1990-04-04April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on April 4, 1990, at 7:30 P.M~, Room 7, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney,
George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to accept the consent agenda as information.
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Roll
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Letter from Ms. A. G. Tucker, Assistant Resident Engineer,
dated March 23, 1990, enclosing copy of letter from Mr. T. J. Ciaffone regard-
ing through truck traffic on East Market Street, Route 1105, received as
information. (Mr. Way said he did not think the County had the authority to
restrict through truck traffic. Mr. St. John said, in accordance with the
Code of Virginia, the County does have that authority depending on the facts
of the situation. Mr. Way asked that Mr. St. John and staff make a report
back to the Board.)
Item 4.2. Letter from Mr. H. W. Mills, Maintenance Manager, Department
of Transportation, dated March 26, 1990, noting repairs will be made to the
superstructure over Ivy Creek on Route 677 between April 9 and April 13, 1990,
received as information.
Item 4.3. Letter dated March 8, 1990, from Mr. Walter J. Kucharski,
State Auditor of Public Accounts, stating that the audited financial state-
ments of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, for the year ended June 30, 1989,
have been accepted by his office, was received as information.
Item 4.4. Superintendent's Memo No. 5 dated March 14, 1990, from the
State Superintendent of Public Education, entitled "Aid to Localities Appro-
priations, 1990-92 Biennium", received as information. (Mr. Perkins said some
of the information contained in this memo is valuable and be asked if the
School Board receive the information. Mr. Agnor said this is just a copy of
information which goes directly to the Division Superintendent of Schools.
Mr. Agnor said he will verify whether the School Board receives the informa-
tion.)
Item 4.5. Notice dated March 5, 1990, from the State Corporation Commis-
sion on the application of J. Meak Barton t/a V.I.P. Tours of Charlottesville,
for a certificate of public convenience.and neaessity as a sightseeing car-
rier, received as information.
Item 4.6. Copy of letter dated' March 16, 1990, from the Department of
Historic Resources, noting that Casa Maria is being considered for addition to
the Virginia Landmarks Register, received as information.
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 4.7. Copy of Planning Con~nission Minutes for March 20, 1990,
received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-89-24. Phil Sansone. Public hearing on a
request to rezone 21.72 acres from R-l, Residential, to R~10, Residential,
with proffer. Property known as Wilton is located on the east side of Rt. 20N
just south of its intersection with Elks Drive (St. Rt. 1421). Tax Map 78,
Parcel 8 (part of). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
March 20 and March 27, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
"SUMMARY: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the
intent of the Zoning Ordinance and for compliance with the Compre-
hensive Plan and is of the opinion that this request, with its prof-
fers, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan. Based on these findings, staff recommends appro-
val of ZMA-89-24, Phil Sansone.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA: This property is in Neighborhood Three of the
Comprehensive Plan and is recommended for Medium Density Residential
use (four to ten dwelling units per acre). Adjacent property to the
north is recommended for low density residential use. Property to the
south is recommended for Regional Service. A 24-inch water line is
located 100 feet distant. An eight-inch sewer line is located 500
feet distant.
STAFF COMMENT: A 15-acre portion of this property was rezoned with
ZMA-88-12 and is under SP-88-76. These requests were approved in
order to allow for the Garnett Day Treatment Center. This request is
to rezone the remainder of the site and will have no effect on the
status of the previous rezoning or special use permit. The remainder
of this report will concentrate on Comprehensive Plan recommendations,
applicant's proposal, traffic impact and school impact.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS: The Comprehensive Plan states
'Require unified planned developments for projects with 75 or more
dwelling units' (1988-2010 Comprehensive Plan, page 230). The Compre-
hensive Plan recommends 'Prevention of further "strip development"
along Route 250 East and Route 20 North with the implementation of
development plans'. (page 253)
Staff has encouraged the applicant to provide a development plan for
this project. The applicant has submitted a sketch plan which is
proffered. The applicant's plan indicates 232 units. The tax records
indicate that the portion to be rezoned is 21.7 acres which would
result in 217 units. A more detailed survey is required in order to
determine the total number of units possible. Total number of units
cannot exceed ten times the actual acreage.
This site is shown as medium density residential and lies in Urban
Neighborhood III.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Staff has recommended a single entrance align-
ing with Elks Drive which would provide access to this parcel and to
adjacent land to the north. The applicant has provided a single
entrance aligning with Elks Drive, and has granted access to adjacent
parcels.
During review of ZMA-88-12 and SP-88-76, the Planning Commission
expressed a desire for a lower density designation for the property in
areas located next to low density residential areas. Staff believes
the applicant has adequately addressed this by deleting Parcel 58I
from this rezoning request. The sketch plan indicates that streams
and stream valleys will remain undisturbed. However, no proposed
grading is shown and it is difficult to determine the limit and extent
of grading. This and other specific design issues will be addressed
during site plan review.
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
APPLICANT'S PROFFERS: The applicant has submitted the following
proffers:
We proffer that there shall only be one entrance on this pro-
perty.
We shall treat the Route 20 entrance as a corridor to Char-
lottesville and as a scenic byway. We shall have at least a
75-foot setback from Route 20. We shall provide trees or plan-
tings to protect this scenic byway.
If and/or when Parcel 58I is developed, we agree to discuss
access to our entrance from the northern properties in our
attempts to further protect the scenic byway, Route 20.
Our sketch plan for Parcel 8 will serve as a guide to develop-
ment. (Mr. Bowie asked if the sketch plan referenced is the plan
presented to the Board tonight. Mr. Cilimberg replied "yes".)
Fifty units are intended to provide housing for tenants with an
income of approximately $18,000 $2§,000 for a period of five
years.
The applicant has since deleted Proffer 3 and replaced it with the
following proffer:
'That we offer to proffer, for dedication upon demand of the
County, a reservation of a 50 foot right of way from Rt. 20
approximately 250 feet in length and a 50 foot right of way
paralleling Rt. 20 allowing northern properties and property
58I access through our entrance.'
The applicant's landscaping proffer is intended to protect and pre-
serve Route 20 as an entrance corridor to the City.
The applicant's additional proffers provide for a single access point
to Route 20 for this property and adjacent property to the north and
provide for low to moderate cost housing, meeting a need expressed in
the Comprehensive Plan.
T1L~FFIC IMPACT: The Virginia Department of Transportation has stated
that the potential traffic generation from this site will be 1,700 to
3,000 vehicle trips per day. The applicant has submitted additional
information since review by the Virginia Department of Transportation,
most significantly the deletion of Parcel 58I from the rezoning
petition. Based on this new information, staff has calculated a
revised trip generation figure of 1150 to 1225 vehicle trips per day.
The Department of Transportation recommends that 'access to this
property be limited and that, if possible, all access be to the
relocated entrance that will align across fromRoute 1421 at Route
20'. Staff has recommended to the applicant and adjoining property
owner that access be provided across this property to the property to
the nOrth. This recommendation has been made to consolidate entrances
on Route 20 in order to eliminate congestion and side friction. The
applicant has provided a proffer which addresses staff's concern
regarding access.
SCHOOL IMPACT: This development may result in 79 additional students
at Stony Point Elementary, 46 additional students at Burley Middle
School and 33 additional students at Albemarle High School.
SUMM~Y AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed the applicants
proffers and sketch plan. In the Qpinion of staff, the applicant has
adequately addressed all of staff's concerns. Staff opinion is that
this request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends
approval of ZMA-89-24 Phil Sansone with the acceptance of the appli-
cant's proffers."
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 27,
1990, unanimously recommended denial of ZMA-89-24~ The reasons for recom-
mending denial are: (1) the visual effect on Route 20 and its corridor of
development in this location; (2) the impact to Route 20 North and Route 250
East due to traffic increases caused by the development; (3) the impact to
schools, particularly the Stony Point School, due to increased students
residing in these units; and (4) the concern over the density of development
being R-10.
Mr. Cilimberg said, since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant
has submitted the following proffer:
"April 4, 1990
WilliamFritz, Planner
Albemarle County, Virginia
Department of Planning and Community Development
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: ZMA-89-24 (Sansone)
Dear Mr. Fritz:
In addition to the conditions proffered in my March 13 and 27, 1990,
letters, on behalf of the applicant as his authorized representative,
I hereby proffer the following conditions:
Construction shall not commence prior to January 1, 1994,
except on Parcel A, containing 15.6 acres, more or less.
2. The property shall not be used for the following:
Boarding houses
Tourist lodgings
Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, or patriotic
organizations
Mobile home subdivisions
Churches
Cemeteries
Above-grade parking structures
Mobile home parks.
Respectfully submitted,
Philip A. Sansone
By: (Signed)
Charles Caldwell,
Authorized representative"
Mr. Cilimberg said based on the most recent VDoT traffic count for Route
20, currently vehicle trips per day (VTPD) are3095. An additional 1225 vtpd,
generated from this development, would maintain Route 20 below the trips per
day standard that Would necessitate improvements based on VDoT standards.
As a follow-up to the Planning Commission meeting, he has spoken with
representatives from the Department of Education and it is their opinion that
79 additional students could not be handled at Stony Point Elementary School.
It is also their opinion that these students would be redistricted to attend
either Stone Robinson Elementary or Cale Elementary.
Mr. Bowie asked if Stone Robinson has any space available. Mr. Cilimberg
said Stone Robinson is near to capacity. The School's Long Range Plan indi-
cates redistricting to take some of the student enrollment from Stone Robinson
and transfer it to Cale. At this time, Cale is not projected to be at capa-
city when it is opened.
Mr. Bain asked what figures were used for vehicle trip generation. Mr.
Cilimberg said the figures were based on 5.5 vehicle trips per unit. When
determining vehicle trips, the type of unit is the governing factor.
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
18
Mr. St. John asked to what sketch plan proffer #4 refers. Mr. Cilimberg
said the sketch plan is the one submitted to the Board tonight. When the
applicant states "within the concept of the plan as provided" he is referring
to the provision of joint access, the general layout of units and parking
configuration, setback from Route 20 and the screening along Route 20. Mr.
St. John then asked if the entire parcel outlined on the sketch is Parcel 8.
Mr. Cilimberg responded "yes". Mr. St. John said he is confused by the new
proffer submitted tonight. This new proffer (#2) proffers out several uses
that are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has already proffered
(#4) that the development will be essentially as outlined on the sketch plan.
He cannot understand the reasoning for proffering out these uses. The prof-
fers appear to be in conflict. Mr. Cilimberg said that is a question for the
applicant, but he thinks that although the structures in the sketch plan are
shown and intended to be residential dwelling units, they could potentially be
for one of these other uses.
Mr. Bowie asked if Parcel 58I is still subject to future requests, even
though.~the applicant is deleting it from this rezoning request. He has not
heard any proposal to put that property into any kind of permanent dedication.
Also, it would appear that Parcel 58I is not subject to the 1994 construction
date for the project. Mr. Cilimberg responded that Mr. Bowie's comments are
correct.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Ronald Wiley, Jr., of the firm Smith, Taggert, Gibson and Abro, said
he was present tonight on behalf of the applicant, Phil Sansone, and as the
representative for the contract/purchaser/developer of Parcel A, the first
phase of the development. The contract/purchaser/developer is Amurcon Corpo-
ration of Virginia. Two representatives of Amurcon are also present tonight,
Jim West and Jim Swafford.
Mr. Wiley said with respect to Mr. St. John's comments, the inconsistency
of the proffers never occurred to the applicant. If it is felt that the new
proffer is inconsistent with previous proffers, then the sketch plan on
display at the Board meeting would be the sketch plan for development and the
applicant will then withdraw the new proffer. The new proffer was intended to
put some additional controls on the uses of the property. He apologized for
any confusion.
Mr. Bowie asked if Mr. Wiley was also the representative for the owner of
Parcel B. Mr. Wiley said he primarily represents the developer of Parcel A,
but can speak for the applicant of Parcel B if it is necessary.
Mr. Jim Swafford, Vice-President for Construction, Amurcon Corporation,
said because he feels this proposal is important to both the County of Albe-
marle and Amurcon Coporation, he would first like to introduce the firm.
Amurcon has been in business in Virginia for more than eleven years. The main
office is in Richmond, Virginia, but they also maintain a branch office in
Sterling, Virginia. Amurcon is an integrated land development, construction,
sales and management firm. The corporation basically represents owners and
managers of rental property, but also builds and sells approximately 100
townhouses in the northern Virginia market each year. So that Amurcon con-
tinues to foster and maintain a high level of q6ality and pride in its pro-
duct, they belong to and support a number of industry organizations such as
the National Association of Home Builders and the National Council of the
Multi-Family Housing Industry. This past October the Northern Virginia
Building Industry Association honored Amurcon by awarding them their first
Builder of the Month Award in the Northern Virginia area. He handed to the
Board an article which appeared in the NVBI Magazine outlining the award. Mr.
Swafford said Amurcon is proud to be recognized in the industry as a leader.
Amurcon is also active in the communities and industries that it represents.
Amurcon is aware of the responsibility it has in the design and construction
of the units. Amurcon is proud that it has built units the rgsidents are
happy to live in and units the surrounding neighborhood is happy with.
Amurcon is also proud that it is still owner or general partner in every
product it has built in Virginia, except for those units that are for sale.
Amurcon builds, manages and stays with their projects. They are not in this
business for just the short term gain. Amurcon built a successful company by
servicing the moderate income Virginia family. Amurcon rents and sells
April 4, 19g0 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
housing opportunities to Virginians of moderate income. Mr. Swafford then
presented ~photographs of housing developments Amurcon has built. He also
presented an elevation drawing of Amurcon's proposal subject to this rezoning
request.
Mr. Jim West, Director for Development, Amurcon, said Amurcon proposes to
build 156 two and three-bedroom apartments on approximately 16 acres. These
apartments are designed to meet the housing needs of the young couple who have
a difficult time finding affordable housing in the area. The 1989 Comprehen-
sive Plan comparing housing costs to the monthly income of families in
Albemarle County found that about 25 percent of County residents cannot afford
to rent an average two-bedroom unit and about 35 percent cannot afford to rent
an average three-bedroom unit. The Comprehensive Plan states: "The key
finding of this analysis is that a large part of the housing market is above
the desired affordable levels of a large number of County families and indi-
viduals.'' Amurcon's proposal is aimed at providing for a part of that need.
He then described the typical resident profile for the proposed development.
The typical resident would need to earn approximately $15,000 to be able to
afford the $425 rents that would be in effect for a two-bedroom apartment if
opened this year. Incomes of from $15,000 to approximately $28,000 is their
target market range. This would include many of the young professionals,
administrative staff, medical workers and most college graduates in the early
years of their careers. The rents proposed are competitive with most of the
older rental properties. Rental ranges today for older two-bedroom apartments
are from $400 to $500 per month. For older properties, three-bedroom apart-
ments rent from approximately $470 to $600 monthly. For new properties, the
rental range for a two-bedroom apartment is from $560 to $675. For new
properties, the rent range for a three-bedroom apartment would be from $610 to
$740 monthly. This information was provided by their market study and utili-
zing the Off-Grounds Housing Office survey of rental housing opportunities in
the Albemarle County area. Amurcon proposes rent of $425 for a two-bedroom
and $470 for a three-bedroom apartment. TheSe rents are possible through the
use of the Housing Income Tax Program enacted in 1986 by Congress. There is
no rent subsidy provided. Residents must earn sufficient income to pay these
rents. Oversight for the program is by the IRS. Amurcon would own and manage
this development. As owner and manager, it is important to build and manage
quality apartment homes for their residents and through quality construction
and management, they are able to provide good value to their residents to
protect their investment and to be good neighbors. Through the use of the
income tax credits, they are able to lower the mortgage for the cost of this
construction. This allows them to provide housing more affordable to those in
the $15,000 to $28,000 income range. They are required by their financing to
market to this income range, adjusted annually, for at least fifteen years.
He believes that it is a benefit to the community that the people who contri-
bute to the needs of all should not be squeezed out of affordable housing in
the community in which they work.
Amurcon believes the rezoning request should be approved because it is
consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. This proposal meets the Plan
in a number of ways: (1) it meets the recommended density, (2) it is in the
urban growth area, (3) it provides affordable~housing, and (4) it meets the
general standards to preserve the scenic quality outlined in the Plan.
Amurcon believes it is providing affordable housing with the proposal as
described. Amurcon believes it meets the Comprehensive Plan in the area of
the General Standards to preserve the scenic quality. Amurcon is providing,
as described in the proffer, a tree screen on the front of the property. The
screen is proposed along the Route 20 frontage of the property. Also, this
property is located along the southern portion of a hill between 50 and 100
feet going up to Route 250. This tract of land has been a pasture for many
years. There are very few pieces of land that they have been able to find in
the County that are relatively flat, treeless, designated for medium or even
high density residential and that are screened from the abutting uses.
Regarding the proposed density on the property, in November, 1988, this
property was presented for rezoning of 45 acres to R-10. The staff report
states: "1. This property has been identified by staff and the Planning
Commission as an area to expand medium density residential in order to com-
pensate for existing medium density property which have been deemed not
developable or has otherwise developed since the 1982 Plan was adopted.
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
2O
2. This property would serve as a transition density from the commercial
frontage on Route 250 south of the property and the proposed low density
expansion area along Route 20 north of the property. 3. Commercial deve-
lopment and high density residential border this property to the south and
east, therefore, the proposed density is compatible with the surrounding
development." In 1988, the Planning Commission discussed placing transitional
zoning between the HC property to the south and the low density residential to
the north. The proposal before the Board tonight does that. Amurcon believes
R-10 is appropriate for this property. Also, developing affordable housing
would not be feasible at a lesser zoning classification.
In summary, the question of the impact of this development on the trans-
portation system of the neighborhood, will be minimized by deferring any
development after the initial 156 apartments until after January, 1994. The
impact of the proposed development is also lessened by directing all of the
traffic from the applicant's property to one point of entry on Route 20. At
the Planning Commission meeting, questions were raised by citizens about the
traffic impact of this development. Amurcon retained Mr. Charles Barnes of
Harlan Bartholomew to help answer these questions. Mr. Barnes has his Bache-
lors and Masters Degree in Civil Engineering. He has over 25 years of experi-
ence in transportation engineering and is a senior transportation engineer for
his firm.
Mr. Barnes came forward and said he is present to discuss the traffic
impacts of the proposed development on the area roadway network. He has
observed and collected data during the peak hour conditions at the intersec-
tions of Stony Point Road (Route 20)/Route 250, and High Street/Route 250. He
presented two exhibits illustrating the existing lane configurations at these
two intersections. Normally when intersections are analyzed during peak hours
the intersection is graded on a scale from A to F. An A to C is satisfactory.
The influence of congestion is starting to become noticeable when approaching
the C level of service. At level D, service takes 40 seconds or greater per
cycle to get through that intersection during the peak hour, over 60 seconds
is level F of service and is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers.
During the peak hours, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., there were short times
around 7:45 a.m., traveling down Route 250 into the City when there was
traffic backed up on Pantops Mountain. He measured those delays and some of
them were as long as two minutes or greater (lots of laughter from the
audience). It did not occur during the entire one hour period. Within a 15
minute period there were some delays that were as long as two minutes. On
Stony Point Road, the delays were somewhat less. They were about 40 seconds
which is around a D level of service which can be contended with. He made
some travel time runs from Key West to the intersection of High Street/Meade
Avenue during that peak period. At no time did it take more than four minutes
and 36 seconds to complete that trip. He never observed more than 15 cars
stacked at Stony Point Road waiting to get access onto Route 250. Improve-
ments to Route 250 have been approved by the Commonwealth Transportation
Board.
Mr. Barnes said said during his observations he found that there were
more people going out of town during the morning peak hour than there were
coming into town on Route 250. He counted 880 cars going out of town and 805
cars coming in. He thinks that much of that traffic is going to either
Riverbend Drive or State Farm Boulevard on Pantops. He calculates that the
level of service for that intersection after improvements two years from now,
projecting the level of traffic analyzed recently at the peak hour, will be a
delay of 22.2 seconds, or a level C service. Taking into consideration
everything involving this project, the net difference is an additional 50
trips during the a.m. peak hour and that is assuming all of the traffic will
be traveling into the City. There would be a 1.2 second increase in delay
which is an insignificant increase on the impact of those intersections during
the peak hour.
Mr. Bowie asked how much time it took Mr. Barnes to get from Key West to
Free Bridge on Route 250. Mr. Barnes said he traveled from Key West to High
Street and then Meade Avenue in four minutes 36 seconds. Sometimes a person
will catch that light at Route 20 and Route 250 (lots of laughter from the
audience) and will have to stop, but he is talking about an average delay.
Again, he never saw more than 15 vehicles backed up at any one time. For
example, he left Key West and in two minutes and 19 seconds he was at Route
250. At three minutes 16 seconds he was at the Free Bridge. It only took him
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
21
about a minute to get from that intersection across the Free Bridge at 7:35
a.m. yesterday morning. About 8:00 a.m., everythi-ng starts to clear and
traffic moves along swiftly (lots of murmurs). This information is recorded
and documented. Mr. Bowie commented that it has taken him as long as 12
minutes to drive that distance.
In summary, Mr. West said the applicants believe this rezoning should be
granted. Amurcon is an experienced builder andmanager of apartments. This
proposal provides quality, affordable rental housing for residents with
incomes ranging from $15,000 to $28,000. The commitment to provide affordable
rental housing will last for at least fifteen years. This property is in the
urban growth area. This proposal for R-10 helps maintain the capacity for
housing in the urban growth area, lessening pressure on the rural areas. This
proposal for R-10 is compatible with the adjacent proposed and existing uses.
This proposal for R-10 is buffered from the low density residential, posed for
lamd on the north line of Parcel 58I. The net density of the applicant's
property would be approximately six units per acre. The scenic quality
preservation general standards are met for this property as are the transpor-
tation recommendations.
Mrs. Humphris asked the significance of the statement "This commitment
will last for at least 15 years." Mr. West said it is an IRS financing
requirement that the property be marketed in this range for at least fifteen
years.
Mr. Bain asked the net density of the property. Mr. Cilimberg said the
rezoning is for a total of ten units per acre over the 21.7 acres. The
applicants are referring to a part of that. He thinks the applicants have
counted in their density figures the Garnett School property which is a third
of the total site. Mr. West said that is true, and also, if Parcel 58I were
rezoned for something in the middle of the medium density range at R-6, the
combination of the number of units divided by the total 45 acres. This is an
attempt to get a feeling for the impact of this rezoning on the total
property.
Mrs. Humphris asked where the figure given for the number of trips was
generated. Mr. Barnes said in the ITE land use code for a 210 single-family
zoning on the a.m. peak hour of the site generator it will generate .773 trips
per dwelling unit. If it is assumed that under R-1 with cluster development
there were 24 units, that would be 19 trips. Under the R-10 zoning in the ITE
land use code for 220 apartments the peak hour generator is .568 trips per
dwelling unit, and 156 units is 88 trips. Of that 88 trips, 73 percent exit
during the morning peak hour and 27 percent enter. Under R-l, 72 percent exit
and 28 percent enter and the net difference in those exiting trips is about 50
additional trips.
Mr. Ken Boyd, President of the Key West/Cedar Hills Community Associa-
tion, said this association opposes the proposal. He asked for a show of
hands of all the persons present who opposed the project (approximately 75
people raised their hand). Mr. Boyd said contrary to what the developer said,
the community is not opposed to the Comprehensive Plan. He personally could
have supported this request for rezoning had it been a request for the low end
of the Comprehensive Plan recommendation, or R-4 as opposed to the highest
possible density allowed in an R-10 zone. The resident's concern is for the
community and they have weighed the proposal on its effect on the County.
Here is a developer whose obvious intent is to make a profit. That profit is
going back to their headquarters and the County is getting some housing units.
The County will also get some tax revenues. He cannot speak to whether or not
those tax revenues are going to be sufficient to accommodate the additional
services that the community is going to have to provide, be it fire, police or
schools. The residents oppose this proposal for three basic reasons.
First, the residents are concerned about the impact this development will
have on the scenic byway. Route 20 North has been designated as a scenic
byway leading from Charlottesville to Montpelier in Orange County. It is
extremely scenic and no one knows what the impact of this housing development
will be. Presently, this is a pleasant drive after leaving the congestion on
Route 250 and traveling Route 20. No matter how many trees are proposed to be
planted in front of this property and no matter what the minimum setback, no
one can say for sure what the impact will be or how to avoid looking at the
three-story building complex proposed in the plan.
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
22
Second, traffic is a concern. The developers spoke to their homeowners
association and they listened to the proposal and every time there were a few
additional proffers, changes and statistics. Originally, the school projec-
tions were low. Now they are apparently high. The traffic projections were
low. Now they have been revised. He does not know how many trips per day
there will be, but he travels that road twice every day and he cannot compre-
hend what an additional 1200 trips per day will do. He does not have the
credentials of the previous speaker who several times said "we can live with
this". He does not know what the speaker means by "we" because it did not
mean himself, and probably not a lot of the people in this room. One of the
things that has not been addressed is the traffic impact of the new Rivanna
Park. That will happen before improvements to Route 250. What will happen
with the new retirement community on Pantops Mountain and how is that going to
impact the traffic. There is new growth in Ashcroft and how is that going to
impact the traffic situation. There is a new church being built on Route 20
North and what is the impact of that on the traffic situation. He has found
in talking to neighbors and co-workers that Route 20 is becoming the preferred
byway for people who live along the highly developed area of Route 29 North,
particularly the Forest Lakes area. Proffit Road and Route 20 is certainly a
preferred method for someone to leave Route 29 North and go to State Farm
Insurance on Pantops. He has found that even people coming downtown or
traveling to the University would prefer that route to having to travel Route
29 North in the mornings or the evenings. He does not know how Mr. Barnes got
a real feel for the traffic with the survey he undertook. With regard to the
Highway Department plans, they know that Route 250 is going to be improved.
They also know how long this project has already been delayed. They also know
from the history of VDoT that it does not always bring its projects in on
schedule.
Third, the school situation is a concern. This is the first time he has
heard of any plans to redistrict the schools. He has heard that developments
in the Lake Reynovia area, as well as developments in the rest of the County,
are going to feed to Cale which would be at capacity when it is opened. He is
convinced that this will have an impact on Stony Point Elementary. This
project could happen before redistricting or anything else is done to the
schools. The present schools are not prepared to handle these additional
children nor do they have the facilities to provide a good, quality education.
The residents of Key West are not against the Comprehensive Plan, growth in
the county or providing additional housing. They are against this particular
project because they believe that the negatives far outweigh the positives and
the residents hope that the Board will join in the wise decision that was made
by the Planning Commission and deny this proposal.
Mrs. Judy Vermillion, the owner of historic Franklin, which is less than
a mile from Wilton, said she has worked diligently for almost 20 years trying
to get Albemarle County to recognize the historic and scenic significance of
the Route 20 North corridor and the Southwest Mountains region. Because of
the area's close proximity to the City, she realizes that growth is inevit-
able. Her concern is that this area not be designated for the highest zoning
category of low, medium and high density, or the area would become too con-
gested for the schools, the road and the historic scenic nature of the area.
She does not think that there will be any significant improvements to Route 20
in her lifetime. With the Garnett Center, Rivanna Park, Broadus Memorial
Church, Montpelier and all the additional growth that has taken place already
off of and along Route 20, the traffic has and will continue to increase
significantly. She welcomes new neighbors. Route 20 North is a desirable
area and a wonderful place to live. It is also virgin territory as far as
high density development is concerned. In order to maintain good schools,
traffic flow and the beauty and tranquility of this most historic area, she
feels the density of this request is too high. A precedent would be set for
future requests for other developers who would, and should, expect to receive
the highest rezoning allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. She expects the Board
to adhere to its Comprehensive Plan. Medium density is from 4.01 to 10
dwelling units per acre. She hopes that any rezoning will be in the lower
range not to exceed six units per acre. Once development starts, she feels
more and more requests will be forthcoming. She asks that the Board not act
prematurely on any request and that it deny this R-10 zoning request.
Mrs. Karen Brazell, who has children in Stony Point School and works at
the school, said no matter where these children attend school, it will cause
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
that school to be overcrowded. She has observed that the public buses going
into the Garnett Center are unable to exit without using both lanes. Stony
Point is already overcrowded. She feels that the estimated number of trips
are probably low because as a mother she is always on the go and so will these
other parents be.
Mr. Kevin Cox said he is present to ask the Board to grant this rezoning
request. He, his wife and two children have lived in Albemarle County most of
their lives. Currently, they rent a two-bedroom apartment and pay about 30
percent of their income for that unit. They would like to live in a three-
bedroom unit so that each child could have his own room, but it is unafford-
able at this time. The current vacancy rate for apartments in the County is
somewhere around three percent, but according to a spot survey taken the other
day it is actually closer to 1.6 and two percent which is below what the
Comprehensive Plan says it should be at about five percent. He feels a
diminishing supply of rental housing will increase his rent and make it less
likely that he will ever improve the quality of their housing. The supply of
rental'units will diminish dramatically in the next several years if the
University of Virginia increases its enrollment as planned and the U. S. Army
FSTC brings in another 600 to 1000 new employees as he has heard they are
planning to do. He feels the County needs more rental housing in designated
growth areas. Concerning the complaint about increased traffic on Free Bridge
and Route 20, the people who would live in these units would have an impact on
roads whether or not this development is built, and most of these people, like
himself, already live in the County. This development is not going to create
people; they are already in the community. In his opinion, the Route 250
improvements will allow this road to handle the increase in vehicle trips
better than almost any other road in the already congested urban growth area.
He would ask the Board to show its support for the Comprehensive Plan by
granting this rezoning request.
Mr. Dave Emmitt, a resident of Franklin Subdivision, said he attended
meetings on the Comprehensive Plan and felt that the revisions to it were
appropriate. The Comprehensive Plan is logical and he feels the citizens are
willing to adjust to what it allows. The residents in the area are looking at
the property across the road by the Elks Club which is zoned for high density.
They look at the growth further along Route 20. It is certainly within the
Board's power to restrict density to four dwelling units per acre which is
what he would recommend. Right now the total density of Key West, Franklin
and Redbud is not nearly the total requested for this one project. The
residents see this impact and cannot believe it will not affect the quality of
their lives.
Mr. Howard Newlon said for 35 years he was an employee with the Virginia
~Department of Transportation. He is also a resident of Key West. He supports
the Comprehensive Plan, but it is a comprehensive land use plan. He is a
Civil Engineer, a registered engineer licensed in Virginia (people have been
"kicking their credentials aroun'd"). He had the good fortune of being desig-
nated outstanding Civil Engineer in Virginia in 1985, the same year he
received an award from the National Council on. Historic Preservation. One of
things he has learned from preservationists is that "you do not do something
if you are uncertain that you can't undo it". He thinks this is probably a
good plan but the timing is particularly unfortunate and the pressure to get
it done has to do with some sort of funding mechanism that depends on some
kind of federal "whim of the month". Too often public policy has been dic-
tated by a federal whim. Public housing in Charlottesville was never planned,
but had to do with what somebody planned at the time. He has lived in this
community for 40 years. He can remember when traveling along Route 29 was a
pleasant trip. He is not naive enough to think that this property will always
be a field. He has been living in this area for 14 years and has never made
it from Key West to High Street in four minutes. He would like to know if
there are any plans to improve the one-half mile from Route 20 (Elk Drive) to
the major improvements on Route 250. He thinks that the day State Farm
- Insurance announced it was moving to Pantops, upgrading Route 250 and Free
Bridge should have been a priority project. All of the high density zoning is
based on what is on Route 250. It is easy to say this property is backed up
to commercial. The problem is that there will be a bottleneck from wherever
this property ends back toward Elk Drive and the stop light on Route 250. He
would ask that if the Board has any reservations at all that it not do some-
thing that cannot be undone. This is a major step and the residents do not
want Route 20 to become another Route 29 North.
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
24
Mr. Lynwood Coffman, a 23-year resident of the County, said he also is
speaking in opposition to the rezoning request. He handed out an article
written in the Daily Progress showing the number of residential dwelling units
built in Albemarle from 1984 to 1989. Growth in the County is accelerating
and developers built more new houses in Albemarle in 1989 than in any previous
year. What does such growth mean? For a few it means impressive profits, for
most of us it means higher taxes and erosion of the quality of life that makes
Albemarle County so attractive. These 232 projected units will produce
approximately 165 new students using the figure of .71 for each new dwelling
unit. Lots of new dwelling units produce lots of new students. Lots of new
students takes lots more buildings, lots more teachers, lots more buses, etc.,
etc. As the representative from Key West pointed out, this developer is here
for one reason to make as many "bucks" as he can make, and then leave us to
subsidize his profits. Every one dollar of new revenue costs the people $1.25
in services and who is going to make up that additional amount? People who
have lived here all their lives. He came tonight to speak to the interests of
the senior citizen, the fixed income people such as himself. His income is
going down. He lives in a nice house in Northfields and feels that he is
being squeezed out. He and his wife are seventh generation Virginians and
here all of these people are coming in and adding to their taxes to the point
that they cannot afford to continue to live in the County. He thinks this is
an injustice and wrong to let these profit-greed people come in and run other
Virginians out of their homes. The County is growing too rapidly. Last year
there were 1309 dwelling unit permits issued, the highest ever in the County.
With every new unit produced, that is a tax increase. Just because the people
did not approve the meals tax, the Board continuously raises their taxes.
These residents are getting nothing out of this development. The burden of
proof is on the applicant to give compelling reasons for the project. The
only compelling reason that he has seen is big profits. He speaks as a senior
citizen and as one who faces decreasing income knowing that every time this
Board approves additional dwelling units, his taxes increase. When voting,
the Board should remember that there are those on the other end of the scale
who want to live and have a decent quality of life in their remaining years.
Mr. Jay Hodgins said he is a recent resident to the Key West community.
He, his wife and three children moved to Key West about seven months ago.
They selected Charlottesville over any other place in the entire country to
move before even visiting the place. He also pays about 30 percent of his
income for their standard of living. He is also a civil engineer and licensed
and registered in the State of New York and the Commonwealth of Virginia. He
is not in favor of the proposal. If the Board is in favor of it, there are
still additional considerations that need to be addressed. It is commonly the
case that new and improved roads not only serve the existing traffic that
travels on them but improved roads act as a magnet to attract other uses. He
questions some of the calculations that indicate that a 35 percent increase in
vehicle trips per day is going to result in a less than five percent increase
in delay in getting off of Route 20. In New York, where he came from, the
town boards recognized cash proffers from developers. These proffers often
included such things as a $1000 per unit recreational fee, a $2000 per unit
school fee and additional fees for road development to service the area. He
has not heard of any of those proffers. He is in favor of someone developing
so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. He feels that the
proposal as submitted infringes upon his rights. He does not think that there
is complete information available right now for either himself or the Board to
render a favorable opinion of this proposal. He would think that an R-6
zoning would be more appropriate for the intended use.
Mr. Larry Keller, a resident of Key West, said he agrees with everything
that has been said. He drives to Orange, Virginia, every morning and sees all
of the traffic coming this way. With the improvements to Route 20, more
people are using Route 20. People from Forest Lakes and Proffit Road are
using Route 20 to avoid Route 29. Route 20 is a scenic highway and is two-
lane. His son is currently attending Stony Point and is taught in a trailer.
Where he came from in California, the developer does not build the first house
until he has built the school, road and park.
Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom said he supports the Comprehensive Plan and he
does not have a problem with the density. The purpose of the density in the
Plan is to keep growth from sprawling in areas where the County cannot and
does not want to provide services. He knows there is a need for moderate cost
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
25
housing._ The Board has to think about the fact that the Comprehensive Plan is
a 20 year plan. His concerns about this project all could be addressed
through proffers which have not been made but which could be negotiated by
this Board. The Route 20 corridor is unique. The design for the project is
not bad, but if the buildings are put on that pasture as indicated on the plan
high above the road, that will create a formidable visual impairment. He
thinks the buildings can be relocated. It is important that the buildings be
oriented so they do not face the road and create a solid wall of three-story
buildings. The trees will provide a quick meaningful screen. That can be
proffered. It needs to be considered that this is a uniquely historic road.
If this proposal goes forward, he hopes the Board will insist upon proffers
that will preserve that road. He knows that the staff is currently working on
a corridor protection overlay which would certainly be applicable to this
road. He is concerned that a project of this magnitude precedes that study.
Mr. Lindstrom said any project is going to have a fiscal impact. Based
on current costs of Albemarle County, and assuming that each unit were valued
by the County at $120,000, the project ends up costing about $560,000 a year.
With this project, there will be close to 500 housing units that will be
created in Albemarle County under rezonings that have occurred since the Board
had the authority to accept cash proffers. He thinks it is appropriate to
consider whether or not this project should be taken up before the time when
the Board has the ability to accept cash proffers. He has figured that
requiring a $2000 per unit cash proffer would add about $200 per month per
Itunit in rent. Mr. Bowie asked if the net tax loss to the county if this is
approved is $500,000 per year. Mr. Lindstrom replied the actual amount is
II
115538,000. Mr. Bowie commented that it will take two cents on the real pro-
perty tax rate for every piece of property in the County to support this
project. Mr. Lindstrom said the County is losing money rapidly because it
does not have a staff that can put together the data to do a fiscal impact
assessment. This additional staff needs to be funded to provide and handle
this work.
Mr. Fred Watkins, a resident of Franklin Subdivision, said he is against
the project from a financial standpoint. He is in favor of affordable housing
for everyone. He is not in favor of low income rental housing. Renters do
not treat their homes and dwellings the same as people who own their property.
His house is the largest investment that he has and he wants to protect that
investment and for that reason he would ask the Board to deny the request.
Mrs. Sally Thomas, representing the League of Women Voters, said the
League has looked at several aspects of this request, i.e, the provision of
housing in a needed price range, impact on traffic, impact on strip develop-
ment along the highway, impact on the entrance to the City of Charlottesville,
the impact on schools and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The provi-
sion of housing in a needed price range is a favorable aspect and given the
need for housing, especially near the City, the League regards this as an
important reason to favor the request. The Comprehensive plan expresses the
need for low to moderate cost housing and that need is increasing each day.
The impact on traffic is a reason to wish this development would never take
place. However, the Comprehensive Plan calls for this level of development in
this location, a provision of the Plan which made sense when the Plan was put
into place and which continues to make sense. Not all of the dwellings will
be occupied in the first year, and since the Free Bridge construction should
be completed by the time the full impact of the development is felt, the worst
traffic bottlenecks seem to be temporary, although significant. If ever there
is going to be public transportation provided economically to developments and
if the County is seriously looking at long term solutions to traffic problems,
a development of this density in this location seems a likely candidate. The
proffer by the developer for access to the northern piece of property is an
important aspect of this proposal and it makes the traffic impact far more
manageable as well as corresponding to the Highway Department's recommendation
that there be a single access. Likewise, single access to all of the land
allows for the orderly development of Route 20 North and fights strip develop-
ment along Route 20 and Route 250 in the most desirable way. The 75 foot
setback seems a reasonable offer for this road. She asks what plans the
Highway Department has for widening Route 20 and whether the widening would
consume that setback. The impact on schools is a significant concern. In the
next ten years, Albemarle County schools are going to need increased capacity
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
26
as the School's Long Range Plan indicated. This type of development, sitting
mt an intersection, is more manageable because the children may be sent to one
of several schools. Both Stony Point and Stone Robinson Elementary Schools
are crowded, but growth, wherever it occurs in the County, is going to have an
impact on schools. The concern about the cost per dwelling unit can be
multiplied by the cost of sprawling development throughout the County. As
planned, this development will allow for an efficient delivery of services
which should be an important consideration to the County at this time. Most
important to the League is compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. This
proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan and furthers its goals. The
League urges favorable action by the Board.
Mr. Frances Fife said he loves this area, every mountain, hill, river and
creek, and he would love to see them all preserved. If no one else would move
in, a lot of this could be preserved, but we are not living in a make believe
world. We are living in a world where no city, county, state and certainly
not the nation, have taken the responsibility for seeing to it that provisions
are made for housing for people of low income and now it has gotten to those
of lower median income. These housing needs are not being met. Albemarle
County is not doing it. Charlottesville is not doing it. Something is
completely out of balance when people cannot find decent housing. People can
work two jobs and still not make enough money to be able to rent, much less
buy a piece of property. He thinks that the Board should do everything that
it can to make this development conform to the things that it should. He
understands the point regarding the schools and traffic, but he submits that
there is nobody else in the County planning to provide housing at this income
level. He thinks that this project needs to be supported by the Board.
Everyone knows that the University of Virginia will continue to grow and new
industry will come in. There is no residential area in the County that
probably would not resist if they were told this this development was going
into their community. He urges the Board to support the project.
Mr. Charley Kabash, a resident of Franklin Drive, previously from New
York, said he likes Virginia. He thinks at issue here are four major points:
schools and impact on schools, the negative tax base, the scenic byway and
traffic. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 9:30 p.m.) When he purchased his
property three years ago, he was told the Free Bridge project would begin in
three years. He has been here for three years and now again he has been told
the project will be built in three years. Probably three years from now he
will be told the same thing again. He does not know where the consultant for
the appliCant got his estimates. Those figures do not exist in reality. The
road system is bad. The improvements are to be made on Route 250 and not on
Route 20. He has six children, one of which presently attends Stony Point,
who ride three to a seat on the school bus and that is not going to get
better. When someone made the statement that the people who will move to this
development already live in the County, does that mean the houses they vacate
are going to be leveled therefore no children will be generated from those
houses; 230 new homes means 230 more groups of families with housing needs and
children with school needs. He has children in all of the three schools;
elementary, middle and high schools. He does not think Cale Elementary will
relieve crowding in the present schools. In summary, the Bomrd is charged
with the responsibility for doing what is best for the cox~unity as a whole.
At the Planning Commission meeting, it was stated that only 50 of the units
would be for moderate housing. The rest of the units would be at regular
housing costs. The entire project is not being developed for low or moderate
income housing. It is a good way to sell the project because this developer
has taken the smallest part of the project and made it their major thrust. He
is not opposed to developing this property, but this proposal cries for defeat
because of the density proposed. Also the developers have made it clear that
if they cannot have this density they are not interested in developing. There
has to be some form of change from the urban city to the rural area where he
lives without having the impact of "a new Ashcroft in a very small area". He
urged the Board to deny this request. (Mr. St. John returned at 9:35 p.m.)
Mr. Ronald Wiley again addressed the Board said Route 20 is a road which
is still not above its design capacity and not projected to be above that
capacity. The Comprehensive Plan recommends this kind of development on this
particular site including the consequences of increased traffic. The one
comment he finds to be the most offensive is about profit motive in this
venture. He is not suggesting the developer is not in business to make a
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
27
profit. The last time he checked making a profit was still legal in Virginia.
The point is that there are a lot of things about the proposal which cut into
the profit margin. The applicant is offering to build moderate income hous-
ing. If they wanted to get the fastest buck, they would not be building
moderate income housing. If it were not for the fact they had to extend water
and sewer to this site, which will cost between $200,000 and $300,000, the
applicant could make a larger profit on this site. The applicant could make
more of a profit if he did not have to build the entrance and access road to
provide access to future development. Delaying the development of parcel B
until 1994 is cutting into the profit margin. The project could be developed
more economically if the applicant was not willing to provide the setback.
There is nothing wrong with profit and he finds it offensive that just because
someone can make a profit providing a necessary and worthwhile product that
would be taken as a negative. With respect to the fiscal impact on the
County, he would remind the Board that at least one of the speakers stated he
had six children. At the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Lindstrom indicated
that it cost the County $4300 a year to educate children. Those six children
times $4300 just for school services for that one household woulH cause that
person to pay about $28,000 in taxes. It is a fact that residential develop-
ment does not support itself from a fiscal impact basis. However any meaning-
ful cash proffer in this case is simply impossible; The profit margin is not
there for these developers to be able to make any reasonable profit and still
provide affordable housing for moderate income residents. He would like to
reiterate, this is not for low income persons, but moderate income. This is
not going to provide any student housing. Again, the Comprehensive Plan
indicates the pressing need for affordable housing and the applicant has
offered phased development. With respect to schools for this site, it is
fortunate to be at the intersection of three school districts and could
provide the most flexibility ever in providing schooling for those children.
With respect to the scenic byway, the property backs up to commercial property
that can be seen from Route 20. There are also high-power overhead lines and
transmission towers in the area. This part of Route 20 is appropriate for
this kind of development. He urges the Board to endorse this request and
approve the R-10 zoning with the proffers. The applicant does withdraw
proffer #7 to avoid any confusion.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie said he will speak first since this property lies within the
Rivanna District. He agrees that there is a need for this type of housing in
the County. The Comprehensive Plan is a 20 year plan and it should not all
happen in the first year. This is medium density. Medium density is what the
Board said should go there, but R-10 is medium density only by a technicality.
He thinks that R-10 is the same as high density. He does not think the Board
envisioned that kind of density here. To him, the R-6 is sufficient~ He has
problems with the negative tax base and the infrastructure costs to support
this development. He supports this type of development. He thinks R-10 is
too much density and he does not intend to support the request.
Mr. Bowerman said the League of Women Voters summed up his position very
well. It touched on all of the points he wanted to make with the exception of
saying that the private sector is providing this moderate cost housing, not
the public sector. If the public sector does it, it is going to cost everyone
money. There is moderate cost housing and subsidized housing in other dis-
tricts in the County. He thinks this project is 100 percent compatible with
the Comprehensive Plan. He thinks R-10 is contemplated in medium density. He
also thinks that the people who will live in this development already live in
the community. The demands that are going to be put on the infrastructure are
already in place. For all of the reasons, especially those listed by the
League and Frances Fife, he thinks it is important that this community support
this type of project. There is a need for moderate income housing. He thinks
the private sector is trying to provide it. The public sector has certainly
not done it. To lose the opportunity to do this would be a great tragedy.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the 75 foot setback is from the current right-of-
way and if the current right-of-way is sufficient for any widening of Route
20. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not believe the right-of-way contemplates any
expansion of Route 20. Route 20 is not shown as a four-lane highway in any of
VDoT's plans. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the point concerning the scenic
quality of Route 20 is well taken. If this project moves forward, it would
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 28
(Page 15)
set the example for development on Route 20. Regarding the setback, Mr. Wiley
said the Zoning Ordinance states the setback to be from the edge of right-of-
way.
Mr. Bowerman said he appreciates the deep emotion of all of the people
who spoke against this request. He knows the project will have an impact in
the community. On balance, it is more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
than counter to it and he is in favor of the project with a clarification of
the setback.
Mr. Bain said he thinks this proposal is in accord with the Comprehensive
Plan. He is concerned about the traffic situation, not only here, but through-
out the County. He recognizes that this is a 20 year plan, but this location
is where the Board discussed being able to provide services. It prevents
scattering development throughout the community and throughout the county with
a lot of different homes, new subdivisions, split roads. He thinks this is
overall the best thing and supports the plan.
Mr. Perkins asked if any recreational facilities are planned for the
development. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes", the standard requirement of the site
plan provisions of the ordinance.
Mrs. Humphris asked what nonresidential uses may be placed on this site.
Mr. Cilimberg read the list of uses from the Ordinance. Mrs. Humphris asked
about retail stores and shops. Mr. Cilimberg responded that potentially those
uses are allowed because the applicants have withdrawn the proffer eliminating
those uses. Mr. St. John said the applicant withdrew the proffer because he
has already proffered "that the plan you see is what you will get". Although
this is not the actual site plan, the final plan will not conflict substan-
tially from this plan before the Board tonight. The plan could be clarified a
little to make it clear that the intended use is a totally residential develop-
ment. Mr. Wiley said the withdrawal of the proffer was not meant to confuse
anyone. He agrees with Mr. St. John's characterization of the proffers as
they now stand before the Board. He will state for the record that "what you
see is what you get on this site concept" with the proviso stated by Mr. St.
John and considering that the plan is not the final site plan.
Mrs. Humphris said she has been weighing and balancing all of the posi-
tives and the negatives of the proposal. She does not think the timing for
this development is right. The Board is waiting for the staff to provide it
with information about the fiScal possibility of cash proffers on the values
and impacts of such a development. The County is on the verge of a tremendous
explosion of growth. She does not think the County can afford this project at
this time nor the additional two cents on the tax rate. She thinks this
proposal is premature, and it should be done at a lower density, if at all.
Mr. Way said although he thinks this is too large a project too soon,
this is the density that was put in the Comprehensive Plan, and he intends to
base his decision on that fact.
Mr. Bowerman said one of the reasons the County does not have moderate
cost housing is because the infrastructure is available, the land becomes too
expensive. He thinks this is one location where utilities can be available.
Road improvements are contemplated to deal with the traffic. There are few
other places where that is available. He thinks this proposal is appropriate
at this time. He does not think the Board will find another piece of property
that could be developed for low and moderate cost housing that would be more
acceptable than this piece of property. He knows that Free Bridge and Route
250 have not been reconstructed at this time, but he does not think the Board
can find anywhere in the County that will meet those conditions.
Mr. Bowerman then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve
ZMA-89-24 as proffered by the applicant, with the proviso on Proffer #2 that
the 75 foot setback from Route 20 is from the edge of right-of-way, and
deleting Proffer #2 in letter dated April 4, 1990 (set out as follows):
We proffer that there shall only be one entrance on this pro-
perty.
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
29
We shall treat the Route 20 entrance as a corridor to Charlottes-
ville and as a scenic by-way. We shall have at least a 75 foot
setback from Route 20 edge of right-of-way. We shall provide
trees or plantings to protect this scenic by-way.
Proffered, for dedication upon demand of the County, a reserva-
tion of a 50 foot right of way from Route 20 approximately 250
feet in length and a 50 foot right of way paralleling Route 20
allowing northern properties and property 58-I access through our
entrance.
Our sketch plan for Parcel 8 will serve as a guide to develop-
ment.
Fifty units are intended to provide housing for tenants with an
income of approximately $18,000 - $26,000 for a period of five
years.
Construction shall not commence prior to January 1, 1994, except
on Parcel A, containing 15.6 acres, more or less.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bowie and Mrs. Humphris.
(At 10:01 p.m., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at
10:13 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 6. Keswick Land Trust. Public hearing on requests for
extension of the following special use permits: a. SP-85-53. Tom Curtis,
Trustee. To allow subdivision of 37 single-family residential lots. Total
acreage of site is 284.11 acres, zoned RA. Request one year extension; b.
SP-86-02. Tom Curtis, Trustee. To permit six guest rooms approved for two
existing cottages to be located in Keswick Clubhouse addition/conference
center and this addition to be connected to the main clubhouse. Request two
year extension; c. SP-86-03. Tom Curtis, Trustee. Allow for construction of
golf course and road in the flood plain. Request one year extension; d.
SP-8§-04. Tom Curtis, Trustee. Allow for subdivision of clubhouse tract into
two parcels. Request one year extension. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on March 20 and March 27, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
"Petition: Steve Scott, trustee in bankruptcy for Keswick Properties,
Inc., Tom J. Curtis and Paulette G. Curtis, petitions the Board of
Supervisors to extend various special use permit approvals for the
development of land known as the Keswick Country Club:
SP-85-53: To allow subdivision of 284.11 acres into 37 residen-
tial lots. Request extension to April 4, 1991;
SP-86-02: To allow 48 guest rooms in the Keswick Clubhouse
Addition/Conference Center. Request extension to April 4, 1992;
SP-86-03: To allow construction of a golf course'and road in the
flood plain of Carroll Creek. Request extension to April 4,
1991;
SP-86-04: To allow subdivision of Clubhouse tract into two par-
cels. Request extension to April 4, 1991.
Together these petitions represent a development project intended to
renovate and reinvigorate the Keswick Country Club after more inten-
sive proposals were rejected by the County. Therefore, staff recom-
mends that these several permits be treated as a 'package' development
proposal.
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
3O
The applicant has submitted a history of work performed toward perfec-
tion of each permit. After review of this history, on-site inspec-
tion, and discussion with the County Attorney and Planning staff, the
Zoning Administrator has stated:
'It is my opinion, after discussion with Mr. St. John, County
Attorney, that substantial work has commenced and rights have
vested in the (Keswick) special use permits. Therefore, should
the Board of Supervisors agree, the matter before them is an
appropriate schedule for completion of improvements to begin the
approved uses, and not one of approval versus denial of the
permits.'
In addition, to the issue of vesting, staff opinion is that the public
interest can best by served by allowing completion of the project.
Staff recommends the following actions:
Extend SP-85-53, SP-86-03, SP-86-04, to April 4, 1991, and
2. Extend SP-86-02 to April 4, 1992."
The following memorandum dated March 27, 1990, was received from Ms.
Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator:
"It is my opinion, after discussion with Mr. St. John, County Attor-
ney, that substantial work has commenced and rights have vested in the
above-referenced special use permits. Therefore, should the Board of
Supervisors agree, the matter before them is an appropriate schedule
for completion of improvements to begin the approved uses, and not one
of approval versus denial of the permits.
Discussion of the special permits and the work completed includes
information provided by Bob Paxton, architect representing potential
purchasers of Keswick, and by observations during my visit to the
site. It is as follows:
Residential subdivision into 37 single-family lots (SP-85-53 and
part of SP-86-03): Conditions 1~; 2~ and ~; 3; and 4 are ap-
proved of SP-85-53, and the one condition of SP-86-03 is ap-
proved. Work includes: Drilling and testing for two wells; plan
approval and rough grading for road in flood plain of Carroll
Creek; surveying and submittal of preliminary subdivision plat;
and road plan submittal to Virginia Department of Transportation.
Clubhouse guestroom addition and conference center (SP-85-54 with
SP-86-02 amendment): Actual construction and architectural
drawings have substantially begun. The interior of the clubhouse
is in a state of renovation, including demolition of areas and
stripping of walls, floors and electrical wiring. The roof was
replaced and a sprinkler system installed. A-pool was removed to
provide room for the conference center.
Golf course construction (SP-86-03): Rough grading and the
shaping of holes is complete on all but two holes. 'Underground
irrigation was laid.
Subdivision of Clubhouse tract into two lots (SP-86-04): The
survey has been done and plat proposed. Approval of this subdi-
vision anticipates road plan approval for #1, the residential
subdivision, which has been through preliminary review.
It is my opinion that the completion dates proposed by the applicant
are both reasonable and realistic."
The following letter dated March 2, 1990, was received from Mr. Robert L.
Paxton, AIA, outlining the history of the Keswick Country Club:
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
31
"The purpose of this letter is to request an extension to the four
Special-Use Permits (SP-85-53, SP-86-02, SP-86-03, SP-86-04) pre-
viously approved for the above referenced project. We are hopeful
that our request can be heard at the Board of Supervisors meeting
scheduled for 21 March 1990.
The reason for this request is that substantial work has been com-
pleted toward compliance with the referenced Special-Use Permits.
However, this work has been suspended and the property frozen by
mechanics liens due to the previous applicants financial difficulties.
We are now working with clients that have obtained an option to
purchase the property and wish to pick-up where the previous applicant
left off by completing the work applicable to the above referenced
Special-Use Permits.
To facilitate your review of our request we have outlined below, the
work completed to date and the specific extension requested for each
Special-Use Permit.
(SP-85-53) The subdivision of 37 single-family residential lots
on a site totaling 284.11 acres and zoned RA.
Referencing a letter from Ronald Keeler to Tom Curtis, dated 9 Septem-
ber 1985, the following items have been completed:
The County Engineer has reviewed pump tests for two wells located
in southeastern portion of property.
o
The County Engineer has approved construction activity in the
flood plain of Carroll Creek in accordance with 30.3 flood hazard
overlay district of the zoning ordinance.
Ail plats have been prepared and the property has been surveyed.
The prepared plats are in accord with the preliminary plan
submitted to the Board of Supervisors.
The road plans were completed and transmitted to the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation for approval. The
plans have been reviewed by VDOT and sent back to Roudabush and
Gale Assoc. with suggested revisions.
We request an extension of one year for (SP-85-53) to complete soil
studies applicable to septic drainfield locations, obtain final
approval from VDOT and to record the plats.
(SP-86-02) Provision for allowing 48 rooms in the Keswick
Clubhouse Addition/Conference Center.
Actual construction was started on the existing clubhouse and
included the following: Replacement of roof shingles and flat
seam copper; installation of built-in gutter system; exterior
painting; interior demolition in preparation for new finishes;
installation of sprinkler system piping; interior painting and
floor finishing. In addition to the above construction, the
Architectural Drawings for the Clubhouse addition and Conference
Center are 50 percent complete.
We request a two year extension for Special-Use Permit (SP-86-02).
Six months to complete the Architectural Drawings and eighteen months
to complete construction.
(SP-86-03) The construction of a golf course and road in the
flood plain.
The rough grading has been completed on 16 out of 18 holes and 16 out
of 18 greens have been shaped for the golf course. In addition, all
of the underground irrigation piping has been installed.
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
32
The golf course will be completed within 90 to 120 days after com-
mencement of construction depending on the specific time of year due
to seeding requirements. However, since the construction of a road is
part of Special-Use Permit (SP-86-03) we request a one year extension
in order to obtain final approval from VDOT.
(SP-86-04) Allows for the subdivision of the-Clubhouse tract
into two parcels.
The plats have been prepared and the property has been surveyed.
However, prior to recording the plats, the final road plans must be
approved. We therefore request an extension of one year for Special-
Use Permit (SP-86-04) in order to obtain final approval from VDOT.
We are hopeful that the above information is sufficient to review our
request. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any
questions or require additional information."
Mr. Bowerman asked if special permits have expiration dates. Mr. St.
John said this request is to extend the deadline for implementation of the
permit.
Mr. Bain con~nented that he represented the applicant for this property
four years ago. His only involvement now is that he has a client who is one
of the creditors in the bankruptcy case. He does not think that disqualifies
him and, therefore, he will participate in the discussion.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Robert L. Paxton, of the architectural firm of Browne, Eichman,
Dalgliesch, Gilpin & Paxton, said he has talked with the organization that is
considering purchasing the property through the bankruptcy court. He is
available to answer any questions Board members may have. Mr. Bill Roudabush,
who has been involved with all of the engineering drawings from the beginning
of the project, is also present and available to answer any questions.
Mr. Peter Hallock, a resident of the area, asked if the County can
require bonding to make sure the property is seeded and cleaned up. The site
is a mess. Mr. St. John said the things that are bonded are public facilities
creating new roads, etc., and erosion control. He has not heard that the
bonds were in default or that there was a problem with the bonds. Mr. Hallock
said he would like to know if the owners can be requested to keep the property
in reasonable order. Mr. St. John said all the County can do is look into the
status of the erosion control bonds. He will look at the erosion control
plans for the project to see if they are in default. Mr. Bowie asked what
happens if the erosion control plan is in default. Mr. St. John said since
the present permit holder is defunct and economically unable to proceed, the
County would call the bond and remedy the situation. Mr. Bowie asked the
County Attorney to follow through on the issue of erosion control.
Mr. Bill Roudabush said he does not believe any erosion is occurring that
is draining into streams and running off the property. He thinks all of the
erosion control devices are in place to keep that from happening. Mr. Hallock
is speaking about the uncompleted golf course area that has not been reseeded
and regraded and this has resulted in ruts occurring on that portion of the
property. The last time he was at the site, erosion was being handled by
control devices.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bowie said he feels this has been a frustrating project for everyone
involved. It is his understanding that without the extension of these permits
the organization is not interested in proceeding further. Mr. St. John said
"yes", the project is at a standstill unless the Board proceeds with this
request.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
the extension of SP-85-53, SP-86-03 and SP-8§-04 to April 4, 1991, and approve
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
the extension of SP-86-02 to April 4, 1992.
carried-by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
33
Roll was called and the motion
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-89-03. Preston Stallings. Public hearing on a
request to rezone approx, two acres from PA, Rural Areas to HC, Highway
Commercial, and two acres from HC, Highway Commercial to PA, Rural Areas.
Property located on the south side of Rt. 250 approx, one mile east of its
intersection with Rt. 240 and Rt. 635. Tax Map 56, Parcels 109B, ll0A, and
ll0E. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 20 and
March 27, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: Tax Map 56, Parcel ll0A is developed with
39,240 square feet used for hardware/building supply storage. Tax Map
56, Parcel 109B, is developed with a motel which has been converted to
apartments. These properties surround a restaurant (1.8 acres; zoned
HC) which was destroyed by fire in 1987.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is seeking to rezone two acres
from PA, Rural Areas, to HC, Highway Commercial, and two acres from HC
to PA. The purpose of this request is to allow for expansion of an
outside storage area for building materials. The applicant has
proffered the following:
Parcels ll0E and ll0A to be combined and a 2.0 acre area approxi-
mately as shown on the enclosed sketch to be designated as open
space on the revised plat combining the parcels. Alternatively,
the boundary of parcel ll0E to be revised to include only the 2.0
acres shown on the sketch with the parcel to be rezoned PA and
designated as open space on the subdivision plat.
Screening consisting of 25 White Pines 5 feet to 6 feet tall
spaced 10 feet apart and 48 Russian Olives 18 inches to 24 inches
tall spaced two between each two pines to be planted along the
southern property line of parcel ll0A.
During review of ZMA-88-22, the applicant additionally proffered the
following:
Rezone approximately 0.3 acres, Tax Map 56, Parcel ll0E, from HC
to PA.
Rezone approximately 2.4 acres, Tax Map 56, Parcel ll0A, from HC
to PA.
Areas of parcels 56-110A and 56-109B rezoned to HC to be used
only as a storage area for the building supply business on Parcel
56-110A.
Proffers noting acreage to be rezoned to PA are not recommended for
acceptance as they have been superseded by the revised proffers.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed the applicants
proposal for consistency with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of
ZMA-89-03, Preston Stallings, subject to acceptance of the applicants
proffers, with the exception of the first two proffers of the second
set of proffers. Those proffers recommended for acceptance are:
Parcels ll0E and ll0A to be combined, and a 2.0 acre area appro-
ximately as shown on the enclosed sketch to be designated as open
space on the revised plat combining the parcels. Alternatively,
the boundary of parcel ll0E to be revised to include only the 2.0
acres shown on the sketch with the parcel to be rezoned RA and
designated as open space on the subdivision plat.
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
34
Screening consisting of 25 White Pines 5 feet to 6 feet tall
~spaces 10 feet apart, and 48 Russian Olives 18 inches to 24
inches tall spaced two between each two pines to be planted along
the southern property line of parcel ll0A.
Areas of parcels 56-110A and 56-109B rezoned to HC to be used
only as a storage area for the building supply business on Parcel
56-110A.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: These properties are shown in the Comprehensive
Plan as Neighborhood Service in the Community of Crozet. During
review of the Comprehensive Plan in 1982, growth areas within the
reservoir watersheds were reduced in scale. New urban growth in
Crozet was to be directed to those areas which naturally drain to the
proposed Lickinghole Creek regional sedimentation basin. This pro-
perty does not flow to the proposed Lickinghole Creek basin. These
areas are eligible for public water and sewer service.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant's current request is to rezone two
acres from RA, Rural Areas, to HC, Highway Commercial. In addition,
the applicant is proposing to reduce by two acres that area currently
zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Staff offers the following comment
regarding past actions for similar rezoning requests. Since 1980, 16
rezoning petitions were received which were: (1) located within a
reservoir watershed; (2) located outside of designated growth areas;
and (3) requesting rezonings from rural to urban designation. Of
these 16 petitions, five were approved. Ail five of the requests were
approved to allow for the expansion of existing uses and to recognize
existing uses. Many of the petitions not approved were for relatively
small scale uses on small acreages. The County has developed a policy
of allowing limited expansion of existing uses. Proximity to desig-
nated growth areas has not been a major factor in zoning approvals as
seven petitions were for properties outside but directly adjacent to
designated growth areas (one approved; six denied/withdrawn/deferred
indefinitely). The applicant's purpose in seeking a rezoning is in
order to expand the existing storage area.
The applicant's proposal includes a reduction of land currently zoned
HC, Highway Commercial. This land is to be designated as open space.
Staff opinion is that the area proposed for rezoning is more suited
for development than the area proposed for open space. The area
proposed for rezoning to HC, Highway Commercial has the following
development advantages over land currently zoned HC, Highway Commer-
cial in the opinion of staff:
1. Site has been previously cleared and graded;
Stream Crossing is in place and will need only minor improve-
ments;
3. Site is located farther from U.S. Route 250, a scenic highway;
Site is more easily screened from adjacent properties due to
topography;
5. Overall, site can be developed with less environmental impact.
Staff is of the opinion that this request is in keeping with the
purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of
ZMA-89-03 with the acceptance of the following proffers by the appli-
cant:
Parcels ll0E and ll0A to be combined, and a 2.0 acre area appro-
ximately as shown on the enclosed sketch to be designated as open
space on the revised plat combining the parcels. Alternatively,
the boundary of parcel ll0E to be revised to include only the 2.0
acres shown on the sketch with the parcel to be rezoned RA and
designated as open space on the subdivision plat.
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
35
Screening consisting of 25 White Pines 5 feet to 6 feet tall
spaces 10 feet apart, and 48 Russian Olives 18 inches to 24
inches tall spaced two between each two pines to be planted along
the southern property line of parcel ll0A.
Areas of parcels 56-110A and 56-109B rezoned to HC to be used
only as a storage area for the building supply business on Parcel
56-110A."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 20,
1990, recommended by a vote of five to one, approval of ZMA-89-03 subject to
acceptance of the applicant's proffer~ as listed below:
Parcels ll0E and ll0A to be combined, and a 2.0 acre area appro-
ximately as shown on the enclosed sketch to be designated as open
space on the revised plat combining the parcels. Alternatively,
the boundary of parcei ll0E to be revised to include only the 2.0
acres shown on the sketch With the parcel to be rezoned RA and
designated as open space on the subdivision plat;
Screening consisting of 25 ~hite Pines 5 feet to 6 feet tall
spaced 10 feet apart, and ~8 Russian Olives 18 inches to 24
inches tall spaced two between each two pines to be planted along
the southern property line of Parcel ll0A.
3. Areas of Parcels 56-110A and 56-109B rezoned to HC, Highway
Commercial, to be used only as a storage area for the building
supply business on Parcel ~6-110A.
Mr. Bain asked the meaning of pgrmanent open space. He asked if the
intent is to leave the area in its n~tural wooded state. Mr. Cilimberg said
the intent is to leave the area in i~s wooded state, not precluding crossing
the property with utility lines.
Mrs. Humphris asked the zoning qf the small triangle of property in the
corner of the subject property. Mr. Cilimberg responded that piece of proper-
ty would remain HC. There were several concerns expressed at the Planning
Commission meeting concerning the zoning of that portion of the property. The
following concerns were also expressed at the Commission meeting: the type of
and limitations of storage on the prqperty, preserving existing vegetation,
limiting operations to daylight hourS, lighting and security, how much light-
ing would project away from the site~ any affect on the watershed and the
precedent set for additional rezoning by allowing this activity.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Dale Shumate, part owner and General Manager of Blue Ridge Builders
Supply in Crozet, said they are a building material dealer and hardware store
catering to both the retail sector and to the contractor trade. Blue Ridge
sells and delivers in a large radius including Albemarle, Fluvanna, Nelson and
Augusta Counties. Blue Ridge provides much needed home improvement shopping
availability for residents of Crozet and Western Albemarle County. Albemarle
County receives a substantial amount of revenue from Blue Ridge each year in
the form of sales, real estate, business license and personal property taxes.
During the construction of their facility, Blue Ridge underestimated the
amount of storage space that would be needed, simply because they have grown
faster than expected. Blue Ridge has enjoyed a 40 percent sales increase
since the opening of March, 1987, therefore, creating a storage problem. Blue
Ridge has less storage space for salgs volume than any of its competition.
With a fleet of eight delivery truck~ and incoming trucks, Blue Ridge can
accommodate only two trucks in its yard at one time which causes unsafe
conditions and material damage. The~e are additional material lines the
company needs to inventory to service
they do.not have the needed space. ~
tially ready as a storage area. MonE
the road leading to the area has bee~
the scenic highway. Although there
expensive to prepare and they would
building materials close to the scen
~ their customers, but at the present time
'he area proposed for rezoning is substan-
~y has already been spent for grading and
. installed. The site is set back from
.s other property zoned, it would be quite
.ike to avoid the unsightly storage of
.c highway. Blue Ridge has done its best
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 36
(Page 23)
to create an attractive business to what previously was an eyesore. Blue
Ridge desperately needs additional storage and asks that the Board allow them
to move forward with an area already graded, away from the scenic highway and
out of the public eye.
Mr. Don Wagner, representing Preston Stallings, said Mr. Cilimberg
covered everything satisfactorily. He handed to the Board aerial photographs
of the site taken about a year ago. He also briefly expanded on the history
of the proposal. Parcel llOE is actually three acres. The two and one-half
acres is a result of a storage area in the back which consists of two acres
and the other one-half acre contains the road. When the decision was made to
make a one-to-one proffer swap, the applicant stayed with that two and one-
half acre figure. Concerns were raised at the Planning Commission meeting
about using the entire parcel llOE as open space. He also wrote a letter with
Mr. Stallings' concurrence indicating the applicant's desire to include the
entire three acres in the request, but was told that since it had not been
advertised, it could not be included with this request. Mr. Stallings is
willing to swap the entire parcel llOE (three acres) for open space and then
increase the storage area at the back of the parcel by another one-half acre.
Mr. Bowie asked what would happen with the screening if the acreage was
increased by one-half. Mr. Wagner said along the back edge of the property
where the screening will go, there is a bank. The building supply material
area is lower than the house and screening along that bank would afford a line
of sight above the building. There should not be much difference by adding
the one-half acre. He has talked with the owner of the property behind the
proposed site and that person is aware of the proposal to increase the acre-
age.
Mr. Perkins asked if there are plans to construct any additional build-
ings on the site. Mr. Wagner said he has suggested to the applicant that he
retain the right to build a pole barn to protect some of the building materi-
als. Mr. Preston Stallings said he would like to have the option to provide
some inside storage.
Mrs. Ellen Wauf, an adjacent property owner, said She has a healthy
respect for businesses such as Blue Ridge Builders Supply, but she is cautious
as to how large the storage expansion will ultimately be, that is with respect
to eventual negative environmental impact. She then listed all of the pre-
vious times a request concerning these parcels has been scheduled to come
before this Board. This has been a long year for those who have contended
with deferrals, postponements and reschedules. She asked if approval of this
request would guarantee that the applicant could not come back before some
future Board and ask for another change. There are still unanswered questions
concerning infringement in the watershed area. She also questions the type of
items stored. She asks that consideration be given to minimal environmental
noise impact. As adjacent property owners, they are in agreement with the
basic proposal of the swap of HC for RA and vice versa, but would prefer that
the three acres currently zoned HC be designated as open space.
Mr. John Marston, representing several concerned citizens of the Crozet
area, said they had previously asked the applicant to consider rezoning the
scenic highway property (parcel llOC) with the three acres to RA and they
would then not be in opposition to the request. The area has already been
graded, it is located further back from the streams and the citizens felt some
restrictions would be placed on the property. They are concerned that this be
used as a HC area for storage and nothing else. They want to be sure that the
applicants do not use any part of this property for shopping center use.
There should be screening on all four sides of the property, maintenance of
existing tree screening, restriction,s limiting loading and unloading at the
facility to day time hours only, restrictions on the types of materials that
will be stored outside, and the issue of lighting.
Mr. Glen Parsons, one of the owners of the Building Supply business said
the barriers are the trees. If the owner of the other land to the right of
this business decides to cut down the pine trees and look at the storage yard
he would have to cut several trees. He does not think if the trees are cut,
that it should be an expense of this business to replace thmt barrier. The
physical barriers can be handled. Nothing will be stored on this property
than is any more hazardous than what is presently stored there.
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
37
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bain asked if anyone checked to be sure the acreage is actually two
Mr. Cilimberg said staff used the dimensions provided by the appli-
cant. The two and one-half acres was been discussed, but was withdrawn by the
applicants in a letter dated January 31, 1990. He was surprised to hear the
two and one-half acres mentioned again tonight.
Mr. Bain said the applicants indicated that the area would remain in its
natural state with the exception of some utility lines. In addition, at the
Planning Commission meeting Mr. Wagner mentioned that it would be an open
area. He has heard tonight they want to be able to build a building on that
site. Mr. Cilimberg said it is the staff's understanding that the space will
be open area. The staff would be going into site plan review anticipating it
as an open storage area. Mr. Bowie said it appears that the staff's recommen-
dation, and the presentation made at the Planning Commission meeting was based
on the assumption that it would be an open area. Mr. Perkins said if it is
not proffered that there will be no additional buildings, then the applicant
can come and apply for a building permit. Mr. Cilimberg said the statement
before the Planning Commission was that there were no plans for any building
on the property that would require water. Mr. Wagner said the only building
the applicant has considered is a pole barn to protect the materials. Mr.
Cilimberg said the type of structure that would be consistent with this type
of rezoning request is something that would have to be evaluated by the Zoning
Administrator.
Mr. Bowie said this request is to allow for expansion of an outside
storage area for building materials. The basic question concerns what is
going to be put on the property.
Mr. St. John said the issue of a building should be settled at this
meeting. If it is not settled, the Zoning Administrator will say that the
applicant has a right to put anything on the property that has not been
proffered out, as long as the building is used for storage and is ancillary to
the use proffered. The applicant could not just expand the present building
or the retail area, but it would not preclude something for the purpose of
storing building materials.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Parsons to expand on his statement that there
would be nothing more hazardous than what is already stored on the property.
Mr. Parsons said stored on the site is pressured treated lumber, asphalt
products and some standard industry products.
Mr. Cilimberg said during site plan review, the runoff control official
will be reviewing the storage materials as to their compliance with the runoff
control ordinance.
Mr. Way asked if the concerns raised by Mr. Marston will be dealt with
during site plan review. Mr. Cilimberg said all except the limitation on
operation of hours which was discussed by the Planning Commission. The staff
did not feel it had any control over that item for monitoring. Screening,
preservation of existing vegetation, lighting and type of storage can all be
addressed. Even if the hours of operation were proffered, the staff would
have a problem with monitoring. Mrs. Humphris asked why Mr. Cilimberg ex-
pressed concern over hours of operation when that has been added as a condi-
tion on other requests. Mr. Cilimberg said this is a commercial operation
where there is a lot of public activity.
Mr. Wagner said it is his understanding that Mr. Stallings would like to
preserve the possibility to request a pole barn at site review stage. The
material that would be moved to this site is currently outside. Mr. Bowie
asked if the proffer is that this is open area and the applicant would like
the right to request a pole barn and there is no intent at all to build
buildings. Mr. Stallings replied "yes".
Mr. Way said he understands that Mr. Stallings is proffering an open
storage area with the right to possibly build a pole barn. Mr. Stallings
again replied that Mr. Way;s statement is correct.
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
38
Mr. Bowerman said he does not think this inconsistent with an open
storage-area. Mr. Perkins said he has problems with that because the roof of
the pole barn is going to be visible from adjacent property. The adjacent
property owner, Mr. Wood, is going to be looking at an aluminum roof. He
thinks there is enough room on other parts of the property if the applicant
wants to build additional storage and enough other materials that can be
stored in open area without any detrimental affects to those products. He
also thinks it should be proffered that the property at least be screened on
the south. He thinks that it is the applicant's responsibility to screen a
commercial project from the resident's home. Mr. Cilimberg said nothing
proffered overrides the requirements of the site plan ordinance. Screening
would be required around the entire site of development. The proffered
screening is identifying a particular type of screening for a particular area.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there are only survey markers on the property how
will storage of the materials be controlled especially if the site becomes
full. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant would secure the area to the used, as
well as installing the required screening. Mr. Wagner said there will be
certain screening around the area. Mr. Cilimberg said during the site review
process if the staff feels an area needs to be fenced to delineate the area,
they have the authority to require that.
Mr. Bowerman said when the Planning Commission heard this a year ago, one
of the major concerns was the precedent setting effect of the initial request
which was to put a storage area in the back. He thinks that what is before
the Board tonight is totally different in that it is not setting a precedent.
It is expansion of an existing use and a swap of highway commercial, which he
does not see as a detriment to controlling land use in the area. Motion was
then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve ZMA-89-03
subject to the following proffers submitted by the applicant and a verbal
proffer made by Mr. Preston Stallings at the April 4, 1990, Board meeting.
Mr. Perkins asked what can be done with the two acres of Parcel ll0E
except for open space. He asked if the property had any development rights.
Mr. Cilimberg said the property has been proffered for open space and has no
development rights. Mr. Perkins said he thinks this is a sensible trade, but
still thinks there should be a proffer about no buildings because the appli-
cant can put what he wants there. There being no further discussion, roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain. ~
Parcels ll0E and ll0A to be combined and a 2.0 acre area approxi-
mately as shown on the enclosed sketch to be designated as open
space on the revised plat combining the parcels. Alternatively,
the boundary of parcel ll0E to be revised to include only the 2.0
acres shown on the sketch with the parcel to be rezoned RA and
designated as open space on the subdivision plat;
Screening consisting of 25 White Pines 5 feet to 6 feet tall
spaced 10 feet apart, and 48 Russian Olives 18 inches to 24
inches tall spaced two between each two pines to be planted along
the southern property line of Parcel ll0A;
Areas of Parcels 56-110A and 56-109B rezoned to HC, Highway
Commercial, to be used only as a storage area for the building
supply business on Parcel 56-110A;
Any structure on the open storage area would be limited to a pole
barn only.
Agenda Item No. 8. CPA-89-03. Public hearing on a request to amend the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to expand the growth area boundary for the
Community of Hollymead and change a land use within the Community in an area
on the west side of Rt. 29 North, approx, one mile north of the Rt. 29/Rt. 649
intersection. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 20 and March 27,
1990.)
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
39
Mr. Cilimberg said all of the applicants of the original Comprehensive
Plan Amendment request have withdrawn there request except Mr. Donald Brown
and Mr. Terry Spaid. Mr. Cilimberg then presented the following staff report:
"INTRODUCTION: This review encompasses three requests for changes to
the Community of Hollymead. Two requests are proposed by landowners
for an expansion to the eastern boundary of Hollymead. These requests
are for an area just east of the existing Community boundary of Powell
Creek. The specific requests are as follows:
Donald Brown - Request to include approximately 24 acres in the
designated Community of Hollymead for low density residential use
(TMP 46-35).
Terry Spaid - Request on behalf of Theodore and Shirley Sklany to
include approximately 11 acres in the Community of Hollymead for
low density residential use (TMP 46-34A).
Staff reviewed the general area encompassing these two requests plus
another request which was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant.
This area has been referred to as Area 3 in previous staff reports.
The third request is for a change in land use designation for an area
located on the west side of Rt. 29 North, approximately one mile north
of the Airport/Proffit Road and Rt. 29 intersection. This request is
as follows:
Jay Townsend Request to amend the land use map designation from
industrial service to regional service in order to permit a
retail nursery. The regional service designation would be for
approximately 10 acres of the site.
BACKGROUND: This Comprehensive Plan amendment initially encompassed
three areas consisting of several amendment requests. Area 1 consis-
ted of the request by the University Real Estate Foundation to add
approximately 286 acres to the Hollymead Growth Area for industrial
service designation. Area 2, approximately 260 acres in size current-
ly outside the growth area, consisted of a request by Tower Associates
for low and medium density residential, office service, and regional
service designations. Both of these requests have been deferred by
the applicants and, therefore, are not being specifically addressed at
this time. The third area of expansion (Area 3) includes two of the
three original requests by property owners in that area (Brown and
Spaid). A third request from the Kessler Group to expand the Commu-
nity designation for 100 acres of low density residential in the
southern portion of Area 3 has been withdrawn at this time.
This report will first discuss the proposed expansion areas followed
by comments and recommendations on the Jay Townsend amendment request.
SUMMARY~ EXPANSION PROPOSAL: Two work sessions have been held previ-
ously with the Commission to discuss the amendment proposal. The
first work session provided a general analysis of the need to expand
the industrial, commercial and residential land use designation
currently identified in the land use plan, and also evaluated the
general suitability of the three potential expansion areas. The
second work session reviewed the specific amendment requests made by
the applicants and the particular issues of concern related to each
request.
Based on the review of this Comprehensive Plan amendment request, and
previous review of these areas during the Comprehensive Plan review
process, staff is of the opinion that all three areas hold potential
for growth area expansion at some point in the future due to the site
and location characteristics, including their location outside the
Rivanna Reservoir Watershed. The primary issues staff has been
attempting to resolve are: when such expansion is necessary, what
land uses will be necessary, and what level of improvements to faci-
lities and infrastructure will be needed to support such expansions.
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
4O
At this time, there are a number of issues outside the control of the
County which may affect the nature and viability of these expansion
areas. Also, the County is developing several planning documents and
will be developing a fiscal model which will help determine the fiscal
impact of future development to the County and the facility needs
generated-by such development. These issues and planning efforts are
noted below.
Fiscal impact of expansion The County will be hiring a conSul-
tant to develop a fiscal impact model which will help determine
the cost of capital and operational needs of the County based on
development and population trends and projections. Until the
model is developed and the Public Facilities Plan is complete it
will be difficult to determine the true cost to the County in
facility and operational needs to support specific development
requests, or expansion areas in general. This modeling process
will not be under contract until later in 1990.
Proposed Route 29 bypass alignment An alignment for the Route
29 Bypass has yet to be determined. Completion and release of
the DEIS is not anticipated until sometime in early to mid-1990.
Various candidate alignments bisect each proposed expansion area.
Also, the Meadow Creek Parkway is shown in the CATS Study running
through the eastern expansion area (Area 3). While the alignment
proposed in the Comprehensive Plan is not in this area, the CATS
document must be amended before the parkway alignment can offici-
ally be changed. Review of the CATS has not been scheduled.
Specific public service/facility demands The specific level of
service and subsequent facility needs demanded from this expan-
sion cannot be easily determined until the Public Facilities Plan
is complete. This plan will establish for the County the minimum
adequate level of service for various public services/facilities.
The initial draft of this plan is not due until February/March,
1990.
Open space protection needs - The Open Space Plan will establish
the open space needs and protection efforts for the County growth
areas. Proposed expansion should be reviewed in context with
this plan. The first draft of this plan is not due until late
Spring, 1990.
Staff opinion is that, due to the l~vel of information available at
this time, consideration of further expansion to the Hollymead commu-
nity now is premature. While it is recognized that these expansion
areas, in general, hold good potential for future growth area designa-
tion, the full impact of this expansion cannot be determined until
those issues noted above are more fully addressed. Further, while
there is a discrepancy between the Comprehensive Plan's and the
applicant's economic base analysis results and the land use demand
analysis, both indicate that there is adequate industrial and commer-
cial land designated for the short term planning period. Therefore,
expansion of the Hollymead Community would not appear to be necessary
at this time.
To summarize, in consideration of the concerns noted above, staff
feels expansion of the Hollymead Community at this time is premature.
Therefore, staff would recommend that the Board take no action to
expand the Community at this time."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on
February 27, unanimously recommended that the Board not expand the Hollymead
Con~nunity and not change a land use designation within the Community from
industrial service and medium density residential to regional service and
industrial service.
The public hearing was opened.
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
41
Mr. John Sacuto, a resident of the County, said one comment repeatedly
made is that growth is inevitable. He is concerned about the fiscal impact of
the development professed by the University of Virginia Real Estate Founda-
tion. He feels that no further consideration should be given to any of the
UREF plans for an industrial park or "research park" including their most
recently announced plan to begin tenant leasing on the southern 240 acres
until all of the various community problems generated by such a huge project
have been resolved. Also, before any consideration is given by this Board,
the developers should agree to provide financing in the forms of generous
proffers in the construction of new schools, for the increased consumption of
the sewage treatment plants, for new sources of water, for other necessary
human services like fire, police protection, ambulances and equipment. It
appears that costs for such a development should come from the developers, not
the community. He does not think the County should stem the tide of people
coming into the community, but instead encourage it.
Mr. Kevin Cox, a County resident, said he has talked to a lot of people
who work at the University of Virginia and a lot of these lower and middle
income people who look at the University and expansion as a resource that
would benefit the County, and a lot of people feel strongly about that expan-
sion. He is working with some of the vice presidents at the University in an
attempt to get them to set up a training program to train some of the lower
job classification employees to fill some of the new positions that will open
at the research park so as to lessen the developmental impact of the research
park. He would rather the University train current residents of the County
than bring in outside persons.
The public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to deny
CPA-89-03 and not expand the Hollymead Growth Area. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-90-01. County of Albemarle. Public Hearing on
an amendment to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (Sections 33.3 and
33.3.1) to effect the acceptance of cash proffers and real property dedica-
tion. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 20 and March 27, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
"APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: On January 10, 1990, the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors passed a Resolution of Intent to amend the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in order to reflect statutory
authority in the Virginia State Code allowing the County to accept
cash proffers and real property dedication at time of rezoning. Prior
to the 1989 General Assembly enaction of Section 15.1-491.2:1, the
County could only accept proffers for on-site improvements and/or real
property. Section 15.1-491.2:1 now allows for acceptance of cash
proffers and proffers for off-site improvements and/or real property
provided that '(i) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for
conditions; (ii) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the
rezoning; and (iii) all such conditions are in conformity with the
.comprehensive plan.'
STAFF COMMENT: This expanded conditional zoning, enabling legislation
of the State Code has not yet been applied to a rezoning case in the
County. Adoption of this amendment will allow for such to be exer-
cised if offered by the applicant. Staff recommends approval of this
amendment."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on
February 27, 1990, unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-90-01.
Mr. Bowerman asked where in the language it allows the Board to accept
cash proffers. Mr. Cilimberg said by reference to State Code Section
15.1-491.2:1.
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
42
Mr. Bain asked if it would make it clearer to not only reference the
State Code section but also to spell out that language in the ordinance. Mr.
St. John said if reference is put into the contributions of cash and real
property, then all of the other conditional items would have to included also.
He does not think certain items that can be proffered should be picked out
instead of listing everything. He thinks that this proposed language is fine
and the Board should not attempt to define what can be proffered.
Mr. St. John said he has a correction. When he drafted this language, he
never meant to eliminate Section 15.1-491.2, he just meant to add Section
15.1-491.2:1. Mr. Cilimberg said it was his impression that 15.1-491.2:1 is
now the applicable section of Code and not the old section. Mr. St. John said
this new section only applies to certain counties whereas the old section
applies to all localities, but if Mr. Cilimberg feels sure the County will be
covered by this section then he will agree with the proposal. Mr. Cilimberg
said he feels safe with listing only the one reference section. If there is a
problem, the staff can bring it back as an amendment. After some more discus-
sion, Mr. St. John said he would rather follow Mr. Cilimberg's judgement and
leave out reference to the old section.
Mr. St. John asked if there were any applications with proffers pending
that were filed prior to July 1, 1989. Mr. Cilimberg said applications were
filed from Great Eastern Management and the University of Virginia Real Estate
Foundation prior to July 1, but he does'not know if this would apply to those
applications. His reasoning for not referencing the two sections of code was
to eliminate confusion. Mr. Bain said he thinks the Board should leave the
language as it is recommended. Mr. St. John said this code section cannot be
applied to any applications filed prior to July 1, 1989.
The public hearing was opened. There being no cox~ents from the public,
the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reenact Section 33.3 and Section 33.3.1 of the Albe-
marle County Zoning Ordinance to effect the acceptance of cash proffers and
real property dedication. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 33.3 AND SECTION 33.3.1
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 33.3 and Section 33.3.1 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance be amended and reenacted to read as follows:
33.3
PROFFER OF CONDITIONS
Prior to any public hearings before the board of supervisors
any applicant for rezoning may voluntarily proffer, in
writing, reasonable conditions to be applied to such rezon-
ing as part thereof. Such conditions shall comply with the
provisions of section 15.1-491.2:1 of the Code; provided
that the proffering thereof by the applicant shall be deemed
prima facie evidence of such compliance.
33.3.1 EFFECT OF CONDITIONS
Once proffered and accepted as part of an amendment to the
zoning ordinance, such conditions shall continue in effect
until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning on the
property covered by such conditions; however, such condi-
tions shall continue if the subsequent amendment is part of
a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially
revised zoning ordinance. All such conditions shall be in
addition to the regulations provided for the district by the
ordinance.
April 4, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
43
Agenda Item No. 10. Statement-VDoT Preallocation Hearing on the Primary
and Interstate Systems.
Mr. Bowie said the version of the draft statement before the Board
tonight incorporates all of the changes previously mentioned. Mr. Way sug-
gested that reference in the speech to Route 20 be Route 20 South so as not to
confuse it with Route 20 North. Mr. Bowie indicated that Albemarle County
would be making its presentation first. Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs.
Humphris indicated they planned to attend the meeting with Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: November 8, December 6(N),
December 20, 1989; January 10, February 14 and February 21(N), 1990.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of December 20 (N), 1989, page 1 - 17
(ending Item 8) and found them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of February 14, 1990, pages 1 20
(ending Item 11), and the minutes of Febiruary 21 (N), 1990, pages 1 - 12
(ending Item #9), and found them all to be in order with a few typos.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of February 14, 1990, pages 20 (Item
11 - end) and found them to be in order with one typo.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the
minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12.
PUBLIC and the Board.
There were none.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. There being no further business to come
before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:01 A.M.
CHAIRMAN