1989-05-03 adjMay 3, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
54
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on May 3, 1989, at 1:30 P.M., in Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting
was adjourned from April 27, 1989.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke
(arrived at 1:56 P.M.), Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and
Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Planner, John T. P. Home; and County Attorney, George R. St. John.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:34 P.M., by the
Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Way opened the work session asking if any Board members had items
they wanted to discuss after reviewing the full list of changes submitted in
last week's work session.
Mr. Way pointed out a typographical error on Page 135 Service Delivery.
The first paragraph, fourth sentence should read, "in the rural area must b__e
well planned and consistent with land uses .... "
Mr. Way said he had requested that an affirmative action statement be
included, and he did not see that in his review. Mr. Home said staff would
draft a statement from the County's affirmative action plan and include it.
Mr. Bain asked if No. 3 on Page 272 (referring to staff using the best
available topographical map to determine physical capability of development)
had been corrected as was discussed in the l~st work session. Mr. Lindstrom
said that No. 3 should read, "Staff shall de~ermine to its reasonable
satisfaction the physical capability of development." That would give staff
the authority to get whatever information is~needed.
Mr. Bowie asked for an explanation of N~ 5 on Page 272 which talks about
disturbed land area not exceeding the maximum permissible cluster lot area.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the idea was t~ restrict the amount of land
disturbed for amenities such as roads, instead of having the entire acreage
disturbed. Mr. Home said he was having a m~mo prepared at this very moment
which would address this subject and would b~i available for the Board's review
during this work session. He said it would 6~iear up some of Mr. Bowie's
concerns. ~
On Page 271 under the first General Sta~-~ard, Mr. Bowie suggested that
there be language to the effect that clustered lots should be designed,
buffered, or bermed to have minimal visual i~act from public roads. Mr.
Lindstrom said his understanding was that th~! general standards were tools for
the staff to use with the applicant to optim~!ze the location of the cluster on
the property. He said Mr. Bowie's suggestior~i is a reasonable consideration,
but should be "to the extent it is possible".!i Mr. Bowie said the other items
under the first general standard do not mention where it is possible to accom-
plish clustering in the least obtrusive loca~kon.
Mr. Tucker said these standards are gene-~al in nature, but the implemen-
tation of them through the zoning ordinance would be specific. These stan-
dards give good guidance for developing new o!~dinance language in the future.
Mr. Bain said the second item under No. 1, ("Away from open fields and suffi-
cmently screened in order to preserve open sp~ces;") could be worded to
include public roads as well. Mr. Bowie saidilhe feels that the visual impact
from the road is as important as screening th~ open space. Mr. Lindstrom said
he had no objection to the suggestion. He sa~d there will be situations where
some of these standards will conflict with each other.
At this time, the Board went to discussion of other agenda items.
542
May 3, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Way said regarding the Old Scottsville School housing project, there
has been another delay. The intent of staff and the Jordan Development
Corporation was to finalize the transfer of property by June 30, 1989.
However, due to delays by two Federal agencies, the transaction cannot be
completed by that date. He said staff is recommending that the Board extend
Jordan's contract for one year.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bain, to extend the
contract with Jordan Development Corporation to June 30, 1990, and to author-
ize the Chairman to sign the following agreement:
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of May, 1989, by and between
the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter called "Seller", and
the 30RDAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Virginia non-stock corpora-
tion, herein called "Purchaser",
WITNESSETH :
THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of $1.00, and other
good and valuable consideration, and in further consideration of the
mutual covenants and promises contained in this agreement, the
Seller agrees to sell and the Purchaser agrees to buy the following
described real property, together with the improvements thereon and
the appurtenances thereto belonging, situated in the Scottsville
Magisterial District of Albemarle County, Virginia, ~being a portion
of the property known as the "Old Scottsville School!!, designated on
Albemarle Tax Map 130A(2) as Parcel 76, and more specifically that
portion of said property which is not currently being utilized by
the Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department~ the property
which is the subject of this agreement is comprised of three levels
of that section of the "Old Scottsville School" building constructed
in 1920, along with the entire north wing addition t~ the school,
containing, in the aggregate, approximately 31,900 g~oss square
feet, together with that portion of the 3.38 acres od land contained
within TM 130A(2), Parcel 76 adequate for ingress an4 egress and
sufficient to meet all parking requirements, all of ~he foregoing
hereinafter referred to as "the property".
A. RECITALS:
1. The property shall be conveyed by the Selle~~ to the Buyer
for development by the Buyer of approximately 34 units of low-income
rent-subsidized housing for the elderly. The pattie8 have executed
a standard Moderate Rehabilitation Agreement to Ente~ into Housing
Assistance Payment Contract (AHAP).
2. The Buyer is a non-stock, non-profit corporJtion recognized
by the Internal Revenue Service as a tax-exempt charitable organi-
zation pursuant to the provisions of Section 501(c)(~) of the
Internal Revenue Code.
3. The parties acknowledge that a portion of t~e building
which is the subject of this agreement is situated o~er the boundary
of TM 130(A)(2), Parcel 76, and encroaches on real prpperty owned by
the UniRoyal Corporation.
B. TERMS AND CONTINGENCIES:
This agreement is made and entered into expressl~ subject to
the following terms, conditions, and contingencies: ~
1. Purchase Price: The purchase price shall be!Sixty-Five
Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($65,000.00), payable in Cash at settle-
ment. '~
2. Flooding: This agreement is contingent upon~ithe designa-
tion and certification by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), that the subject property is no longer within!a HUD 100-year
flood plain.
May 3, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
543
3. CDBG Fundins: This agreement is subject upon the award to
and receipt by Albemarle County of a $300,000 grant from the Vir-
ginia Community Development Block Grant Program, and the commitment
of said funds by the County to the Buyer for financing the
rehabilitation of the subject property for low-income elderly
housing.
4. Asbestos Certification: Prior to the transfer of title,
Seller shall provide Buyer with a certification that the buildings
are entirely free of asbestos, such certification to be made by an
asbestos removal company which has been approved and certified by
the Commonwealth of Virginia for such inspections and certifica-
tions. All costs of asbestos removal, ~nd all costs of obtaining
such certification, shall be borne entirely by the Seller.
5. ZoninK: This agreement is subject to and contingent upon
the approval by Albemarle County of any i!and all rezonings, special
use permits, subdivisions and site plans required to allow the
subject property to be conveyed to Buyer.'. and converted to approxi-
mately 34 units of low-income rent subsidized housing for the
elderly. ~
6. AHAP: This agreement is contingent upon the approval and
qualification of this project for Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation
rent subsidies, and specifically upon (a) the execution by the
parties of a Moderate Rehabilitation Agreement to Enter into Housing
Assistance Payment Contract (Al{AP), and ~.'(b) approval by the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) of HAP rent
subsidies and (c) the approval by HUD of funding with Moderate
Rehabilitation funds.
7. Reservation of VotinK Discretion by County Officials:
Except as specifically set forth hereinlat paragraphs B(3) & B(9)
the parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the execution of
this agreement by the County of Albemarle as Seller does in no way
commit, bind or obligate the County of Albemarle, its Planning
and/or Zoning officials, or its Board of'Supervisors to approve or
support any specific applications for relponing, issuance of tax-
exempt bonds, or any other matter presemted to the County for
decision. The Board of Supervisors of ~ibemarle County does hereby
expressly reserve its voting discretion ~egarding all planning,
zoning and funding decisions concerning ~he project contemplated by
this agreement.
8. Conveyance: Seller agrees to cgnvey the property to Buyer
by Special Warranty deed with the usual ~ovenants of title, free and
clear of all encumbrances, tenancies, li~ns and real estate
taxes,
including marketable title to that portion~ of the building which
currently encroaches on real property owned by the UniRoyal Corpora-
tion, but subject to utility easements a~d restrictions which do not
adversely affect the use of the property~or marketability of title.
9. Reciprocal Easements/Joint Access: This agreement contem-
plates that the Seller shall effect the ~ubdivision of the property
currently designated on Tax Map 130A(2) ~s Parcel 76 into two
separate parcels, one being the portion ~f said property which is
the subject of this agreement and the ot~er being the portion of
said property which is currently being u~ilized by the Albemarle
County Parks and Recreation Department; and that the Seller shall
continue to own and occupy that portion ~f Tax Map 130A(2), Parcel
76 currently being utilized by the Albemarle County Parks and
Recreation Department; and the parties h~eby agree that they shall
execute all reciprocal and mutual easements, reservations, covenants
and agreements necessary to establish an~ effectuate their respec-
tive ownership and use of the two portio~ of current Tax Map
130A(2), Parcel 76 after such subdivisio~ by the Seller.
10. Condition of Premises: Except expressly set forth
hereinabove at paragraph B(2) and B(4), eller makes no warranties
regarding the condition of the premises a%d Buyer agrees to accept
544
May 3, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
the premises "as is", except that Seller warrants that water, sewer,
electric and telephone utility services and ingress and egress to a
state highway are all currently available and will be available to
service the property at closing.
11. Closing: Ail the contingencies set forth herein must be
satisfied on or before June 30, 1990, and closing shall occur within
15 days after the satisfaction of all of the conditions and contin-
gencies contained in this agreement.
12. Inspections and Access to Premises: Seller agrees that
Buyer and its agents, employees and contractors shall be allowed
reasonable access to the property after the execution of this agree-
ment for the purpose of conducting inspections and making plans for
the rehabilitation of the property contemplated herein, including
but not limited to inspections by lenders, HUD officials, archi-
tects, engineers, building contractors and any other~persons author-
ized by the Buyer to go onto the premises for any purpose reasonably
related to the objectives of this agreement.
13. Costs and Expenses: Buyer shall be responsible for all
costs involved with site plan review; preliminary architectural and
engineering studies, plans and drawings; title'exemination; record-
ing costs and Buyer's attorney's fees. Seller shallibe responsible
for preparation of the deed conveying title of the property to
Buyer, and for preparation and recordation of instru~_ents required
to (a) obtain clear title to that portion of the property now owned
by UniRoyal Corporation, and (b) establish the new bQundaries within
Tax Map 130A(2), Parcel 76 between those portions of~.!sa~d property
to be conveyed to Buyer and retained by Seller.
14. Modification: This Agreement constitutes ~he entire
agreement among the parties and shall not be modifie~ or changed
except by written instrument executed by all the par~ies hereto.
15. Construction: This Agreement shall be construed, inter-
preted and applied in accordance with the laws of th~: State of
Virginia. ~'
16. Binding Effect: This Agreement shall be bi~ding upon and
inure to the benefit of'the successors and assigns of the parties.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Bowie asked if there was anything else the Board !could do to aid
staff in expediting this project. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that possibly a
resolution from the Board supporting the project would be!helpful.
The consensus of the Board was that staff should draft a resolution of
the Board's support for this project for the Chairman's signature.
Agenda Item No. 3a. Authorize Chairman to sign deed ~or transfer of
North Rivanna Facilities property. ~
Regarding transferring deeds for the North Fork Rivanqa plant to the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, Mr. Tucker said Mr. Bil~ Brent would
summarize the request for the Board.
Mr. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County~Service Authority
(ACSA), said in 1971 the ACSA sold bonds to finance the construction of the
North Rivanna Treatment Plant, water storage tanks, and transmission lines.
Before the plant went into operation, the Rivanna Water an~ Sewer Authority
(RWSA) was created. The facilities were then transferred ~o the RWSA to
operate with the understanding that thedebt would continue to be serviced by
May 3, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
545
the ACSA and would ~e reimbursed by RWSA at such time as the debt was paid
off. At that time, a deed would be prepared transferring the title to those
facilities to the RWSA.
Mr. Brent said for the last several years, the Farmer's Home Administra-
tion (FHA) had been offering an incentive to holders of bonds from FHA to buy
the bonds back. This year, FHA offered the ACSA a waiver of 42 percent of the
principal if the ACSA buys the bond back at this time. He said the net effect
would be a savings of $400,000 by buying the bond back. The ACSA is anxious
to do that and would have to close by May 9 in order to take advantage of the
offer. He said in preparation of the deed, it was discovered that the land on
which the North Rivanna facility is located is in the name of the County Board
of Supervisors, as are all of the easements along the water line. The sites
for the storage tank are in the ACSA's name. He said he was not sure why~that
was so, but it is necessary for the Board to execute the deed transferring the
facility to the RWSA.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bain, to authorize
the Chairman to execute the Bill of Sale and the Deed as presented to the
Board today and as set out below:
THIS BILL OF SALE, made this 9th day of May, 1989, by and
between the ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY (the "Authority") and
the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), Grantors, and the
RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY ("Rivanna"), Grantee;
W I T N E S S E T~H:
For and in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt!of which is hereby acknowl-
edged by the Authority, the County and t~he Authority do hereby
BARGAIN, SELL, ASSIGN, SET-OVER, TRANSFER and DELIVER unto the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority all r~ghts, title and interest
they may have in the personal property Consisting of the following-
described facilities, which are set out iin a report of John McNair
and Associates and Paul B. Krebs and As~Ociates, both consulting
engineers, dated January, 1975, entitled~"Report on Valuation of
Water and Sewer Facilities to be Purchased by Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority from City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County
Service Authority," done pursuant to Section 3.7 of a Four-Party
Agreement,
dated
June 12, 1973, by and b~tween the
Authority,
the
and the City of Charlottesville:
County, Rivanna,
1. North Rivanna Water Facilities~ Phase III, Water Treatment
Plant;
2. North Rivanna Water Facilities~ Phase IV, Part 2, 12-inch
and 14-inch transmission lines~to Water Treatment Plant,
Piney Mountain Storage Tank and Stillhouse Mountain
Storage Tank;
3. North Rivanna Water Facilities~:, Phase IV, Part 1,
Stillhouse Mountain and Piney ~ountain Storage Tanks.
A closing statement setting out thei,~purchase price and its
manner of calculation is attached hereto~ias Exhibit A.
?
THIS DEED, made this 9th day of May~ 1989, by and between the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY (the '!Authority") and the COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), Grantors, and the RIVANNA
WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY ("Rivanna"), G~antee;
~T H:
WITNESSE
Back, round: 1. Pursuant to a Four-!Party Agreement, dated June
12, 1973, by and between the City of Char~iottesville, the Authority,
the County, and Rivanna (the "Four-Party :Agreement"), the Authority
agreed to sell and Rivanna agreed to purchase certain Authority
water and sewer facilities as set forth ih Exhibits 3 and 4 to the
Four-Party Agreement within 10 years fro~ June 12, 1973, or at such
546
May 3, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 6)
time as the debts attributable to the construction of each of such
facilities shall have been paid; and
2. Pursuant to the Four-Party Agreement, the County agreed to
join in such sale to the extent of its interest therein; and
3. The purchase price for the facilities has been determined,
pursuant to Section 3.7 of the Four-Party Agreement, in a report of
John McNair and Associates and Paul B. Krebs and Associates, both
consulting engineers, dated January, 1975, and entitled "Report on
Valuation of Water and Sewer Facilities to be Purchased by Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority from City of Charlottesville and Albemarle
County Service Authority."
4. The debts attributable to the construction of certain of
the facilities set out herein have been paid;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of Ten Dollars
($10.00), and other good and valuable consideration,, the receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, the County and the Authority hereby
GRANT and CONVEY with Special Warranty of Title unto the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority all rights, title and interest they may
have in realty, including easements and rights-of-way, associated
with the following described water and sewer facilities, to-wit:
North Rivanna Water Facilities, Phase III,;Water Treatment
Plant, being the same real property acquired by the County
by deed dated September 26, 1969, recorded~!in the Clerk's
office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle COunty in Deed
Book 464, page 469.
North Rivanna Water Facilities, Phase IV, 'Part 1,
Stillhouse Mountain and Piney Mountain Sto~age Tanks,
being the same real property acquired by the Service
Authority by deed dated June 6, 1974 and recorded in the
above Clerk's office at Deed Book 553, pag~ 504, and by
deed dated April 13, 1971 and recorded in ~he above
Clerk's office at Deed Book 486, page 358.ii
North Rivanna Water Facilities, Phase IV, Part 2, 12-inch
and 14-inch transmission lines to Water Treatment Plant,
Piney Mountain Storage Tank and Stillhouse/Mountain
Storage Tank.
In the event Rivanna hereafter encounters mater{~al defects in
title to the facilities conveyed by this deed, the G~antors will
take such action as may be required to assist Rivann~ in curing such
defects, including, but not limited to, exercising tt~e power of
eminent domain, or at the Grantors' option, will agra9 to reimburse
Rivanna for its expenses reasonably incurred in curing such defects.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow~hg recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 3.
!
Discussion: VA-89-13. Ivy CommOns Partnership.
This item was moved to the May 3, 1989, night meeting~.
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Comprehensive Plani.
(Mrs. Cooke arrived at 1:56 P.M.)
Mr. Home handed to the Board members the staff's revision of the of-
lice/regional service designation description as requestediat the last work
session. He also handed out some revisions to the text of!the Plan as a
result of the change in the designation description.
May 3, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
547
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Horne if he felt the language would prevent
construction of a regional shopping center that would be completely unrelated
to the development of the rest of the parcel. Mr. Horne said he felt the
language emphasizes the fact that the application plans would have to show
circulation, location of uses, and phasing, if necessary. The zoning ordi-
nance may contain other items regarding potential phasing abuses, etc. He
said staff had attempted to be less specific in this description and allow the
zoning ordinance to be more specific.
Mr. Perkins asked the basis for the statement that "Regional service uses
are not to exceed 15 percent of the total gross floor area in office service
primary uses". Mr. Cilimberg said the regional service definition in Table 46
on Page 209 calls for a minimum of 30 acres. With a 200 acre minimum for this
designation, the ratio of 30 to 200 was 15 percent. Mr. Lindstrom said the
definition should not be set up in a way that it is impossible to meet. If a
plan is submitted on 200 acres and three-fourths of that is covered with
buildings, they could not have more than 15 percent of that building area in
regional service use. Yet, that amount is not big enough to qualify for the
definition. Mr. Home said the reason staff~used total gross floor area is
because in Albemarle County gross land area does not have much meaning. Fifty
percent of the parcel may be in steep slopes~ and the.land area calculation
would not be appropriate. Actually, the criteria should be tied to how much
other use will be placed on that parcel, with a given percentage of that being
regional.
Mr. Bain said he read the first paragraph of the description to say that
the regional service is limited to 15 percent within the office service use.
Mr. Home said Mr. Bain was basically correct. It would be a regional service
area within an office service area. The office service use would continue to
be the principal use of the area. He said ai.wider variety of regional service
uses is allowed under this designation than under a straight office service
designation. Mr. Cilimberg said the intent Of staff was that all uses,
including primary, secondary and supporting, could be included in the consoli-
dated area. The determination of how much of that is regional service is
based only on the amount of floor area in primary office service uses. It is
not based on any of the secondary or support%ng office service uses. For
example, a hotel use would not be used for d~termining the floor area for
regional service, i
Mr. Bain asked if residential use would~be included in the office park.
Mr. Cilimberg said residential use would be considered as a possible secondary
use by developing attached or multi-family dwellings. That would not be used
as part of the basis for earning regional service square footage. Mr. Bain
said, in reality, this is written so as to d!scourage residential use, and he
is not sure he wants to do that. Mr. Cilimberg said another approach would be
to base the 15 percent on something more general such as the total developable
acreage. Then, criteria for gross square fodtage minimums and maximums would
have to be established. That would be too s~ecific to include in the Compre-
hensive Plan. Mr. Bain said in earlier disc6ssions about a large office park
complex involving lots of people, the Board had talked about providing places
for those people to live. He said he would ~Ot want to discourage a developer
from being able to do that, but he was not sure how it should be handled.
Mr. Home said this would be a planned ~evelopment zone, and there are
explicit provisions included in those whereby the plan can be modified by the
Board should it decide that modifications wene warranted. Mr. Lindstrom
suggested that the last sentence of the firs~ilparagraph state, "Regional
Service uses are not to exceed 15 percent of ithe total gross floor area of
other uses in the development." Mr. Home said technically that would work.
It would tend to increase the amount of regio~al service over what staff had
proposed.
Mr. Andrew Dracapoli, representative of ~he property owner, said his
feeling is that .the 15 percent of office service primary use is insufficient.
If that excludes motel/hotel use, it may work:out to be 10 percent of the
floor area. He feels that is an unreasonablereduction in what the current
Comprehensive Plan allows. He said language .Which does not apply to any other
service area has been added to this category, i For example, the application
plan must establish landscaping, maintenance df natural areas and environmen-
tally sensitive areas. He said no other designation contains that kind of
548
May 3, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
language. He said staff is being overly restrictive and penalizing the owners
of this land who have been trying to work with the County to accept a designa-
tion that is reasonable. He said this language basically comes back to
eliminating commercial uses. The way this is written, Mr. Dracapoli said, the
owner would be better off building a ten-story office building on this
property and increasing regional service that way. He said that is not what
the owner wants to do, however. He said he would like a percentage based on
land area, which would be reasonable and would not distort the path of
development based on high rise as opposed to low rise, and based on what is
currently allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. He thinks this parcel is the
only one in the County which is essentially being downzoned.
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that this is not a zoning action. He said this
is the first time he can remember deliberately and directly negotiating with
property owner over a Comprehensive Plan change. He said he feels that the
whole thing is getting a little out of hand. He said negotiating specific
properties while making changes in the Comprehensive Plan, properties which dc
not have the zoning on them now, is getting into something completely beyond
the scope of the intention of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Dracapoli said he would not be present and speaking if the proposed
Comprehensive Plan conformed with the existing Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said he
understands why Mr. Dracapoli is here. The point is that hundreds of parcels
in this County have been changed many times, and every change is not negotiat-
ed. Mr. Dracapoli said the effect of this action is to decrease the value of
this property because it restricts the amount of uses that can be put there.
Therefore, there is a legitimate interest, particularly When other landowners
in the urban area are not having similar reductions in uses applied to them.
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, pointed out that ~his designation
would not apply to just this one property.
Mr. Perkins said he has problems trying to visualize~'what the 15 percent
allows. It might be completely reasonable, but without k~owing what all the
factors are, it is difficult to know if the percentage is~!correct. He said in
his limited knowledge of this type of development, it would seem that more
commercial area would be needed than office area. He sai~ it seems to him
that 15 percent is ~oo small, yet he does not know what would be an accurate
mix. ~
Mr. Lindstrom asked what staff's original recommenda{ion was on this
designation. Mr. Cilimberg said originally the recommendation was for office
service. The exact definition, on Page 207, was to be applied with no per-
centages. It did not allow for non-supporting commercial~~ retail type uses.
It basically said that in all the acreage there would be dffice, research, and
related types of uses with supporting commercial and the ~ossibility for a
hotel. That was the point at which staff started. From ~hat point, the Board
felt that because of the size of this tract, there needed.~to be some consider-
ation given for non-supporting uses. Staff was asked to i~dentify how that
could be done. An area of regional service cut out of th~~ larger office
service area was staff's response to those concerns last w~eek. The Board's
concern at that point was that strip development might occhr along the road
and staff was asked to put together a consolidated defmnmtl~on having more
flexibility. At the time of the application submittal, mo~e specific design
approval would be applied.
Mr. Lindstrom said his understanding was that the office service designa-
tion based on Table 46 was too restrictive. A map showing! a certain amount of
land, basically across the front of the property, designated as regional
service was given to the Board. He said he did not know ~at percentage of
the total tract that would be, but he was sure it was a lo~ less than 50
percent, which was what the property owner was requesting.' ~ He said he does
not feel comfortable about trying to refine a designation so explicitly to
deal with one specific property, and it seems the Board is?trying to do that.
He said he is getting a little frustrated with this procesM. He is not inter-
ested in creating another major development under regional~',service in this
County. He said he does not mind having a significant pereentage of the
regional service to serve the other uses on the property, and that was how the
request was presented to the Board originally.
May 3, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 9)
549
Mr. Keeler explained that in terms of office development, between 10,000
and 12,000 square feet in floor area per acrel can be derived through two-story
buildings. In terms of commercial development, 8,000 to 10,000 square feet
per acre can be derived; in 200 acres, there could be a possible two million
square feet of floor space. Fifteen percent of that for regional service
would be about 300,000 square feet, which would be larger than the Rio Hills
Shopping Center. In addition, another ten percent commercial can be inte-
grated into the office service'area, which is another 200,000 square feet.
Therefore, it would appear that on 200 acres, there could be about one-half
million square feet of coF~ercial use; about ~00,000 square feet in regional
service; and another 200,000 integrated in hotel/motel, restaurants, etc.
within the office service designation. He said he would think that amount of
retail and support commercial would be adequate to support that much office
service. Mr. Keeler pointedout that this square footage is comparable to the
request that the University Real Estate Foundation is going to make.
Mr. Bain asked what effect residential d~velopment in regional service
would have on the square footage Mr. Keeler had just presented. Mr. Keeler
said it depends on how much residential is added. He said he is unsure how
floor area of residential use is related to commercial floor area. He thinks
that would be more appropriate for a planned ~nit development, much like Mill
Creek Phase I. There were over 30 acres of industrial, about six acres of
commercial, and about 400 dwelling units developed under a PUD plan.
Mr. Home said Mr. Keeler's figures giveithe Board a notion of the
magnitude of floor space being discussed. He!isaid those figuresare based on
the general pattern staff has seen in development in the County. If a partic-
ular developer chose to use very low square fgotage, that would reduce the
amount of commercial development. He said in!staff s opinion, this language
is not overly restrictive. ~
Mr. Bowie said with the explanation Mr. Keeler gave, he could support the
staff's recommendation for office/regional service definition. He said in
response to the comments made from the floor, ~most of the applications that
come before the Board deal with relatively small parcels. When a request
concerning a large, single piece of property is being considered, he said it
should be expected that there would be more concern on the part of the Board
in this development. The impact on the environment, roads, etc. is greater
when 200 acres is being developed as opposed to 30 acres.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned because this description will be the
basis for amending the zoning ordinance, which! the Board will have to use in
the future. He then suggested that the seconal paragraph say, "Areas must be
developed under one consolidated application ~ian providing for integration of
all uses and establishing .... " He said he wdUld feel more comfortable having
that phrase added so that something in the Pi~ says clearly that the uses are
to be integrated and not separate, free-stand~g uses unrelated to each other.
Mr. Home said staff concurs with that amendmeht to this definition.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, sec~ded by Mr. Bain, to add the
amended Office/Regional Service definition to l~the Comprehensive Plan for the
public hearing. Roll was called and the motio~ carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs}. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Horne said the second page of the han~out contains some smaller
changes the Board made last week. Mr. Lindstr~m said there may be other
routes that the new "Corridor" statute might a~ply to beyond Route 250 East.
Mr. Bowie suggested that Route 20 North be cited here as well. He also
suggested that this same statement be added inlieach neighborhood and in Crozet
and Scottsville for all primary roads and corridors.
Mr. Home said the next item for discussion is the last page of the
handout today which is a revision of the paragraph discussing small lot
options on Page 271.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff has changed strategy No. 2 for rural subdivi-
sions. Staff felt that trying to address a specific~ maximum lot size before
550
May 3, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 10)
the ordinance is drafted might be premature and unnecessary for the Comprehen-
sive Plan. He said this strategy means that either a specific maximum lot
size would be selected, or a maximum acreage for the overall subdivision would
be set.
Mr. Bowie said he feels that rights and lots are being mixed. The
development rights are determined by the twenty-one acreminimum. That has
nothing to do with what size lot the subdivision will contain. Mr. Lindstrom
said he is totally lost in reading over this section.
Mr. Bowie said he would explain his understanding of how this paragraph
works. He picked at random a 243-acre parcel. The five, two-acre lots for
ten acres would give five development rights. The balance of 233 acres would
be divided by 21, giving 11.09 development rights. Add that to the first
five, and that would be 16 development rights on this piece of property. If
the property owner chooses to cluster, one development right must be left witl
the open space. Therefore, 15 development rights can bemused on two to four
acre lots. That would take 30-60 acres, depending on the lot size. If the
two-acre lot size is chosen, 243 minus 30 acres would be 213 acres. If the
four-acre lot size is chosen, it would be 243 minus 60 a~res, leaving 183
acres. There would be 183 to 213 acres of open space firmly dedicated with
one building right in exchange for 15 clustered lots. He said he did not
understand why the paragraph had to be so complicated.
Mr. Lindstrom said he suspects that when this formula is applied in
reality there are complications that the Board cannot imagine right now.
Staff may be trying to anticipate those by this wording.~; He said the way Mr.
Bowie explained it is the way he understands it. Mr. Cilimberg said staff wa:
not sure that Mr. Bowie's explanation was exactly what the Board wanted. He
said staff had heard a variety of numbers since these discussions began.
Mr. Lindstrom summarized his understanding of the i~ent of this section.
He said he understands that the intent of the wording isi~hat the lot size
would not be resolved here. He said he understands clea~ly that one develop-
ment right remains on the open space parcel. Also, staf£, will make the
determination to its reasonable satisfaction as to whether or not the propert]
owner actually has a certain number of development right~ based on topography
and other environmental constraints. When the owner proposes cluster develop-
ment, the general standards are used to determine where the rights are
located. If more than 20 lots are to be clustered, there would have to be a
special permit issued. Mr. Way said that is exactly thei~ay he understands
this to work as well.
Mr. Bain asked how staff planned to handle the property owner who would
use his development .rights, and later wanted to cluster. ~!i Mr. Lindstrom said
his concern is the landowner who dedicates part of his p~operty to open space
voluntarily and then later wants to cluster the balance. That is a variation
of what Mr. Bain just mentioned. Another variation is landowner who
develops his five, two-acre lots and then decides to get ~en, 21-acre parcels
out of the balance and wants to locate those some place Mr. Bowie
suggested that a time limit of possibly 24 months between~ applications might
be set. Otherwise, a landowner would lose a percentage ~f his development
rights. Mr. Horne said he felt that should be dealt with in drafting the
actual ordinance language. From staff's position, tryin~i to explain that to
an applicant would be extremely complicated.
Mr. Bowie said he did not see any need for six acre~ If a landowner is
simply developing a few lots, then maybe two to six is r%~ght. For clustering:
he said he did not have a problem setting two acres as the lot size. Mr.
Home said staff is not tied to six, and maybe that is t~o high. Mr.
Lindstrom said he did not have a problem letting that be idecided through the
ordinance. He just wants to be sure the principles are ~aid out here to
develop the ordinance language. Mr. Bowie said this section should at least
tell the reader how to find out what the maximum lot sizei is. Mr. Lindstrom
said once Zoning Ordinance amendments are adopted, very ~ew people go back to
the Comprehensive Plan for that type of information.
Mr. Perkins suggested that the lot size might be given as an average lot
size. Mr. Home said that might be a way of giving some flexibility and is
used in other places to maintain a balance of lot size.
May 3, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 11)
551
Mr. Way said once this section is rewritten, he feels the public hearing
on the Comprehensive Plan can be set. Mr. Perkins asked what the Board plans
to do about a request to add to the Crozet growth area. Mr. Bain asked if
staff had learned anymore about the Lickinghole Creek Sedimentation basin.
Mr. Home said staff had talked to Mr. George Williams of the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority, and they had not progressed far enough on the project to
know where the dam would be located. Mr. Perkins said this is being made more
complicated than it needs to be. He said the dam can only go in so many
places. If it goes upstream, the requested area would be included in the
drainage area. If the dam goes downstream fUrther, more land could be
included later.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to include
the area on the eastern boundary of the Crozet growth area between Route 240
and Route 250 in the Crozet growth area in the Comprehensive Plan. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bain asked staff to explain the rationale regarding the extension of
the boundaries of the North Garden Village (see Page 252). Mr. Horne said the
decision was based on physical boundaries. The most logical boundary was the
river on the north.
Mr. Keeler asked for clarification on the motion to add to the Crozet
growth area. He said that area is currently honed partially industrial.
Staff is assuming the Board intends development at low density as it is along
Route 250 over to Route 240. Mr. Perkins said his motion could include that.
His concern was the land from the railroad trsck to Route 240.
Mr. Way said the Board would need to set'!:the public hearing date for the
amended Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said staff would need some time to
get the document together for public hearing.~i He said it would take at least
two weeks to rework some sections and have th~ document printed and available
for the public, i~
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bain, to set the
public hearing date for the Comprehensive Pla~ for June 14, 1989, at 7:30 P.M.
Roll was called and the motion carried by theilfollowing recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Adjourn. At 3:18 P.M., motion was offered by Mr.
Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adjourn into ~xecutive Session to discuss
legal matters, specifically the Ivy Commons Partnership appeal. Mr. Lindstrom
said he would abstain from the discussion because his landlord was a partner
in that group. Roll was called and the motio~ carried by the following
recorded vote: ~
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
ABSTAINING: Mr. Lindstrom. '~
At 3:35 P.M., the Board reconvened into ~pen session and immediately
adjourned, there being no further business to~lcome before the Board at this
time. ~