptner said staff would advise the Commission as the situation arises.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out if they miss the 90 day deadline, then the request would go on to the Board of
Supervisors with a recommendation of approval.
Mr. Franco said what he heard Mr. Kamptner say earlier that if it was going to the Board they can always
make a recommendation of no recommendation and probably agree on that.
Mr. Zobrist agreed. It is just a motion the Commission has to approve.
Mr. Kamptner said it is the action that provides an escape. The action in that case is no recommendation.
Mr. Zobrist said that he was okay with it. He asked if there was any further discussion. If not, then he
asked for a motion to adopt the Commission’s Rules of Procedure for the upcoming year. He noted that
the Rules of Procedure had been distributed to the Commission.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Loach seconded to accept the Rules of Procedure for 2011 as
amended and outlined in the Planning Commission’s packet.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0).
Committee Reports:
Mr. Zobrist asked for committee reports from the Commissioners.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that tonight that staff just get confirmation from the members and the
Commission’s concurrence that they want to continue to have the same representations. That is all staff
needs from the Commission. They may need to have some further action if the Board is going to officially
Appoint any of these members, which staff can follow up with as necessary. This would just be basically
to let staff know who wants to continue. Mr. Lafferty has already mentioned that he would like to stay on
CHART and PACTECH. If others wish to continue on their committees and it through the agreement of
the Planning Commission that is okay, then staff will take it from there.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the Commissioners want to stay as they are this year or want to talk about different
assignments.
Mr. Franco sad he was comfortable the way it was right now, and the other Commissioners agreed..
Mr. Kamptner suggested that they make a motion to recommend to the Board for those committee
appointments that require Board appointment as stated on the list. He was doing some research
because there are a couple of these committees that he does not have a lot of background information as
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
5
to whether they are Board appointment. The MPO Tech Committee and the University of Virginia Master
Planning Council are just straight appointment by the Planning Commission. It appears that all the others
need to be forwarded to the Board to ratify.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors
for the Committee members as shown on the attachment.
The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AS OF 1/11/11:
ACE Committee Liason:
Duane Zobrist
CIP Technical Committee:
Don Franco
Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (CHART):
Mac Lafferty
City/County/University Planning & Coordination Council Tech Committee (PACC Tech):
Mac Lafferty
Crozet Community Advisory Council:
Tom Loach
Fiscal Impact Committee:
Don Franco
Historic Preservation Committee:
Linda Porterfield
Metropolitan Planning Organization Tech Committee (MPO Tech):
Duane Zobrist
Pantops Community Advisory Council:
Cal Morris
University of Virginia Master Planning Council:
Ed Smith
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Zobrist invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda including consent
agenda items.
Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, said unfortunately due to some travel plans he would not be
present at next week’s Commission meeting when they will have a work session on Wineries and the
Noise. The Free Enterprise Forum simply wants to speak up with regard to the idea of wineries in the
Rural Areas and economic viability of those wineries. Quite frankly, the wine business in Albemarle
County is one of the richest in the state. Virginia now has 171 farm wineries. The richest Appalachian is
the Monticello Appalachian, which includes at the heart of it Albemarle County. He was aware of at least
three new wineries that will be coming on line within the next six month within the county. All of these
wineries are working diligently in keeping its product that works on smaller acreage than large form
farming. Part of their business model includes events. Most of the wineries he has talked to that do
events are eager to work with their neighbors to be good neighbors. The Commission needs to recognize
the good citizenship of the majority of wineries in their work with the neighbors. In any industry, there are
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
6
always bad citizens. There are bad citizens in the Virginia wine industry or there were who would land
helicopters and have rock concerts and things of that nature. He did not believe anyone in Albemarle
was looking to do that. However, they are considering weddings at a winery. He was out at the King
Family Vineyard yesterday, which was a beautiful property under land conservation and an easement.
They are planting another seven acres of grapes this year. That is a big success. As they consider the
noise ordinance, the works that they do with events at King Family Vineyard in a structure certainly is a
big part of their business and is directly related to the agricultural pursuits on that land. The Free
Enterprise Forum just wanted to bring that to the Commission’s attention. He regrets missing next week’s
meeting, but would be here on February 8th. He wants to alert the Commission to that rural economic
viability.
There being no further comments, the meeting moved to the next item.
Review of Board of Supervisors meeting – January 5, 2011.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on January 5, 2011.
Mr. Zobrist suggested that staff make Mr. McCann’s presentation DVD available to the Planning
Commission. It would be useful for the Commission to review Mr. McCann’s framework. He
recommended that they incorporate this in some kind of educational format to show community members
to help them understand better the processes we use in the community and why they are doing them.
One of the most interesting portions was his economic data on how good planning really makes a
community healthier, property more valuable and a better place to live. The presentation will be available
on a Charlottesville Tomorrow podcast.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff would do that.
Ms. Porterfield noted that there was a lot of confusion regarding what areas of the Scottsville District are
called. There is the Village of Rivanna, Rivanna Village and then staff is referring to it as “Rivanna,”
which actually is another magisterial district. It would be helpful if staff starts calling the areas what they
are. The whole development area is the Village of Rivanna. Rivanna Village is the section on the north
of the development area, which will be the commercial section. Possibly, they could refer to them in that
way.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that staff would do that.
Consent Agenda:
SUB-2010-00149 Powell/Pitt – Final
PROPOSED: Request for final plat approval for the creation of one single family lot of 9.478 acres. This
application includes a request for approval of a private street in accord with Section 232 of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA - Rural Area
SECTION: Chapter 14 Section 20, and Section 232 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area in Rural Area 1
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: East side of Plunkett Road, approximately one half mile from its intersection with Simmons
Gap Road (SR 663).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 00900-00-00-01900
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
(Summer Frederick)
Mr. Zobrist asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda for further
review.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of the consent agenda.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
7
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0).
Mr. Zobrist noted the consent agenda was approved with staff’s recommended conditions, as follows
1. The plat shall be subject to the requirements of Section 14-303 (Contents of final plat), as
identified on the “Final Subdivision Checklist” which is available from the Community
Development Department;
2. The final plat shall address all minimum requirements from Sections 14-410 (Standards for all
street and alleys) and 14-412 (Standards for private streets only).
3. Health director approval of individual private wells and/or septic systems.
4. The final plat includes the signature of the appropriate Greene County official, indicating that
municipality’s approval of the plat.
Deferred Item:
ZMA-2010-0014 Hollymead Town Center (Area A-1)
PROPOSAL: Rezone 59.162 (portions) acres from Planned Development-Mixed Commercial (PD-MC)
zoning district which allows large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/
acre) to Planned Development-Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) zoning district which allows large-scale
commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre), in order to amend the existing
proffers.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center-compact, higher density area
containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas, and public spaces,
attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in Hollymead Development Area.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Hollymead Town Center Area A-1, the southwest quadrant of Seminole Trail (US 29) and
Towncenter Drive in the Hollymead Development Area
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 032000000042A0, 04600000000500, 03200000004400 (portion), 03200000004500
(portion)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
DEFERRED FROM THE DECEMBER 21, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
(Judith Wiegand)
Ms. Wiegand presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report.
Purpose of This Rezoning:
To amend the existing proffers relating to road improvements and public transit operating expenses.
The full Hollymead Town Center—all five areas—had already been rezoned prior to this application. Area
A-1, the subject of this application, was rezoned in 2007. The original proffers were approved as part of
this rezoning.
Hollymead Town Center–Areas
As a refresher, the diagram shows the different areas that are part of the Hollymead Town Center. Area
A-1 is shown in red.
Location
In the Northern Development Areas—four parcels are involved in the rezoning. Only portions of 34 and
35 are involved in this.
Zoning
HTC Area A-1 was rezoned to PD-MC, Planned District-Mixed Commercial under ZMA 2005-00015, and
approved on September 12, 2007. Area A2 was rezoned to NMD, Neighborhood Model District and was
not part of the discussion this evening. This zoning is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, which
shows this area as Town Center.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
8
Road Improvement Proffer
The discussion tonight will involve two proffers. The first is the road improvement proffer. Staff explained
the changes in the road proffer and the road segments that would be affected. The original language and
the amended language for this proffer for Proffer 1, Road Improvements are in the staff report. There are
three road segments discussed within that proffer.
ORIENTATION: US 29 North is to the RIGHT
Meeting Street--southern end where it will connect with Berkmar Drive Extended north, to Airport Road
(which does not show on this plan)
Towncenter Drive
Harris Teeter – Target -- Kohl’s
Greenway with trail—Powell Creek tributary
The original road improvement proffers refer to three segments:
1. Towncenter Drive—NO CHANGE
2. Meeting Street north of the intersection with Towncenter Drive—NO CHANGE
3. Meeting Street south of the intersection with Towncenter Drive—shown in red in presentation—that is
the one affected by the proffer change.
The County asked the property owner to change the proffer language to dedicate the portion of Meeting
Street south of the intersection with Towncenter Drive. This is the new language that’s in the “B” part of
the proffer. The County would like dedication of this segment in the Area A-1 proffers. The reasons are
related to acceptance of the road into the state system and maintenance.
The applicant is looking for a temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Kohl’s as soon as possible. The
store wants to begin stocking and preparing for its opening. They want to get a permanent Certificate of
Occupancy within the next few months. In order to qualify for that Certificate of Occupancy under the
currently approved proffers, they would have to construct this segment of Meeting Street. That is not
necessary for Kohl’s. In fact, the County is concerned if the whole segment was constructed, particularly
the part towards the southern end, they basically would be construction a road for the time being would
be a road to nowhere. Eventually this would connect to Berkmar Drive Extended at the time that road is
built. Most likely, that is several years in the future.
Once the County Engineer approves a road upon completion it normally would be accepted into VDOT’s
system and qualifies for state maintenance. VDOT does not normally accept roads to nowhere for
maintenance. Therefore, the County would be left with the tab for maintaining a portion of this road that
would not serve anything, which would have a couple stream crossings and things that might require
extra maintenance expense. The County is currently looking this and requesting dedication of the whole
stretch so they know where the road will be and have the appropriate right-of-way. For A-1 proffers that
would be sufficient. Staff is expecting at the time the indoor theater site plan comes in that this segment
of road would have to be constructed before its Certificate of Occupancy could be issued. It would be
part of that site plan and not the Kohl’s site plan. That is not a part of the proffer, but what the County is
expecting as the way that this stretch of Meeting Street would be constructed. That would give a second
entrance to the indoor theater where the road would connect in that direction. Kohl’s would also connect
at that point. It is not necessary for Kohl’s to have that entrance because they are going to have one
coming from Route 29 and another from Town Center Drive.
Proffer Language (New)
The owner has said he was comfortable with that language.
B. Reserve and dedicate. The Owner shall reserve for dedication and dedicate to public use, upon
the written request of the County, the right-of-way for Meeting Street from the intersection of
Town Center Drive to the southern boundary of the Property. The land reserved and dedicated
shall be at least the minimum width necessary to comply with applicable VDOT standards for the
construction and maintenance of the road, and include all necessary easements. The right-of-
way shall be dedicated within the period specified by the County, which period shall not be less
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
9
than 90 days. If the right-of-way is not dedicated in conjunction with a subdivision plat, the Owner
shall be responsible for the cost of a survey and preparing the deed to convey the right-of-way to
the County.
Public Transit Operating Expenses Proffer
• Public Transit Operating Expenses - Within thirty days after demand by the County after public
transportation service is provided to the Project, the Owner shall contribute $50,000 cash to the
County to be used for operating expenses relating to such service, and shall contribute $50,000
cash to the County each year thereafter for a period of nine (9) additional years, such that the
cash contributed to the County pursuant to this Proffer 4, shall total Five Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($500,000). The cash contribution in years two through ten shall be paid by the
anniversary date of the first contribution. If public transit service is not provided to the
Project by July 1, 2012, this proffer shall be null and void.
During a meeting with staff on January 3 called to finalize the language for the road improvement proffer,
the property owner requested a change in Proffer 4. Public Transit Operating Expenses. The original
language and amended language are included in the packet. The change is the addition of a “sunset
clause” after which the proffer would become null and void if no transit service is available to the
Hollymead Town Center Area A-1. The applicant explained that no other part of HTC had such a proffer.
He proposed a sunset date of July 1, 2012, which is approximately seven years after the opening of the
first commercial business in HTC—Target. While staff has no problem with a sunset clause, the date
proposed is so close—approximately 18 months from now—that it effectively removes the obligation that
was part of the original rezoning to provide some funding for transit. Transit service is expected in the
area in five to ten years, so staff thinks a date of January 1, 2021—about ten years from now—is more
appropriate.
Other Projects With Transit $ Proffers
In the other five areas of Hollymead Areas A1 and A2 are owned by the same owner. Area A1 has the
proffer. Areas B, C and D do not have transit proffers.
1. North Pointe: $250,000 total over 10 years; sunset clause = 10 years from BOS approval or 7
years after first commercial CO—whichever is later.
2. Martha Jefferson Hospital: $50,000 total; sunset clause = 1 year of CO for hospital
3. Albemarle Place: Jitney service; sunset clause = 1/1/2007 or first commercial CO-last.
4. Biscuit Run: $1,000,000 (lump sum); unexpended funds to be retained by County. In addition,
a proffer for private transit service to bridge the gap until public service was available.
5. 5th Street-Avon Center: cash contribution based on 20 center/SF after provision of transit
service to property and for as long as service provided; no sunset date.
Mr. Cilimberg noted last year the Albemarle Place Jitney service discussion in their proffer ended up
having the option for them to contribute cash to the CTS Service. That was a recent amendment to that
service. He did not remember the cash amount, which was in lieu of the Jitney service. The Planning
Commission had that before them when making their recommendations.
Staff Recommendation
• Staff does not recommend acceptance of the July 1, 2012 sunset date for the Public Transit
Operating Expenses proffer. Staff believes a sunset date of January 1, 2021 gives a more
realistic opportunity for transit service to be provided in the area to which this project would
contribute.
• Staff does recommend approval of the rest of the revisions to the proffer language as included in
the signed Amended Proffers, dated January 3, 2011.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
10
Mr. Loach asked what would be the date if staff applies the seven and ten year date to the Certificate of
Occupancy.
Ms. Wiegand replied that the first commercial Certificate of Occupancy in the entire Hollymead Town
Center would have been the Target, which would have been approximately July 31, 2012. The first
commercial use in A-1 would be Kohl’s, which would be coming up in another few months. It would be
seven years from that time.
Ms. Porterfield asked staff to go back to the map where it showed the roads. The change in the proffer is
that from the circle going south where the applicant is going to build the road to the first intersection.
Ms. Wiegand replied no, according to the proposed proffer, he would dedicate the right-of-way for this
entire stretch upon request by the County.
Mr. Kamptner asked staff to clarify that segment of Meeting Street that actually goes through both A-1
and A-2. He asked staff to show where the A-1/A-2 boundary would be for Meeting Street.
Ms. Wiegand replied that Meeting Street is bounded on one side by area A-2 and on the other side by
area A-1. Further south Meeting Street is all within area A-2.
Ms. Porterfield asked staff to explain when that stretch of road that comes up to access Kohl’s will be
built.
Ms. Wiegand replied that would be built as a part of the site plan submitted for the indoor theater. Before
the indoor theater could get their Certificate of Occupancy, they would need to have this road built to the
dimensions as set forth in the site plan. The road has to be done to just south of this intersection.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the applicant was planning to complete the theater this year. She asked if staff
sees this being built.
Ms. Wiegand replied yes.
Ms. Porterfield noted in the meantime the road that is going out to 29 North from the Kohl’s is going to be
out there. She asked if there is a stop light.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there would not be a signal there. The signal exists at Town Center Drive and
Route 29. It is a right in and right out basically for the lower entrance because it was at a median.
Ms. Porterfield said if it is a right in and right out, anyone else that is going to be accessing will have to
come in at the light.
Mr. Cilimberg replied yes, that was the intention from the beginning with the original rezoning.
Ms. Porterfield asked if that entrance is built to the standard that was planned with the correct number of
lanes. It is a very interesting access because one has to be in certain lanes to be able to access.
Otherwise, there would be people crossing over on top of someone else. She was just wondering if there
was going to be a single road that was going to go to the west and then the other lane was going to bear
off to go to the Target or go on up to the Harris Teeter. That would be the main access for Kohl’s.
Mr. Cilimberg noted it was Town Center Drive. What they have out there built and open is what was
planned.
Ms. Porterfield noted what she saw is what they would get. She just wondered if there was anything else
that was supposed to be done to that. When this is built and since VDOT does not want a road that goes
nowhere, who is going to maintain the section from the roundabout to as far as that road is going to
extend.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
11
Ms. Wiegand replied that she understood that because it would provide a connection that VDOT would be
able to accept that part. It is primarily the part south of there that would be a problem.
Ms. Porterfield said eventually when Berkmar Drive connects the whole thing would be acceptable to
VDOT.
Ms. Wiegand replied that would be built as part of the movie theater, which was on the site plan.
Mr. Zobrist asked if Mr. Kamptner suggested the July 12, 2012 date for the proffer of cash for the
transportation component.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that was the request of the applicant.
Mr. Zobrist asked who drafted it into the document.
Ms. Wiegand replied that the applicant came in to speak with staff last Monday concerning questions on
other revisions that Mr. Kamptner had requested. The applicant asked at that meeting to have that
sunset date. Staff put the sunset date in at the applicant’s request.
Mr. Zobrist noted it seemed that a developer would want to make proffers for public transportation
because it was going help his shopping center. He asked if that was why it was made in the first place.
Ms. Wiegand replied yes. Staff has no problem with a sunset date, but just wants to push it out.
Mr. Cilimberg noted it was staff’s desire to try to make the sunset date usable because they don’t expect
the transit service to be there before July, 2012. It is going to be five to ten years, which is staff’s best
guess. If not in effect by July 2021, then it would no longer be in effect.
Mr. Kamptner asked what percentage of the segment of Meeting Street within A-1 would be constructed
for the A-1 portion and site plan that came in for A-2.
Ms. Wiegand replied she had not looked at the site plan for A-1, but the entire road segment is shown on
the site plan for the indoor theater for A-2.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Wendell Wood, owner of the properties, said they are in agreement with the road plan as proposed by the
proffer and staff’s approval. He would be happy to answer questions, but thought it was clear where the
road would be built to.
Ms. Porterfield asked Mr. Wood to summarize the request.
Mr. Wood said that the road would be built 20’ beyond the intersection going south at the time a
Certificate of Occupancy was issued. That road would be complete at that time. The rest of the road
would be completed at the request of the County as written, which they had agreed to. In other words, if
Berkmar Drive was extended they have agreed to build that part. Right now if one goes beyond the
Kohl’s and theater entrance it dead ends or goes nowhere. It is a steep terrain with a creek.
Ms. Porterfield asked if at this time they have any plans to develop that area.
Mr. Wood replied that they do have plans, but nothing going on.
Ms. Porterfield noted that there was nothing going on in the near future. She makes the assumption that
if his plans become brick and mortar, he will build the road.
Mr. Wood replied that was correct.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
12
Ms. Porterfield asked if he anticipates if he has to build the road that VDOT will accept it if it does not
intersect with Berkmar Extended or who is going to maintain it.
Mr. Wood said he did not understand the question.
Mr. Franco noted the quick answer to the question is if there is a user down there VDOT will accept the
road. However, if it is just a couple hundred feet of road that goes to no users they won’t accept the road.
Ms. Porterfield noted they don’t have a problem with the road being maintained, and Mr. Franco agreed.
Mr. Wood said he thought that was correct.
Mr. Zobrist asked if he wanted to address the requested sunset clause.
Mr. Wood said that he would like some type of relief. This was put on by the previous owner in times that
were different than today’s world. He suggested that they compare it with what they saw on the map
tonight. Martha Jefferson had a total liability of $50,000. Albemarle Place has a liability of $35,000.
North Point has a sunset of seven years. This project, if they apply the same criteria of seven years, only
has the July 12th deadline. That was with the opening of Target. Therefore, they think that is a
reasonable request. Their number is a much larger number of $50,000 per year. That is a little onerous.
He would really like to have some consideration. It is tough to be put in a position that your neighbor has
no responsibility. They are in competition when renting something by the square foot. If the person next
door does not have to pay $50,000 per year, it creates a big disadvantage. He knew of no conditions
placed on Willow Glen when the County rezoned the property. He made this request because it was hard
to cover the ½ million dollars. Albemarle Place was done in a more recent timeframe. Getting the job
done today is not quite the same world. It puts a cloud on the title for trying to get financing. The
financing is already almost impossible with the $500,000 liability. He would like to have a shorter
timeframe and something similar to Albemarle Place, which is twice as large with a total liability of
$35,000.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the previous owner of the property owned everything.
Mr. Wood replied no, he owned this same property.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the entity did not own anything else if possibly this was being looked at as a
proffer for the entire area as opposed to just these two particular pieces.
Mr. Wood suggested that the times might have been different. When he sold the piece of property to
them, which included Target, it was considered as one development.
Ms. Porterfield said Target was a part of this and the half a million dollars may have been looked at as
taking care of all that area.
Mr. Wood replied yes, they have spent 13 million dollars meeting those proffers already. The public has
the misconception that Route 29 was paid for by the State of Virginia or Albemarle County. Not one
penny of that has been paid for by the State. Town Center Drive, which is over 3 million dollars, was not
paid for by Albemarle County or the State of Virginia. He paid for it himself, which included Meeting
Street dedication. It was part of these provisions. He did sell it. The new owner when he came in did
agree to quite a few things that are not in the cards today. That owner agreed to parking decks and a
5,000 car parking garage on this property. That is not going to happen. It just can’t happen. He agreed
to $17,000 per unit. He believed since that has been adopted there has not been one project approved in
Albemarle County. It virtually makes the land value zero. The land cost used to be represented at about
$17,000 a unit, which was contributed to the land cost. That was pretty standard. Now they have that as
a proffer, which was virtually why nothing is being done. It is not economically feasible.
Mr. Wood continued along with this project as one of the conditions they agreed to build 100 units of a
mobile home park. They have done that. They were approved for 244. They went in about two months
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
13
ago to expand it for affordable housing. When they got it, approved 16 homes were allowed on one water
meter. The water meter at that time cost $450 for 16 homes. The water meter today for one mobile
home is $8,000 per home. There is no way they can provide a mobile home park. That is a form of
affordable housing. It can’t be done. They sell the homes at $40,000. Now they would have an
additional $8,000 to add a water meter plus the monthly bill of about $45 per month.
Ms. Porterfield said the half a million dollars that were agreed to in the proffer was agreed to prior to his
getting the land back.
Mr. Wood replied that was correct.
Ms. Porterfield said that at that time the individual who agreed to this also was developing the Target, and
Mr. Wood replied no.
Ms. Porterfield said this was just for these two sections.
Mr. Wood replied that was correct. It was discussed with Target at that time there were no plans for bus
service. The proffers included the whole area of Hollymead Town Center, which consisted of 140 acres.
This project is 72 acres of that area, which included the Target. There are no proffers for bus service on
any of the rest of the property there.
Ms. Porterfield said this originally included the Target area, which was one half of the original size. That
is potentially part of the reason why the proffer is at such a large number. She was trying to see why they
were looking at the half a million dollars.
Mr. Wood noted that the proffer was only being applied to this section. In other words, the owner of
Target does not need to pay anything.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that originally there were four sections being A, B, C and D in Hollymead. The
last of the sections to be rezoned at least three years after the first three was A-1 with A-2 later. Areas B,
C and D were the first to be rezoned, which did not have the transit proffer requirement at that time. The
rezoning was done in a different timeframe. It was with the A-1 and A-2 rezoning that the transit was
being used in other projects and was also offered for this project. It was in part to recognize that the
transit had been identified as a real need up in that area ultimately. It also had to do with the fact that A-1
and A-2 together were proposing a much larger amount of square footage of development. If they look at
the Meeting Street, it was actually like a main street with a very high square footage possibility along that
street as well as residential development up to about 1,900 units. There were other reasons. There was
a timing aspect of it associated to the degree of development that would occur under the zoning approval
at least.
Mr. Wood said they were not opposed to doing something.
Mr. Zobrist invited public comment.
Neil Williamson, of Free Enterprise Forum, noted they do not comment on projects and have no position
on the proffers for this project. However, they do comment on how the policy works in the project. The
Free Enterprise Forum is very concerned that staff continues to use Biscuit Run as a proffer comparison
when evaluating projects. Biscuit Run is dead. The proffers that were offered with Biscuit run will never
materialize. Some in the community have suggested that the level of proffers that were accepted by the
owner willingly volunteered by the owner by the Code were a contributing factor to the project’s eventual
conversion to a State park. The Free Enterprise Forum asks the Planning Commission what their
opinion is with regard to directing staff to continue or discontinue using proffers for comparison that will
never be recognized.
Morgan Butler, of Southern Environmental Center, noted that he spoke with Ms. Wiegand today about
this and thought he understood. He had questions particularly with respect to the first proffer change.
The second proffer change is more a question of philosophy. It will be interesting to see whether they
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
14
deem its worth in forcing commitments that were made to get this project approved. As to the first
request, his understanding from reading the proffers is that the proffers that are currently in existence,
which are currently valid and enforceable. This applicant has an obligation to construct Meeting Street
from that roundabout down to the southern end of the property. With the proffer changes proposed that
obligation to construct will be softened so it is simply an obligation to reserve and dedicate the right-of-
way to the County. There is a significant difference between constructing that road and simply reserving
and dedicating the right-of-way, especially when they all know how important that Berkmar Drive
Extended is going to be and how essential it is to the County’s transportation network to get that
connection made all the way up to Hollymead Town Center. He fully understands that it may not be wish
to require construction of that road to its southern terminus at this point in time, but he did not think it
particularly wish to basically remove that obligation from the proffers and leave it as an obligation to
reserve the right-of-way. The proffers could be changed in a way that postpones when that segment of
road has to be constructed as opposed to removing the obligation to construct it altogether. He
understands from speaking to staff that there is likely to be proffers for Area A-2 coming forward in the
near future in the next month or so. Perhaps these commitments to construct those additional portions of
road all the way down to the southern boundary may materialize in those proffers. However, he did not
understand why they would not do that simultaneously so they don’t have this period of time where that
commitment simply banishes. He did not understand the rush or why this has to be done tonight. He
asked why this couldn’t be done in conjunction with the proffer change to Area A-2 to make sure that
commitment does not simply disappear. It does not seem to be wise policy especially considering the
importance of the road in play here.
Kirk Bowers, resident of Key West, noted that he was a licensed professional engineer with a lot of land
experience over the last 30 years. He stated that proffers are pretty much a standard item for any
locality. Compared to northern Virginia he did not believe that the standards or proffers here are really
high enough. Listening to Mr. Wood, he is probably right about Albemarle Place. They may need to go
back and revisit the proffers on that site. He believed those proffers were too low. It is not fair for the
public to pay for developments. Taxpayers should not have to pay for anything that contributes to
development.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing to bring the matter before
the Planning Commission.
Ms. Porterfield asked that the Planning Commission invite Joel DeNunzio of VDOT to speak about this
road. She questioned whether it makes sense to go ahead and build the road since it has been proffered.
Joel DeNunzio, of VDOT, pointed out that it was correct that VDOT would not accept a road that does not
go anywhere. It would have to serve a public purpose. It could be residential or to some sort of
commercial office or retail. He thought that down to the intersection shown that would be constructed at
the Kohl’s entrance they could accept that when it was constructed as long as Kohl’s or the movie theater
is open.
Mr. Zobrist asked for comments on the road.
Ms. Porterfield said the question was raised by one of the speakers as to if there are proffers coming in
with A-2. Those proffers are going to require the building of this road much farther south. She asked why
they are not dovetailing the requests and totally taking it out of this one.
Ms. Wiegand replied that staff is working with the applicant on both sets of proffers at the same time.
Staff needed to get this one before the Commission for Area A-1 because of the need to have this issue
about the dedication versus the construction of the road resolved in order that the applicant would qualify
for a Certificate of Occupancy for the Kohl’s. They could not build the road in time for that, of course, to
get the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy sometime this month and the Final CO in another few
months. Staff wanted to get that done first. Staff is in discussion on the second one.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
15
Ms. Porterfield said that Kohl’s is only going to be accessed by either the piece that is coming off the
east/west road or by coming off Route 29 itself. Therefore, why does it need to have this other road in
order to get a CO.
Ms. Wiegand replied that it does not. The current proffers require the construction of this road. It is not
needed for the Kohl’s. However, unless it was built it would keep them from getting a CO because they
had not fulfilled the requirements of the proffers. The applicants would not be able to get the CO for the
Kohl’s. Staff wanted to require they dedicate it. If that is in the proffer, the County gets the dedication for
the road and Kohl’s gets the CO. Then at the time, that the A-2 proffers come in there will be a
discussion of what to do with how they handle the construction of the section of road below that entrance
at the southern most section. They don’t have the language finished yet.
Ms. Porterfield noted that there are more than one half of the proffers that have not been satisfied. She
asked if staff was saying all of the proffers would be satisfied in order for them to get the CO or only this
one. She asked if they were talking about every single item on the proffer list has to be satisfied in order
to get the CO.
Ms. Wiegand replied it was her understanding that they will.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that Zoning staff speak to that question because they are the enforcement entity.
It is staff’s understanding that the void they would have in the A-1 proffers towards the ability of Kohl’s to
get their CO is with the proffers regarding the road construction that would prevent CO to be issued.
Zoning staff can speak to that issue. This was actually requested by the County as a change for the
proffers regarding the relationship of the improvements to what was being built to enable this project to be
achieved.
Ms. Porterfield asked Mr. Higgins to address the concern whether they are actually going to be moving
potentially to not constructing the road, but getting a right-of-way.
Mr. Higgins replied that staff does not think that is what is happening at all. What they are merely doing
tonight is enabling a timing mechanism to be put in place that was simply not thought about when the
original proffers were done. This road is supposed to have been built by December 31, 2010. Everyone
understands that road makes no sense to be built. They don’t want to eliminate the obligation. They
want to phase it and time it and it would still be their obligation. They wanted to make sense out of the
timing of the road construction. Without getting into detail, it is linked to many other road pieces that are
going to have to be dedicated and really for acceptance prior to Kohl’s getting their CO. Therefore, they
have a lot more on the plate in that list of proffers than just this piece.
Ms. Porterfield asked since Kohl’s has those other two access points, why is this needed for their CO.
Mr. Higgins replied that it was not needed for Kohl’s. The original proffer anticipated the build out of A,
which later became A-1 and A-2. They are simply looking at one building being built right now whose
site plan has approved that only the two access points that will be provided for Kohl’s are needed to
provide the traffic control for Kohl’s.
Ms. Porterfield asked why is it so important at this point.
Mr. Higgins replied that Kohl’s couldn’t open unless this proffer is met.
Mr. Franco noted the clarity he thought she was looking for was as a proffer anything that develops in that
area is subject to that proffer. To get a CO that proffer has to be met regardless of what is going on.
Engineering does not require the traffic for the road to be built, but the proffer requires that the road be
built.
Mr. Cilimberg noted under the current proffer they have build the road all the way to the southern
boundary from the traffic circle.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
16
Ms. Porterfield noted that everyone expected this shopping center to be up and going.
Mr. Cilimberg said that they expected a more comprehensive development at the time. That is why they
are not dealing with it in pieces rather than as a whole. They are really trying to associate the proffers
with what is actually being built.
Mr. Porterfield asked Mr. Kamptner if they make the change do they have the problem that was cited by a
previous speaker that they may be giving up getting it constructed in case they don’t get a proffer that
comes in that is going to finish it.
Mr. Kamptner replied that part of it was the timing under the State Subdivision law and under both the
Subdivision and Zoning regulations. Pertaining to site plans, they can require public roads to be
extended to the edge of the property line. Mr. Wood, Ms. Wiegand, and he had a brief conversation
discussing the staff report. He made the point during his presentation. There may be a failsafe provision
that allows the Kohl’s CO to be issued. That would include some language that would allow the County to
ask that portion be constructed upon the request by the County. There is no deadline imposed. If he
heard Mr. Wood correctly, he was agreeable to put that language in the proffer as well. It would allow the
CO to be issued so that it is not set against a hard deadline, but when appropriate for it to be extended
even though there may not be a subdivision plat or site plan. That could provide the additional comfort
that he was hearing some people seeking.
Ms. Porterfield asked if Mr. Wood is agreeable. If so, could they get some language drafted.
Mr. Kamptner said he could do that between now and before tomorrow morning.
Ms. Porterfield said if they adopt this, then the Commission could put something in like that.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes.
Mr. Franco said that the Commission’s would be a recommendation to the Board as a rezoning.
Mr. Kamptner said that they would circulate the language to staff and the applicant and make it available
to the public.
Mr. Zobrist asked if this request was going to the Board tomorrow, and Mr. Kamptner replied yes.
Mr. Morris noted based upon the question this phasing of the road makes a lot of sense and he was fully
in favor of it.
Mr. Zobrist asked if he was making a motion that they bifurcate this into two issues in making a resolution
with respect to the road and then coming back to the cash proffer for rapid transit.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Commission needs to make one recommendation on the rezoning.
The Commission could do a straw pull regarding the two elements, but he would not suggest separate
actions.
Mr. Morris noted that he was in support of this portion.
Mr. Zobrist said it sounds like there is a consensus on the road portion. He would like to have a ten
minute break and come back and talk about the change of the cash proffer since that is a longer
discussion.
Mr. Kamptner said he heard that the Commission was going to reach a consensus on the road.
Mr. Zobrist noted the Commission would not come back to discuss the road since they were done with it.
He asked for a consensus to accept the road portion with no further discussion when it was time to vote
on the rezoning. He asked for a straw pull of those in favor.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
17
Mr. Franco asked if that was with the proffers as written, but amended to include the provision.
Mr. Zobrist agreed that it would include the provision that upon demand of the County the applicant would
build the road. He noted that the Commission would come back and talk about the cash proffer after the
break.
The Planning Commission took a ten minute break at 7:22 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:34
p.m.
Mr. Zobrist asked to direct the discussion to a certain degree since they have three options here with
respect to the proffer regarding public transportation. They can leave it the way it is. They can follow the
staff recommendation and put it out to ten years. They can cut that back to a lesser number if they
choose to do it. On the other hand, they can modify the proffers if they choose to. Right now, it is before
the Commission to make a recommendation to the Board. It is up to the Planning Commission to decide
what the policy is going to be on this in trying to take into consideration what is reasonable, correct,
makes good policy, and what the Board of Supervisors would want to do. At the end of the day, the
Commission’s job is to vet these things out and collect all of the information so the Board can make a
reasonable decision.
Mr. Loach asked for guidance from staff on what would be a reasonable expectation for what the
transportation needs are so they can make a reasonable decision.
Ms. Wiegand replied that when the original proffer was adopted there was no sunset date. The amount
was agreed to. She did not know specifically why they chose $50,000. At that time it was to cover all of
area A, which is now area A-1 and A-2. When those were split, the proffer was left in area A-1 proffers.
Staff was surprised by a request for a sunset date. Staff has no problem with the idea, but the date itself
was little more awkward. David Benish noted staff expected transit to be extended into this area in five to
ten years. Staff was looking for a date to give a date certain to the applicant so that he would know what
the date was and if he did not make it in ten years, he would be off the hook for it. That is why staff chose
that date. Staff did not discuss the possibility of changing the amount.
Mr. Loach said if he heard from applicant correctly the person with the first section was not liable for any
of that proffer money.
Ms. Wiegand replied that was correct and the property was not Mr. Wood’s.
Mr. Loach suggested that they apply it to both and make it five years.
Mr. Morris agreed with staff completely that 2012 is too soon. That date is too short. He thought that
2021 is way out there and puts the developer in a real bad light. He agree with Mr. Loach to put a date of
2016 or 2017 on the proffer.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the suggestion was for a five year date.
Mr. Smith concurred with Mr. Morris.
Ms. Porterfield questioned whether the half million dollars was reasonable.
Mr. Loach said that there was not a sure answer out there for that.
Mr. Zobrist agreed that it was not based on what was in front of the Commission.
Ms. Porterfield agreed with the speaker that they couldn’t use Biscuit Run as a comparison. She would
be more inclined under the current circumstances to try to end up with a proffer that actually is paid.
Instead of putting a sunset date on it, she suggested bringing the amount down to something that seems
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
18
to be reasonable and get it paid at some point. They need to make sure the County has some money to
help extend transit.
Mr. Zobrist suggested that they go back and ask why the County asks for transit. He thought the reason
is that they need more buses to bring people out to the shopping center area, which the developer would
want. He did know where the number came from. Obviously, the amount is why out of line of the other
numbers in front of the Commission right now. North Point has a ten year sunset clause, which their
attorney negotiated for. He was not sure they should ask the applicant to pay for it if he is not going to
get any buses to bring people out to his development. Nevertheless, he was in agreement with
shortening the sunset provision. He did not think it should be hanging out there forever. If the buses are
going to be provided, he thought the applicant should pay for them.
Mr. Franco asked how the North Point proffer is written.
Ms. Wiegand replied that it is a $25,000 a year for ten years. The sunset clause on that one is if no
transit service comes in either ten years from the Board of Supervisors approval or seven years after the
first commercial Certificate of Occupancy, which would be whichever of those two things is later. The bus
service would have to start before they starting paying the $25,000 a year for ten years.
Mr. Loach asked for a comparison in the square footage.
Ms. Wiegand replied that she did not have those figures for North Point. Hollymead Town Center is
larger, but they are only talking about one area, A-1.
Mr. Wood pointed out that North Point was almost as large of an area, which had residential and
commercial. There is no residential in this portion of Hollymead Town Center.
Mr. Zobrist asked Mr. Wood if he had any idea of what he would like to propose.
Mr. Wood replied that they have spent 11 million in building. He questioned the developer who spoke
that said that the developer does not pay. He has paid every penny of roads, water, sewer, and donated
land. On this site, he donated 14 acres of the site for open space in addition to this. The man is clearly
wrong that says the developer does not pay. He noted that Albemarle Place is larger in square footage.
This site is 250,000 square feet with no dwelling units. Albemarle Place is 375,000 square feet and 500
dwelling units. Albemarle Place’s proffer is $7,000 per year for five years.
Mr. Zobrist asked where that number is coming from.
Ms. Wiegand said she used an older version for Albemarle Place without realizing it. Therefore, that may
not be accurate. They do have a proffer for expenses.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out they have existing service. It was to supplement the service that exists in that
area. In this case, they are talking about the new service in the 29 north area. There are different
circumstances. It is a closer comparison to North Point.
Mr. Wood suggested that the cost be spread out to other people. Their next door neighbors have
nothing.
Mr. Zobrist asked Mr. Graham to weigh in.
Mark Graham noted that he was involved in coming up with proffer amounts on all of the rezoning. He
cautioned the Commission not to look at the dollar amounts. Those were one part of the proffers. They
would do all the proffer together including road improvements, affordable housing, parks and everything
else to come up with a total number. The parks may be high in one project and low in another. It is
similar with things like transit. It was a juggling act to try to balance the amount. It was recognized that
each project came up with a unique approach. He noted that some of these were done prior to the
County implementing a cash proffer. That is an important point to remember. The County now has a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
19
cash proffer policy that species how proffers with residential units are calculated. That came into place
with Biscuit Run. This project was actually approved after that, although it has no residential. That is one
of the reasons why Biscuit Run keeps being used. It was the first project after the County had the policy,
which is still in place for cash proffers. He could not speak to the date or time line, except to say that
each of the projects was individually discussed with the applicant and they offered what they put in the
proffers. He would really caution the Commission from trying to compare one project to another.
Mr. Zobrist noted that they were trying to get some idea on what should the policy be. This is not a
decision about money right now. It really is what should the policy be. If someone came in today with
this project what would they ask him to pay for public transportation.
Mr. Graham replied that there is no answer. There is no existing policy on what the County expects for a
transit contribution. That policy does not exist for the County.
Mr. Zobrist said if someone was willing to pay $17,000 per unit for housing they probably would not ask
for the transit.
Mr. Graham replied yes as far as the residential recognizing that the cash proffer policy speaks to
residential units. It does not speak to commercial units. If it was a residential project, they do have a
cash proffer policy.
Mr. Zobrist noted the commercial has to pay for all the infrastructure.
Mr. Graham agreed that the commercial pays for the infrastructure necessary to support that
development, as it is determined on a case by case basis.
Mr. Zobrist noted that Mr. Wood said he paid 13 million dollars out there putting in roads and fixing 29,
etc.
Mr. Graham replied those were the improvements that when they did the transportation model for that
development said these are the road improvements that must be put into place to assure that they are
maintaining their capacity on that highway. It was not to improve the road and make it better than it was.
It is to assure that they are maintaining the same capacity that they had than before that development
was put into place.
Mr. Franco asked if residential would pay that as well. It would be for any development.
Mr. Graham replied that was correct. He just wanted to be clear on how the proffer policy works there.
Mr. Loach asked why one section of this entire development has no obligation.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that was an earlier set of approvals for b, c, and d at a time when they did not have
the transit identified. It was not included in those particular proffers at that time for those projects. They
did not have a cash proffer policy at the time. There is residential over there that has not been charged
because it was not in place at the time either. Therefore, they were dealing with a transit proffer a little
later than that point in time when b, c, and d were approved.
Mr. Graham added that Area B is where Target is located. There was a lot going on with that project. It
actually had a recommendation for denial by staff and the Planning Commission that went to the Board.
Many things were worked out at the Board after that. When this went through the Planning Commission,
there were a lot of open questions and concerns that had not been addressed. Then the Board came up
with the package they thought satisfied their concerns.
Mr. Loach said he heard staff saying not to consider money. He questioned whether they should vote
either up or down on the policy for proffers in place now.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
20
Mr. Graham said he was suggesting the Commission not to try to compare the amount that has been
proffered for one packet with the dollar amount being considered here. Those are just one part of a total
proffer packet that was being evaluated. They were not done with equal parts in each rezoning. It is not
a apples to apples comparison.
Mr. Cilimberg noted if this project came in new today staff would use when they thought transit would be
available there in the comparison. He could not speak to the amount. What they would want to make
sure was any sunset would at least be established in line with when they thought transit could be
established. They would not want to have a sunset that would expire before it was really practically
possible for transit to be put in place. That is whey staff suggested five to ten years to be the date for
when transit would be put in place.
Mr. Zobrist suggested reducing the amount for every year they don’t have transit there so that at least he
was not getting the benefit that he thought he was getting. Again, if he had transit there it would bring
customers out to his site. For every year they don’t have transit they will reduce it by $25,000.
Mr. Cilimberg said it would not take long to hit zero that way.
Mr. Zobrist noted if in ten years he would still owe one-half of it.
Mr. Cilimberg noted it was a yearly contribution. It is not a lump sum.
Ms. Wiegand pointed out the sunset date is to govern when the contributions begin.
Mr. Zobrist understood that the policy is to get money to put buses out there. It seems to be a balancing
act.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the transit proffer was originally for areas A-1 and A-2. A-2 does include
residential.
Ms. Porterfield recommended the Commission use the sunset date staff suggested, but cut the proffer in
half. Bringing the number down to $25,000 per year is basically a trade-off for keeping the proffer out at
the ten plus years so they have the opportunity to get transit out there.
Mr. Franco said that is a long time out there. He liked what had been discussed about some kind of
incentive from the County’s perspective that the funds may diminish over time.
Mr. Zobrist said that he would get to the exact same place if it were ten years out. If they reduced it to
$25,000 a year for the next ten years that would be $250,000 they would have to pay for the following ten.
He liked cutting it in half since it makes better sense. They can rationalize that acknowledging it is a
whole package. It looks more like the number North Pointe is paying.
Mr. Franco said if they are looking at ten years from the Board approval, which was 2007, for the first
Certificate of Occupancy that was now. Seven years from now would be 2018. That would make it more
consistent with North Point instead of 2021.
Mr. Zobrist suggested that they craft the language so a motion could be made.
Mr. Franco said they don’t need to craft the language since they know the first CO is coming this year.
Therefore, they can recognize that seven years from the first CO is going to be the limiting factor versus
the ten years.
Mr. Zobrist noted that they would just cut it in half.
Mr. Cilimberg noted it would be $25,000 per year.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
21
Motion: Mr. Morris moved to recommend approval of ZMA-2010-00014, Hollymead Town Center (A-1)
proffer amendments to include the amended proffers as included in Attachment C with the modification of
the proffer dealing with transit to state that the sum be cut to $25,000 per year and the sunset clause
timeframe go to July 1, 2018.
Mr. Franco pointed out the amendment for proffer 1 needed to be added.
Mr. Kamptner reiterated that the provision would allow the County to require construction upon request by
the County. Staff will fill in the details using standard language.
Ms. Porterfield seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted the ZMA-2010-00014, Hollymead Town Center (Area A-1) proffer amendments would
be forwarded to the Board with a recommendation for approval as included in Attachment C, amended as
follows:
1. With the modification of proffer dealing with transit to state the sum be cut to $25,000 per year
and the timeframe go to July 1, 2018; and
2. Proffer 1 (Road Improvements) amendment to include a provision that would allow the County to
require construction upon request by the County. Staff will fill in the details using standard
language.
ZMA-2010-00001 Pantops Ridge
PROPOSAL: Rezone approximately 38 acres from PD-SC Planned Development Shopping Center,
which allows shopping centers, retail sales and service uses and residential by special use permit (15
units/ acre) to R-15 Residential zoning district which allows single family attached/detached uses and
multifamily residential uses up to 15 units/acre. Proposed number of units is 566 for a density of 15
units/acre.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential -
residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-
scale non-residential uses; Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting
uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses; Greenspace.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 1998 Hansens Mountain Road, Intersection of US Route 250 East and Hansens Mountain
Road. Access is proposed from a relocated Hansens Mountain Road and through 106 Viewmont Court.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 78, Parcel 53; Tax Map 78B-A-4
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report for ZMA-2010-00001
Pantops Ridge.
The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 37.5 acres from Planned Development Shopping
Center (PD-SC) to Residential zoning district (R-15) to allow 562 dwelling units for a density of 15 units
per acre. No plan of development has been provided.
An extension of Viewmont Court and a relocated Hansens Mountain Road will be a safety improvement
for Ashcroft residents and can address many of the traffic impacts of the development. The existing
entrance to Hansens Mountain Road will be closed. The proposed Hansens Mountain Road would allow
vehicles from the development and the Ashcroft neighborhood access to US Route 250 through
Glenorchy at an existing signalized intersection at Peter Jefferson Place. The current vehicular access
for this site and Ashcroft is an un-signalized intersection at Hansens Mountain Road and Route 250. As
mentioned in the staff report these proposed improvements will depend on acquisition of right-of-way from
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
22
property owners in Glenorchy because currently there is not sufficient right-of-way for the improvements.
A traffic study as requested by the County Engineer and VDOT has not been provided.
The applicant’s approved final site plan for Gazebo Plaza has been approved for a 183,000 square foot
shopping center. A lot of parking would need to be provided. Large retaining walls would also be
needed.
A 2006 traffic study described approximately 9,500 vehicles per day would be generated from a shopping
center. The Pantops Master Plan does not recommend a shopping center at this location. The property
is designated Urban Density Residential around a Central Green Neighborhood Density Residential
adjacent to the existing Glenorchy Subdivision and green space along the eastern property line. Most of
the property is shown as Neighborhood Density, which is intended to have between 3 to 6 dwelling units
per acre. Urban Density Residential areas are intended to have a density between 6 to 20 dwelling units
per acre with possibilities of up to 34 dwellings per acre under a planned development approach. As
mentioned in the staff report, the Pantops Master Plan suggests approximately 300 units be built on areas
designated as Urban Density and Neighborhood Density. There are 562 dwelling units proposed. This
property is located in a residential area and the Master Plan recommends maintaining the residential
character. As described in the staff report, the proposed residential use is more in keeping with the Land
Use Plan than the approved commercial use. The proposed road improvements related to Hansens
Mountain Road relocation will be a safety improvement and the residential uses less intensive than the
approved commercial use.
Factors Favorable:
• The residential use is more in keeping with the Land Use Plan than the approved commercial
use.
• An extension of Viewmont Court and a relocated Hansens Mountain Road will be a safety
improvement for Ashcroft residents and can address many of the traffic impacts of the
development.
• The residential use is less intensive than the approved commercial use and is expected to have
less of an impact on surrounding residential developments.
Factors Unfavorable:
• Proposed density is not in keeping with the Pantops Master Plan.
• There is no commitment to retain Greenspace as shown in the Pantops Master Plan.
• No plan of development that could allow determination that goals from the Comprehensive Plan,
including the Pantops Master Plan, related to environmental preservation, design around a
Central Green, provision of amenities, provision of a mixture of housing types, and a pedestrian
orientation are met.
• No traffic study has been provided. Without a traffic study, requirements of the state’s Chapter
527 traffic study regulations have not been met and needed transportation improvements
resulting from the development cannot be confirmed, including the proposed relocation of
Hansens Mountain Road.
• The proffers obligate the County or VDOT to acquire any needed land for the relocation of
Hansens Mountain Road utilizing funds proffered by the applicant without a commitment by the
applicant to attempt to acquire this land themselves. This puts the County or VDOT in the
position of potentially needing to condemn land owned by multiple property owners in order for
the proffer to be executed.
• There is no commitment to accommodate transit in the development, nor is there a commitment
of any funding for any public transit services.
• There is no contribution to providing affordable housing.
• There is no commitment to off-set the development’s impacts on public facilities as stipulated in
Appendix B of the County Land Use Plan entitled “County of Albemarle, Virginia Cash Proffer
Policy for Public Facilities.”
• Proffers are in need of substantive and technical changes.
Recommendation:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
23
Staff believes that a residential development proposal could be made in a location that would be in
keeping with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and also address impacts and meet expectations for
design. However, based on the factors noted as unfavorable in this report, staff recommends denial of
this rezoning.
Staff noted that Glenn Brooks and Joel DeNunzio are present to answer questions.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Mr. Morris asked if work has begun on the shopping center site such as bulldozing, clearing and so forth
for the Gazebo Plaza site.
Ms. Grant replied that a WPO has been approved.
Mr. Loach said when staff reviewed this application for principles under the Neighborhood Model out of
the 12 according to his calculations nine are not met, two can’t be evaluated, and one leaves substantial
revisions to the proffers are needed. Essentially, there is no way, shape, or form that this proposal meets
any of the objectives of the Model Neighborhood.
Ms. Grant replied that is correct, not at this time.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward and address the Planning
Commission.
Valerie Long, representative for the applicant Richard Spurzem and Neighborhood Properties, presented
a PowerPoint presentation to explain the proposal.
- As a brief summary of the history of the project she noted the property is currently zoned Planned
Development, Shopping Center. It has been zoned that way for over 30 years since the County’s
comprehensive rezoning in December 1980. Prior to that it was zoned B-1, Business. There was
a site plan that was approved for the property in October 1980 that was for the approved
shopping center for 183,000 square feet. It was designed essentially to be a twin of the
Albemarle Square Shopping Center, which is on 29 North. It is the same size footprint as that. It
was not developed for many years. Mr. Spurzem acquired the property about 12 years ago and
wanted to develop the property for residential uses that was consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan at the time.
- In response to Mr. Morris’ question, site work has begun for the shopping center. It is not going
on at the moment, but in early 2008, there was a fair amount of site work that took place at the
property. It was actually reflected in the aerial photograph that was taken at the time. It is shown
in a copy of the aerial photo. This was the site plan necessary to build the shopping center and
the significant amount of grading required for that. That work has ceased for now and the
property has been stabilized and reseeded. She believed the owner has received portions of the
site bond back. It is dormant for now, but site work did take place at one time.
- Mr. Spurzum wanted to develop the property for residential dwelling uses. He is a residential
apartment builder primarily. In 2003 at a time that was prior to the Pantops Master Plan being in
existence the property was designated on the Comprehensive Plan for a mixture of residential
uses as well. It was mostly for high density residential. They proposed a rezoning in 2003 if it
had been approved, but it was ultimately deferred, it would have permitted up to 900 residential
dwelling units for primarily townhouses and apartments. It also contemplated an independent
living facility and also 50,000 square feet of commercial space. It also included at the time some
proposed road extensions to relocate Hansens Mountain Road along the southern boundary of
the property. That was not something that could be achieved at the time. Mr. Spurzem did not
own the necessary land to make that work. There was not feasible way to do it. It was shown as
a possible future connection. There was certainly no guarantee.
- Another page of the plan, which was a concept plan, that was submitted at the time showed
structured parking, an independent living facility, and so forth. This proposal came to the
Planning Commission in 2002/2003. The problem with the project was that the application would
not have permitted or VDOT would not have permitted a signal at this intersection, which is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
24
necessary to make that function well. It was too close to the existing signal and the off-ramps
from the interstate. They would have had a situation where the current situation would have
continued. They would have had more traffic using it. VDOT determined that it was not safe.
The County did not feel it was appropriate to approve and essentially said to the owner they need
to go out and fix this problem. At the time VDOT has prepared a 2003 Route 250 East Corridor
Study that included a recommendation for this road relocation project to have Hansens Mountain
Road to be relocated through the bottom of the Spurzum property and come out on through the
Glenorchy neighborhood and come out at a signalized light at the existing signal. That was on
one of their plans for 2003. There was no way to implement that concept at the time.
- As a result, at that point Mr. Spurzum had one and only one option for development of the
property. That was looking back to the 1980 approved shopping center. He did entertain a
number of other development proposals from other interested buyers, but none of those was
permitted by the zoning. The zoning is PD-SC with an approved shopping center site plan as the
application plan. Without amending the application plan there was literally not a single other use
that could be permitted legally on that property. There were many efforts. A local church very
much wanted to build their church facility on the property. That was not consistent with the
current zoning. Since that was not allowed and other options were not allowed, the large
rezoning would not be approved without a solution to the traffic problem. The only legal use was
to construct the 1980 shopping center. So Mr. Spurzem moved forward and ultimately after many
years obtained final site plan approval for the shopping center. This is in place and the bonds
have been paid, and site work has begun. There is no desire to build this project. This was the
only option.
- Mr. Spurzem has come back and says what he really wants to do is a residential community.
That is what the Pantops Master Plan contemplates and what they understand the neighbors
would prefer over a shopping center. Many of the other property owners in that area very much
do not want a shopping center and would much prefer to see residential. They have been
working for the past year on the residential rezoning proposal. She reviewed a rendering by the
project engineers of the approved shopping center project trying to provide a little bit of a three
dimensional perspective. Among other things, she pointed out the retaining walls. That is why so
much site work was being done in the one area for the grading to get the retaining walls
necessary to hold up the parking and so forth.
- The proposed rezoning is for entirely residential units. There would be no commercial of any
kind. There would be a maximum of 562 dwelling units, which is consistent with a dwelling unit
average of 15 per acre. It would be a mixture of unit types of single-family detached, single-
family attached or townhouses, and apartments. It would also include the relocation of Hansens
Mountain Road at the applicant’s expense. They also have a number of proffers including the
stream buffer; a trail that would be constructed in the northern portion of the property at the
owner’s expense; and a proffer that the site plan for the shopping center would be abandoned.
They have also proffered architectural standards to address the Monticello view shed issues.
- She pointed out on a copy of VDOT’s Route 250 East Corridor Study the current Hansens
Mountain Road alignment. It proposes to obscure the existing road bed and essentially take it up
and then shows the proposed relocation of Hansens Mountain Road through Glenorchy. On a
copy of the Land Use Map in the Pantops Master Plan, which was approved a few years ago, she
noted the transportation improvements. She noted the proposed relocation of Hansens Mountain
Road. It was the subject of much discussion when the Board of Supervisors was considering the
Master Plan several years ago. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors voted to include this as a
recommended road improvement project. It is on the list of implementation plans and is
recommended for construction.
- If this project were approved, full blown road plans would need to be designed, prepared,
reviewed, and ultimately approved by VDOT. The current plan is tempting to demonstrate that it
is possible to build it and keep the same alignment. No houses would be taken. No individual lot
owner would lose a single square foot of land. They have worked hard to keep the same general
alignment of Viewmont Court. The curves in the road actually help slow down the vehicles. They
have worked hard with VDOT to get them to agree to the speed limit being 25 miles per hour
instead of 45 as VDOT originally wanted. They have included some traffic calming devices.
- One of the issues in the staff report is that there is not a plan of development for this project. This
is a R-15 project and the Zoning Ordinance does not require a plan of development for a R-15
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
25
project. It requires them for Planned Districts. However, technically or legally it does not require
them for a R-15 project. There are a large number of apartment complexes in the County that
have been zoned R-15 and were built as essentially by-right projects without any plan of
development. There are many beautifully built projects, which includes Jefferson Ridge that was
designed and built by the applicant. It has things like attached garages, beautiful landscaping,
etc. It is a very high quality development and extremely successful project. Another R-15
development is the Woodlands of Charlottesville, which has very high quality amenities provided.
Carriage Hill is another example of a R-15 development with no plan of development.
- They think what is important to keep in mind with this project is the big picture issues, which staff
lists as favorable factors. She did not think anyone in the County wants a shopping center use.
She asked for a favorable recommendation for the residential development with no commercial.
They are proposing to fix a challenging road and traffic situation. They acknowledge that many
residents along Viewmont Court have significant concerns about the road relocation proposal, but
that issue has been decided by the Board when they approved the Pantops Master Plan. They
are merely trying to implement that plan.
Mr. Zobrist invited public comment.
Stan Livecott, Resident of Ashcroft, said he was not opposed to development. However, this property
has a history, which they are all aware of. He refers to the property as the white elephant. The reason
they don’t have a shopping center, which he was opposed to, was that it was not doable. The owner was
not able to unload the property after he got all of the approvals, which is why that went away. The density
is lower than what he is asking for. He asked why they would even consider going to that extreme since
they had all that public input. There has been no presentation about traffic as relates to the density. He
asked why there is no site plan.
Mr. Zobrist asked that he add things that are new items not already set forth in the staff report so the
Commission can have all of the facts when they make a decision.
Jean Wibble, resident and homeowner since 1972, opposed the request. She was concerned with the
project because of the traffic. It was not only the 562 houses proposed, but that houses have wives,
husbands, and children. They are talking about 1,000 or more people added to the existing traffic. The
lights will reflect on all the other houses and the noise generation. It would be a worse problem getting
out on to Route 250. Currently they have to wait for many red lights before they can get on to Route 250
before adding all this additional traffic. They have made no provision for the upper road, which is East
Haven Court where she lives. Her property is in the corner on the big map and backs up all of these
houses. There is no place for people to walk on the road. The road goes straight up the mountain. After
reading everything, she did not see any clear plans in anything that he had. She opposed the request
since the proposal would only hurt the Glenorchy residents.
Mr. Zobrist noted that Mr. Dunberg had sent in a letter. He asked if he had additional information.
Ron Dunberg replied that he had additional information.
- His family moved into 105 Viewmont Court on the Fourth of July in 1976. This is the third time he
has appeared before this body and subsequently the Board of Supervisors to defend the integrity
of Glenorchy and Viewmont Court. This is the oldest residential neighborhood in Pantops. On
the issue of traffic, he would very briefly discuss it. It is in the plan to reroute Hansens Mountain
road through Viewmont Court, which for all practical purposes will destroy the community. There
is no way to make that safe regardless of the speed limit.
- He asked to address another issue that rarely comes up when this body or the Board of
Supervisors is considering commercial or residential development, which is the issue of public
security. They know from the press that crime in the County is increasing. He regrets to say he
can personally attest to the fact that the property crime on Viewmont Court is on the rise. He can
also attest to the fact personally that the Albemarle County Police Force is inadequately staffed to
respond to telephone and/or electronic reports of crimes. When he called ten days after
submitting the electronic report and asked why he had not heard back as promised within 72
hours or ten days he was told because they don’t have the staff. It is a proven fact that the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
26
increase in population results inevitably in the increase in violent and property crime. He was not
talking about the rate, but the number of crimes. They are talking here about a substantial
increase in the population of Pantops without any effort to increase police protection. There is no
doubt in his mind that the substantial increase in the population will result in an increase in violent
and property crime. Where is the effort to increase police protection. It is not there.
Development commercial and residential continues in pace in Albemarle County and rarely do we
hear a discussion of the issue of public security. He thought it is time to do that.
- He had a couple of brief points to make about the plan. It is a fiction that they are being
accommodated for property lost to the entrance from the rerouting of Hansens Mountain to
Viewmont Court. He will lose shrubbery and a custom built mailbox/newspaper drop. What he
gets in return is dirt roughly the consistency of hardtop if not cement. That is not a fair
compensation. He has not heard yet why the entrance to Viewmont Court from 106 has to be
located where it is depriving him of some of his property when it could easily be moved just a little
bit in the other direction. If the developer does not destroy Glenorchy, he will fundamentally
change the characteristics and the character of Glenorchy. He felt he should be asked to
compensate the homeowners along Viewmont Court for landscaping that would help muffle the
sound of the dramatic increase in traffic that will result, if indeed it is done through Viewmont
Court. There is some debate about where the Board of Supervisors stood on this issue three or
four years ago.
Kirk Bowers, resident of 106 George Rogers Road in Key West Subdivision, said he was a long term
resident of Albemarle County. He had prepared comments this evening. He opposed the Pantops Ridge
rezoning application for three 3 reasons:
1. Roads, insufficient capacity on their road systems.
2. Utility and infrastructure – Do they have the capacity for water and sewer to add this area to the
development.
3. Environmental impacts – This includes the destruction of the forest, trails, and the additional
impervious areas, which creates the additional runoff and storm water management issues.
He would like to say that they just don’t need or want any large residential development in the Pantops
community area. He was fairly confident in saying there is no one in Pantops who really supports any
large developments. He suspects that most people live in the County where they don’t have to face the
traffic conditions like they do in Pantops. Everyday traffic is backed up from McIntire Road to the
interstate. It has been getting worse and worse. He does support the County staff recommendation to
deny approval of Pantops Ridge rezoning application. Further, he would like to encourage the
Commission not to support this development. It is crucial to their community. They have already been
over developed and need to stop.
Dennis Roethlisberger, resident of Key West, said when he moved to Charlottesville 15 years ago there
were three stoplights between his house and I-64. He traveled the state frequently and so wanted a
house close to the interstate. Now there are eight stoplights between his house and the interstate. His
wife frequently resorts to cutting through the Food lion parking lot in order to circumvent the 250/20
interchange light in order to get home. This situation will only increase with the development of more
residential property out beyond that point. He recommends that the board not approve this zoning permit
and cancel any plans for development of that area.
Haley Blake-Scott, previous resident of Crozet, said he moved to Pantops to the Ashcroft neighborhood.
It does appear that Mr. Spurzem bought a piece of land zoned for a shopping center and now decries his
need for a shopping center and wants to build lots of houses, which is what he does. He was not
opposed to building houses, but they are talking Old Trail type density in about a tenth of the space. He
reiterated that the traffic situation on Pantops is unconscionable at times. In a normal traffic pattern, it
would take ten minutes to get to work and often times it takes 40 minutes for no apparent reason. They
are talking in a density of this level of adding anywhere to 600 to 800 cars in a small area. They are
going to be taking a bad situation and making it substantially worse. There is no plan for this. He was not
opposed to residential housing in this area, but he thought at this density it is just insane.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
27
Paul Beyer represented for R L Beyer Construction who builds houses in Ashcroft and Liberty Land, the
developer of Ashcroft. There were two points expressed tonight.
- The main point is just to reiterate how badly they need the connection through Glenorchy. There
is a reason why the connection was shown on the Pantops Master Plan. There is a dangerous
intersection that comes out where Hansens Mountain Road comes out onto 250. It would fail on
any safety inspection. It is a dangerous intersection where a traffic accident will occur at some
point. Frankly, there is no real solution to it besides rerouting the road through Glenorchy. He
fears that at some point if Mr. Spurzem was not opposing this road VDOT would have to step
forth at some point and do it. It would be a major accident that would happen and then the fire
would be lit and this road would be needed. At that point Mr. Spruzem has bought a house
through his road is going to be rerouted. He is proposing it as part of the proffer. Ten years from
now or if Mr. Spurzum goes away and someone lives in that house they are facing imminent
domain in order to reroute a needed road through that subdivision. It is a sensitive issue.
- He would point out there are 150 families already in Ashcroft who could fill up this auditorium. He
also represents 130 homes that are going to be built in Ashcroft, which will be double what is
there. It is a very pressing solution that affects a great number of families. He would asked
regardless of the rest of the property that they give Mr. Spurzem an unequivocal answer that they
support the location and concept of the road and then whatever else happens to the property.
The road is paramount for Ashcroft and for the future residents and safety of the families.
- The second point was that he felt like Mr. Zobrist. He attended the meeting last night at the
Charlottesville Tomorrow. He felt that they need walkable communities and mixed use. There is
a reason they have urban density and promote that. He felt like some neighborhood shops here
would be great. He was sure that Mr. Spurzum was going for something easy here because it
was a contentious project.
Andrew Dracopoli, representative for Worrell Land and Development Company, said they sold the land to
Mr. Spurzum and made the following comments.
- They bought the land from Dr. Hurt for what became Peter Jefferson Place. It was a part of what
Dr. Hurt owned. They knew when they bought it that the property had the Planned Development
Shopping Center zoning. However, nobody ever considered that was a viable option for the
property. In fact, one of the first things that he did when he came to work for Mr. Worrell was in
the 1989 work on the Comprehensive Plan for the density of the property to be as a residential
property. It clearly needs to be a residential property. The County encourages Urban Density in
the urban growth area. It is within the water and sewer district. When they widened 250 in 1990,
they extended the sewer line to the property so it could hook into the pump station that they have
at the Peter Jefferson Place. It clearly needs to be residential.
- The other part is that the road issue was a huge issue. Eventually there is going to be a major
accident there that is going to force the issue. He thought that this addresses that and the only
way that it is seen feasible both by VDOT and the County was through the master plan process.
The other thing he would like the Commission to think about in the back of their mind is that
everybody has said that nobody is going to build a shopping center. However, if that really
becomes the only option somebody is going to build that shopping center. It may not be Mr.
Spruzum, but somebody will. That shopping center has 60’ high retaining walls. It is a
monstrosity.
- He asked to think about if at the end of the process they deny Mr. Spurzum and effectively
prevent him from doing any residential on this property that shopping center would be built. Then
they are going to look back on it and say did they make the right decision. They will question
whether they were nitpicking on their rules about having pre-approved application plans and
everything like that. This is a down zoning from a Planning Development Shopping Center
zoning to a residential zoning. They know that rezoning for R-15 do not require an application
plan. He asked why they were requiring one for this site. He thinks they really run the risk of
creating something a monstrosity that they really don’t want and which nobody in the County will
thank them for. That will be the only use for this property.
Richard Beyer, owner of the Ashcroft development, noted that a minor point that has not been brought up
is that as far as the access in Ashcroft is this is the only place between the interstate and the top of the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
28
hill where the Liberty Gas Station is that does not have the benefit of the safety of a light. Everything else
does have it one way or the other so they can get out at a light.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing to bring the matter before
the Planning Commission.
Ms. Long asked for rebuttal time. She made the following comments.
- This project has a long history and she wanted to make sure the Commission had the benefit of
the bigger picture of it there just to reiterate some of the things and to respond to some of the
comments that were made. They understand the traffic issues in the Glenorchy neighborhood
would be different than they are now obviously. She would like the Commission to keep in mind
that it is not a matter of the traffic now versus it can’t stay that way. If the road is relocated, which
VDOT and the County have said that they want, it is a matter of the shopping center being in
place with all of what Mr. Dracopoli described as the monstrosity of the retaining walls and a use
that absolutely no one wants. The shopping center does not permit the relocation of Hansens
Mountain Road. If the shopping center is built and continued the situation that Hansens Mountain
Road at the cross over at Hansens Mountain Road and Route 250 is required by the site plan
approval to be closed. They will end up with a situation where Hansens Mountain Road becomes
a right in right out only intersection. Which means that anybody trying to exit Hansens Mountain
Road and go east towards the interstate will have to go west or towards town and go way past
where they want to go and make a U-turn. The site plan requires that no U-turn signs be posted.
It will be a disaster for everyone. There will be many U-turns going back and forth in front of
Pantops.
- She did not dispute the comments that were made by several of the speakers about the traffic
situation at Pantops on 250 now. This will exacerbate the problem beyond everybody’s worse
nightmare. They think that the proposed solution they have brought forth tonight is a reasonable
one based on the circumstances. It is not ideal by any means. It is the only solution that anyone
has brought forth that is viable. It is what VDOT says they want. It is what the County says they
want. The owner is proposing to build that relocation at its expense entirely, which is estimated
between 3 and 4 million dollars, depending on a number of variances. As stated by the Ashcroft
developers, there are over 135 residents there now and over 100+ lots that are coming. There
are a number of lots at the Shadwell Mountain Estates neighborhood that use Hansens Mountain
Road. There will be people using Hansens Mountain Road regardless of whether this project is
approved. It will be all of those residents plus the customers of the shopping center exacerbating
an already difficult traffic situation. The alternative is if they will work with the applicant and
approve the R-15 rezoning, there will be instead of a disastrous shopping center and all of the
attendant negative impacts that come with that, there will be a residential community and there
will be a relocated road at the owner’s expense. The owner is the only person who has stepped
forward to solve this traffic problem. There is no one else who is willing or able to. Certainly, the
County does not have the funds at the moment. VDOT does not have the money now and does
not appear to have it anytime in the future. She did not believe the Ashcroft residents are
interested in being assessed for the 3 to 4 million dollars it would cost to build the project. The
owner is proffering to build it himself. She is asking that the Commission keep that in mind.
- Again, she thought that Mr. Dracopoli’s points were very well put. Whether it is worth spending
more time discussing some of the smaller issues she was not sure. She was not saying they
were irrelevant, but that these issues were smaller. The proffer plan is not required. They have a
list of proffers and addressed a number of those issues. They don’t think a proffer plan is
necessary for the Commission to make a determination that a down zoning from a shopping
center is preferable to having a plan. They think everyone can agree that a residential
community, even without any proffer plan, is better for the overall community than a shopping
center, especially a shopping center without the relocation of Hansens Mountain Road. That is
the most simple situation.
- There are a number of other benefits. The grading involved to create that shopping center is
substantial. The trucks required to bring that dirt in and out all day long will be a disastrous for
the neighborhood. By comparison, a residential community can work with the existing grade
much better. Obviously, some amount of grading will be required, but substantially less. No
retaining walls. They have proffered architectural standards. They have proffered a lighting
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
29
standard. They have proffered a trail. All of those that would not come with the shopping center.
The shopping center will have the retaining walls. It will have lights in the shopping center
parking lot that could create an adverse impact on the neighbors. There will be truck deliveries
coming every single day creating noise. It will be a terrible view shed issue for both the Ashcroft
residents and certainly from Monticello as well. There are many other issues she would be happy
to elaborate further on.
- They understand that it is not a perfect proposal. They have worked very hard over the last year
to address as many of the comments from the staff as possible. That is why they revised their
proffers on a number of occasions to address the issues. They went absolutely as far as they
could short of proffering the plan. They think again in the big picture in the larger community the
community is much better with 562 dwelling units and a relocation of Hansens Mountain Road in
a way that can be done in a sensitive fashion at no cost to the County. That down zoning is far
superior and it outweighs all those negative factors that are listed in the staff report.
- One final point with regard to the cash proffer policy. The cash proffer policy includes a provision
entitled exceptional circumstances. It is a provision that says in essence that certain projects are
unique. It left a door open for the Board to accept a rezoning projects for residential use that
were unique and different. She did not think this was contemplated at the time. However, it talks
about unique circumstances of a proposed development that either mitigates the development’s
projected impact on public facilities and creates a demonstrable reduction in capital facilities
needs. In this case, the road relocation meets that test. As somebody stated, the option really
becomes the road has to be fixed at some point. She would think everybody would agree. One
major accident there and another major accident there and VDOT will require it. Her final point is
that the mitigate the impact because they were willing to build the road now at no cost to
taxpayers. If it is not built now by the owner, her understanding is that it will be built someday at
significant cost to taxpayers and they believe they fit into that circumstance.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the matter was now before the Commission.
Mr. Morris noted this request was in his district and he agreed with a number of people, specifically Mr.
Dracopoli, in that he definitely opposes a shopping center here from looking at the shopping center and
the projection as to the amount of traffic that it would bring about. This is going into a right in right out
operation that would be extremely dangerous with nearly 9,500 vehicle trips per day. There are a number
of people in this room that helped with the Pantops Master Plan. The Pantops Master Plan clearly says
that this area should be residential and a combination of both urban and neighborhood density. He
believed that Ms. Grant explained exactly what that was. There is no clear measurement in this
document that says how many acres of the overall plot should be urban, green space, green site, and so
forth. He thought that could be worked out. He was against the R-15 overall. He thought they need a
plan that gives an idea of exactly what they are looking at. There will be a neighborhood or a shopping
center in this area. He thought it would behoove them to look at really how they are going to make this
work. Again, if they were here and working on the plan as a lot of the people present were they saw that
this was going to be problematic, but it is part of the plan.
Mr. Loach said that obviously Ms. Long is incorrect in her assumption that the community is in support of
this project. He finds it odd, too, that the developer would show up and define his current project as a
disaster. He wondered if the first time it came before the Planning Commission and Board if it was
described in similar terms, which he doubts. Ms. Long made several references in her presentation to the
master plan, yet did not bother to bring in a plan that is consistent with the master plan. In regards to Mr.
Beyer who came up and discussed the presentation that was given the other night at the Charlottesville
Tomorrow he would point out that the essence in his ending remarks the one point that he made very
specifically was that density could not occur without good design and without good design it would fail.
What they are seeing here is not a design consistent with the master plan that the neighborhood had
spent a considerable amount of time. He was not going to support this proposal.
Mr. Smith questioned who would use the shopping center if they only had right in and right out. The road
in and the road out would be very detrimental to the neighborhood. He did not know any other way to do
it. He would not want it if he lived there. He would be opposed to the County having anything to do with
any condemnation of property to help build the road.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
30
Ms. Porterfield pointed out that Mr. Morris and she had the abutting magisterial districts. The Scottsville
Magisterial District goes out as far east as the edge of the County. Route 250 is a major problem. It is
not going to get any better. It was a big consideration in developing the Village of Rivanna Master Plan.
This particular area of Route 250 that starts basically east about where the curve comes around and
where one can buy ice cream just off of Route 250 and heads to the west going through Pantops is
becoming a real bottleneck. She believed that the plan is that the median portion of Route 250 that
opens at Hansen’s Mountain Road will be closed. When it is closed, Hansens Mountain Road basically
becomes a right out and right in. When leaving their homes in the morning, Ashcroft residents can make
a right turn. However if they want to access the interstate, they will need to make a U-turn at Peter
Jefferson Parkway. If the people in Ashcroft want to get back to their houses from work downtown or on
Route 29, they will have to drive past Hansen’s Mountain Road, underneath the overpass and go down to
about the Comfort Inn to make the U- turn. She would appreciate if they ask Joel DeNunzio come up and
talk about it. Her reason for saying this is that it is very, very important that they work with this applicant.
Not everything is wonderful with regard to Route 250. The ability to build Hansen’s Mountain Road where
it can be brought out to a signalized light is very important to the people in Ashcroft, the people on the cul-
de-sac that it is going to come through, the people in this new development, and the people who are
coming and going through the area by the I-64 interchange and Pantops. She suggested they figure out
how to work with this individual to achieve the needed connection for Hansen’s Mountain Road.
Mr. Loach noted that was exactly what everybody just said. He asked what is the problem.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out they did not support the proposal. She suggested they should work with the
applicant to figure out how to keep the proposal alive and work with it.
Mr. Franco noted he heard everyone saying they could not support this proposal as is, but they are not
saying they can’t support any proposal. He echoed some of the comments he had heard.
- With respect to the master plan this has been one of the issues he has raised all along with the
master plans that he had been involved with. They need to look at what kind of threats or
problems are associated with it. He thought the decision to route the road through in the direction
the applicant has proposed is something that has been decided. It is going to happen at some
point in time. However, the density and use is something that is a liability of the master plan
because it is a shopping center. He thought that the residential is better. He could support
residential there recognizing that R-15 is higher than the master plan. He was still comfortable
with that from the aspect that they are getting rid of the shopping center use that he did not want
to have in that location.
- There is a statement they need to adhere to what the Code calls for in regards to the submittal of
a plan. He resented over the years having new rules created along the way. Since R15 does not
require a plan he thinks the important aspects they are looking for is some of the buffers and trails
that are being proffered. He would like to see a plan, but was comfortable not having one simply
because it was not a requirement of the Code.
- His biggest concerns with this development will be with respect to the proffers and trying to find
the right balance that works to encourage the use and the change over of use, but to get some of
the cash proffers and the proffers for affordable housing that are required. From what he has
heard, the road improvements are 3 to 4 million dollars, which is the best guess. He thought the
upper end of the density they are probably looking at over 7 million dollars in cash proffers in
accordance with the current policy. They are not assured of that high density, but are probably
somewhere between 5 to 7 million. Therefore, there is an excess in cash proffers above and
beyond the road. He thought they should get credit for rerouting the road and the public
improvements he is making, but it should not wipe out full expectation of the cash proffer.
Mr. Zobrist suggested that they should ask the applicant to defer and come back for a work session,
which he was surprised that they did not have already. It would have taken a lot less time to come in on a
work session to work with the Commission to find out what they think they can come up with.
Mr. Franco said he was not sure if there was a benefit to the work session if they are looking for design
aspects.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
31
Mr. Zobrist pointed out that this is fairly controversial. It has been around for a long time. He thought that
there is consensus that they are all very happy with the idea it is not going to be a shopping center so
let’s have residential up there. The question is what are the components of that going to be and how do
they get to that point in time. The Commission can turn this down and tell the applicant to go make
another application and delay the process, or they could have a work session and work it out to see if
they can come up with a consensus. He agreed with Mr. Franco that this is a good idea, but just not the
way it has been proposed.
Mr. Loach noted in the community master plan the County decided to use the Neighborhood Model in
judging applications that come before the Planning Commission. In this request out of the 12 there are 9
not met. It has to be consistent with the Neighborhood Model, which is the way they are judging these.
The growth area residents have the right to expect that. That is how these things are going to be looked
at.
Mr. Franco said with a zoning classification that is an option for R15. The Neighborhood Model standards
were set to be tools to evaluate projects with. He did not know if it was fair. There are a number of the
principles that can’t be addressed because the plan has not been proposed. That does not mean that
they won’t be addressed in the future. For instance, the pedestrian connections or the walkability it says
it has not been accurately addressed. Yet they are going to find that at least sidewalks in those
pedestrian mode areas will be provided because the Subdivision Ordinance is going to require curb,
gutter, and sidewalk in there. Granted they don’t know where it is going to be, but the orientation is going
to be a little bit of a question because they are going to be using the existing setbacks. He was not sure
that they are ever going to find the underlying cause of that unless they start to require a plan or a
different zoning classification.
Mr. Zobrist noted that they have ARB to consider here, too. This is on the Entrance Corridor. He was not
prepared to take any action other than to say come back for a work session or if they want a vote, they
will. It is entirely up to the applicant.
Mr. Franco said he was not prepared to make a motion yet. It looks like the consensus here is not to
move it forward with a recommendation of approval at this point in time. Before they take that action, it
would be very helpful to be more specific to the applicant on what they like or don’t like about what is
being proposed so that they can clearly understand where they stand. He heard some of the speakers
mention the road and the rerouting of the road. If they feel that is off the table because of the master plan
or other components that they have heard tonight, then he thought that they need to state that. He
clarified that it was off the table in the sense that it is going to happen and they support that. It is a given.
Then they can move on to what concerns they do have. Otherwise, the work session is not going to be
productive.
Mr. Morris asked if it would be of benefit to ask the applicant to come forward and get their input if they
are willing to discuss this. If they are adamant on R15, then that is a deal breaker for him.
Mr. Zobrist invited Ms. Long to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Long noted that the applicant at this point feels very strongly about the issue of the application plan.
The current ordinance does not require an application plan for a R15 District. They are asking to be
treated fairly here by the legal rules in regards to the ordinance. That is all they are asking for. They
certainly appreciate the comments and feedback. It is helpful. However, at this point the applicant is not
interested in discussing a plan essentially affirming Mr. Franco’s assumptions.
Ms. Porterfield said she was having a real problem in why they absolutely can’t deal with it as an R15.
He is proffering certain things. They could ask that he proffer a few other things that would handle some
of their expectations if it were in a different classification. She opposed throwing the whole baby out with
the bath water.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
32
Mr. Zobrist replied that they were not throwing it away. This is a recommendation to the Board. He was
not willing to deal with it as a R15.
Mr. Franco asked what is the concern and whether the 562 is too high.
Mr. Zobrist replied that they have a master plan and Neighborhood Model and they ought to deal with it
in terms of what is on it. He heard that the community did not want the 562 houses on the R15. The
master plan does not call for it. Staff has recommended on that basis alone that it be denied. They have
offered to have a discussion with the applicant and help them to get to what is best for both sides of the
community. They all have to live together. If the applicant does not want to do that, then they have no
choice to move it up or down.
Mr. Franco said they also have all agreed that the shopping center is not what they want to see. He
asked if there is a compromise or a common ground somewhere between the master plan density and
what is being proposed.
Mr. Loach noted that they have heard from the applicant that there is no compromise. The Commission
is responding to what the applicant has presented and told them. What he saw presented was nothing
that was consistent with the master plan or Neighborhood Model. The master plan has been vetted by
the community, Planning Commission, and Board and they need to be consistent with them. He was
judging the proposal on what merits were brought before the Commission tonight.
Mr. Kamptner said what he was hearing from four Commissioners was that if there was a vote to
recommend denial it could be because the proposed density is too intense for that particular site.
Mr. Morris said it does not meet with the Pantops Master Plan.
Mr. Zobrist noted there were other technical issues with the proffers that make it impractical without some
work.
Mr. Morris asked to let it be known that he would love to see residential with the road and everything else,
but he feels that it needs to be in conformance with the Master Plan. Too many people worked too many
years to create that and just to throw it out. That is what is happening.
Ms. Porterfield asked if he was looking for the density that is in the master plan.
Mr. Morris replied that was correct. He was willing to give a little, which was why he was saying that very
possibly they could expand the urban density to take into consideration the green space that is there.
That would give more density to the individual and it can be worked out. At least it is a combination of
urban and neighborhood density meeting the qualifications of the Neighborhood Model.
Mr. Franco said if the applicant chose to come back with some kind of definition of how many single
families and townhouses to see how much was in the higher density with a total number that was lower
than the 562, it would be helpful.
Mr. Morris replied that he would think that it would be.
Mr. Kamptner noted if the applicant still insists on the Planning Commission taking action tonight, that can
be included as part of their recommendation. The Board can evaluate whether or not the Commission
would get to see the same project that they are looking at. What the Board has done with other rezonings
is send it back to the Planning Commission and ask them to provide a new recommendation based on
any revisions.
Mr. Franco asked the Chair to invite the applicant up again. What he heard the applicant say a minute
ago was they were adamant about the R15 and the application plan. He did not hear that on the density
side. He was trying to craft whatever the Commission was going to do.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
33
Mr. Zobrist invited the applicant to come forward and explain what they meant.
Mr. Franco asked if it was the application plan, the density or both.
Ms. Long replied that it was really both to be quite honest. Someone said that the applicant is not
compromising. She understands their position there. The applicant feels they are compromising
significantly. The by-right use permitted now is a very intensive commercial shopping center. They have
compromised down from that to a R15 zoning. She fully hears what he is saying that it is more than what
they would like per the Comprehensive Plan. The R15 zoning, as compared to the approved shopping
center, is so much closer. It is not perfect and not there. However, it is so much closer to the Pantops
Master Plan and they think it is far closer on the Neighborhood Model principles. They respectfully
disagree with the staff’s analysis on the Neighborhood Model principles, but she chose not to get into
those principles at this time. They are very important principles. They think the plan now complies with
many of them. As Mr. Franco said, they will ultimately achieve all of them.
Mr. Franco asked if their preference is they take an action tonight as opposed to not asking for a deferral.
Ms. Long replied that is correct. They appreciate their willingness to offer. It is the applicant’s preference
to have a vote. There has been a lot of time put into this project.
Mr. Franco said he was comfortable moving forward with a vote. If it were going forward as a
recommendation to the Board, it would be helpful to include a statement as part of the motion. He was
not prepared to craft the language, but should they choose to approve it here are the things that need to
be considered or to take care of. He thought that it would be most helpful to the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the report identified factors unfavorable. The Commission might not agree with
all the factors. However, it would be good to know in the motion what if any of the factors unfavorable
needs to be addressed or is relevant to their recommendation to the Board.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the unfavorable factors were based more on the fact that it is not following the
Neighborhood Model principles and not having an application plan or were they based on the R15 zoning.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it was based on staff’s evaluation of what was presented. Some actually notes
the master plan and some the lack of a plan. However, it also speaks to the lack of proffers regarding the
transit possibilities, and affordable housing. It has nothing to do with whether it is a Planned
Development or a R15.
Ms. Porterfield asked which ones could apply to R15 zoning as opposed to the ones that that would apply
only if it were the other way around. They should not be unfavorable factors if they don’t apply to R15
zoning because the applicant is not asking for anything else.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that #3 is the only one that the site is unfavorable due to the lack of a plan.
Ms. Porterfield said that #1 really is not an unfavorable factor for R15.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that was her judgment. He pointed out noted that conditions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and
9 all apply to the rezoning.
Mr. Zobrist said the only reason they did not proffer a plan is that they have requested R15. Therefore,
they don’t have to submit a plan. If they were coming in as a Planned Development, they would need a
plan.
Mr. Franco pointed out what would help him move forward with a motion was to look at the summary on
page 10 and the three factors that are listed as favorable. He asked if the Commissioners agreed with
those points.
Factors Favorable:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
34
1. The residential use is more in keeping with the Land Use Plan than the approved commercial
use.
2. An extension of Viewmont Court and a relocated Hansens Mountain Road will be a safety
improvement for Ashcroft residents and can address many of the traffic impacts of the
development.
3. The residential use is less intensive than the approved commercial use and is expected to have
less of an impact on surrounding residential developments.
It was a consensus of the Commission to agree with the favorable factors.
Mr. Franco noted on the unfavorable side it lists the following factors:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Proposed density is not in keeping with the Pantops Master Plan.
2. There is no commitment to retain Green space shown on the Pantops Master Plan.
3. No plan of development that could allow determination that goals from the Comprehensive Plan,
including the Pantops Master Plan, related to environmental preservation, design around a
Central Green, provision of amenities, provision of a mixture of housing types, and a pedestrian
orientation are met.
4. No traffic study has been provided. Without a traffic study, requirements of the state’s Chapter
527 traffic study regulations have not been met and needed transportation improvements
resulting from the development cannot be confirmed, including the proposed relocation of
Hansens Mountain Road.
5. The proffers obligate the County or VDOT to acquire any needed land for the relocation of
Hansens Mountain Road utilizing funds proffered by the applicant without a commitment by the
applicant to attempt to acquire this land themselves. This puts the County or VDOT in the
position of potentially needing to condemn land owned by multiple property owners in order for
the proffer to be executed.
6. There is no commitment to accommodate transit in the development, nor is there a commitment
of any funding for public transit services.
7. There is no commitment to providing affordable housing.
8. There is no commitment to off-set the development’s impacts on public facilities as stipulated in
Appendix B of the County Land Use Plan entitled “County of Albemarle, Virginia Cash Proffer
Policy for Public Facilities”.
9. Proffers are in need of substantive and technical changes.
Mr. Franco asked if the Commission agrees with #1 about the density not being in keeping with the
Pantops Master Plan. He asked if it was fair to say that there is room for some massaging of that.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that across the board it needs to be more in keeping
with the Pantops Master Plan.
Mr. Franco said the commitment to the green space as shown on the master plan was an unfavorable
factor.
Ms. Porterfield said that they were giving green space. He is going to have the trail within a section, and
is doing a large buffer along the stream. It may not be exactly in the square that was shown.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is a pretty significant area on the eastern side of the property that the
master plan showed as green space as well. They are not getting that proffer. They are saying that it is
just not at the level that the master plan shows.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
35
Mr. Franco noted that he was trying to craft this into a motion. It sounds like that without a lot of
massaging that remains an issue for the majority of the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff will be the first to admit that in the ultimate outcome it might not be the
exact area as noted in the master plan.
Mr. Franco noted that #2 remains an issue for the Commission. Number 3 was the fact that there was not
plan. He asked if they were comfortable that there is no plan because it is R15. He asked what are the
components of the plan that they are looking for. What if he came back with something that offered a
certain amount of green space, but did not define where it was. He could proffer a minimum 10 or 15
percent open space, but just not tell us where it is to be. Would they require everyone to submit under
the neighborhood model to rezone.
Mr. Kamptner said he read factor #3 a little bit differently. In what staff is saying if a plan had been
submitted it would have allowed staff to evaluate better the proposed rezoning against the Pantops
Master Plan. That is all that is saying. Without a plan staff was unable to determine whether or not the
goals of the Pantops Master Plan would be satisfied.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that is what it should say.
Mr. Zobrist noted that is what it says.
Ms. Porterfield said it is a factor unfavorable, but it is a wish list that would help staff in evaluating it. It is
not really unfavorable for what they are asking for because it is not required.
Mr. Zobrist said it is required for staff to look at the Comprehensive Plan and see how it relates to the
application plan.
Mr. Kamptner noted that he was saying that it was required for a Comp Plan analysis. That kind of
information would have allowed staff to determine the extent to which it complies or does not comply with
the Pantops Master Plan.
Mr. Franco asked if he would gain consensus by wording it closer to what they heard from the attorney to
say that it would have been helpful versus what is said in the staff report. They want to be clear to the
Board.
Mr. Kamptner suggested there was insufficient information provided to evaluate fully.
Mr. Morris said it would be fine with him especially in that he is requesting a R15. It would be helpful for
staff to have something to bounce it off.
Mr. Franco agreed with that. The problem in the past has been if they submit a plan that all of a sudden
even though it is supposed to define some general concept, it is set in stone.
Mr. Morris said that they don’t want that.
Mr. Cilimberg said actually they are not asking for plans any longer that get proffered or are a part of a
Planned Development that are showing a specific location for the building or buildings. They have
tailored back to knowing where the critical environmental areas are that should be avoided, the roads
should be located, and where the areas of building and parking would be. Then they have let the issues
of density, number of dwelling units by type and location really be part of proffers or in a code of
development when they do the Planned Development. Illustrative plans show a lot more details.
However, that is not the plan that is proffered or a part of the zoning.
Mr. Franco noted that #4 was the parking study, which remains unfavorable.
Mr. Morris agreed it was definitely unfavorable and he would like to have it.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
36
Ms. Porterfield said a traffic study was done in 2006. It indicated the number of vehicles per day for the
shopping center at 9,500. Then they used the normal way of calculating residential units to say that this
drops down to 5,100. It is a no brainer that it was dropping. This is going to get a lot better. The
question is if the money should be spent on a traffic study when the number was going down. When it is
going up, she could see exactly what they mean and why it was unfavorable. It was very favorable to cut
the numbers in almost in half.
Mr. Franco asked if they could make that a favorable point and add that the reduction in traffic is
favorable in order to address everybody’s concern.
Mr. Zobrist said he was not sure if it was favorable if it was at 562 units.
Mr. Franco noted it was moving in the right direction.
Mr. Zobrist agreed it was moving in the right direction, but not far enough.
Mr. Morris said his concern as far as the traffic study is that what they were looking at is the current
Hansens Mountain Road and he would like to see what the projection of traffic would be at the new
location that has a stop light. He would like to have some kind of handle on what is going to come
through Glenorchy.
Mr. Zobrist noted what they need to know is what is going to be the impact of the traffic.
Mr. Franco pointed out the numbers in the report was taking them from 5 houses on the road and the cul-
de-sac that is there, which is estimated to be 50 vehicle trips per day. It was taking it to 5,100. It is two
orders of magnitude. It was putting the traffic to the intersection where they want it to come out.
Mr. Morris said they also have to think about everything from Ashcroft, which has to be weighed in there
and the other subdivision.
Mr. Franco noted that was part of the study or at least the numbers that are recorded. The proffers
obligate the County and VDOT to acquire land. He asked if that was a concern for the Commission.
Mr. Zobrist said the County should never be required to do either one.
Mr. Franco noted he goes back and forth on this. The arguments he has heard in favor of this is that it
helps to execute the master plan. In order to make the road system or the network meet the master plan
someone is going to have to execute it. The County can either do it as a participant or it is not going to
be done.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out by way of background there have been a couple of other rezonings where the
County accepted proffers in a similar format to this where the applicant proffered cash where if necessary
the County would use it for imminent domain. One was Albemarle Place Commercial Development and
the landing issue was along Route 29. The other one was North Pointe.
Mr. Zobrist said he did not have any problem with that concept.
Ms. Porterfield noted that #8 was not an unfavorable factor. It was just that the County would prefer not
to weigh in unless absolutely necessary.
Mr. Kamptner said the other proffers provide that the applicant would seek to acquire the property and
right-of-way up front.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that they don’t have that right now as a proffer in this case. That was their concern.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
37
Mr. Franco said the applicant would try to get the property first, and if it can’t then they would allow the
County to execute this. Is what they are saying that they don’t have that right now.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that was what he understood Mr. Kamptner to say.
Mr. Smith said that would be very unfavorable to him for the County to condemn the land.
Mr. Franco asked what was their consensus for a motion.
Ms. Porterfield said she would love to see the proffer written such that if it becomes necessary because of
the situation of needing this road that the County would have to step in. It is a definite benefit to the
County to get this ability to run this road through to a signalized intersection.
Mr. Zobrist agreed.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that Ms. Long corrected him. In the other examples, the proffers themselves do
not put the obligation on the land owner to negotiate first. He thought there might be an understanding.
However, as far as the proffers are concerned that was not spelled out in the proffers.
Mr. Zobrist asked what does that mean. If this was approved with the County having to condemn and the
County did not go condemn then what happens, they don’t have to build the road.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the road is not constructed and the transportation impacts are not addressed.
Ms. Zobrist said he was not aware of any condemnations by the County for the last 20 years.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that he knew of one case where there was an off-site project that was interested in
making improvements that might be necessary for rezoning, but they could not get the property owner to
agree. They wanted the County or VDOT to use their money to condemn. They actually ended up
putting the project in the Six Year Secondary Plan to be paid for by the developer at which time that land
would be necessary. That was not part of a proffer. That was before there was a rezoning proposal
made. The County Attorney’s Office can probably better address the problem. Staff felt that should be
the last result so to speak.
Mr. Zobrist said he thought they all agree with that.
Mr. Smith said that he did not agree. He suggested that they put themselves on that subdivision street.
Mr. Zobrist said that he understood. However, he also knew they have a nightmare with Hansens
Mountain Road and that needs to be changed. At some point in time, the County or someone will have to
step up and change it. This is the opportunity.
Mr. Franco asked if they all agree on the transit being unfavorable.
It was the consensus of the Commission that transit was unfavorable.
Mr. Morris said he was in favor of affordable housing, but with the economy, they might not develop it.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out what he was hearing from Ron White was they did not need units, they need
money to get people into them.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the standard proffer allows for money in lieu of the units at the determination of
the housing director.
Mr. Cilimberg said he had not talked with Ron White very recently. That is something they determined
that they should not decide at the proffer level, but let the proffer be flexible enough where that could be
determined by the Housing Director.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
38
Mr. Franco asked if the majority feels that it is important or not.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that #7 was important.
Mr. Franco said that in #8 there is a lack of commitment for the development’s impact. It was basically
the cash proffer policy.
Mr. Zobrist noted that Ms. Long asked to waiver that because of unusual circumstances. They are getting
rid of a shopping center and getting houses. She wants to waive that because of extenuating
circumstances.
Mr. Cilimberg said in determining the cash proffer amount received based on the units that projects such
as an off-site road can be a credit against that amount. But they can’t reduce the amount of the per unit
cash proffer. That is a fairly standard consideration. However, it fall under the policy. They are really just
pointing to the fact that they had no commitment in accord with the policy.
Mr. Zobrist said they were saying that the applicant should be given a credit for the road.
Mr. Franco agreed and that it sounds great.
Mr. Morris agreed.
Mr. Franco said that #9 stops so they don’t need to talk about it. Given the fact the applicant does
not want to defer and wants to move forward.
Mr. Zobrist asked Ms. Long if she wants to change her position to defer or do they vote.
Ms. Long replied that she was able to follow everything and their position remains the same.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend denial of ZMA-2010-00001, Pantops
Ridge based on the following:
The favorable factors identified in the staff report with the addition of a favorable factor being the
reduction in the traffic generated by the proposed use; and
The nine factors listed in the staff report as unfavorable with the comments massaged and made during
the discussion.
Factors Favorable:
4. The residential use is more in keeping with the Land Use Plan than the approved commercial
use.
5. An extension of Viewmont Court and a relocated Hansens Mountain Road will be a safety
improvement for Ashcroft residents and can address many of the traffic impacts of the
development.
6. The residential use is less intensive than the approved commercial use and is expected to have
less of an impact on surrounding residential developments.
7. The reduction in the traffic generated by the proposed use.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Proposed density is not in keeping with the Pantops Master Plan.
2. There is no commitment to retain Green space shown on the Pantops Master Plan.
3. No plan of development that could allow determination that goals from the Comprehensive Plan,
including the Pantops Master Plan, related to environmental preservation, design around a Central
Green, provision of amenities, provision of a mixture of housing types, and a pedestrian orientation
are met.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
39
4. No traffic study has been provided. Without a traffic study, requirements of the state’s Chapter 527
traffic study regulations have not been met and needed transportation improvements resulting from
the development cannot be confirmed, including the proposed relocation of Hansens Mountain Road.
5. The proffers obligate the County or VDOT to acquire any needed land for the relocation of Hansens
Mountain Road utilizing funds proffered by the applicant without a commitment by the applicant to
attempt to acquire this land themselves. This puts the County or VDOT in the position of potentially
needing to condemn land owned by multiple property owners in order for the proffer to be executed.
6. There is no commitment to accommodate transit in the development, nor is there a commitment of
any funding for public transit services.
7. There is no commitment to providing affordable housing.
8. There is no commitment to off-set the development’s impacts on public facilities as stipulated in
Appendix B of the County Land Use Plan entitled “County of Albemarle, Virginia Cash Proffer Policy
for Public Facilities”.
9. Proffers are in need of substantive and technical changes.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that he understood the motion, but was going to have to report this to the Board. He
was hearing the motion recognizing the factors favorable and noting a fourth factor favorable as reduction
in traffic. However, also recognizing for the reason of denial the factors unfavorable. What he was
hearing is that rather than the plan of development being critical under #3, there was basically insufficient
information to allow a determination that the goals of the Comp Plan, including the Master Plan, were
being met. In addition, there should be credit for the off-site road in determining the cash proffer
obligation.
Mr. Morris noted that was correct.
Mr. Franco noted for clarification it was not just the off-site road, but the road that is upgraded to a site
would also contribute towards that or the cost to the road.
Mr. Cilimberg added the road upgrade.
Mr. Franco added that the condemnation issue was discussed. His motion would add that the
Commission is comfortable with the need to condemn as a last alternative or a last resort at the
applicant’s expense.
Mr. Zobrist asked if Mr. Smith could dissent from that portion, and Mr. Franco replied yes.
Mr. Zobrist asked if there was further discussion.
Mr. Franco asked if staff has enough to understand the Commission’s action.
Mr. Cilimberg said on the last point regarding the obligations for possible condemnation the clarification is
that the County or VDOT are a last resort. The applicant has actually already agreed to pay since that is
already in the proffers.
Mr. Zobrist noted that it had been moved by Mr. Franco and seconded by Mr. Morris in accordance with
the discussion. He asked if there was any further discussion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:1. (Mr. Smith voted aye with reservation because it would be very
unfavorable for the County or state to condemn the land.) (Ms. Porterfield voted nay for the following
reasons: She believed this applicant would work with R-15 and do a good job, especially seeing some of
the areas that he has already built. The applicant is willing to proffer away the approved shopping center.
The applicant is willing at his expense and has already made the effort to purchase a lot so that Hansen’s
Mountain Road can be relocated and extended to come out at a traffic light on Route 250. This relocation
will greatly benefit the current and future residents of Ashcroft as well as all who travel Route 250 both
east and west at the Shadwell I-64 Interchange.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
40
Mr. Zobrist noted that ZMA-2009-00001 Pantops Ridge would go before the Board of Supervisors on a
date to be determined with a recommendation for denial, based on the favorable and unfavorable factors
as amended and identified in Attachment 6.
Attachment 6
ZMA-2010-00001 Pantops Ridge
In summary, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 5:1 (Porterfield voted nay.) (Mr. Smith voted aye with
reservation.) recommended denial of ZMA 2010-00001, Pantops Ridge based on the following:
· The factors identified in the staff report as favorable with the addition of a fourth being the
reduction in the traffic generated by the project; and
· The nine factors listed in the staff report as unfavorable with the comments revised and made
during the discussion.
(Mr. Smith voted aye with reservation because it would be very unfavorable for the County or state to
condemn the land.) (Ms. Porterfield voted nay for the following reasons: She believed this applicant
would work with R-15 and do a good job, especially seeing some of the areas that he has already built.
The applicant is willing to proffer away the approved shopping center. The applicant is willing at his
expense and has already made the effort to purchase a lot so that Hansen’s Mountain Road can be
relocated and extended to come out at a traffic light on Route 250. This relocation will greatly benefit the
current and future residents of Ashcroft as well as all who travel Route 250 both east and west at the
Shadwell I-64 Interchange.)
Factors Favorable:
1. The residential use is more in keeping with the Land Use Plan than the approved commercial use.
2. An extension of Viewmont Court and a relocated Hansens Mountain Road will be a safety
improvement for Ashcroft residents and can address many of the traffic impacts of the development.
3. The residential use is less intensive than the approved commercial use and is expected to have less of
an impact on surrounding residential developments.
4. The reduction in the traffic generated by the proposed use.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Proposed density is not in keeping with the Pantops Master Plan.
2. There is no commitment to retain Green space shown on the Pantops Master Plan.
3. No plan of development that could allow determination that goals from the Comprehensive Plan,
including the Pantops Master Plan, related to environmental preservation, design around a Central
Green, provision of amenities, provision of a mixture of housing types, and a pedestrian orientation are
met.
4. No updated traffic study has been provided for this application, however a significant lessened traffic
count was computed due to the change in use from shopping center to R-15. Without a traffic study,
requirements of the state’s Chapter 527 traffic study regulations have not been met and needed
transportation improvements resulting from the development cannot be confirmed, including the
proposed relocation of Hansens Mountain Road.
5. The proffers obligate the County or VDOT to acquire any needed land for the relocation of Hansens
Mountain Road utilizing funds proffered by the applicant without a commitment by the applicant to
attempt to acquire this land themselves. This puts the County or VDOT in the position of potentially
needing to condemn land owned by multiple property owners in order for the proffer to be executed.
6. There is no commitment to accommodate transit in the development, nor is there a commitment of any
funding for public transit services.
7. There is no commitment to providing affordable housing.
8. There is no commitment to off-set the development’s impacts on public facilities as stipulated in
Appendix B of the County Land Use Plan entitled “County of Albemarle, Virginia Cash Proffer Policy
for Public Facilities”.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
41
9. Proffers are in need of substantive and technical changes.
Additional clarification included the following:
· There was discussion regarding R-15 submission not requiring a plan of development. However,
the failure of the applicant to submit a plan of development was an unfavorable factor because,
without a plan, there was insufficient information to determine whether the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, including the Pantops Master Plan, were met. In addition, there should be
credit for the off-site road in determining the cash proffer obligation. The road upgrade to the site
would also contribute towards that or the cost to the road.
· The need to condemn to be used as a last alternative or last resort at the applicant’s expense.
Old Business
Mr. Zobrist asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
New Business
Mr. Zobrist asked if there was any new business.
· Slaughterhouse trip update.
· One Commissioner requested that maps with color keys be reproduced in color.
There being no further business, the meeting proceeded.
Adjournment
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m. to the Tuesday, January 18, 2009 meeting at
6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Auditorium, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
1
Elaine Echols
From:Paul Bjornsen
Sent:Wednesday, December 30, 2015 1:45 PM
To:Pete Caramanis
Cc:Elaine Echols; Greg Kamptner
Subject:RE: Albemarle County CDD File Request - Peter Caramanis - Transportation Proffers
Attachments:CDD - Approved Non-Res & Mixed-Use Rezonings - 2000-2015.pdf
Hello Pete,
The attached file lists possibilities for your review. Elaine has indicated (via asterisk & notes) the ZMA Applications that may be
more relevant to your needs.
The following is for your reference.
To find out more about each application, you can access our CountyView Application, Community Development’s primary resource for Planning &
Building Information. You can search using Application, Project Name or Tax Map Parcel information from the attachment:
http://countyviewweb.albemarle.org
Related Document links from search results will take you to the County of Albemarle Document Imaging System. If prompted, the User Name &
Password are both “public”. From there, you can navigate by folder or search.
You can also access Albemarle County’s GIS-Web to create Maps & view Property Information:
http://gisweb.albemarle.org/GISWeb/Welcome.aspx
Search by Address or Parcel, or click on ‘Go to Mapping’; choose the ‘Legend’ tab which includes ‘Zoning’, and check the boxes next to ‘ZMAs with
Proffers Labels’. The Full Property Information page will reveal additional characteristics (use the pull-down & choose All). If there are Proffers,
there will be a direct link to that application in the Document Imaging System.
Please note that we are still working on improvements to our Document Imaging System. The online content in our ZMA archive may
contain dated information. Let me know what files interest you, and I can make sure the current Proffers are available for your
review.
Thank you,
Paul Bjornsen, Information Services
Records Management Officer
Community Development ~ Albemarle County, VA
434.296.5823, x7940 | Laserfiche!
Disclaimer of Liability: With respect to the public records provided in response to your request under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act: (1) only those records that
have been requested with reasonable specificity have been provided; (2) neither the County of Albemarle, Virginia nor any of its officers, employees or agents, makes any
warranty, express or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose; and (3) neither the County of Albemarle, Virginia nor any of its
officers, employees or agents, assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, adequacy or usefulness of the contents of any of the public records
provided, and disclaims all liability, whether direct or indirect, for any loss or damage arising out of the use, reference to, or reliance on the contents of the public records.
From: Pete Caramanis [mailto:pcaramanis@rcmplc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 9:29 AM
To: Paul Bjornsen <pbjornsen@albemarle.org>
Cc: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>; Greg Kamptner <GKamptne@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Albemarle County CDD File Request - Peter Caramanis - Transportation Proffers
Paul,
Thank you. Our interest is in seeing what transportation related proffers have been associated with projects similar or
larger in scope to the Kohl’s portion of Hollymead Town Center. At our meeting with Elaine, we thought of Stonefield,
Martha Jefferson, 5th St. Station, and the Target portion of Hollymead Town Center. I’m sure there are others, but I
don’t know that there are 40, as you mention. If you have a list you can provide, I’d be glad to select those that I
think are worth you digging deeper into, or you’re welcome to narrow it down in your judgment based on my
description above. Thanks, again!
Pete
2
Peter J. Caramanis
Attorney at Law
pcaramanis@rcmplc.com
Royer, Caramanis & McDonough, PLC
200-C Garrett St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 260-8767
(434) 710-4061 Fax
NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may constitute an attorney-client communication that is privileged at law. It is not intended for transmission
to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your system without
copying it, and notify the sender by reply e-mail, so that our address records can be corrected. Thank you.
IRS Circular 230 Notice: Unless specifically stated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments)
is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
From: Paul Bjornsen [mailto:pbjornsen@albemarle.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 9:11 AM
To: Pete Caramanis <pcaramanis@rcmplc.com>
Cc: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>; Greg Kamptner <GKamptne@albemarle.org>
Subject: Albemarle County CDD File Request - Peter Caramanis - Transportation Proffers
Hello Peter,
I’ve been informed by Elaine Echols that you would like to review Zoning Map Amendments for Proffers that relate to transit service
and transportation for non-residential developments. She has compiled a list of forty (40) project examples, based on the notes from
your Pre-Application Meeting. If this is still your interest, I can begin the compilation process for you. If you wish to offer additional
clarification or change the scope of your request, please let me know. With that, I can give you a timeline for completion, as well as
any possible cost estimate.
Have a great day,
Paul Bjornsen, Information Services
Records Management Officer
Community Development ~ Albemarle County, VA
434.296.5823, x7940 | Laserfiche!
Disclaimer of Liability: With respect to the public records provided in response to your request under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act: (1) only those records that
have been requested with reasonable specificity have been provided; (2) neither the County of Albemarle, Virginia nor any of its officers, employees or agents, makes any
warranty, express or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose; and (3) neither the County of Albemarle, Virginia nor any of its
officers, employees or agents, assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, adequacy or usefulness of the contents of any of the public records
provided, and disclaims all liability, whether direct or indirect, for any loss or damage arising out of the use, reference to, or reliance on the contents of the public records.
1
Elaine Echols
From:Amelia McCulley
Sent:Wednesday, December 02, 2015 9:40 AM
To:Elaine Echols
Subject:RE: HTC A2
Thanks for the clarification.
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 9:39 AM
To: David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Amelia McCulley <AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall
<FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Sarah Baldwin <sbaldwin@albemarle.org>; Wayne Cilimberg <WCILIMB@albemarle.org>;
Ellie Ray <eray@albemarle.org>; Margaret Maliszewski <MMaliszewski@albemarle.org>
Cc: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: HTC A2
BTW - Today’s meeting is not with Wendell or anyone. It is to discuss internally so that we can have our
collective information available when we meet with Wendell, et. al.
Thanks.
Elaine
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 6:23 PM
To: David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Amelia McCulley <AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham
<mgraham@albemarle.org>
Cc: Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Sarah Baldwin <sbaldwin@albemarle.org>; Wayne Cilimberg
<WCILIMB@albemarle.org>; Ellie Ray <eray@albemarle.org>
Subject: HTC A2
Hi all,
I attended a meeting today with Wendell, Nena, Scott Collins, Todd Dofflemeyer, Hunter Wood, and Daniel
LaMay (Cathcart Construction) that was very unfortunate. It was unfortunate because there were 6 people in
attendance instead of the two that I expected (Wendell and Nena were the only ones who said they were
coming) and I was caught off guard about the purpose of the meeting. I was under the impression that we
were going to talk about the proffer changes they wanted to make. They wanted to talk about the site review
letter, the Code of Development that the PC recommended on, and that we should recommend approval of
special exceptions to allow for the development they had submitted for site review.
What they did, though, was to express extreme anger and dissatisfaction with the content of the SRC letter
about the site plan for apartments that Cathcart Construction planned to build and to make a case for why
they should be able to get approval for what they submitted. Scott, in particular, felt like he was being ignored
by the County because neither Mark nor David had returned his phone calls asking (?) for a meeting. He
wanted to express his anger in our not telling them until the letter that they were using the wrong Code of
Development. He wanted to make a case that the Board adopted the wrong Code of Development. Todd was
2
very angry and said that we had not provided any information about the relationship of the Code of
Development to their site plan at the preapp that occurred on Sept. 14. He said he had made many
commitments based on the information from that meeting. He stormed out of the meeting and indicated that
he was going to have to tell 11 people they were losing their jobs because of my/our ineptness. He said he
would be sending them to us to complain. He said he expected heads to roll here because we did not provide
reliable information that affected so many people. Before he stormed out, I said I understood his frustration,
but, the information I had received from staff was not the same of what they were telling me at the meeting.
All of this revolves around the collective belief that Scott should have been able to rely (for various reasons)
on the Code of Development that the PC reviewed and not the one the BOS approved, that there should be
more flexibility in what is eligible for a special exception (what constitute major elements and what can
change), and that they should be able to make an application to make substantive changes to their project
without having to go through a mandatory preapp. They dispute the methodology we use for calculating the
percentage of affordable units that are required. (Example, if 100 units are requested, we say that 15 of them
should be affordable. They say that if they propose 85 units, they only need to do 13 affordable units – 15% of
the 85 gets added onto the total.)
They want to meet with the top people to express their dissatisfaction and get answers about the following:
1. What happened between the PC meeting and the BOS meeting to cause the changes to the Code of
Development that occurred?
2. Why is there no written record? (I don’t know that there is no written record – I am still looking into it).
3. Why didn’t we tell them at the preapp that they couldn’t submit an entirely residential site plan?
4. What is eligible for a variation/special exception?
5. What is the rationale for deciding on what constitutes a major element?
6. We have approved many variations that are more involved than what they would request – why is this
one different?
7. What commercial uses are mandatory in which blocks? What can move around? (Is the hotel
mandatory?)
8. What could be approved administratively?
9. What is the correct way of calculating 15% affordable units?
10. Why do they need a mandatory preapp to make changes to proffers, code, and plan if they want to
submit a ZMA on Dec. 7? (I told them that they have to have the preapp, they don’t have to do what
we say.)
I won’t be in the office tomorrow and David will not be here either. I told them the soonest I could even get a
meeting together with David, Amelia, and Mark would be Wed., but, more likely Thursday. If they want to re-
express their dissatisfaction with us that is one thing. If they want answers, we need to meet before talking to
them.
I’m sorry to drop all of this on you right now. (And I’m trying to get ready to go to a meeting as well as not be
here tomorrow.) I will send out meeting invites and hopefully, we can at least discuss the situation before
setting up a meeting with whomever (they really want Mark in that meeting).
Elaine
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Principal Planner – Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
3
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252
1
Elaine Echols
From:Paul Bjornsen
Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2016 3:03 PM
To:Elaine Echols
Subject:RE: HTC A-1 proffers
Attachments:RE: Albemarle County CDD File Request - Peter Caramanis - Transportation Proffers
Hi Elaine,
You & Greg were originally copied on it, but I’ve re-attached it here. The links already go to the correct applications/projects. It’s
just that the documentation (including Proffers) might be dated, missing or poorly scanned (like you just saw with ZMA201300007 –
now fixed). When the customer wishes to narrow the scope of the request, as Peter told me by phone, I await those results and act
as soon as I receive them.
All I received was an immediate Out Of Office Reply, which I then forwarded to you and Greg. Although I expected a quick
turnaround (based on our conversation), I’ve heard nothing else since, except for this e-mail from Sarah. Should they resume their
request, I can tidy up the selected projects, make sure the latest Proffers are available and provide direct links. I’m working on a
few other FOIAs at this moment.
Thank you,
Pb
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 11:47 AM
To: Paul Bjornsen <pbjornsen@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: HTC A-1 proffers
Thanks, Paul.
Can you please send me the email that you sent on 12/30? I thought you were making sure that the links to proffers for the projects
on that list were current.
Elaine
From: Paul Bjornsen
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 11:41 AM
To: Sarah Baldwin <sbaldwin@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>
Cc: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>; Ellie Ray <eray@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: HTC A-1 proffers
I was asked to send an e-mail to Peter Caramanis requesting clarification regarding the initial inquiry – he was eager to narrow down
the list of 40 potential records Elaine listed. The message I delivered (with the list) gave him instructions to navigate to GIS-Web
(how to show ZMA & Proffers Information), CountyView Online (for ZMA details) and our Document Imaging System (Laserfiche). He
may have been satisfied with that information, even though I told him that the Online Archive may not be complete or current for
Proffers. He has not responded since the 12/30 e-mail. With only 2.5 working days left until Tuesday and my own backlog, I hope
they’re not expecting a miracle.
Pb
From: Sarah Baldwin
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 10:46 AM
To: Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>
Cc: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>; Paul Bjornsen <pbjornsen@albemarle.org>; Ellie Ray <eray@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: HTC A-1 proffers
2
At the time A-2 was discussed, but I was under the impression they were not filing an amendment just the variations. A-1 transit
proffers were being treated as a FIOA. I'm not sure of the status.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 12, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org> wrote:
Not sure what was discussed on 12/21, so I really can’t answer them here. Was both A-1 and A-2
discussed? Please help. Thanks
From: Nena Harrell [mailto:ulcwww@embarqmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 9:37 AM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>; Sarah Baldwin <sbaldwin@albemarle.org>
Cc: David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Wayne Cilimberg <WCILIMB@albemarle.org>; Amelia McCulley
<AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>
Subject: HTC A-1 proffers
Good Morning,
Per our meeting on 12/21 and previously in October, we requested confirmation on transit proffers that other
developments have paid. We want to file amendment by next Tuesday’s deadline and need the information so we
are in line with other projects.
Also we will file for amended proffers on A-2 and would like to meet to discuss that amendment as well. Will the
same planner handle both? I believe we were told to work with Francis on A-2. (Francis, please confirm if that is
correct.)
We would really appreciate a meeting today if at all possible. We can be very flexible today.
Thanks,
Nena Harrell
Vice President/Broker
United Land Corporation
P.O. Box 5548
Charlottesville, VA 22905
434-975-3334
COUNT YOUR RAINBOWS COUNT YOUR RAINBOWS COUNT YOUR RAINBOWS COUNT YOUR RAINBOWS ---- NOT YOUR THNOT YOUR THNOT YOUR THNOT YOUR THUNDERSTORMSUNDERSTORMSUNDERSTORMSUNDERSTORMS
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
7
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0).
Mr. Zobrist noted the consent agenda was approved with staff’s recommended conditions, as follows
1. The plat shall be subject to the requirements of Section 14-303 (Contents of final plat), as
identified on the “Final Subdivision Checklist” which is available from the Community
Development Department;
2. The final plat shall address all minimum requirements from Sections 14-410 (Standards for all
street and alleys) and 14-412 (Standards for private streets only).
3. Health director approval of individual private wells and/or septic systems.
4. The final plat includes the signature of the appropriate Greene County official, indicating that
municipality’s approval of the plat.
Deferred Item:
ZMA-2010-0014 Hollymead Town Center (Area A-1)
PROPOSAL: Rezone 59.162 (portions) acres from Planned Development-Mixed Commercial (PD-MC)
zoning district which allows large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/
acre) to Planned Development-Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) zoning district which allows large-scale
commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre), in order to amend the existing
proffers.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center-compact, higher density area
containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas, and public spaces,
attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in Hollymead Development Area.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Hollymead Town Center Area A-1, the southwest quadrant of Seminole Trail (US 29) and
Towncenter Drive in the Hollymead Development Area
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 032000000042A0, 04600000000500, 03200000004400 (portion), 03200000004500
(portion)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
DEFERRED FROM THE DECEMBER 21, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
(Judith Wiegand)
Ms. Wiegand presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report.
Purpose of This Rezoning:
To amend the existing proffers relating to road improvements and public transit operating expenses.
The full Hollymead Town Center—all five areas—had already been rezoned prior to this application. Area
A-1, the subject of this application, was rezoned in 2007. The original proffers were approved as part of
this rezoning.
Hollymead Town Center–Areas
As a refresher, the diagram shows the different areas that are part of the Hollymead Town Center. Area
A-1 is shown in red.
Location
In the Northern Development Areas—four parcels are involved in the rezoning. Only portions of 34 and
35 are involved in this.
Zoning
HTC Area A-1 was rezoned to PD-MC, Planned District-Mixed Commercial under ZMA 2005-00015, and
approved on September 12, 2007. Area A2 was rezoned to NMD, Neighborhood Model District and was
not part of the discussion this evening. This zoning is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, which
shows this area as Town Center.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
8
Road Improvement Proffer
The discussion tonight will involve two proffers. The first is the road improvement proffer. Staff explained
the changes in the road proffer and the road segments that would be affected. The original language and
the amended language for this proffer for Proffer 1, Road Improvements are in the staff report. There are
three road segments discussed within that proffer.
ORIENTATION: US 29 North is to the RIGHT
Meeting Street--southern end where it will connect with Berkmar Drive Extended north, to Airport Road
(which does not show on this plan)
Towncenter Drive
Harris Teeter – Target -- Kohl’s
Greenway with trail—Powell Creek tributary
The original road improvement proffers refer to three segments:
1. Towncenter Drive—NO CHANGE
2. Meeting Street north of the intersection with Towncenter Drive—NO CHANGE
3. Meeting Street south of the intersection with Towncenter Drive—shown in red in presentation—that is
the one affected by the proffer change.
The County asked the property owner to change the proffer language to dedicate the portion of Meeting
Street south of the intersection with Towncenter Drive. This is the new language that’s in the “B” part of
the proffer. The County would like dedication of this segment in the Area A-1 proffers. The reasons are
related to acceptance of the road into the state system and maintenance.
The applicant is looking for a temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Kohl’s as soon as possible. The
store wants to begin stocking and preparing for its opening. They want to get a permanent Certificate of
Occupancy within the next few months. In order to qualify for that Certificate of Occupancy under the
currently approved proffers, they would have to construct this segment of Meeting Street. That is not
necessary for Kohl’s. In fact, the County is concerned if the whole segment was constructed, particularly
the part towards the southern end, they basically would be construction a road for the time being would
be a road to nowhere. Eventually this would connect to Berkmar Drive Extended at the time that road is
built. Most likely, that is several years in the future.
Once the County Engineer approves a road upon completion it normally would be accepted into VDOT’s
system and qualifies for state maintenance. VDOT does not normally accept roads to nowhere for
maintenance. Therefore, the County would be left with the tab for maintaining a portion of this road that
would not serve anything, which would have a couple stream crossings and things that might require
extra maintenance expense. The County is currently looking this and requesting dedication of the whole
stretch so they know where the road will be and have the appropriate right-of-way. For A-1 proffers that
would be sufficient. Staff is expecting at the time the indoor theater site plan comes in that this segment
of road would have to be constructed before its Certificate of Occupancy could be issued. It would be
part of that site plan and not the Kohl’s site plan. That is not a part of the proffer, but what the County is
expecting as the way that this stretch of Meeting Street would be constructed. That would give a second
entrance to the indoor theater where the road would connect in that direction. Kohl’s would also connect
at that point. It is not necessary for Kohl’s to have that entrance because they are going to have one
coming from Route 29 and another from Town Center Drive.
Proffer Language (New)
The owner has said he was comfortable with that language.
B. Reserve and dedicate. The Owner shall reserve for dedication and dedicate to public use, upon
the written request of the County, the right-of-way for Meeting Street from the intersection of
Town Center Drive to the southern boundary of the Property. The land reserved and dedicated
shall be at least the minimum width necessary to comply with applicable VDOT standards for the
construction and maintenance of the road, and include all necessary easements. The right-of-
way shall be dedicated within the period specified by the County, which period shall not be less
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
9
than 90 days. If the right-of-way is not dedicated in conjunction with a subdivision plat, the Owner
shall be responsible for the cost of a survey and preparing the deed to convey the right-of-way to
the County.
Public Transit Operating Expenses Proffer
• Public Transit Operating Expenses - Within thirty days after demand by the County after public
transportation service is provided to the Project, the Owner shall contribute $50,000 cash to the
County to be used for operating expenses relating to such service, and shall contribute $50,000
cash to the County each year thereafter for a period of nine (9) additional years, such that the
cash contributed to the County pursuant to this Proffer 4, shall total Five Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($500,000). The cash contribution in years two through ten shall be paid by the
anniversary date of the first contribution. If public transit service is not provided to the
Project by July 1, 2012, this proffer shall be null and void.
During a meeting with staff on January 3 called to finalize the language for the road improvement proffer,
the property owner requested a change in Proffer 4. Public Transit Operating Expenses. The original
language and amended language are included in the packet. The change is the addition of a “sunset
clause” after which the proffer would become null and void if no transit service is available to the
Hollymead Town Center Area A-1. The applicant explained that no other part of HTC had such a proffer.
He proposed a sunset date of July 1, 2012, which is approximately seven years after the opening of the
first commercial business in HTC—Target. While staff has no problem with a sunset clause, the date
proposed is so close—approximately 18 months from now—that it effectively removes the obligation that
was part of the original rezoning to provide some funding for transit. Transit service is expected in the
area in five to ten years, so staff thinks a date of January 1, 2021—about ten years from now—is more
appropriate.
Other Projects With Transit $ Proffers
In the other five areas of Hollymead Areas A1 and A2 are owned by the same owner. Area A1 has the
proffer. Areas B, C and D do not have transit proffers.
1. North Pointe: $250,000 total over 10 years; sunset clause = 10 years from BOS approval or 7
years after first commercial CO—whichever is later.
2. Martha Jefferson Hospital: $50,000 total; sunset clause = 1 year of CO for hospital
3. Albemarle Place: Jitney service; sunset clause = 1/1/2007 or first commercial CO-last.
4. Biscuit Run: $1,000,000 (lump sum); unexpended funds to be retained by County. In addition,
a proffer for private transit service to bridge the gap until public service was available.
5. 5th Street-Avon Center: cash contribution based on 20 center/SF after provision of transit
service to property and for as long as service provided; no sunset date.
Mr. Cilimberg noted last year the Albemarle Place Jitney service discussion in their proffer ended up
having the option for them to contribute cash to the CTS Service. That was a recent amendment to that
service. He did not remember the cash amount, which was in lieu of the Jitney service. The Planning
Commission had that before them when making their recommendations.
Staff Recommendation
• Staff does not recommend acceptance of the July 1, 2012 sunset date for the Public Transit
Operating Expenses proffer. Staff believes a sunset date of January 1, 2021 gives a more
realistic opportunity for transit service to be provided in the area to which this project would
contribute.
• Staff does recommend approval of the rest of the revisions to the proffer language as included in
the signed Amended Proffers, dated January 3, 2011.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
10
Mr. Loach asked what would be the date if staff applies the seven and ten year date to the Certificate of
Occupancy.
Ms. Wiegand replied that the first commercial Certificate of Occupancy in the entire Hollymead Town
Center would have been the Target, which would have been approximately July 31, 2012. The first
commercial use in A-1 would be Kohl’s, which would be coming up in another few months. It would be
seven years from that time.
Ms. Porterfield asked staff to go back to the map where it showed the roads. The change in the proffer is
that from the circle going south where the applicant is going to build the road to the first intersection.
Ms. Wiegand replied no, according to the proposed proffer, he would dedicate the right-of-way for this
entire stretch upon request by the County.
Mr. Kamptner asked staff to clarify that segment of Meeting Street that actually goes through both A-1
and A-2. He asked staff to show where the A-1/A-2 boundary would be for Meeting Street.
Ms. Wiegand replied that Meeting Street is bounded on one side by area A-2 and on the other side by
area A-1. Further south Meeting Street is all within area A-2.
Ms. Porterfield asked staff to explain when that stretch of road that comes up to access Kohl’s will be
built.
Ms. Wiegand replied that would be built as a part of the site plan submitted for the indoor theater. Before
the indoor theater could get their Certificate of Occupancy, they would need to have this road built to the
dimensions as set forth in the site plan. The road has to be done to just south of this intersection.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the applicant was planning to complete the theater this year. She asked if staff
sees this being built.
Ms. Wiegand replied yes.
Ms. Porterfield noted in the meantime the road that is going out to 29 North from the Kohl’s is going to be
out there. She asked if there is a stop light.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there would not be a signal there. The signal exists at Town Center Drive and
Route 29. It is a right in and right out basically for the lower entrance because it was at a median.
Ms. Porterfield said if it is a right in and right out, anyone else that is going to be accessing will have to
come in at the light.
Mr. Cilimberg replied yes, that was the intention from the beginning with the original rezoning.
Ms. Porterfield asked if that entrance is built to the standard that was planned with the correct number of
lanes. It is a very interesting access because one has to be in certain lanes to be able to access.
Otherwise, there would be people crossing over on top of someone else. She was just wondering if there
was going to be a single road that was going to go to the west and then the other lane was going to bear
off to go to the Target or go on up to the Harris Teeter. That would be the main access for Kohl’s.
Mr. Cilimberg noted it was Town Center Drive. What they have out there built and open is what was
planned.
Ms. Porterfield noted what she saw is what they would get. She just wondered if there was anything else
that was supposed to be done to that. When this is built and since VDOT does not want a road that goes
nowhere, who is going to maintain the section from the roundabout to as far as that road is going to
extend.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
11
Ms. Wiegand replied that she understood that because it would provide a connection that VDOT would be
able to accept that part. It is primarily the part south of there that would be a problem.
Ms. Porterfield said eventually when Berkmar Drive connects the whole thing would be acceptable to
VDOT.
Ms. Wiegand replied that would be built as part of the movie theater, which was on the site plan.
Mr. Zobrist asked if Mr. Kamptner suggested the July 12, 2012 date for the proffer of cash for the
transportation component.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that was the request of the applicant.
Mr. Zobrist asked who drafted it into the document.
Ms. Wiegand replied that the applicant came in to speak with staff last Monday concerning questions on
other revisions that Mr. Kamptner had requested. The applicant asked at that meeting to have that
sunset date. Staff put the sunset date in at the applicant’s request.
Mr. Zobrist noted it seemed that a developer would want to make proffers for public transportation
because it was going help his shopping center. He asked if that was why it was made in the first place.
Ms. Wiegand replied yes. Staff has no problem with a sunset date, but just wants to push it out.
Mr. Cilimberg noted it was staff’s desire to try to make the sunset date usable because they don’t expect
the transit service to be there before July, 2012. It is going to be five to ten years, which is staff’s best
guess. If not in effect by July 2021, then it would no longer be in effect.
Mr. Kamptner asked what percentage of the segment of Meeting Street within A-1 would be constructed
for the A-1 portion and site plan that came in for A-2.
Ms. Wiegand replied she had not looked at the site plan for A-1, but the entire road segment is shown on
the site plan for the indoor theater for A-2.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Wendell Wood, owner of the properties, said they are in agreement with the road plan as proposed by the
proffer and staff’s approval. He would be happy to answer questions, but thought it was clear where the
road would be built to.
Ms. Porterfield asked Mr. Wood to summarize the request.
Mr. Wood said that the road would be built 20’ beyond the intersection going south at the time a
Certificate of Occupancy was issued. That road would be complete at that time. The rest of the road
would be completed at the request of the County as written, which they had agreed to. In other words, if
Berkmar Drive was extended they have agreed to build that part. Right now if one goes beyond the
Kohl’s and theater entrance it dead ends or goes nowhere. It is a steep terrain with a creek.
Ms. Porterfield asked if at this time they have any plans to develop that area.
Mr. Wood replied that they do have plans, but nothing going on.
Ms. Porterfield noted that there was nothing going on in the near future. She makes the assumption that
if his plans become brick and mortar, he will build the road.
Mr. Wood replied that was correct.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
12
Ms. Porterfield asked if he anticipates if he has to build the road that VDOT will accept it if it does not
intersect with Berkmar Extended or who is going to maintain it.
Mr. Wood said he did not understand the question.
Mr. Franco noted the quick answer to the question is if there is a user down there VDOT will accept the
road. However, if it is just a couple hundred feet of road that goes to no users they won’t accept the road.
Ms. Porterfield noted they don’t have a problem with the road being maintained, and Mr. Franco agreed.
Mr. Wood said he thought that was correct.
Mr. Zobrist asked if he wanted to address the requested sunset clause.
Mr. Wood said that he would like some type of relief. This was put on by the previous owner in times that
were different than today’s world. He suggested that they compare it with what they saw on the map
tonight. Martha Jefferson had a total liability of $50,000. Albemarle Place has a liability of $35,000.
North Point has a sunset of seven years. This project, if they apply the same criteria of seven years, only
has the July 12th deadline. That was with the opening of Target. Therefore, they think that is a
reasonable request. Their number is a much larger number of $50,000 per year. That is a little onerous.
He would really like to have some consideration. It is tough to be put in a position that your neighbor has
no responsibility. They are in competition when renting something by the square foot. If the person next
door does not have to pay $50,000 per year, it creates a big disadvantage. He knew of no conditions
placed on Willow Glen when the County rezoned the property. He made this request because it was hard
to cover the ½ million dollars. Albemarle Place was done in a more recent timeframe. Getting the job
done today is not quite the same world. It puts a cloud on the title for trying to get financing. The
financing is already almost impossible with the $500,000 liability. He would like to have a shorter
timeframe and something similar to Albemarle Place, which is twice as large with a total liability of
$35,000.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the previous owner of the property owned everything.
Mr. Wood replied no, he owned this same property.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the entity did not own anything else if possibly this was being looked at as a
proffer for the entire area as opposed to just these two particular pieces.
Mr. Wood suggested that the times might have been different. When he sold the piece of property to
them, which included Target, it was considered as one development.
Ms. Porterfield said Target was a part of this and the half a million dollars may have been looked at as
taking care of all that area.
Mr. Wood replied yes, they have spent 13 million dollars meeting those proffers already. The public has
the misconception that Route 29 was paid for by the State of Virginia or Albemarle County. Not one
penny of that has been paid for by the State. Town Center Drive, which is over 3 million dollars, was not
paid for by Albemarle County or the State of Virginia. He paid for it himself, which included Meeting
Street dedication. It was part of these provisions. He did sell it. The new owner when he came in did
agree to quite a few things that are not in the cards today. That owner agreed to parking decks and a
5,000 car parking garage on this property. That is not going to happen. It just can’t happen. He agreed
to $17,000 per unit. He believed since that has been adopted there has not been one project approved in
Albemarle County. It virtually makes the land value zero. The land cost used to be represented at about
$17,000 a unit, which was contributed to the land cost. That was pretty standard. Now they have that as
a proffer, which was virtually why nothing is being done. It is not economically feasible.
Mr. Wood continued along with this project as one of the conditions they agreed to build 100 units of a
mobile home park. They have done that. They were approved for 244. They went in about two months
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
13
ago to expand it for affordable housing. When they got it, approved 16 homes were allowed on one water
meter. The water meter at that time cost $450 for 16 homes. The water meter today for one mobile
home is $8,000 per home. There is no way they can provide a mobile home park. That is a form of
affordable housing. It can’t be done. They sell the homes at $40,000. Now they would have an
additional $8,000 to add a water meter plus the monthly bill of about $45 per month.
Ms. Porterfield said the half a million dollars that were agreed to in the proffer was agreed to prior to his
getting the land back.
Mr. Wood replied that was correct.
Ms. Porterfield said that at that time the individual who agreed to this also was developing the Target, and
Mr. Wood replied no.
Ms. Porterfield said this was just for these two sections.
Mr. Wood replied that was correct. It was discussed with Target at that time there were no plans for bus
service. The proffers included the whole area of Hollymead Town Center, which consisted of 140 acres.
This project is 72 acres of that area, which included the Target. There are no proffers for bus service on
any of the rest of the property there.
Ms. Porterfield said this originally included the Target area, which was one half of the original size. That
is potentially part of the reason why the proffer is at such a large number. She was trying to see why they
were looking at the half a million dollars.
Mr. Wood noted that the proffer was only being applied to this section. In other words, the owner of
Target does not need to pay anything.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that originally there were four sections being A, B, C and D in Hollymead. The
last of the sections to be rezoned at least three years after the first three was A-1 with A-2 later. Areas B,
C and D were the first to be rezoned, which did not have the transit proffer requirement at that time. The
rezoning was done in a different timeframe. It was with the A-1 and A-2 rezoning that the transit was
being used in other projects and was also offered for this project. It was in part to recognize that the
transit had been identified as a real need up in that area ultimately. It also had to do with the fact that A-1
and A-2 together were proposing a much larger amount of square footage of development. If they look at
the Meeting Street, it was actually like a main street with a very high square footage possibility along that
street as well as residential development up to about 1,900 units. There were other reasons. There was
a timing aspect of it associated to the degree of development that would occur under the zoning approval
at least.
Mr. Wood said they were not opposed to doing something.
Mr. Zobrist invited public comment.
Neil Williamson, of Free Enterprise Forum, noted they do not comment on projects and have no position
on the proffers for this project. However, they do comment on how the policy works in the project. The
Free Enterprise Forum is very concerned that staff continues to use Biscuit Run as a proffer comparison
when evaluating projects. Biscuit Run is dead. The proffers that were offered with Biscuit run will never
materialize. Some in the community have suggested that the level of proffers that were accepted by the
owner willingly volunteered by the owner by the Code were a contributing factor to the project’s eventual
conversion to a State park. The Free Enterprise Forum asks the Planning Commission what their
opinion is with regard to directing staff to continue or discontinue using proffers for comparison that will
never be recognized.
Morgan Butler, of Southern Environmental Center, noted that he spoke with Ms. Wiegand today about
this and thought he understood. He had questions particularly with respect to the first proffer change.
The second proffer change is more a question of philosophy. It will be interesting to see whether they
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
14
deem its worth in forcing commitments that were made to get this project approved. As to the first
request, his understanding from reading the proffers is that the proffers that are currently in existence,
which are currently valid and enforceable. This applicant has an obligation to construct Meeting Street
from that roundabout down to the southern end of the property. With the proffer changes proposed that
obligation to construct will be softened so it is simply an obligation to reserve and dedicate the right-of-
way to the County. There is a significant difference between constructing that road and simply reserving
and dedicating the right-of-way, especially when they all know how important that Berkmar Drive
Extended is going to be and how essential it is to the County’s transportation network to get that
connection made all the way up to Hollymead Town Center. He fully understands that it may not be wish
to require construction of that road to its southern terminus at this point in time, but he did not think it
particularly wish to basically remove that obligation from the proffers and leave it as an obligation to
reserve the right-of-way. The proffers could be changed in a way that postpones when that segment of
road has to be constructed as opposed to removing the obligation to construct it altogether. He
understands from speaking to staff that there is likely to be proffers for Area A-2 coming forward in the
near future in the next month or so. Perhaps these commitments to construct those additional portions of
road all the way down to the southern boundary may materialize in those proffers. However, he did not
understand why they would not do that simultaneously so they don’t have this period of time where that
commitment simply banishes. He did not understand the rush or why this has to be done tonight. He
asked why this couldn’t be done in conjunction with the proffer change to Area A-2 to make sure that
commitment does not simply disappear. It does not seem to be wise policy especially considering the
importance of the road in play here.
Kirk Bowers, resident of Key West, noted that he was a licensed professional engineer with a lot of land
experience over the last 30 years. He stated that proffers are pretty much a standard item for any
locality. Compared to northern Virginia he did not believe that the standards or proffers here are really
high enough. Listening to Mr. Wood, he is probably right about Albemarle Place. They may need to go
back and revisit the proffers on that site. He believed those proffers were too low. It is not fair for the
public to pay for developments. Taxpayers should not have to pay for anything that contributes to
development.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing to bring the matter before
the Planning Commission.
Ms. Porterfield asked that the Planning Commission invite Joel DeNunzio of VDOT to speak about this
road. She questioned whether it makes sense to go ahead and build the road since it has been proffered.
Joel DeNunzio, of VDOT, pointed out that it was correct that VDOT would not accept a road that does not
go anywhere. It would have to serve a public purpose. It could be residential or to some sort of
commercial office or retail. He thought that down to the intersection shown that would be constructed at
the Kohl’s entrance they could accept that when it was constructed as long as Kohl’s or the movie theater
is open.
Mr. Zobrist asked for comments on the road.
Ms. Porterfield said the question was raised by one of the speakers as to if there are proffers coming in
with A-2. Those proffers are going to require the building of this road much farther south. She asked why
they are not dovetailing the requests and totally taking it out of this one.
Ms. Wiegand replied that staff is working with the applicant on both sets of proffers at the same time.
Staff needed to get this one before the Commission for Area A-1 because of the need to have this issue
about the dedication versus the construction of the road resolved in order that the applicant would qualify
for a Certificate of Occupancy for the Kohl’s. They could not build the road in time for that, of course, to
get the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy sometime this month and the Final CO in another few
months. Staff wanted to get that done first. Staff is in discussion on the second one.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
15
Ms. Porterfield said that Kohl’s is only going to be accessed by either the piece that is coming off the
east/west road or by coming off Route 29 itself. Therefore, why does it need to have this other road in
order to get a CO.
Ms. Wiegand replied that it does not. The current proffers require the construction of this road. It is not
needed for the Kohl’s. However, unless it was built it would keep them from getting a CO because they
had not fulfilled the requirements of the proffers. The applicants would not be able to get the CO for the
Kohl’s. Staff wanted to require they dedicate it. If that is in the proffer, the County gets the dedication for
the road and Kohl’s gets the CO. Then at the time, that the A-2 proffers come in there will be a
discussion of what to do with how they handle the construction of the section of road below that entrance
at the southern most section. They don’t have the language finished yet.
Ms. Porterfield noted that there are more than one half of the proffers that have not been satisfied. She
asked if staff was saying all of the proffers would be satisfied in order for them to get the CO or only this
one. She asked if they were talking about every single item on the proffer list has to be satisfied in order
to get the CO.
Ms. Wiegand replied it was her understanding that they will.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that Zoning staff speak to that question because they are the enforcement entity.
It is staff’s understanding that the void they would have in the A-1 proffers towards the ability of Kohl’s to
get their CO is with the proffers regarding the road construction that would prevent CO to be issued.
Zoning staff can speak to that issue. This was actually requested by the County as a change for the
proffers regarding the relationship of the improvements to what was being built to enable this project to be
achieved.
Ms. Porterfield asked Mr. Higgins to address the concern whether they are actually going to be moving
potentially to not constructing the road, but getting a right-of-way.
Mr. Higgins replied that staff does not think that is what is happening at all. What they are merely doing
tonight is enabling a timing mechanism to be put in place that was simply not thought about when the
original proffers were done. This road is supposed to have been built by December 31, 2010. Everyone
understands that road makes no sense to be built. They don’t want to eliminate the obligation. They
want to phase it and time it and it would still be their obligation. They wanted to make sense out of the
timing of the road construction. Without getting into detail, it is linked to many other road pieces that are
going to have to be dedicated and really for acceptance prior to Kohl’s getting their CO. Therefore, they
have a lot more on the plate in that list of proffers than just this piece.
Ms. Porterfield asked since Kohl’s has those other two access points, why is this needed for their CO.
Mr. Higgins replied that it was not needed for Kohl’s. The original proffer anticipated the build out of A,
which later became A-1 and A-2. They are simply looking at one building being built right now whose
site plan has approved that only the two access points that will be provided for Kohl’s are needed to
provide the traffic control for Kohl’s.
Ms. Porterfield asked why is it so important at this point.
Mr. Higgins replied that Kohl’s couldn’t open unless this proffer is met.
Mr. Franco noted the clarity he thought she was looking for was as a proffer anything that develops in that
area is subject to that proffer. To get a CO that proffer has to be met regardless of what is going on.
Engineering does not require the traffic for the road to be built, but the proffer requires that the road be
built.
Mr. Cilimberg noted under the current proffer they have build the road all the way to the southern
boundary from the traffic circle.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
16
Ms. Porterfield noted that everyone expected this shopping center to be up and going.
Mr. Cilimberg said that they expected a more comprehensive development at the time. That is why they
are not dealing with it in pieces rather than as a whole. They are really trying to associate the proffers
with what is actually being built.
Mr. Porterfield asked Mr. Kamptner if they make the change do they have the problem that was cited by a
previous speaker that they may be giving up getting it constructed in case they don’t get a proffer that
comes in that is going to finish it.
Mr. Kamptner replied that part of it was the timing under the State Subdivision law and under both the
Subdivision and Zoning regulations. Pertaining to site plans, they can require public roads to be
extended to the edge of the property line. Mr. Wood, Ms. Wiegand, and he had a brief conversation
discussing the staff report. He made the point during his presentation. There may be a failsafe provision
that allows the Kohl’s CO to be issued. That would include some language that would allow the County to
ask that portion be constructed upon the request by the County. There is no deadline imposed. If he
heard Mr. Wood correctly, he was agreeable to put that language in the proffer as well. It would allow the
CO to be issued so that it is not set against a hard deadline, but when appropriate for it to be extended
even though there may not be a subdivision plat or site plan. That could provide the additional comfort
that he was hearing some people seeking.
Ms. Porterfield asked if Mr. Wood is agreeable. If so, could they get some language drafted.
Mr. Kamptner said he could do that between now and before tomorrow morning.
Ms. Porterfield said if they adopt this, then the Commission could put something in like that.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes.
Mr. Franco said that the Commission’s would be a recommendation to the Board as a rezoning.
Mr. Kamptner said that they would circulate the language to staff and the applicant and make it available
to the public.
Mr. Zobrist asked if this request was going to the Board tomorrow, and Mr. Kamptner replied yes.
Mr. Morris noted based upon the question this phasing of the road makes a lot of sense and he was fully
in favor of it.
Mr. Zobrist asked if he was making a motion that they bifurcate this into two issues in making a resolution
with respect to the road and then coming back to the cash proffer for rapid transit.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Commission needs to make one recommendation on the rezoning.
The Commission could do a straw pull regarding the two elements, but he would not suggest separate
actions.
Mr. Morris noted that he was in support of this portion.
Mr. Zobrist said it sounds like there is a consensus on the road portion. He would like to have a ten
minute break and come back and talk about the change of the cash proffer since that is a longer
discussion.
Mr. Kamptner said he heard that the Commission was going to reach a consensus on the road.
Mr. Zobrist noted the Commission would not come back to discuss the road since they were done with it.
He asked for a consensus to accept the road portion with no further discussion when it was time to vote
on the rezoning. He asked for a straw pull of those in favor.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
17
Mr. Franco asked if that was with the proffers as written, but amended to include the provision.
Mr. Zobrist agreed that it would include the provision that upon demand of the County the applicant would
build the road. He noted that the Commission would come back and talk about the cash proffer after the
break.
The Planning Commission took a ten minute break at 7:22 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:34
p.m.
Mr. Zobrist asked to direct the discussion to a certain degree since they have three options here with
respect to the proffer regarding public transportation. They can leave it the way it is. They can follow the
staff recommendation and put it out to ten years. They can cut that back to a lesser number if they
choose to do it. On the other hand, they can modify the proffers if they choose to. Right now, it is before
the Commission to make a recommendation to the Board. It is up to the Planning Commission to decide
what the policy is going to be on this in trying to take into consideration what is reasonable, correct,
makes good policy, and what the Board of Supervisors would want to do. At the end of the day, the
Commission’s job is to vet these things out and collect all of the information so the Board can make a
reasonable decision.
Mr. Loach asked for guidance from staff on what would be a reasonable expectation for what the
transportation needs are so they can make a reasonable decision.
Ms. Wiegand replied that when the original proffer was adopted there was no sunset date. The amount
was agreed to. She did not know specifically why they chose $50,000. At that time it was to cover all of
area A, which is now area A-1 and A-2. When those were split, the proffer was left in area A-1 proffers.
Staff was surprised by a request for a sunset date. Staff has no problem with the idea, but the date itself
was little more awkward. David Benish noted staff expected transit to be extended into this area in five to
ten years. Staff was looking for a date to give a date certain to the applicant so that he would know what
the date was and if he did not make it in ten years, he would be off the hook for it. That is why staff chose
that date. Staff did not discuss the possibility of changing the amount.
Mr. Loach said if he heard from applicant correctly the person with the first section was not liable for any
of that proffer money.
Ms. Wiegand replied that was correct and the property was not Mr. Wood’s.
Mr. Loach suggested that they apply it to both and make it five years.
Mr. Morris agreed with staff completely that 2012 is too soon. That date is too short. He thought that
2021 is way out there and puts the developer in a real bad light. He agree with Mr. Loach to put a date of
2016 or 2017 on the proffer.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the suggestion was for a five year date.
Mr. Smith concurred with Mr. Morris.
Ms. Porterfield questioned whether the half million dollars was reasonable.
Mr. Loach said that there was not a sure answer out there for that.
Mr. Zobrist agreed that it was not based on what was in front of the Commission.
Ms. Porterfield agreed with the speaker that they couldn’t use Biscuit Run as a comparison. She would
be more inclined under the current circumstances to try to end up with a proffer that actually is paid.
Instead of putting a sunset date on it, she suggested bringing the amount down to something that seems
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
18
to be reasonable and get it paid at some point. They need to make sure the County has some money to
help extend transit.
Mr. Zobrist suggested that they go back and ask why the County asks for transit. He thought the reason
is that they need more buses to bring people out to the shopping center area, which the developer would
want. He did know where the number came from. Obviously, the amount is why out of line of the other
numbers in front of the Commission right now. North Point has a ten year sunset clause, which their
attorney negotiated for. He was not sure they should ask the applicant to pay for it if he is not going to
get any buses to bring people out to his development. Nevertheless, he was in agreement with
shortening the sunset provision. He did not think it should be hanging out there forever. If the buses are
going to be provided, he thought the applicant should pay for them.
Mr. Franco asked how the North Point proffer is written.
Ms. Wiegand replied that it is a $25,000 a year for ten years. The sunset clause on that one is if no
transit service comes in either ten years from the Board of Supervisors approval or seven years after the
first commercial Certificate of Occupancy, which would be whichever of those two things is later. The bus
service would have to start before they starting paying the $25,000 a year for ten years.
Mr. Loach asked for a comparison in the square footage.
Ms. Wiegand replied that she did not have those figures for North Point. Hollymead Town Center is
larger, but they are only talking about one area, A-1.
Mr. Wood pointed out that North Point was almost as large of an area, which had residential and
commercial. There is no residential in this portion of Hollymead Town Center.
Mr. Zobrist asked Mr. Wood if he had any idea of what he would like to propose.
Mr. Wood replied that they have spent 11 million in building. He questioned the developer who spoke
that said that the developer does not pay. He has paid every penny of roads, water, sewer, and donated
land. On this site, he donated 14 acres of the site for open space in addition to this. The man is clearly
wrong that says the developer does not pay. He noted that Albemarle Place is larger in square footage.
This site is 250,000 square feet with no dwelling units. Albemarle Place is 375,000 square feet and 500
dwelling units. Albemarle Place’s proffer is $7,000 per year for five years.
Mr. Zobrist asked where that number is coming from.
Ms. Wiegand said she used an older version for Albemarle Place without realizing it. Therefore, that may
not be accurate. They do have a proffer for expenses.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out they have existing service. It was to supplement the service that exists in that
area. In this case, they are talking about the new service in the 29 north area. There are different
circumstances. It is a closer comparison to North Point.
Mr. Wood suggested that the cost be spread out to other people. Their next door neighbors have
nothing.
Mr. Zobrist asked Mr. Graham to weigh in.
Mark Graham noted that he was involved in coming up with proffer amounts on all of the rezoning. He
cautioned the Commission not to look at the dollar amounts. Those were one part of the proffers. They
would do all the proffer together including road improvements, affordable housing, parks and everything
else to come up with a total number. The parks may be high in one project and low in another. It is
similar with things like transit. It was a juggling act to try to balance the amount. It was recognized that
each project came up with a unique approach. He noted that some of these were done prior to the
County implementing a cash proffer. That is an important point to remember. The County now has a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
19
cash proffer policy that species how proffers with residential units are calculated. That came into place
with Biscuit Run. This project was actually approved after that, although it has no residential. That is one
of the reasons why Biscuit Run keeps being used. It was the first project after the County had the policy,
which is still in place for cash proffers. He could not speak to the date or time line, except to say that
each of the projects was individually discussed with the applicant and they offered what they put in the
proffers. He would really caution the Commission from trying to compare one project to another.
Mr. Zobrist noted that they were trying to get some idea on what should the policy be. This is not a
decision about money right now. It really is what should the policy be. If someone came in today with
this project what would they ask him to pay for public transportation.
Mr. Graham replied that there is no answer. There is no existing policy on what the County expects for a
transit contribution. That policy does not exist for the County.
Mr. Zobrist said if someone was willing to pay $17,000 per unit for housing they probably would not ask
for the transit.
Mr. Graham replied yes as far as the residential recognizing that the cash proffer policy speaks to
residential units. It does not speak to commercial units. If it was a residential project, they do have a
cash proffer policy.
Mr. Zobrist noted the commercial has to pay for all the infrastructure.
Mr. Graham agreed that the commercial pays for the infrastructure necessary to support that
development, as it is determined on a case by case basis.
Mr. Zobrist noted that Mr. Wood said he paid 13 million dollars out there putting in roads and fixing 29,
etc.
Mr. Graham replied those were the improvements that when they did the transportation model for that
development said these are the road improvements that must be put into place to assure that they are
maintaining their capacity on that highway. It was not to improve the road and make it better than it was.
It is to assure that they are maintaining the same capacity that they had than before that development
was put into place.
Mr. Franco asked if residential would pay that as well. It would be for any development.
Mr. Graham replied that was correct. He just wanted to be clear on how the proffer policy works there.
Mr. Loach asked why one section of this entire development has no obligation.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that was an earlier set of approvals for b, c, and d at a time when they did not have
the transit identified. It was not included in those particular proffers at that time for those projects. They
did not have a cash proffer policy at the time. There is residential over there that has not been charged
because it was not in place at the time either. Therefore, they were dealing with a transit proffer a little
later than that point in time when b, c, and d were approved.
Mr. Graham added that Area B is where Target is located. There was a lot going on with that project. It
actually had a recommendation for denial by staff and the Planning Commission that went to the Board.
Many things were worked out at the Board after that. When this went through the Planning Commission,
there were a lot of open questions and concerns that had not been addressed. Then the Board came up
with the package they thought satisfied their concerns.
Mr. Loach said he heard staff saying not to consider money. He questioned whether they should vote
either up or down on the policy for proffers in place now.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
20
Mr. Graham said he was suggesting the Commission not to try to compare the amount that has been
proffered for one packet with the dollar amount being considered here. Those are just one part of a total
proffer packet that was being evaluated. They were not done with equal parts in each rezoning. It is not
a apples to apples comparison.
Mr. Cilimberg noted if this project came in new today staff would use when they thought transit would be
available there in the comparison. He could not speak to the amount. What they would want to make
sure was any sunset would at least be established in line with when they thought transit could be
established. They would not want to have a sunset that would expire before it was really practically
possible for transit to be put in place. That is whey staff suggested five to ten years to be the date for
when transit would be put in place.
Mr. Zobrist suggested reducing the amount for every year they don’t have transit there so that at least he
was not getting the benefit that he thought he was getting. Again, if he had transit there it would bring
customers out to his site. For every year they don’t have transit they will reduce it by $25,000.
Mr. Cilimberg said it would not take long to hit zero that way.
Mr. Zobrist noted if in ten years he would still owe one-half of it.
Mr. Cilimberg noted it was a yearly contribution. It is not a lump sum.
Ms. Wiegand pointed out the sunset date is to govern when the contributions begin.
Mr. Zobrist understood that the policy is to get money to put buses out there. It seems to be a balancing
act.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the transit proffer was originally for areas A-1 and A-2. A-2 does include
residential.
Ms. Porterfield recommended the Commission use the sunset date staff suggested, but cut the proffer in
half. Bringing the number down to $25,000 per year is basically a trade-off for keeping the proffer out at
the ten plus years so they have the opportunity to get transit out there.
Mr. Franco said that is a long time out there. He liked what had been discussed about some kind of
incentive from the County’s perspective that the funds may diminish over time.
Mr. Zobrist said that he would get to the exact same place if it were ten years out. If they reduced it to
$25,000 a year for the next ten years that would be $250,000 they would have to pay for the following ten.
He liked cutting it in half since it makes better sense. They can rationalize that acknowledging it is a
whole package. It looks more like the number North Pointe is paying.
Mr. Franco said if they are looking at ten years from the Board approval, which was 2007, for the first
Certificate of Occupancy that was now. Seven years from now would be 2018. That would make it more
consistent with North Point instead of 2021.
Mr. Zobrist suggested that they craft the language so a motion could be made.
Mr. Franco said they don’t need to craft the language since they know the first CO is coming this year.
Therefore, they can recognize that seven years from the first CO is going to be the limiting factor versus
the ten years.
Mr. Zobrist noted that they would just cut it in half.
Mr. Cilimberg noted it would be $25,000 per year.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
21
Motion: Mr. Morris moved to recommend approval of ZMA-2010-00014, Hollymead Town Center (A-1)
proffer amendments to include the amended proffers as included in Attachment C with the modification of
the proffer dealing with transit to state that the sum be cut to $25,000 per year and the sunset clause
timeframe go to July 1, 2018.
Mr. Franco pointed out the amendment for proffer 1 needed to be added.
Mr. Kamptner reiterated that the provision would allow the County to require construction upon request by
the County. Staff will fill in the details using standard language.
Ms. Porterfield seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted the ZMA-2010-00014, Hollymead Town Center (Area A-1) proffer amendments would
be forwarded to the Board with a recommendation for approval as included in Attachment C, amended as
follows:
1. With the modification of proffer dealing with transit to state the sum be cut to $25,000 per year
and the timeframe go to July 1, 2018; and
2. Proffer 1 (Road Improvements) amendment to include a provision that would allow the County to
require construction upon request by the County. Staff will fill in the details using standard
language.
ZMA-2010-00001 Pantops Ridge
PROPOSAL: Rezone approximately 38 acres from PD-SC Planned Development Shopping Center,
which allows shopping centers, retail sales and service uses and residential by special use permit (15
units/ acre) to R-15 Residential zoning district which allows single family attached/detached uses and
multifamily residential uses up to 15 units/acre. Proposed number of units is 566 for a density of 15
units/acre.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential -
residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-
scale non-residential uses; Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting
uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses; Greenspace.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 1998 Hansens Mountain Road, Intersection of US Route 250 East and Hansens Mountain
Road. Access is proposed from a relocated Hansens Mountain Road and through 106 Viewmont Court.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 78, Parcel 53; Tax Map 78B-A-4
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report for ZMA-2010-00001
Pantops Ridge.
The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 37.5 acres from Planned Development Shopping
Center (PD-SC) to Residential zoning district (R-15) to allow 562 dwelling units for a density of 15 units
per acre. No plan of development has been provided.
An extension of Viewmont Court and a relocated Hansens Mountain Road will be a safety improvement
for Ashcroft residents and can address many of the traffic impacts of the development. The existing
entrance to Hansens Mountain Road will be closed. The proposed Hansens Mountain Road would allow
vehicles from the development and the Ashcroft neighborhood access to US Route 250 through
Glenorchy at an existing signalized intersection at Peter Jefferson Place. The current vehicular access
for this site and Ashcroft is an un-signalized intersection at Hansens Mountain Road and Route 250. As
mentioned in the staff report these proposed improvements will depend on acquisition of right-of-way from
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECT: ZMA 2010-00014 Hollymead Town
Center (A-1)
PROPOSAL: Rezone 59.162 (portions) acres
from Planned Development-Mixed Commercial
(PD-MC) zoning district which allows large-scale
commercial uses; and residential by special use
permit (15 units/ acre) to Planned Development-
Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) zoning district which
allows large-scale commercial uses; and
residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre),
in order to amend the existing proffers.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND
USE/DENSITY: Town Center—compact, higher
density area containing a mixture of businesses,
services, public facilities, residential areas and
public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds.
(6.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in Hollymead
Development Area.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Hollymead Town Center Area A-1,
the southwest quadrant of Seminole Trail (US
29) and Towncenter Drive in the Hollymead
Development Area
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 032000000042A0,
04600000000500, 03200000004400 (portion),
03200000004500 (portion)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
Staff: Judith C. Wiegand
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
January 11, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
January 12, 2011
Owner(s): Route 29, LLC Applicant: Wendell Wood
Acreage: 59.162 acres Rezone from: Planned Development-
Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) to PD-MC in
order to amend one proffer
Magisterial District: Rio Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Request to amend one proffer from
the original rezoning (ZMA 2005-00015,
approved 9/12/2007) that relates to road
improvements and a second proffer that relates
to Public Transit Operating Expenses.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: None
BACKGROUND
On September 12, 2007, the Board of Supervisors approved ZMA 2005-00015, Hollymead
Town Center, Area A-1, which rezoned the portion of Hollymead Town Center where the Kohl’s
is now under construction.
Planning Staff Executive Summary
Planning Commission Public Hearing January 11, 2011
Page 2
In order for the Kohl’s to receive a Certificate of Occupancy (CO), several of the original Proffers
needed to be satisfied. Proffer 1, Road Improvements requires completion of Meeting Street
from the intersection with Town Center Drive south to the property line. The County believes
that only a portion of this segment of Meeting Street needs to be completed at this time. So, the
County requested that the property owner apply for a zoning map amendment to modify this
proffer.
At the same time, the applicant requested that a change be made in the Proffer related to public
transit stop construction (#4). The applicant requested that a sunset date for this proffer be
included.
DISCUSSION
Attachment B is a signed copy of the original proffers, dated September 12, 2007, and includes
the following relevant to the current requested proffer amendment:
1. Road Improvements – To the extent not currently completed, the Owner shall design,
construct and dedicate to public use for acceptance by VDOT, the following:
The road improvements listed herein shall be constructed in accordance with road plans
submitted by the Owner and approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation
(―VDOT‖). All of the foregoing improvements shall be constructed to VDOT design
standards pursuant to detailed plans agreed to between the Owner, the County and
VDOT. Except for Meeting Street and Town Center Drive as indicated in D. below, the
road plans will be submitted to VDOT and the County with the first site plan or subdivision
plat, and will be constructed and accepted by VDOT within two years from the date of
approval of the first site plan or subdivision plat, except as described in paragraph D.
below:
…
B. Meeting Street from the intersection of Town Center Drive to the southern boundary of
the Property.
…
D. Within one (1) year after the date of approval of this rezoning, the following streets
shall be completed:
Meeting Street from the intersection of Town Center Drive to the northern boundary of
Area A….
Town Center Drive…
For purposes of this Proffer D., construction of each street shall be deemed complete
when it is ready to be recommended by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for
acceptance into the state-maintained system, and the owner has obtained from the County
Engineer a written determination that the street is safe and convenient for traffic.
The proposed revised proffers are included in Attachment C. The revised language relevant to
Planning Staff Executive Summary
Planning Commission Public Hearing January 11, 2011
Page 3
the current requested proffer amendment is:
1. Road Improvements – to the extent not currently completed, the Owner shall
design, construct and dedicate to public use for acceptance by VDOT, the following
roads as provided herein:
A. Design, construct and dedicate. The road improvements listed below shall be
constructed in accordance with road plans submitted by the Owner and
approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation (―VDOT‖). All of the
foregoing improvements shall be constructed to VDOT design standards
pursuant to detailed plans agreed to between the Owner, the County and
VDOT. Except for Meeting Street and Town Center Drive as provided in
Proffer 1A(3) below, the road plans will be submitted to VDOT and the
County with the first site plan or subdivision plat, and will be constructed and
accepted by VDOT within two years from the date of approval of the first site
plan or subdivision plat, except as described in Proffer 1A(3) below:
…
B. Reserve and dedicate. The Owner shall reserve for dedication and dedicate
to public use, upon the written request of the County, the right-of-way for
Meeting Street from the intersection of Town Center Drive to the southern
boundary of the Property. The land reserved and dedicated shall be at least
the minimum width necessary to comply with applicable VDOT standards for
the construction and maintenance of the road, and include all necessary
easements. The right-of-way shall be dedicated within the period specified by
the County, which period shall not be less than 90 days. If the right-of-way is
not dedicated in conjunction with a subdivision plat, the Owner shall be
responsible for the cost of a survey and preparing the deed to convey the
right-of-way to the County.
The revised Proffer 1.A.3 (not printed in full above) now requires completion of Meeting Street
north of the intersection with Town Center Drive in the same manner as was required by the
original proffer. The new Proffer 1.B above requires that the right-of-way be dedicated for the
remaining segment of Meeting Street south to where it will eventually connect to Berkmar Drive
Extended. As each site plan for development adjacent to this southern segment of Meeting
Street is submitted for review and approval, the relevant stretch of Meeting Street to serve that
new development will need to be shown on the site plan and completed as a part of that
development. Because these road segments will be built to the requirements in the site plans, it
is not necessary to proffer specific cross sections. For example, Meeting Street south from
Town Center Drive to the entrances to Area A-1 that will serve the Kohl’s and to Area A-2 that
will serve the indoor theater will need to be completed in time to serve those uses. The
remainder of Meeting Street south of those entrances will not need to be completed until
property adjacent to Meeting Street is developed or until the connection is made with Berkmar
Drive Extended.
The second change was made to Proffer 4. Public Transit Stop Construction. The original
wording of this proffer does not include a sunset date. Since it is unclear when transit service
will be provided to this area, the applicant does not want an indefinite obligation. The applicant
Planning Staff Executive Summary
Planning Commission Public Hearing January 11, 2011
Page 4
also notes that no other Area within the Hollymead Town Center is similarly burdened with
potential contributions toward transit, yet all Areas would benefit from transit service. The
applicant is now proffering a date seven years after the first Certificate of Occupancy was given.
The CO for the Target was issued in mid-2005, and the applicant is now proffering a July 1,
2012 sunset date.
Staff notes that transit service extends north of Charlottesville to the Wal-Mart at this time.
Extending transit service as far north as the Hollymead Town Center area is a long-term
proposition, at least five to ten years out. Thus, if this proffer change is accepted, it is likely that
the applicant will not be required to provide any funding for transit operating expenses.
In addition to these language changes relating to the road proffer and public transit expenses,
changes have been made in the list of Tax Map and Parcels to reflect those now included in
Area A-1, and in the ownership of the property. Also, those proffers that have been satisfied are
so labeled.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff does not recommend acceptance of the July 1, 2012 sunset date for the Public Transit
Operating Expenses proffer because it will effectively remove the applicant’s obligation to help
fund transit service to the Hollymead Town Center. Staff believes a sunset date of January 1,
2021 gives a more realistic opportunity for transit services to be provided in the area to which
this project would contribute. Staff does recommend approval of the rest of the revisions to the
proffer language as included in the signed Amended Proffers, dated January 3, 2011, and
included as Attachment C .
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this rezoning:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2010-00014 including the amended Proffers as
included in Attachment C.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this rezoning:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2010-00014 including the amended Proffers as
included in Attachment C. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she
should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
ATTACHMENT A Location Map
ATTACHMENT B Copy of original signed proffers, dated September 12, 2007
ATTACHMENT C Copy of amended signed proffers, dated January 3, 2011
ZMA 2016-00002 Hollymead Town Center Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission April 26, 2016
Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA201600002 Hollymead Town
Center A1 Transit Proffer Amendment
Staff: Elaine Echols, Acting Chief of Planning
Planning Commission Public Hearing: May 10,
2016
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBD
Owner: Route 29 LLC Applicant: Rt. 29, LLC (Wendell Wood/Nena Harrell)
Acreage: Approximately 59.162 acres Rezone from: No change in zoning district or uses
proposed. Applicant wishes to amend the Public
Transit Operating Expenses proffer
TMP: 032000000042A0, 03200000004400 ,
04600000000500, 046000000005A0
By-right use: PD-MC which allows large scale
commercial uses; and residential by special use permit
Magisterial District: Rio Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Request to amend one proffer from a
previous rezoning (ZMA-2012-05) Public Transit
Operating Expenses proffer. Applicant is proposing a
reduced cash contribution amount towards public
transit operating expenses
Requested # of Dwelling Units: No new dwellings or
change in residential density is proposed
DA (Development Area): Places 29 Hollymead
Comp. Plan Designation: Urban Mixed Use in
Centers and Commercial Mixed Use
Character of Property: The property is developed
with commercial uses including Kohl’s with the
exception of several outparcels that will be built-out in
the future
Use of Surrounding Properties: Commercial uses:
commercial and residential uses and undeveloped
land.
Factors Favorable:
1. None identified
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The applicant/owner signed the current proffer
form that states that the conditions are
voluntarily proffered as part of the requested
rezoning (ZMA 2012-5), and acknowledged
that the conditions are reasonable.
2. There is a sufficient nexus and rough
proportionality between the proffer as written,
and any reasonably expected condition or
impact caused by the project.
3. The terms of the proffer are proportionate to
other transit and transportation proffers
adopted for other developments in the County.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed amendment to the Public Transit Operating Expenses proffer (Proffer
#4 ZMA-2012-00005).
ZMA 2016-00002 Hollymead Town Center Transit Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission May 10th, 2016
Page 2
STAFF PERSONS: Elaine Echols
PLANNING COMMISSION: April 26, 2016
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TBD
ZMA201600002 Hollymead Town Center (Area A1) Public Transit Operating Expenses
Proffer Amendment
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA 2016-00002 Hollymead Town Center (A-1)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 032000000042A0, 03200000004400 (portion), 03200000004500 (portion),
04600000000500
LOCATION: Hollymead Town Center Area A-1, the southwest quadrant of Seminole Trail (US
29) and Towncenter Drive in the Hollymead Development Area
PROPOSAL: Request to amend a proffer to reduce the cash contribution towards transit
operating expenses.
PETITION: Amend ZMA 2012-00005 Proffer #4 Public Transit Operating Expenses. The
Applicant is proposing an alternate proffer contribution amount over seven (7) years, or a one-
time lump sum towards transit operating expenses.
OVERLAY DISTRICT: EC-Entrance Corridor; AIA-Airport Impact Area; Managed and
Preserved Steep Slopes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Mixed Use (in Centers) – retail, residential, commercial,
employment, office, institutional, and open space.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The site is located along Town Center Blvd and is accessed via Town Center Lane in the
Hollymead Town Center development (Attachment A). It is currently developed with
commercial uses including Kohl’s Department Store. Residential, commercial, and vacant
properties surround the parcels in this area (A1).
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
On September 12, 2007, the Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-2005-00015 Hollymead Town
Center, Area A1, which rezoned the portion of Hollymead Town Center where Kohl’s is now
located. The rezoning was approved with proffers, some of which are related to public transit.
The applicant is requesting a modification/amendment to a Public Transit Operating Expenses
proffer (Proffer #4 ZMA 201200005) to reduce the cash contribution amount from five hundred
thousand dollars ($500,000) over ten (10) years to seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) over
seven years (Attachment). Public Transit Operating Expenses proffer was most recently
discussed during a rezoning to amend road improvement proffers related the Kohl’s site (ZMA
2010-00014), but was not altered or amended at that time (see further discussion of this review
under the Planning and Zoning History section of the report, below). The applicant has returned
with this application seeking an amendment to proffer #4 (ZMA 2012-00005).
(Attachment C) contains the proposed proffer. The primary change to the proffer, as indicated
by the applicant, is to reduce the amount of cash contributed towards Public Transit Operating
Expenses from a sum of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) over ten (10) years to a sum
of seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) over seven years. The applicant has suggested various
ways the cash contribution can be paid out based on delineated intervals and time constraints
(sunset clause). The County can opt to take a reduced lump sum of twenty five thousand dollars
($25,000) as the lowest contribution amount offered towards public transit operating expenses.
ZMA 2016-00002 Hollymead Town Center Transit Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission May 10th, 2016
Page 3
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant is seeking an amendment to proffer #4 (Attachment C) because he believes that;
1) There is insufficient nexus and rough proportionality between this proffer as written and any
reasonably expected condition or impact caused by this project
2) A significant change in the commercial real estate market since the original proffer was
adopted has made the proffer even more unreasonable; and
3) The terms of the proffer are grossly disproportionate to any other transit proffer ever adopted
for developments in the County
COMMUNITY MEETING
The applicant held the required community meeting on April 18, 2016 at the Hollymead Fire
Station from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. There were two members of the public present. The
proposed amendment to the public transit operating expenses proffer cash contribution amount
was discussed.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
ZMA200500015 – On September 11, 2007, the Board of Supervisors approved the HTC
A1 rezoning with proffers and Application Plan
ZMA201000014 – On November 18, 2010, the applicant requested relief from
obligations in the proffers to fully complete Meeting Street by a certain date in order to
allow Kohl’s to get a certificate of occupancy and to put a sunset date of July 1, 2012 on
the transit proffer. Staff was able to support the change related to Meeting Street, but
could not support the proposed sunset date, which was less than two years in the future.
Staff recommended a sunset date of January 2021.
At the Planning Commission meeting held on January 11, 2011, the applicant told the Planning
Commission that he did not agree with staff’s recommendation for a 10 year sunset. In addition
he said he wanted to significantly reduce his transit amount, which was a surprise to staff since
it had not been discussed before.
The Commission discussed his request at length and ultimately concluded that they could
support a reduction to $25,000/year for a total of $250,000 and a sunset clause of July 1, 2018.
The next night, January 12, 2011, the Board of Supervisors also heard the request. They
were not persuaded to change the transit proffer and allowed the applicant to modify his
proffers before opening the public hearing. The applicant amended his proffers to reflect
what was approved in 2007.Attachment XX provides the relevant portions of the minutes
for both the November 11 and November 12, 2011 public hearings.ZMA201200005 - on
December 11, 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved amendments to proffers related
to a transit stop location and greenway. The Rezoning (ZMA 2012-5) was as result of a
notice of Violation VIO2012-61 (Notice of Official Determination of Violation for
unsatisfied Proffers relating to ZMA2010-00014)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property has two designations in the Places29 Master Plan. The majority of the property is
shown for Urban Mixed Use (in Centers), and smaller areas are shown as Commercial Mixed
Use. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the land use with this request.
ZMA 2016-00002 Hollymead Town Center Transit Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission May 10th, 2016
Page 4
Chapter 11 – Transportation contains the following recommendations:
Objective 8: Continue to improve public transit service.
Strategy 8a: Continue to use the recommended improvements for public transit in local
Development Areas Master Plans and regional transportation plans such as the Long Range
Transportation Plan, the Transit Development Plan, and other studies to determine the location
and timing for the provision of transit services.
Strategy 8c: Expand transit service to the Hollymead Development Area, Cedar Hill Mobile
Home Park, south of I-64 on Avon Street Extended, and Route 250 West.
In March 2013, the City concluded the 2013 CAT Transit Study that built upon the efforts of the
2011 TDP. The 2013 study focused on identifying adjustments to existing fixed-route bus
services by increasing ridership, improving service quality, and improving route efficiency. Some
of the routes have been adjusted, a new route was added, but more services are needed in the
future.
DISCUSSION
The applicant has made his request to reduce his proffered amount from $50,000/year to
$7,000/year as transit service is just getting ready to start in Hollymead. As discussed in
(Attachment E), in November 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved a proposal for JAUNT
to establish morning and evening commuter transit service to Hollymead. Requests for transit
service have also been received from residents living in the Hollymead and Forest Lakes area.
The commuter route would also help relieve traffic congestion along the Route 29 corridor
during the widening of Route 29, and during the construction of the grade separated
interchange at the intersection of Rio Road and Route 29. If the Board of Supervisors approves
this request to reduce the proffered amount for transit, it could impact the ability of the County to
provide the funding to Jaunt for this essential service.
Staff reviewed the applicant’s claims and does not agree with the applicant’s conclusions, as
indicated below:
1) There is insufficient nexus and rough proportionality between this proffer as written and
any reasonably expected condition or impact caused by this project.
Between 2002 and 2007, land development was booming and the County was struggling
to keep pace with providing the services and infrastructure. As a result, it was essential
that the impacts of each development were assessed and commitments were made to
address those impacts. Several large rezonings were reviewed and ultimately approved
in the Route 29 Corridor. These included Albemarle Place (Stonefield), Hollymead Town
Center areas B, C, and D, and North Pointe. Other rezonings were also taking place
throughout the County, such as the Martha Jefferson Hospital in Pantops, Old Trail in
Crozet and the 5th Street-Avon (5th Street Station) project. Analysis of impacts to the
County from each of these projects took place and proffers to mitigate those impacts
were accepted. When Hollymead Town Center Area A was first submitted it was a single
project with 736,000 square feet of retail/service uses and 1222 dwellings. A transit
proffer was discussed at that time because transit had been identified as a real need in
the Rt. 29 Corridor. Transit proffers for Martha Jefferson Hospital had been accepted
and were being discussed with the Biscuit Run Project. When Hollymead Town Center
ZMA 2016-00002 Hollymead Town Center Transit Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission May 10th, 2016
Page 5
Area A was initially discussed, the transit proffer was intended to cover all of Area A,
which is now Area A1 and A2. When the two projects were split, the proffer remained in
the A1 proffers. The A2 proffers made provision for affordable housing, a pocket park
and greenway, a 2 acre site for a recycling center or other public facility, and cash
proffers for the residential uses.
The transit proffer addresses the transportation/traffic impacts generated by Area A1 and
A2, a pair of rezonings consisting of 736,000 SF of commercial uses and 1222 dwelling
units. At a minimum, Hollymead Town Center Area A1 when complete will generate
approximately 9,430 total primary vehicle trips (4,715 entering and 4,715 exiting) during
an average weekday 24-hour period. The provision of transit service would provide a
means to reduce the traffic impacts created by these rezonings. Providing multi-modal
transportation options is also important component of the Comprehensive Plan’s
recommendation for new urban development.
Additionally, the applicant/owner signed the current proffer form that states that the
conditions are voluntarily proffered as part of the requested rezoning (ZMA 2012-5), and
acknowledged that the conditions are reasonable.
2) A significant change in the commercial real estate market since the original proffer
was adopted has made the proffer even more unreasonable;
The applicant has provided no information as to how the change in the real estate
market affects this proffer. When the economy was in a recession (2007-2010),
Hollymead Town Center Area B completed significant improvements to Route 29 North
and other transportation improvements within Hollymead Town Center. Stonefield also
completed significant improvements to Route 29 North.
3) The terms of the proffer are grossly disproportionate to any other transit proffer ever
adopted for developments in the County
For Area A1, the proffers included road improvements to Route 29 along the frontage of
the site, timing for the street improvements within the development, a contribution for the
traffic study which was ultimately the transportation study for Places29, a pocket park, a
transit stop, and a future intersection analysis. Other proffers related to erosion and
sediment control and LEED construction. The proffers were submitted and accepted by
the Board of Supervisors and was to address the transit needs of the close to 3000 new
residents and 736,000 square feet of retail/service uses in Area A.
As indicated in the minutes from the January 11, 2011 (Attachment F), transit proffers
were provided in the North Pointe, Martha Jefferson Hospital, Albemarle Place, Biscuit
Run, and 5th Street-Avon Center projects. Recently, Brookhill, a ZMA to be considered
by the Planning Commission later this spring, provided transit proffers. While each
proffer in a rezoning is important, typically, they cannot stand alone because they are
reviewed in the context of the zoning and other proffers. The amount of a proffer in one
rezoning may create a value of X because it is the primary improvement being provided,
while in another rezoning, it might have a value of Y because of other proffers.
ZMA 2016-00002 Hollymead Town Center Transit Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission May 10th, 2016
Page 6
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factor, which is favorable to this rezoning request:
1. Staff finds no factors favorable to this rezoning request.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. There is sufficient nexus and rough proportionality between this proffer as written and
any reasonably expected condition or impact caused by this project
2. The applicant/owner signed the current proffer form agreeing that the conditions are
voluntarily proffered as part of the requested rezoning (ZMA 2012-5), and acknowledged
that the conditions are reasonable.
3. The terms of the proffer are proportionate to other transit proffers adopted for
developments in the County
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends denial of the applicant’s request to amend the proffer to reduce the cash
contribution towards public transit operating expenses.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval all as submitted by the
applicant with this zoning map amendment:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA201600002 Hollymead Town Center Proffer
Amendment, with amendments to proffer #4 as requested by the applicant
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA201600002 Hollymead Town Center Area A1 with
reasons for denial. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should
state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
Attachments
A – Location Map
B – Existing approved proffer
C – Applicant’s Justification and Proposed Proffer
D – BOS 11/4/2015 Executive Summary
E – BOS Meeting Minutes
F – Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1641 Crprye Road
Culpeper. tn da arot
Charles A. Kllpatriak, P.E.
Commissioner
February 22, 2016
Mr. Gerald Gatobu
Principal Planner
County of Albemarle
Deparhnent of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: ZMA-2016-00002 Hollymead Town Center Area A-1
Dear Mr. Gatobu,
We have reviewed the rezoning request for Hollymead Town Center Area A-1 to amend the
current zoning proffers. VDOT has no objection to the proposed proffers as submitted.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
434) 422-9782.
Sincerely,
k
Troy ustin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Gerald Gatobu
From: Alex Morrison <amorrison@serviceauthority.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 8:09 AM
To: Gerald Gatobu
Subject: ZMA201600002: Hollymead Towncenter Area A-1
Gerald,
have reviewed the above referenced application and have no comments. a hereby recommend approval.
Alexander J. Morrison, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 5potnap Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
0) 434-977-4511 Ext. 116
C) 434-981-5577
F) 434-979-0698