1988-07-06July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
383
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 6, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. and F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H.
Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County
Attorney, Mr. George R. St. John; and County Planner, Mr. John T. P. Horne.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Way.
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. Lindstrom
and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve Items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 and to
accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. There was no
discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Street Sign Request Brookwood Subdivision, Section 3. A
letter was received from a resident of Brookwood Subdivision requesting a
replacement street name sign for Claudius Court to correct a spelling error
contained in the plat~ The Board adopted the following resolution by the vote
shown:
WHEREAS request has been received f~r a street sign to identify
the following road:
Brookwood Road (State Route 1222) at its intersection with
Claudius Court (State Route 1220), and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the
Office of the CoUnty Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation:
NOW, THEREFQRE,! BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County~ Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways
and TransportatiOn be and the same is hereby requested to install and
maintain the above mentioned street sign~
Item 4.2. Street Sign Request - Village~Square Subdivision, Phase I. A
request was received from Mr. Robert J. Kroner, on behalf of Salasco Service
Corporation, for street name signs to identifY the roads in Phase I of Village
Square. The Board adopted the following resoiution by the vote shown above:
WHEREAS request has been received f~r street signs to identify
the following roads:
Towne Lane (State Route 1045) at its intersection with Rio Road
(State Route 631);
Towne Lane (State Route 1045) at its intersection with Victorian
Court (State Route 1046); and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation:
384
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and
maintain the above mentioned street signs.
Item 4.3. Request to take Mill Creek Drive, Copperstone Drive, Mill
Creek Court and Stone Mill Court in Mill Creek PUD, Phase 1, Section 1, into
the State Secondary System, was received from Craig Builders of Albemarle,
Inc. on May 31, 1988. The Board adopted the following resolution by the vote
shown above:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, the following roads in Phase 1, Section 1, Mill
Creek P.U.D.:
Mill Creek Drive
Beginning at Station 0+10, a point common to the centerline of
Mill Creek Drive and the edge of pavement of State Route 742,
thence in a westerly direction 1340 feet to Station 13+50, the
end of this dedication. ~
Copperstone Drive
Beginning at Station 0+11, a point common to t~e centerline of
Copperstone Drive and the edge of pavement of Mill Creek Drive
(centerline Station 12+95.50), thence in a northeasterly direc-
tion 834 feet to Station 8+45, the end of the cDl-de-sac.
Mill Creek Court
Beginning at Station 0+10, a point common to t~e centerline of
Mill Creek Court and the edge of pavement of Co!pperstone Drive
(centerline Station 1+74), thence in a westerlMdirection 537
feet to Station 5+47, the end of the cul-de-sacs.
Stone Mill Court
Beginning at Station 0+10, a point common to th~ centerline of
Stone Mill Court and the edge of pavement of Copperstone Drive
(centerline Station 5+77.29), thence in a northeasterly direc-
cul-de-sac
tion 559 feet to Station 5+69, the end of the ~' .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 Yoot unobstructed
right of way and drainage easements along these requested additions
as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of tie Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 944, pages 696 thro~Lgh 703, Deed
Book 979, pages 355 through 633, Deed Book 993, page 501 and 505,
and Deed Book 997, page 46.
Item 4.4. Request to take Hearthglow Lane and Heart]glow Court in
Fieldbrook Subdivision, Phase III, into the State Secondary System was
received from Claude W. Cotten on March 13, 1987. The BoArd adopted the
following resolution by the vote shown above:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of A~bemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways a~d~ Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval b~ the Resident
Highway Department, the following roads in Phase III~~ Fieldbrook
Subdivision:
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
385
Hearth8low Lane
Beginning at Station 0+15, a point common to the centerline of
Hearthglow Lane and the edge of pavement of State Route 652
(centerline Station 11+77.53), thence in a northerly direction
1714 feet to Station 17+29, the end of the cul-de-sac.
Hearthglow Court
Beginning at Station 0+12, a point common to the centerline of
Hearthglow Court and the edge of pavement of Hearthglow Lane
(centerline Station 8+29), thence in a southerly direction 198
feet to Station 2+10, the end of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 40 foot unobstructed
right of way and drainage easements along these requested additions
as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 794, pages 637 and 638, Deed Book
840, pages 468, and Deed Book 929, page 564.
Item 4.5. Letter dated June 27, 1988, from Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy
Highway Commissioner, was received as follow~:
"As requested in your resolution dated ~pril 6, 1988, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby
approved, effective June 27, 1988.
ADDITION ~ LENGTH
LAKESIDE AND WILLOW LAKE
Route 1137 (Brookhill Avenue) from Route 1135 to
Northwest Cul-de-sac. Project: 1137-002-232, N501.
0.20 Mi."
Item 4.6. Letter dated June 21, 1988, f~rom Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy
Highway
Commissioner, was received as follows:
"As requested on your resolution dated 3anuary 6, 1988, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby
approved, effective 3une 21, 1988.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
IVY OAKS
Route 1645 (Gray Fox Trail)
South cul-de-sac.
From Route 676 to
0.27 Mi.
Route 1646 (Gray Fox Spur)
West cul-de-sac.
From Route 1645 to
0.09 Mi.
Route 1647 (Old Oaks Drive)
Southeast cul-de-sac.
From Route 676 to
0.26 Mi.
Route 1648 (Willow Oaks Circle) - From Route 678 to
Southeast cul-de-sac.
0.15 Mi."
Item 4.7. Letter dated June 20, 1988 from Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy Highway
Commissioner was received as follows:
"As requested in your resolutions dated March 14, 1988, and April 13,
1988, the following addition to and abandonment from the Secondary
System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective June 20,
1988. i
386
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
ADDITION
BROADUS WOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Route 9009 - From Route 663 to End of North Loop.
ABANDONMENT
Route 9009 From Route 663 to End of North Loop.
LENGTH
0.15 Mi.
0.10 Mi."
Item 4.8. Copies of the Planning Commission's minutes for June 7, June
14 and June 21, 1988, were received as information.
Item 4.9. Notice from the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) dated
June 13, 1988, concerning 1989 VACo Legislative Program was received as infor-
mation.
Mr. Way said he has read this notice and circled bills and resolutions of
particular interest to the County. He suggested that other Board members do
the same and asked that this item be put on an agenda for discussion at a
later meeting.
Item 4.10. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond Report for May, 1988;
received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-88-24. Mrs. Lewis Rosenstiel (Blandemar Subdivi-
sion) (Deferred from June 1, 1988).
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report, dated June 30, 1988:
"On June 1, the Board of Supervisors considered SP-88-24 for the
approval of a reconfiguration and decrease in lot sizes for a subdi-
vision on the Blandemar property. At that meeting, ithe Board
deferred the request in order for the staff and the iapplicant to
investigate two basis options for enforcement of the~, restrictions on
development on portions of the property. These restrictions were
voluntarily offered by the applicant at the hearing in order to
induce the Board of Supervisors to approve the special use permit.
On June 24, the staff of this Department received a Copy of a draft
Deed of Restriction from the attorney for the applicant. It was our
understanding at that time that the Virginia Outdoor~s Foundation had
been contacted by the applicant and had not express~ interest in the
acceptance of open space easements on these propertii~s. Staff of
this Department, the County Attorney, and the applicant have been
working since that time to revise the Deed of RestriCtion and condi-
tions of approval to place them in the best posture ~hen they are
presented to the Board of Supervisors. Enclosed for~ilthe Board of
Supervisors' information is a draft of those conditions of approval
and the Deed of Restriction (on file in the Clerk's Office).
Since June 24, it has come to the attention of the s~aff that dedica-
tion of easements to the Virginia Outdoors Foundatio~ or to the
County of Albemarle under the Open Space Land Act remains a possibil-
ity. Staff has been unable to adequately research this possibility
and believes that there could be significant benefits to use of this
technique as opposed to a Deed of Restriction. EnclOsed is a copy of
the State Code containing the provisions of the Open?pace Land Act.
Staff recommends deferral of this request in order t~ provide staff
additional time to investigate the potential benefit~i of dedication
of open space easements. It would be helpful, however, if the Board
of Supervisors could provide directions to the staff ~and applicant
based on the information that is attached as the Board's preferences
in the techniques to be used in this case. ~
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
387
Finally, I would like to reiterate that it is the staff's recommenda-
tion that SP-88-24 be denied.
AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Board of Supervisors' approval and recordation of a deed of
restriction consistent with the attached dated
The subdivision plat submitted for approval shall be in general
accord with the conceptual plan by Gloeckner and Osborne, Inc.,
entitled "Blandemar Farm and Residential Community, dated
Along the south side of the entrance roadway leading to the
Residential Community as it passed through the Blandemar Farm
Tract the applicant shall install fencing and/or landscaping and
screening in general accordance with the following:
A 25-foot buffer area shall be established between the edge
of road right-of-way and a fence os fences designed to be
sufficient to separate the traffic from the farming activi-
ties.
With the 25-foot buffer area, the applicant shall install
street landscaping or screening shrubs, depending on the
type of fencing proposed.
The fencing and landscaping is to be approved by the
Department of Planning and community Development.
Fencing sufficient to separate the farming and forestry activi-
ties from the residential activities shall be installed by the
Grantor along the property lines between the Residential Commu-
nity and the Blandemar Farm Tract 9pproximately as shown on the
conceptual plan referenced above. ~iSaid fencing shall thereafter
be maintained by the property owners in the Residential Commun-
ity. A 50-foot private conservatidn easement shall be estab-
lished on the lots in the Residential Community along their
boundary with the Rosenstiel Tract.~ This easement shall require
that the area be maintained in its'undisturbed and natural
state. The homeowners' covenants Shall incorporate the specific
terms of the fencing maintenance and conservation easements.
At the time of subdivision approval, the Planning Commission
shall approve the phasing of the i~stallation of therequired
improvements including, but not limited to, screening, fencing,
and the installation of new lakes. ~
The applicant shall make application within 60 days to include
the Blandemar Farm Tract and the Resenstiel Tract in the Hard-
ware Agricultural and Forestal Dist~rict, as voluntarily offered
by the Applicant.
Mr. Home said the applicant has also modified the plan of the proposed
subdivision. Concerning the development rights left on the Rosenstiel tract,
he said, the applicant has agreed that the lots these rights would create can
be placed towards the residential area. This change decreases the size of the
lots on the Rosenstiel tract from 315 acres to 220 acres, with the difference
of 95 acres to be made open space, controlled by the lot owners and subject to
a conservation easement to insure that the natural character of this area will
not be disturbed.
Mr. Horne said the applicant has also a~reed to include a buffer composed
of fencing and landscaping along the entrance road as it passes through the
agricultural tract. There would also be a fence between the residential and
agricultural areas. He said the applicant is! willing to establish conserva-
tion easements on some of the residential lots bordering the agricultural
area, in order to maintain a natural, screened buffer.
388
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Home said these changes in the physical design of the proposed
subdivision are reflected in either the deed of restriction or the conditions
of approval. He said the deed of restriction is a set of deed covenants
intended to restrict the development of the Rosenstiel and the Blandemar Farm
tracts. The County and Ms. Rosenstiel, as parties to the deed, may change the
deed in the future, if both parties agree to the change. Mr. Horne said the
deed of restriction offers the additional option of including the owners of
the residential areas as parties of the deed of restriction. If these owners
were added as parties to the deed of restriction, it would be more difficult
to amend the deed in the future.
Mr. Horne said the staff believes that the provisions of the Open Space
Land Act might make it even more likely that land set aside for open space
will remain agricultural or forestal in nature. If the County or the Virginia
Outdoors Foundation wishes to remove property from open space land use, either
body must determine that its removal is "(i) essential to the orderly develop-
ment and growth of the urban area, and (ii) in accordance with the official
comprehensive plan for the urban area in effect at the time of conversion or
diversion." Mr. Horne continued to read from the Open Space Land Act: "Other
real property of at least equal fair market value and of!as nearly as feasible
equivalent usefulness and location for use as permanent open space land shall
be substituted within a reasonable period not exceeding One year for any real
property converted or diverted from open space land use, lunless the public
body determines that such open space land or its equivalent is not longer
needed."
If the Board is interested in the idea of establishing open space ease-
ments on this property, Mr. Horne said, he would recommend that the Board
defer action on this request until staff has had the chance to discuss this
kind of easement with representatives from the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
He said the staff has not been able to hold these discussions because the
staff of the Virginia Outdoors Foundation has been on vacation for the past
week. ~.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Thomas J. Michie, Jr., legal counsel for the applicant,
if he wished to address the Board.
Mr. Michie said he and Mrs. Blanka Rosenstiel would tike a decision from
the Board tonight. He said he would like to talk about t~e first of two basic
issues involved in this application: the development right on the Rosenstiel
tract. He said he had thought a property owner must haveiiat least one devel-
opment right on any piece of property. He said he was surprised when the
staff suggested moving the development right from the Rosenstiel tract to the
residential area, which would result in a piece of proper~y with no.develop-
ment rights. While this idea has some appeal, he said, h~. and his client
would prefer to retain some flexibility and make a decision later.
Mr. Michie said he believes the County's greatest as§et is its natural
beauty and the virtue of cluster development is that it w~uld preserve as much
of this beauty as possible. He said it would be unfortunate to remove all
development rights from the forested Rosenstiel tract. H8 said this would
create a piece of property whose only value was its timber, which could mean
the timber would be cut down, perhaps even clear-cut. Removing the develop-
ment right from this tract would not preserve the beauty df the County, he
declared, it would preserve only forestry. ~
Mr. Michie said his client wants to keep the development right on the
Rosenstiel tract in case she decides to divide off another! lot. He said his
client is not adamantly opposed to the removal of the dev~lopment~ right, but
thinks it is important to preserve as much flexibility asi~ossible. He said
his client feels she should not have to commit herself to ~aking a decision on
this part of the property. He said he does not think it ils unreasonable to
ask the Board to leave one development right for that two ~undred and twenty
acre tract. I
Mr. Michie moved on to speak about the second basic i~sue' the form the
restriction of rights to divide the six hundred acres should t~ke and the
easement, if any, that will be given to the County or to t~e Outdoors Founda-
tion. When he proposed an easement and restriction, he said, he meant the
easement to contain only the area that the public was most~likely to see,
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
389
which would be a strip three hundred feet wide bordering a mile of Route 708.
He said he did not know that the Virginia Outdoors Foundation is not interest-
ed in easements of only three hundred feet. He said he and Mr. Lindstrom were
victims of a failure of communication during the last meeting when he offered
to work with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
Mr. Michie said he prepared an easement that his client would prefer.
After handing out copies of this drafted easement to the Board, he said he
prepared this easement by taking the language provided by the Virginia Out-
doors Foundation and applying it to the three hundred foot strip on Route 708.
He said he and his client feel that they are preserving the open space by
agreeing that the land cannot be subdivided .into more than three lots. He
said he thought the Board's objectives were to preserve open space and beauty.
Now it seems to him, he said, the Planning staff has changed these objectives
to preserve the open space and to insure that there is a farm there forever.
He said he and Mrs. Rosenstiel will enter the property in the agricultural/
forestal district. With only three property rights, there can only be three
dwellings on the six hundred acres and he said it is difficult to imagine this
property being used in any way besides farming. He asked the Board if it is
realistic to expect this piece of property to be agricultural for all eterni-
ty. One or two hundred years from now, he s'~id, it may be economically
impossible to maintain a farm on this property. He said it may be wiser to
preserve this property as open space in some other form, a health farm, for
example. He asked the Board to accept the easement he has prepared, which he
thinks preserves the beauty along the road and takes the realistic view that
farming this property may not be possible in.the future.
Mr. Michie said he and his client also think some of the staff's recom-
mended conditions for approval are unrealistic. He said Mr. Horne believes
that, in residential pockets of the rural arga, the residents should be fenced
in instead of the livestock. Mr. Michie said he thinks some of Mr. Horne's
recommendations to minimize the friction between subdivision residents and
agricultural activities would financially burden Mrs. RosenStiel. He said Mr.
Horne wants his client to screen about one mile., of the road entering the
subdivision with fences and trees, so the reJidents will not be tempted to get
out of their cars and feed the cows and hors~s. Mr. Mlch~e said he does not
think this will be a problem and screening w~ll block the magnificent view.
He sa~d Mrs. Rosenst~el has already agreed t9 put one fence 25 feet from the
road. The two fences recommended by staff, ~e said, would double his client's
expense and create a problem with how to mow!ithe patch between the fences.
He said his client has agreed to restri
abutting the Rosenstiel Tract from building
boundary of the lots and the staff has agree~
for another fence between the woods of the
Rosenstiel tract. He said he thinks the staJ
t the residents who own lots
ithin fifty feet of the back
to drop the condition calling
ts owners and the woods of the
f has gone too far is its desire
to separate the residents from the farm and iited the following condition of
approval: "The lot owners of lots one throu h 65 shall not institute or
maintain legal acts of nuisance against the wner of the six hundred acres".
He said he thinks the law already makes it clear that someone who moves next
to a farm cannot complain about chickens wak:ng them in the morning or the
smell of hogs.
Mr. Bowie said he did not interpret the staff's recommendation on fencing
to mean a high fence that no one could see through. He said he thinks the
staff meant that farm fencing should be buil~along the road, to keep the
animals within the fence from being hit in the road. Mr. Michie said he and
his client do not object to building fences. ~ What they do not want to do, he
said, is have to plant screening along nearl~ a mile of fence-line. He
iterated that the view along the proposed ro~d is magnificent, and he does not
think blocking this view is in keeping with ~he staff's objective of preserv-
ing the beauty of the County. If the Board ~pproves this application with
these conditions of approval, he hopes the Bdard will clarify this condition
to exclude the kind of screening one cannot s!ee through.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks there is a need for Condition 4(a) requiring
that the owners of lots one through 65 abstain from instituting legal acts of
nuisance against the owner of the six hundred acre tract. He said there are a
lot of people moving into the County who do not know that chickens lay more
390
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
than eggs. Mr. Michie said he and Mrs. Rosenstiel do not object to this
condition; they just do not think it is necessary.
Mr. Home said the staff believes that this subdivision would represent a
residential land use in an area where the preferred land'use is agricultural
and forestal activities. He said residential and agricultural uses are
incompatible and it is necessary to separate these two uses. He said the
staff believes that the burden for this separation should fall on the residen-
tial use, rather than the agricultural use. In order to preserve the rural
areas in this County, he said, it is imperative that rural areas be considered
something more than a scenic resource for people who drive along its roadways.
It is the agricultural land use that makes the rural areas scenic, he said,
and changing the land use ultimately destroys the beauty~of the rural area.
Mr. Way asked if anyone else wished to speak concerning this application.
Ms. Tamara Vance of the Piedmont Environment Council said she sent copies
of a memorandum concerning this application to members of the Board. She said
conservation easements are a better way to preserve the rural areas. She said
the way the open space is reserved in this application can set a precedent.
If the County wants to have land for farming and forestry in the future, she
said, the Board must try to restrict property in the ways mentioned tonight,
to keep the prices of property low and attractive to far,ers and foresters.
Mr. David Bass addressed the Board and said this application is really a
request for rezoning and a contradiction to the Comprehensive'~ Plan. Last week
the Planning Commission approved a subdivision of 60 lots by-right across from
Blandemar Farm. If the Board approves this request, he ~aid, the two subdivi-
sions would add about 400 people to what is supposed to be a rural area
surrounded by an agricultural/forestal district. As for Mr. Michie's sugges-
tion that the Board allow an additional dwelling unit on.'the Rosenstiel tract,
Mr. Bass said, this right was given up the last time this~ request appeared
before the Board.
Mr. Bass said it was also his understanding that the' attorney for the
applicant was willing to dedicate the entire six hundred iacre farm tract and
the forest tract to a conservation easement. He said thai Director for the
Virginia Outdoors Foundation has said he would accept thei~nine hundred acres,
but would reject the easement approach. He said the Director is away on
vacation now and he thinks it is reasonable for the staff~ to request more time
to discuss the options with the Director when he returns.~ If there must be a
clustered subdivision, with lots that are easier to market and less expensive
to develop than possible with a by-right subdivision, he ~said, he and the
surrounding landowners ask that the Board protect this area as much as possi-
ble, by requiring a conservation easement, rather than just deed restrictions.
He said it is important to him and other landowners in th~ area that the
Rosenstiel and Blandemar tracts remain open space.
Mr. Bass said he thinks clustering is a good idea, b~t he thinks it
should be controlled to provide no more than a neutral a~Osphere growth in
the rural areas. If clustering is allowed to provide che~per, more marketable
subdivisions in the rural areas, it is creating a favorable, rather than
neutral, setting for development. He asked that the Boar~ impose restrictions
such as conservation easements, on cluster development to!iiinsurei~ that such
subdivisions do not lead to more growth in the rural areas.
Ms. Norma Battle addressed the Board and said she liged on Route 710 just
around the corner from Blandemar Farm. She said she is c~ncerned that a
number of restrictions seem to be placed on any proposal ~rawn up for
Blandemar Farm. She said she wonders if the same restrictions'~' are imposed on
other subdivisions in the rural areas. She said the staf$ and the Board have
studied this application over and over and she thinks it ~s time to approve
this subdivision. She said she does not think the Board 6r the surrounding
landowners should be concerned with how marketable the lo~
Mr. Tip Collins addressed the Board and said he has ~
County or the City for the past 20 years. He said one of
tures of the County is the number of fine horse and cattl~
someone is planning to have a horse and cattle farm, he o~
need several hundred acres, he said. Mr. Collins said it
s will be.
~ived in either the
ithe charming fea-
farms here. If
she is going to
is not possible to
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
391
have a nice farm on 20 acres. He said clustering allows the houses to be
placed on a few acres and leaves the bulk of' the property open for farms. If
the whole County is cut up into 20 acre lots, he said, there will be no more
fine farms.
Mr. Michie said he would like to say a few words in rebuttal. He said he
hopes the marketability of the lots is not the issue. He said he hopes the
issue facing the Board is what is best for the County. He said he and his
client have figured that the cost of the proposed cluster development is not
much less than a by-right development would be, due to the length of the road
necessary to reach the clustered dwellings and fencing and screening required
by the staff. He said Mr. Rick Walden developed eight 21-acre lots on Route
708 across from this property; these lots list for $256,500. He said he and
Mrs. Rosenstiel figured if she went ahead with a by-right subdivision and sold
the lots for $200,000, she would make two or~ three million dollars more than
she would with the proposed cluster development. He said he wants to impress
upon the Board that Mrs. Rosenstiel wants to do something that will enhance
and preserve the beauty of the County. All his client asks, he said, is for a
little more flexibility concerning the future of the six hundred acre tract.
He said this tract will remain agricultural as long as the Board says so, but
he has a problem with giving an easement to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
He said the Virginia Outdoors Foundation is interested in voluntary gifts only
and he is not sure he and his client are vol0ntarily offering to give them an
easement. He said the easement does not seem like a donation since his client
would be getting a special use permit in return. He said the Director of the
Foundation, Mr. Tyson Van Auken, said he is not willing to accept the donation
under these circumstances. He said he think~ the County would be well served
if the Board accepts and controls the three ~undred foot easement proposed by
his client. And, he added, the Board's restriction allowing no more than
three development rights on the six hundred acres is the Board's way of
preserving open space for all time.
Since no one else wished to speak concerning this application, Mr. Way
closed the public hearing and placed the mat~er before the Board.
Mr. St. John said he would like to say m few words about the open space
act. In hi~ opinion, the open space act has ~lways been applicable to land
within the urban area. He said this is staten in the first paragraph of the
act. He said he has never considered this t~
protect rural land or preserve agricultural
is a provision in the act saying that once a
or any interest in a piece of property, it s!
farming and timber, if practical. NeverthelE
designed to be used within the urban area, fc
be an act that was designed to
r forestal land. He said there
county has acquired whole title
all make that land available for
ss, he said, this act was
r example, to protect farms such
as the Wetsel farm on Rio Road, which is in the middle of a high density area.
The open space act would allow the County to ~cquire an easement on this farm
if it were to be developed, not necessarily fi0r agriculture and farming, but
as part of the greenbelt policy.
Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. George Freeman, an attorney with Hunton and
Williams in Richmond, helped write the open space act. Mr. Freeman has also
written a detailed memorandum on how this act!!defines the urban area. He said
the legislation speaks of urbanizing character, semi-urban areas and surround-
ing areas which form an economical and socially related region. According to
the language of this act, he said, the phrase["urban area" has a much broader
meaning than when it is used in everyday spee§h.
Mr. St. John said he thinks the Board should be wary of implicitly
categorizing this area around Blandemar Farm ks part of the urban area. That
is the reason he has never considered this acT to be useful in preserving
agricultural and forestal activities in the r~ral area, he said.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks that an area coming under pressure for
development fits part of the definition of urSan area. Mr. St. John said this
may well be true. According to Mr. Freeman,
the purposes of the open space act is to set
pressure. He said there was an opinion rende
the designation of an open space areas stoppe~
Transportation. He said the Old Mansion was
r. Lindstrom continued, one of
side land under development
ed in the Old Mansion case where
. the Virginia Department of
.or in an urban area.
392
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. St. John asked if the easement in this case was.held by the Virginia
Outdoors Foundation or the county? Mr. Lindstrom said the Virginia Outdoors
Foundation held the easement, as the Piedmont Environment Council was recom-
mending in the case of Blandemar Farm as well.
Mr. St. John said the open space act concerned easements acquired by
counties. Mr. Lindstrom said the act also concerned easements acquired by
public agencies such as the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. He said there is
nothing in the opinion that would make any distinction: as long as the ease-
ment was held in accordance with the statute, it would be accorded the same
dignity that was given in the case of the Old Mansion.
Mr. St. John said he will draft whatever the Board wants, easements or
restrictions or whatever. If the County holds the easement, he said, he does
not think it makes any difference whether it is called an easement or a
restriction.
If it is to be an easement as contemplated by the Open Space Land Act,
Mr. Lindstrom said, there are certain specific findings that must be made
before the property can be released from open space, which is not necessarily
true of land preserved by deed restrictions. He said this is the additional
protection which has been requested by some of the citizens who spoke during
the public hearing. '~:
Mr. Bowie said he would prefer that the County hold ~:
an easement, if that
is the route the Board decides to take. He said the fut~e elected officials
of this County are in a better position to decide the fu~hre of this property
than somebody in Richmond who is on vacation the week a d~cision must be made.
He said he remembers the discussion of easements and doe~i not remember anybody
saying that the whole six hundred acres would be placed in an easement.
Mr. Bowie said he would like to make something clea~/i to Ms. Bartle, who
had asked why the Board did not seek to impose any restrictions on the subdi-
vision across the road from Blandemar. He said that subd:ivision was a by-
right development and there is little the Board can do ab~ut such develop-
ments. In this case, he said, Mrs. Rosenstiel has offere~t to do some things
and the Board may or may not accept them. He said he suDports the applica-
tion, because he thinks a by-right subdivision would des[~oy the farm. He
said he is not sure a decision can be made on this requeslt tonight and he does
think the rest of the property should be protected. He said he will not
support requiring the applicant to build a six-foot high i~tockade fence around
the development; he thinks a farm fence should keep the animals from the
people.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the Board should delay its decision until the
Virginia Outdoors Foundation informs the County on the specific differences
between the County holding an easement and the Foundation~holding an easement.
He said he would like to see this item deferred for two w~eks.
If this item is deferred, Mr. Bowie said, he thinks ~he Board should be
very specific on what answers it wants.
Mr. Perkins said the staff has asked for additional ~ime to study the
easements. He said he thinks the Board should give them ~his time.
Mr. Bowie asked what the staff planned to ask Mr. Van Au_ken about the
open space legislation. Mr. Home said the staff would like to ask Mr. Van
Auken about his experience in accepting these easements a~d if the Virginia
Outdoors Foundation is interested in accepting these easements. He said he
thinks no one ever specified whether the easements would ~over the whole
acreage and this needs to be clarified before the staff m~ets with Mr. Van
Auken.
Due to the alleged miscommunication, Mr. Lindstrom said, Mr. Michie
discussed only the easement along the buffer zone with representatives from
the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. NO one ever asked the ~oundation if they
would accept the whole farm as an easement, he said. He Said the Foundation
is usually interested in large easements, not easements of only three hundred
feet that preserve little more than someone's back yard.
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
393
Mr. St. John asked if Mr. Michie should be asked whether the applicant is
willing to put the whole farm under an easement. Mr. Lindstrom said he had
understood Mr. Michie to say that Mrs. Rosenstiel was not excited about the
idea, but she was willing to do it, if necessary.
Mr. Horne said the basis for all the discussion between the staff and the
applicant has been that the applicant is voluntarily offering these restric-
tions. If the offer is not voluntary, he said, he thinks this is something
the staff, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and the Board should know.
Mrs. Rosenstiel said she has spoken with Mr. Van Auken, who told her that
the Foundation accepts easements only when the landowner calls the Foundation
and says he or she wants to donate land. She said the Foundation does not
want land given in exchange for a special use permit. When Mr. Van Auken
asked her if the property would be a voluntary gift of land, Mrs. Rosenstiel
said, she answered "no". Mr. Van Auken then told her the Foundation was not
interested in the easement, she said.
Ms. Vance asked if she could speak and said the Board should not consider
an easement on this property, if this land was not given voluntarily. She
said she thinks the Board should vote on the permit without restrictions, if
the applicant is unwilling to offer any.
Mr. St. John asked Ms. Vance if there is any difference between a conser-
vation easement and an open space easement. Ms. Vance said "no"; State law
enables both the state government and local governments to hold conservation
or open space easements. For instance, she Said, Fauquier County holds open
space easements that are given voluntarily ap part of the subdivision process
there. The Virginia Outdoors Foundation hasi~held easements all over the State
in areas that are not thought of as urban ar~as. She agreed with Mr.
Lindstrom that the definition of an urban area has been very broadly construed
in this State. i
Ms. Vance said it was her impression from the last time this request
appeared before the Board, the applicant had ~intended to preserve this open
space in a meaningful way. Now she thinks t~at may not be the case. She said
the burden is upon the applicant to show tha~. this cluster arrangement is
environmentally superior to a by-right development. Without the assurance
that this tract will be held in open space, s~he said, she does not think the
applicant has proved this. ~
Mr. Bowie asked Ms. Vance to look at th~! two maps, one showing the
cluster arrangement, the other a by-right development. He asked her which one
best preserves the land. She said the cluster arrangement is the better
development, as long as the large parcels remain undeveloped in the future.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned abou~ the density of the project.
Clustering substantially increases the density on the developed portion, he
said, and if there is no assurance that the rest of the land will not be
developed, approving this request could resui~ in increasing the density
throughout the rural areas. If the Virginia Outdoors Foundation is unwilling
to accept an easement that is not given volunkarily, he thinks the County
should acquire an easement. He said he thinks the easement will be enforce-
able, whether it was given voluntarily or not.
Mr. Lindstrom said he suspects that if the Board denies the special use
permit, the applicant will not proceed with ai by-right development, but will
try to sell the property as a single tract. Of course, he said, he cannot
guarantee that his prediction will come true,:i but he does know that the Board
can control the way the property will develop, under the cluster arrangement.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about trying to keep the property
undeveloped by using a deed restriction, which a future owner and future Board
could change, and which would amount to little more than rezoning. He said he
supports the conservation easement approach, but can think of a way to make a
deed restriction even more binding than a conservation easement. He said one
of the marketing techniques that may be used to sell lots in the cluster area
is to tell potential lot owners that they wil~ be living next to a perpetual
farm. He said he thinks these lot owners should be party to any deed restric-
tion. He said he thinks there should be a requirement in the special permit
394
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
that this restriction be put in every deed of conveyance on these lots and
that one hundred percent of the lot owners must agree in order for the re-
striction to be dropped.
Ms. Vance said she understood that deed restrictions were more enforce-
able if they were given at the time of transfer of the property. If the deed
restrictions did run to the property owners of the lots in the subdivision,
the restrictions would stand up better in court, she said.
If this were to be done, Mr. Lindstrom said, it would have to be a
condition of the special use permit that each deed contain that restriction.
Although this may be a possibility, he said, he would still like for the staff
to discuss conservation easements with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to defer action on this application
until July 20, 1988, to allow time to communicate with the Virginia Outdoors
Foundation concerning their willingness to accept conservation easements on
the Rosenstiel and Blandemar Farm tracts under the circUmstances that exist
with respect to this property and how the Foundation administers these ease-
ments. Mr. Bain seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowie said he hates to cause a needless delay. .He said he wants to
know if the Open Space Land Act would allow the County tO accept an easement
on the three hundred foot buffer zone. He said he will 8upport the motion but
he has problems delaying an action when it does not seem~to him that the Board
knows what it wants to know.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
Mr. Perkins said he favored the clustering arrangement, but he thinks the
Board needs the best instrument it can find to insure that the open space
remains open forever. He said he has a problem with the draft deed of
restriction Mr. Michie presented, particularly with the first article of
agreement, which states: "The tract shown on plat of Gloeckner and Osborne,
Inc., dated , hereto attached containing 220 acres, more or less, shall not
be further subdivided so as to create additional building sites, but portions
may be added to existing lots and common area of Blandemar Farm Subdivision".
Mr. Perkins said he thinks this gives the applicant a chance to reduce the
size of the 220 acre tract. From a forester's standpoint~ he said, that much
property is necessary to have an economical unit of forestry.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks the staff should find out wSether the appli-
cant's offer to donate land to an easement is voluntary, iiMr. Lindstrom said
he thinks it would still be an appropriate condition of approval for the
special permit to have the applicant grant an easement to'!the County, regard-
less of whether the donation is voluntary, because of the~idensity issue.
Mr. St. John said he does not see the rationale behind Mr. Lindstrom's
claim. Can the Board, he asked, exact a conveyance of interest in land in
return for granting a special use permit? Mr. Lindstrom Asked Mr. St. John to
investigate this question. Mr. Lindstrom said he wants t~ know if it is true
that the Board cannot do anything to insure that the density proposed in the
clustering arrangement is enforceable and that the applicant will not develop
the Blandemar Farm and Rosenstiel tracts. ~.
(Note:
(Note:
the motion.)
The Board recessed at 8:57 P.M. and reconvened at 9:08 P.M.)
The next three items were treated as one and !then segregated in
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-88-4. Republic Homes. To ali
the floodway fringe of an unnamed branch of Meadow Creek.
the southeast side of Greenbrier Drive adjacent to Brookmj
ow for filling in
Property located on
tl Subdivision. Tax
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Map 61Z, Parcel 1. Charlottesville District.
Progress on June 21 and June 28, 1988.)
395
(Advertised in the Daily
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-88-7. Branchlands, PUD. To amend application
plan and conditions of SP-80-63 and ZMA-80-26 Branchlands PUD. Zoned PUD.
Property located on Greenbrier Drive, off Route 29 North, within the
Branchlands PUD. Tax Map 61Z, Sections 3, 4 and 5. Charlottesville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 21 and June 28, 1988.)
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-87-09. Branchlands First & Second Land Trusts.
To fill in approximately 40,000 cubic yards of earth into the floodway fringe
of Meadow Creek. Zoned PUD. Property located on the west side of Branchlands
Drive approximately one-fourth mile north of the intersection with Greenbrier
Drive in Branchlands Village. Tax Map 61Z, Parcels 4 and 5. Charlottesville
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June.21 and June 28, 1988).
Mr. Home gave the staff's report as follows:
"Background: The original Branchlands PUD was approved in the 1970's
and a substantial revision to the plan was approved in early 1981.
Two applications were involved and review occurred during transition
from the prior to current zoning ordinance. Due to an apparent
inability to resolve certain issues among the various owners, approval
involved more than twenty conditions many of which were intended to
insure orderly phasing of development.
Since that time, various owners within the PUD periodically indicated
desires to revise the plan and conditions of approval, however, no
proposals were brought to public hearing. In the fall of 1987, County
staff recognized that potential flooding problems could be encountered
by uncoordinated development of property within the PUD and stated in
a letter of November 30, 1987, that 'CoUnty staff will not recommend
approval of any further developments within Branchlands until a
unified drainage plan is prepared and agreed upon by all members of
the PUD.' i~
The several PUD owners have submitted a~nified drainage plan (includ-
ing petitions to fill within the flood ~lain) as well as other revi-
sions to Branchlands PUD. Current applicants are: Church of the
Incarnation (Rev. Michael D. McCarron);i~ranchlands Corporation
(Ronald Langman); Dr. Charles Hurt; Republic Homes (Blake Hurt); and
Marriott Corporation.
Summary and Recommendation: Substantiv~ changes to the Application
Plan include:
Increase in total dwellings;
Increase/reallocation of commercial areas;
Inclusion of certain improvements fcom the unified drainage plan;
Deletion of Access Road 2;
Changes to pedestrian/bikeway requirements.
Staff opinion is that these changes can be accommodated without
adversely affecting adjoining properties or occasioning the need to
redesign Hillsdale Drive and Branchlands Blvd. With modifications to
land uses as recommended by staff, traffic generation will not
increase.
Should the petitions be approved, the applicants are advised to pursue
approvals from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for
the remainder of Hillsdale Drive and upgrading of Greenbrier Drive and
approvals from VDOT and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for issues
related to the unified drainage plan and. two fill permits.
(1) Staff recommends approval of ZMA-88~07 Branchlands PUD, with
conditions outlined by the applicant, together with
396
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
modifications/deletions as recommended by staff and listed in
Section IV of this report.
A.2. MAINTAIN EXISTING
A.5. MODIFY
B.2. MODIFY
B.5 MODIFY
C.1. MODIFY
C.2. MODIFY
D. LAND USE PLAN - MODIFY
(2)
Revised Application Plan and revised conditions with applicant's
signatures shall be submitted within sixty days of Board of
Supervisors' approval as required by Section 8.'5.5 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
(3)
Staff recommends approval of SP-87-09 Branchlands First and
Second Land Trusts and SP-88-04 Republic Homes to authorize fill
in the flood plain subject to the following conditions:
County Engineer approval in accordance with requirements of
30.3 FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT simultaneous with
approval of unified drainage plan;
b. Approval of appropriate local, state and federal agencies;
All channel improvements within Brookmill'~Area D) to be
accomplished at time of any filling in the!flood plain under
SP-88-04 Republic Homes.
Report Format (For Existing Conditions~ See Attachment A):
Due to substantial revisions of the several conditions governing
development of Branchlands, staff will address proposed changes in the
following manner:
Section I Existing conditions to remain in effect with no change;
Section II Existing conditions proposed for deletion;
Section III - Conditions which are new or amend existing conditions.
Section IV - Consolidated new conditions for approval by the Board.
SECTION I - EXISTING CONDITIONS TO REMAIN IN EFFECT:
Section D of the existing conditions would remain in, effect as .new
Section E reading as follows:
E. Modification and Waiver of Zoning Ordinance ReguSations.
Section 8.5.6.4 Building Permits shall not apply to existing
structures in Areas B and C unless the provisions of 32.0 require
a site plan prior to issuance of such permit.
Section 20.8.6 Setback and Yard Regulations shall be established
at time of final approvals as opposed to establishment at time of
rezoning.
Section 20.4, Permitted Uses: Commercial/ServiCe; Section 20.9,
Regulations Governing Commercial/Service Areas;.Section 20.4
shall apply to Areas C, E and F. For Area C, Commercial/Service
areas established in accordance with 20.8.3 shall be in addition
to uses to be located in the existing manor house. Limitations
of 20.9.3 shall not apply to Areas E and F.
4. Section 20.9.4 Building Permits shall not apply~,to Areas C, E and
F.
Section A.2 of the existing conditions would remain · n effect, and
read as follows:
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
397
A.2. For Areas A, C and D of the Application Plan, open space require-
ments of 20.8.2 and recreational area requirements in 20.8.3 of
the Zoning Ordinance shall be met for each area individually.
Modification: For Area C, a minimum of 50 square feet/dwelling
unit of recreational area shall be developed for adult recreation
purposes. No recreational area for pre-school or elementary
school aged children shall be required.
SECTION II. EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR DELETION: The applicants and
staff have worked toward reducing the number of conditions governing
this PUD. The following are staff's recommendations for existing
conditions to be deleted which include ~all requests by the applicants
as well as some additional deletions recommended by staff:
A.3. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer
plans shall be obtained prior to final subdivision plat or site
plan approval for any phase to be developed. Ail on-site and
off-site water and sewer improvements shall be provided by the
developer at no cost to the Service Authority. (COMMENT: This
is a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance and all off-site
improvements have been accomplished.)
A.4. No final subdivision plat or site plan for any phase of develop-
ment shall be approved by the Planning Commission until approval
has been obtained from the County ~ngineer of a stormwater
detention facilities/drainage plani!'in accordance with the urban
stormwater detention ordinance, the Flood Hazard Overlay Dis-
trict, and all other applicable law. In such review the County
Engineer may consult the Soil Conservation Service or other
Agency deemed appropriate and shall be mindful of past grad-
ing/filling activity in areas proposed for development and of
possible upstream enlargement of d~ainage facilities. (COMMENT:
This condition will be replaced by~ew section B conditions and
the unified drainage plan.)
A.9. No final approvals shall be grante~, by the Planning Commission
until the Squire Hills Apartments s~ite plan has been amended in
regard to the Branchlands collector, road. Such amendment shall
be subject to Staff and Virginia D~partment of Transportation
approvals. (COMMENT: This condition has been satisfied and the
Branchlands collector road [Hillsd~le Drive] has been constructed
in Squire Hills.) ~
B.2. In addition to the requirements of~8.5.6.4, no grading permit
shall be issued for public or private roads until road plans have
been approved by the Virginia Depa=tment of Transportation and/or
the County Engineer, as the case m~y be. (COMMENT: This is
currently an ordinance restriction.? Due to extensive grading
demands for road construction, the iBoard has authorized waiver of
this provision.)
B.4. The Planning Commission has determined that the Branchlands
collector road is in substantial compliance with the Comprehen-
sive Plan. (COMMENT: The Branchl~nds collector road [Hillsdale
Drive] involves Fashion Square, Squire Hills apartments and
Branchlands PUD. The roadway and connections have been built in
Squire Hills and Fashion Square andl is currently under construc-
tion in Branchlands. Recommended conditions will insure comple-
tion of this roadway.)
Branchlands Collector Road - Sectioh 1 shall be from Greenbrier
Drive to north of the intersection ~ith Access Road 2. Section 2
shall be from south of the intersection with Access Road 2 to
north of the intersection with the ~xisting Branchlands entrance
road. Section 3 shall be from south of the intersection with the
existing Branchlands entrance road ~o the property line of Squire
Hills Apartments.
398
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
C. Phasing of Development: Since no chronological phasing plan has
been proposed by the applicants at this time, conditions addressing
phasing of development intentionally overlay. Improvements will be
required in accordance with conditions contained herein in the order
in which development occurs. Improvements required shall not be
deferred to a future phase of development.
Except as otherwise provided herein, all features and
improvements within a delineated area of development shall
be provided concomitant with the development of the particu-
lar area (i.e., Areas A through F of the Application Plan).
The extension of Greenbrier Drive shall be constructed to
Virginia Department of Transportation standards and dedi-
cated for acceptance into the State Highway System, and
Access Road 2 from Route 29 North to Area C shall be con-
structed to private road standards at the time of develop-
ment of Areas C and/or D.
Sections 1 and 2 of the Branchlands collector road and
Access Road 2 from Route 29 North to the Branchlands col-
lector road shall be constructed to Virgihia Department of
Highways & Transportation standards and dedicated for
acceptance into the State Highway System at the time of
development of Area E.
4. The existing Branchlands entrance shall be relocated and
constructed to the satisfaction of the Virginia Department
of Highways & Transportation prior to the~issuance of any
building permit for any phase of development which would
have access to and increase traffic at the existing entrance
provided that the Planning Commission, upQn recommendation
of the Virginia Department of Transportation, may waive this
requirement for a particular phase of development upon a
finding that the existing entrance would 5e adequate to
accommodate in a safe manner such traffic las may be occa-
sioned by such development.
(COMMENT: These conditions will be replaced b~ other phasing
conditions to guarantee roadway construction.)
SECTION III - PROPOSED CONDITIONS:
This section of the report will address each proposed condition.
Existing conditions which are related to a proposed 9ondition will
also be included in the discussion. (Modifications ~ecommended by
staff are indicated by typing through language for d&letion and
underscoring new wording.) ~
A. GENERAL ~
Proposed A.1. The revised application plan is appended to this
document as Exhibit 1. The original PUD letteridated 2/20/81 is
appended to this document as Exhibit 2. Documentation supporting
the unified drainage plan contained herein has ~een forwarded to
Albemarle County Engineering under a separate c~ver. (COMMENT:
In accordance with Section 8.5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance, any
required changes to these documents must be submitted within
sixty days of Board approval.)
Proposed A.2. For Areas A, C and D of the ApplicatiOn Plan, open
space requirements of 20.8;2 and recreational ayea requirements
in 20.8.3 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be met $or each area
individually. Modification: For Area C &-B a ~inimum of 50
square feet/dwelling unit of recreational area ~hall be developed
for adult recreation purposes. No recreational!area for
pre-school or elementary school-aged children shall be required.
(COMMENT: Current zoning regulations provide f6:r modifications
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
399
of recreation facility types upon approval of the Director of
Planning and Community Development.)
Proposed A.3. Approval by County Attorney's Office of homeowners
association agreements for the maintenance of driveways, open
space, and other commonly-owned or common-use amenities.
Owners of properties designated for commercial use and Walter F.
Sullivan, Bishop of Richmond, as owner of Area B (a 12.0 acre
tract to be reserved for church purposes and not sold as part of
the planned community property referred to hereinafter as the
church property) shall not be required to be members of the
homeowners' association; provided that these owners shall be
solely responsible for the maintenance of the driveways, open
space, etc., located within their respective tracts, and that
such maintenance shall be comparable to that level established in
the homeowner's association agreements for other such uses.
Should commercial development or sale of commercially designated
property occur prior to the establishment of homeowners' associa-
tion agreements, the Planning Commission may require in the deed
restrictions for such property, provisions for the maintenance of
such driveways, open spaces, etc., as the Commission shall deem
appropriate for adequate buffering and protection of residential
areas and for the reasonable usageof such areas by future
residents of the planned community~
In respect to usage, the homeowners' association members shall
enjoy the same rights and privileges of use of driveways, open
space, etc., within commercially designated area but not includ-
ing the church property, as shall be established by homeowners'
association agreements for other such uses within the planned
community.
In addition to the foregoing, for Areas A, C and D, portions of
the open space and recreational facilities provided may be
reserved for the exclusive use of ~he residents of such area,
either in common or individually, ~bject to Commission approval.
(COMMENT: Changes between this cor~ition and existing A.6. are
underlined.)
Proposed A.4. Approval by the County ACtorney's Office of deed
restrictions for sections to be sold. The County Attorney shall
review such documents for provisio~ adequate to insure compli-
ance with conditions of approval contained herein. Currently the
church has a deed restriction in pl~cewhich restricts commer.cial
development on it's boundaries. In'specific this deed restric-
tion says 'that portion of the propgrty which is located within
200 feet of the boundaries of the 1~ acres reserved by the
grantor as described above, shall b~ developed only for residen-
tial uses unless the grantor or his!successors agree in writing
to some other use.' (Deed Book 709i Page 688)
Existing A.7. Approval by the County Attorney's Office of deed
restrictions for sections to be sold. The County Attorney shall
review such documents for provisions adequate to ensure compli-
ance with conditions of approval contained herein. (COMMENT:
Added wording refers to deed restrictions on certain areas within
the PUD. Staff recommends inclusio9 of this added wording for
informational purposes only. The Cgunty does not enforce deed
restrictions. Inclusion of this la~guage in ZMA-88-07 does not
preclude change to deed restrictions nor will any change warrant
amendment of ZMA-88-07.)
Proposed A.5. In addition to current de~d restrictions, twenty (20)
foot landscaping buffers shall be p~ovided at the time of devel-
opment by the developer between commercial areas and residential
areas within the PUD. In particula~ the developers of commercial
properties of the PUD shall supply ~hese twenty (20) foot
4OO
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
landscaping buffers on their properties. Twenty (20) foot land-
scaping buffers shall be established between Hillsdale Drive and
the residential areas within the PUD. The members of the PUD
shall establish twenty (20) foot landscaping buffers between the
PUD property and other adjacent property. Fencing and/or appro-
priate screening may be required between residential and commer-
cial areas and between the PUD and adjoining parcels. Area B of
the PUD is specifically exempt from any these landscaping re-
quirements; provided that the Planning Commission may require
landscaping in accordance with Section 32.7.9 LANDSCAPING AND
SCREENING REQUIREMENTS of the Zoning Ordinance at time of approv-
al of any development within Area B.
Existing A.8. Fencing and/or appropriate screening along the Chapel
Hill Subdivision boundary may be required by the Planning Commis-
sion at time of final approvals. (COMMENT: The proposed condi-
tion establishes definitive minimum landscaping requirements
between various land uses. It in no manner precludes the Plan-
ning Commission from requiring additional measures as deemed
appropriate for any area within the PUD.)
Proposed A.6. Each owner of a specific section (A,~B, C, D, E OR F)
shall be responsible for any and all improvements indicated on
this plan which falls on their property. The Church Area B is
specifically excluded from any responsibility for any improve-
ments on their property (For Area B only). The only exceptions
to this are as follows:
a. The owners of Area C and E shall split th~ cost of adding
the fifth 72 inch pipe under Greenbrier D~ive.
b. The owner of Area C shall construct the walk on one side of
the church road.
(COMMENT: This condition, among other things, irelieves the
church from road and sidewalk construction as s~own on the
Application Plan. It should not be deemed to r~lieve the church
of responsibility of any future improvements which may be
required for further development of Area B.)
Proposed B. STORM WATER DETENTION AND DRAINAGE PLAN~ The require-
ments established herein are based on studies by engineering consul-
tants hired by the owners to be reviewed and approved by the Albemarle
County Engineering Department. This report dated 3/128/88 from
Gloeckner & Osborne is (on file) as supporting documentation. Por-
tions of a general and unified drainage plan have a~eady been
approved and have allowed for the initial development of the PUD. In
order to accommodate the ultimate impact to the PUD ~n surrounding
properties, the following unified drainage plan is s~bmitted.
B. 1. The individual members of the PUD agree to gran~ drainage ease-
ments for the benefit of the PUD. The owners o~ the PUD agree to
take the necessary measures to implement these ~mprovements.
f o
B.2. A Wetlands Water Quality area will serve as a partial detention
area. In cooperation with the County Engineerihg Department and
the University of Virginia, the owners of the PUD empowered the
owner of Area E to build a Wetlands Area. Due ~o the probable
transfer of properties to owners other than the ~original PUD
members, the owner of Area E or F will deed an easement to the
County of Albemarle for the most effective continual monitoring
and-ma~n~enanee of the Wetlands area. If at so~e future time ~he
We~tands-Observa~ ~on-~eam- de~erm~nes-~he-wa~er-~ ~a~y- $~dy
a~ompte~ed~ the County Engineering Department d~termines that the
wetlands is no longer serving its intended purp, ,se of water
quality management the project will be terminat, fd and the ease-
ment deeded-back vacated. Alternative developm~.nt of this land
will be possible at that time, following standa~id site plan
procedures, and provision of stormwater mana~em~ nt measures in
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
401
accordance with Section 32.7.4 of the Zonin~ Ordinance for all of
Area E and F.
B.3. The 27-inch diameter pipe positioned under the existing church
road will not be increased or decreased in diameter. The size of
this pipe limits the velocity of stormwater flow, effectively
creating a natural detention ar~a on Lot 4 of Area F. The storm-
water detention capacity of the area upstream of this pipe within
the PUD will not be decreased in any way whatsoever. This
natural detention area and the 27 inch diameter pipe under the
church road shall be maintained by the owner of Lot 4 Area F.
B.4. The six foot by six foot box culverts though Area E control
stormwater runoff from areas west of Route 29 through the PUD the
point shown on Exhibit 1.
B.5. The current HUD flood hazard overlay map indicates a one hundred
year flood plain at elevation 399 within the Branchlands PUD. It
is understood that an actual one hundred year flood may exceed
this limit, hence the members of the PUD have agreed to this
unified drainage plan. A channel designed to accommodate the one
hundred year storm shall be approved by the Albemarle County
Engineering Department. The channel will be constructed though
the PUD as shown on Exhibit 1 and as shown on the specific
drainage plan prepared by Gloeckner & Osborne. Riprap of the
channel will be installed to a standard sufficient to provide
channel stability and control effects of channel erosion. This
channel will allow the development iof Area C to fill to the
drainage easement necessary for the channel. Construction of the
channel will proceed with the devellopment of Area E, and Area F,
OR the filling of Area C whichever shall occur first. In addi-
tion a fifth 72 inch pipe shall be~i~'added under Greenbrier Drive
at the time of the construction off,the drainage channel.
(COMMENT: Proposed conditions in B. STORMWATER DETENTION AND
DRAINAGE PLAN are intended to insure orderly development and
stormwater management. Proposed filling under SP-87-09
BRANCHLANDS FIRST AND SECOND LAND TRUST and SP-88-04 REPUBLIC
HOMES will be reviewed for confor~ce with the requirements of
30.3 FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT :by the County Engineer
coterminous with review of the unified drainage plan.
Regarding staff-recommended changesl: to B.2., staff opinion is
that maintenance of the Wetlands area should be the responsibil-
ity of the PUD. Stormwater management for all of Area E and F
would be required if development isi proposed for the Wetlands
area. Changes in B.5. are intended~to avoid future debate as to
responsibility/timing of improvements.)
Proposed C. TRANSPORTATION PLAN. ~
C.1. Primary ingress and egress for Area~ A, B, E and F will derive
from 29 North, north and south at B~anchlands Boulevard. Secon-
dary access will derive at Rio Road! and Fashion Square Mall
through Squire Hills, by way Hillsd~le Drive. Branchlands
Boulevard and Section 1 of Hillsdal9 Drive to Branchlands Boule-
vard are currently under construction to a standard approved by
VDOT for acceptance into the state ~ighway system. The remainder
of Hillsdale Drive shall be designe~ for acceptance into the
state system by VDOT, and constructed at time of development of
any portion of Area E or F. ~
Direct access to 29 North shall occBr only at Branchlands Boule-
vard, and the developer shall provide signalization of the
intersection of Route 29 North and Branchlands Boulevard at time
of any development of Area E or F.
Existing B.1. Except as otherwise approved in Area C, all roads are
to be designed and built to VDOT standards and dedicated for
acceptance into the state highway S~stem. Limitation of internal
402
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
access to public roads should be considered in the design of such
roads only if the Application Plan is amended to reflect such
limitation of access.
Existing B.3. There shall not be more than three entrances from Route
29 North, inclusive of access to Greenbrier Drive. Access to
Route 29 North shall be subject to VDOT approval, including but
not limited to the possible requirement of new crossovers and
signalization. Internal intersections with Route 29 North access
roads shall be 200 feet or more from the right-of-way of Route 29
North.
(COMMENT: Changes recommended by staff would establish timing
and nature of improvements.)
Proposed C.2. Primary ingress and egress for Areas C and D will
derive from 29 North by way of Greenbrier Drive. Greenbrier
Drive was designed and built to VDOT standards for acceptance
into the state highway system as of 1984.
Existing B.5. The extension of Greenbrier Drive from the end of state
maintenance to the Branchlands collector road Shall be designed
in accordance with VDOT standards to accommodate traffic antici-
pated from the Branchlands collector road and Areas C and D, and
dedicated for acceptance into the state highway~ system. From the
Branchlands collector road to Areas C and D, Gr~eenbrier Drive
shall be designed in accordance with VDOT standards to accommo-
date traffic anticipated from Areas C and D, ahd dedicated for
acceptance into the state highway system. (CO~MMENT: Staff
recommends modification of this existing condition to become new
C.2 to read as follows:)
Proposed C.2. The extension of Greenbrier Drive fro~ the end of state
maintenance to Hillsdale Drive the-Br~n~htands~lte~r-r~ad
shall be designed in accordance with VDOT standards to accommo-
date traffic anticipated from ~he-Branehtands-d~.6tte~r-r~ad
Hillsdale Drive and Areas C and D, and dedicated for acceptance
into the state highway system at time of develdpment of any
portion of Area E or F. From ~he-Branehtands-d~ttee~r-r~d
Hillsdale Drive to Areas C and D, Greenbrier D~ive shall be
designed in accordance with VDOT standards to accommodate traffic
anticipated from Areas C and D, and dedicated f~or acceptance into
the state highway system.
Proposed C.3. Access Road II from 29 North to Hills~ale Drive and
then through Area C is no longer deemed necessary and shall not
be installed. (COMMENT: Staff recommends dele{ion of Access
Road II. While proposed C.3. may be unnecessar~ language, staff
has no objection to its inclusion.)
Proposed C.4. With the exception of Brookmill Drive~ pedestrian
walkways will be provided on one side of all public roads to VDOT
standards. An additional pedestrian walkway will be provided
across Area C to Hillsdale Drive along one side!'of the existing
church road. These walkways shall take the place of the
bike/pedestrian path in the existing PUD and this bike/pedestrian
path shall not be installed. ~
Existing A.5. Bike and pedestrian trails should be ~onstructed along
open space corridors (stream beds) or sewer easements. Such
construction shall occur with each phase of development on the
open space corridors and sewer easements locate~ within or
immediately adjacent to that phase of development; provided that
the Planning Commission may require reasonable extension of such
bike/pedestrian trail through other areas if such extension
provides linkage to an existing or approved bik~ trail.
In addition to such other bike/pedestrian trail~ as maybe pro-
posed by the developer or required by the Commission, the north-
south trail shown on the Application Plan shall'be constructed to
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
403
connect to the bike/pedestrian trail in the Fashion Square Mall
and to the proposed Charlottesville trail to the south.
Existing C.6. The bike/pedestrian trail in Area B shall be construct-
ed by the applicants at no cost to the owner of Area B concomi-
tant with the construction of the trail in Area A or C, whichever
shall occur first. The owner of Area B has consented to grant an
easement for the construction of the bike/pedestrian trail at a
location across Area B which does not interfere with the use of
Area B by the owner thereof.
(COMMENT: Sidewalk has been constructed in Squire Hills and
Greenbrier Drive. The walkways/sidewalks on the other roadways
in the PUD will provide continuous,pedestrian facilities through
the area. Staff recommends acceptance of proposed C.4.)
Proposed D. LAND USE PLAN. Locations and acreages of various land
uses and residential densities shall comply with the Revised Applica-
tion Plan, Exhibit 1.
Area
A
B
C
D
E
F
Lot 5
Lot 6
Lot 6A
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 7
Lot 4
Proposed A.10.
Acreage
7.04
12.00
26.63
14,915
1.5
8.11
1.0
4.09
1.00
5.84
3.28
DesiKnation of Areas:
Use
120 units residential
Church
312 units elderly
90 units residential
Net usable acreage commercial/service
Net usable acreage commercial/service
Net commercial/service (wetlands)
Net usable acreage Marriott
Net usable acreage commercial/service
Net usable acreage commercial/service
No development
Area
A
B
C
D
E
F
Use
82 dwelling units
Church
312 dwelling units, ~lderly
90 dwelling units
11.0 commercial service acreage
8.7 commercial servi~e acreage
(.COMMENT: At time of revision of B~anchlands in 1980-81, staff
took position that a variety of lanR uses could be recommended
providing that the resulting mix did not increase traffic to
U. S. Route 29 North. VDOT observed that the initial land use
scheme proposed under ZMA-88-07 would have increased traffic by
about 8,000 vehicle trips per day. 'Since that time, staff has
worked with the applicant to reduce traffic volumes to a level
comparable to estimates used in 1981. Staff recommends three
changes which would provide a more compatible land use scheme
and not increase traffic generation!above previously approved
levels.
Area A is currently approved for 82 dwellings with a
requested increase to 120 dwellings. Staff can recommend a
30 percent density increase to ~106 units provided that the
site is developed in low/moderate cost housing in accor-
dance with Section 17.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Area F, Lot 2 is proposed for one acre of commer-
cial/service development. The Wilbur Smith study showed
medical offices, which in staff opinion would be more
consistent with the church/school across Hillsdale Drive
and would generate much less t~affic than general retail
uses. ~
404
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Area E, Lot 5 is proposed for 1.5 acres of commercial/
service development. Office uses would be more compatible
to the abutting retirement community and would generate
much less traffic than general retail uses.
Staff recommends the following land use schedule:
Area
A
B
C
D
E
F
Acreage Use
Lot 5
Lot 6
Lot 6A
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 7
Lot 4
7.04
12.00
26.63
14.915
1.5
8.11
1.0
4.09
1.00
5.84
3. 285
82 dwellings OR 106 low/moderate cost units
Church
312 dwellings elderly housing
90 dwellings
Net usable acres office
Net usable acres - commercial/service
Net usable acres commercial/service or wetlands
Marriott (commercial/service)
Net usable acres - office
Net usable acres - commercial/service
No development
SECTION IV - STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR ZMA-88-7 BRANCHIANDS, PUD. As
set out above with addition of:
MODIFICATION ANDWAIVEROF ZONING ORDINANCE I{EGULATIONS
Section 8.5.6.4 Building Permits shall not apply to exist-
ing structures in Areas B and C unless the provisions of
32.0 require a site development plan prior to issuance of
such permit.
Section 20.8.6 Setback and Yard Regulations shall be
established at time of final approvals as Opposed to
establishment at time of rezoning.
Section 20.4 Permitted Uses: Commercial/Service;
Section 20.9 Regulations Governing Commercial/Service
Areas. Section 20.4 shall apply to Areas C, E and F. For
Area C, Commercial/Service areas established in accordance
with 20.8.3 shall be in addition to uses to be located in
the existing manor house. Limitations of 20.9.3 shall not
apply to Areas E and F.
Section 20.9.4 Building Permits shall not apply to Areas C,
E and F.
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 28, 1988,
unanimously recommended approval of SP-88-4, ZMA-88-7 andlSP-87-9, with
conditions noted.
Mr. Home said the staff wished to insure that the various landowners
carried out several important conditions of approval. The first such condi-
tion is the construction of Hillsdale Drive, which goes f~:om Greenbrier Drive,
to Branchlands Boulevard, which connects to Route 29 North, and ends at Rio
Road. He said a part of Branchlands Boulevard and a northern section of
Hillsdale Drive were required to be built at the same tim~ the Marriott Hotel
was being constructed. The lower sections of Hillsdale Drive are required to
be built when sections F and E of the PUD are developed.
Mr. Home said the unified drainage plan is another important feature of
the staff's recommended conditions of approval. He said ~he drainage plan
deals largely with the runoff from the Marriott area and dections F and E. He
said the staff has allowed the construction of a wetlandsiarea in the southern
end of Hillsdale Drive near Greenbrier Drive. He said this wetlands area will
filter the runoff and improve its quality but will not provide much detention
for stormwater management. The unified drainage plan would create a series of
channels through this area to channel the water produced mY larger storms.
Mr. Lindstrom asked where the fill-in would occur. Mr. Horne said it
would occur in two separate areas. The first fill-in would take place in area
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
405
C, between Branchlands Drive and a tributary of Meadow Creek, and would bring
this area up to a level useful for construction. He said this fill-in should
be accomplished in conjunction with the drainage improvements that are a part
of the unified master drainage plan. The second area to be filled in is in
the Brookmill area, in a section of meadow bounded by Meadow Creek and a
tributary of Meadow Creek.
Mr. Lindstrom said the proposed fill-in would narrow the area occupied by
flood waters and asked what effect that might have on the velocity of the
water as it flowed through these narrowed channels. Mr. Horne said the
velocity would increase and added that Mr. Steve Cresswell of the Engineering
Department is present and could explain the effects of the fill-in in more
detail.
Mr. Lindstrom said the proposed drainage channels may help with the
runoff near the fill-in and asked what is being done to handle the increase in
the stormwater's velocity further down the creek. He said he once conducted
an environmental survey of Meadow Creek and was amazed at the erosion down-
stream which has resulted from more water moving faster through Meadow Creek,
due to development upstream. Mr. Home said Mr. Cresswell could comment upon
this issue.
Mr. Horne said the applicant is also requesting a rearrangement of land
uses. If the conditions recommended by the staff are adopted, the change will
be only slightly different from the original~iapplication. Mr. Home said
these changes would not change the level of traffic estimated in 1981, nor
would the level of development change greatly.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the wetlands would be in lieu of a detention
basin. Mr. Horne said "yes" and added that ~he wetlands allowed the County to
increase the quality of the water while sacrificing some of the water deten-
tion capability. Unlike a detention basis, Be said, the wetlands are designed
to filter and increase the quality of water ~hat is discharged into the
channel.
Mr. Bain asked if the unified drainage Plan took into consideration the
detention ponds planned near Berkmar Drive. ~Mr. Home said the plan took into
account the ultimate development of the PUD ~d the installation of the
detention basins to be built upstream.
Mr. Lindstrom asked who would manage th~ wetlands. Mr. Horne said the
owners of the PUD will be required to maintaih the wetlands and the County's
watershed management official will monitor t~is management. If the County
determines that the wetlands are no longer functioning as they were intended,
then the County can allow this area to be de~eloped, if the developer provides
detention facilities to take the place of thel. wetlands.
Mr. Lindstrom said if he were a developer, he might be tempted not to
manage the wetlands very well so the County Would determine the concept does
not work, and then he could develop the propgrty. He said the expense of a
detention basis might deter someone from carrying out this line of reasoning.
Mr. Home said he thinks it would be quite an. undertaking for a developer to
retrofit water detention facilities. He said! this retrofit could be done, but
there are no areas reserved for water detentibn facilities and it could be
difficult to find the necessary space after the property has been developed.
Mr. Bain asked what would happen if the wetlands experiment really did
not work and the properties have been developed to a point that makes it
difficult to retrofit water detention basins.'~I~ Mr. Cresswell said there is no
reason to think that the wetlands will not work, as long as the system is
maintained properly. He said the wetlands have already been proved to work;
the purpose of this experiment is to see how well the wetlands work, whether
they remove 30, 50 or 80 percent of the sediment in runoff.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the wetlands concept has been tested in areas with
clay composition soils of the sort the Countyihas. Mr. Cresswell said he was
not sure what the soil types were in the areas tested. He said clay soils
have a tendency to stay suspended in water longer. He said the University has
studied the pond built at the Four Seasons development and determined that it
406
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
has reduced the amount of sediment in the water. In fact, he said, that pond
has filtered the water so effectively it needs to be dredged.
Mr. Lindstrom said he wants to know how much disruption there will be if
the wetlands system does not work and water detention basins haveto be built.
He said he thinks there may be an incentive for the wetlands not to work,
especially if the people who are to maintain the wetlands do not think they
will be required to put in a detention pond. Mr. Home said the staff is
recommending that a detention pond be built if the wetlands fail.
Mr. Horne moved on to elucidate the staff's recommended conditions for
approval of ZMA-88-7. He said the original application called for a second
access road to Route 29 North. He said the applicants have proposed to delete
this road and the staff recommends the deletion as well.
Mr. Lindstrom asked why proposed condition C.4 replaces "bike and pedes-
trian trails" with "pedestrian walkways". He said it seems to him that the
existing condition gives the staff more flexibility; under the proposed condi-
tion, all the developer would have to build is sidewalks. Mr. Horne said the
City had adopted a bicycle plan that was in effect when this application was
approved in 1981. He said this bicycle plan showed a bicycle trail going
through this area. He said the City now has no intention of building bicycle
trails anywhere near this area, nor has the Fashion Square bicycle path
materialized. Therefore, he said, the staff thought it would be more appro-
priate to have sidewalks, which the VDoT would maintain,'installed along one
side of Hillsdale Drive and Branchlands Boulevard. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said the existing condition provided for bicycle and
pedestrian trails along the open spaces as well as the r~ads. He said he is
concerned that the staff may be giving up the right to require these more
informal kinds of paths. Mr. Horne said there are two areas that will be
residentially developed: area "c", the retirement villa§e, and area "a", the
undeveloped lot close to the church. He said residents 0~if area "a" will have
direct access to a VDoT sidewalk that will bring them down Hillsdale Drive all
the way to the sidewalk on Greenbrier Drive. Within area "c", the developer
has already built a series of pedestrian trails and ther~' is a condition that
there will be a pedestrian walkway across this area to Hi~llsdale Drive. He
said the staff has moved away from the bicycle concept behause it did not m~%ke
sense to install an isolated section of bicycle path tha~ did not link up to
paths going anywhere else.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks there is a difference ~tween having a
sidewalk to allow residents to reach point "b" from "a" and having a walking
path that may be more of a recreational facility. ~
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Cresswell how filling in the floo~ plain and narrowing
the channel would affect Meadow Creek~downstream. Mr. Cresswell said the
engineering staff did not study Meadow Creek because mostlof the fill-in will
be along tributaries. He said his report focused on the ~hannelization
through the PUD to make sure that the channels could conv~y a one hundred year
storm without damaging the PUD, overtopping Greenbrier Dr~ve and flooding out
Brookmill. Most of the fill-in occurred along an unnamed branch of Meadow
Creek and the staff hired Mark Osborne of Gloecker and Osporne Associates to
make sure the channels could contain the water. He said ~he staff did not
think the small amount of fill-in proposed along Meadow C~eek would have an
impact downstream.
Mr. Lindstrom said a series of small fill-ins along eadow Creek over ter
years or so could have a cumulative effect. Mr. CresswelI agreed.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if the a~plicant wished
to
address the Board.
Mr. Langman, president of Branchlands Corporation, a~dressed the Board
and said he would speak for the applicant. He said it haJ taken about six
years to reach this point in getting the plan for the PUD lchanged. He said he
thinks the plan before the Board is a good one, and the C~-unty staff and all
the applicants have worked together to study drainage, l~d use, and every-
thing they could think of to make this PUD as beneficial~o the County as
possible.
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
407
He said he would like to respond to some of Mr. Lindstrom's concerns. By
the time the flood water has reached the Branchlands area, the best thing to
do is to let it pass through while causing a little damage as possible. He
said he thinks the channelization and improvements are better for the passing
of that stormwater through the development than any detention basin.
As for the walkways, Mr. Langman said he has built a lot of pedestrian
areas into the Retirement Village. He said he does not think a bicycle path
would be as usable as sidewalks and walkways,
In conclusion, he said, this plan before the Board provides unified
systems of drainage and transportation. He said he thinks the land use plan
will accurately reflect the pattern of development that Will take place in the
PUD.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the emended plan~designated open space areas. Mr.
Home said there are some designated open space areas on the plan that do not
correspond very well with what is really on the ground. He said most of the
open space would not be conducive to pedestrian walkways. He said the roadway
would be built where the most useful open space for walkways might have been.
Mr. Langman commented that the marshy terrain made it difficult to build
bicycle paths and walkways that would be pleasant for people to walk or ride
upon.
Mr. Mark Osborne, of Gloeckner and Osborne, addressed the Board and said
his company conducted the study of the drainage for this project and the
surrounding area. He said this study took about 300 man hours to complete.
At this point, he said, he is satisfied that the channels and the piping
system and the various areas holding water w~.thin the PUD to protect everyone
are in accordance with the requirements of t~e Zoning Ordinance. He said he
was concerned that backwater could make Greenbrier Drive unsafe. With the
four pipes currently under Greenbrier Drive, ieven if the area outside the PUD
were completely developed and a one hundred ~ear storm swept through, there
would be one inch of water over the road, regardless of how much of ~he PUD is
developed. After the channels have been installed and a fifth pipe ~placed
under Greenbrier Drive, the one hundred year/istorm mark would fall about six
inches below the top of the road, he said. Se said he feels the drainage plan
will enhance the safety of people who live i~ the PUD, as well as the access
to the Retirement Village. ~;
Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Osborne's study a~ressed the velocity of
stormwater downstream from the PUD. Mr. Osbo!rne said "no", since it was
understood that wetlands would replace storm ~detention basins in the PUD~ He
said he thinks the County has already, in a b~ck-door sort of way, mitigated
the stormwater management problems downstream on Meadow Creek. He said he is
referring to the stormwater detention basins ithe County has built upstream.
He said he thinks it is feasible to build sto~rmwater detention basins only in
the headwaters of major streams, where the drainage basin is no bigger than
the one square mile mentioned in the Zoning Ordinance. Once the drainage
basins increase to the size of the Meadow Creek basin, which is about ten
square miles, channel improvements become the logical thing to do, he said.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is still concerned that no one has studied the
cumulative effect of this fill-in and future fill-ins along Meadow Creek. He
said he wants to know if allowing this fill-in may set a precedent that will
cause problems in the future. Mr. Cresswell said the area to filled would be
the floodway fringe, not the floodway. He said if all the land in the
floodway fringe were filled in, it would not raise the water level in Meadow
Creek more than one foot. He said he does not know what filling the entire
floodway fringe would do to the velocity of water flowing through the Meadow
Creek. In this particular situation, the fill-in would occur on the outer
edge of the floodway fringe and he did not think the impact would be signifi-
cant enough to study. '
Mr. Langman said there are significant d~tention basins within the PUD.
He said there is a natural flood basin in are~ "b" and a lake in area "c". He
said he and Mr. Osborne studied the entire, o~e-mile square drainage basin
that led down to the PUD and he thinks the channel improvements and the
wetlands will improve things appreciably. He'said he has lived in the flood
408
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
basin of the Meadow Creek and has seen the flooding problems and even swam in
some of them. He said he thinks the drainage plan will handle any flooding in
the PUD and the fill-in will have only a minimal effect. He said most of the
areas he plans to fill in are at 406 or 407 feet in elevation, which is
considerably over the flood hazard overlay of 399 feet.
Since no one else wished to speak concerning these requests, Mr. Way
closed the public hearing and placed the petitions before the Board for a
decision.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has two concerns. He said he does not think
leaving conditions "A-5" and "C-4", regarding the pedestrian paths, the way
they were worded will impose a requirement upon the developer, but he does
think it will give the staff and the Planning Commission more flexibility as
they review site plans. He said he does not think the staff and Planning
Con~nission must force the developers to build paths though swamps, but the PUD
is supposed to be internally oriented, and he thinks recreational facilities
such as walkways should be a part of this orientation. He said he does not
mind deleting the requirement about bicycle trails.
Mr. Horne said "C-6" covered Area B, where Mr. Langman has already had
,,A~5,,
walkways built, so he would suggest leaving condition r the way it was.
Mr. Lindstrom agreed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is also concerned about the cumulative effects of
fill-in and regrets that this has not been studied in a more comprehensive
fashion. He said the natural detention basin and the pond that was pointed
out by Mr. Langman may mitigate the problem, but he said~he visited the site
on a rainy day and water was moving all over the place, in the streets, down
the hills, down the channels, and out of the pond. If memory serves him
correctly, he said, this area has experienced three one hundred year storms in
the past decade. Mr. Bain pointed out that these storms.~nd the attendant
flooding all occurred before the regional detention basinlwas finished.
Mr. Bain said he has a problem with leaving conditiO~ A-5 as it is. He
said it states that the developers will have to install bicycle and pedestrian
paths, and he does not think this makes much sense in commercial areas. Mr.
Lindstrom said he wishes to give the Planning Commissioni'the flexibility to
require walkways as part of a site plan if it appears appropriate when the
site plan comes up.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to
approve ZMA-88-7, Branchlands PUD, subject to the conditions of the Planning
Commission, inserting the first paragraph of existing "A-5" and deleting
references to bike path in "C-4" plus the last sentence. ~There was no further
discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by th~ following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
The conditions of approval read:
1. The revised application plan is appended to this document
as Exhibit 1. The original PUD letter dated 2/20/81 is
appended to this document as Exhibit 2. D~cumentation
supporting the unified drainage plan contained herein has
been forwarded to Albemarle County Engineering under a
separate cover. ~
2. For Areas A, C and D of the Applicat±on Pi n, open space
requirements of 20.8.2 and recreational ar~a requirements
in 20.8.3 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be~:.imet for each
area individually. Modification: For Area:lC a minimum of
50 square feet/dwelling unit of recreational area shall be
developed for adult recreation purposes. 4o recreational
area for pre-school or elementary school-a~ed eh±ldren
shall be required. ~
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
409
Approval by County Attorney's Office of homeowners associa-
tion agreements for the maintenance of driveways, open
space, and other commonly-owned or common use amenities.
Owners of properties designated for commercial use and
Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop of Richmond, as owner of Area B
(a 12.0 acre tract to be reserved for church purposes and
not sold as part of the planned community property referred
to hereinafter as the church property) shall not be
required to be members of the homeowners' association;
provided that these owners shall be solely responsible for
the maintenance of the driveways, open space, etc. located
within their respective tracts, and that such maintenance
shall be comparable to that level established in the
homeowners' association agreements for other such uses.
Should commercial development or sale of commercially
designated property occur prior to the establishment of
homeowners' association agreements, the Planning Commission
may require in the deed restrictions for such property,
provisions for the maintenance of Such driveways, open
spaces, etc., as the Commission shall deem appropriate for
adequate buffering and protection of residential areas and
for the reasonable usage of such areas by future residents
of the planned community.
In respect to usage, the homeowners' association members
shall enjoy the same rights ahd privileges of use of
driveways, open space, etc., Within commercially designated
area but not including the church property, as shall be
established by homeowners' association agreements for other
such uses within the planned ~ommunity.
In addition to the foregoing,~for Areas A, C and D, por-
tions of the open space and recreational facilities pro-
vided may be reserved for the?iexclusive use of the resi-
dents of such area, either in'common or individually,
subject to Commission approva!.
Approval by the County Attorney's Office of deed restric-
tions for sections to be soldl The County Attorney shall
review such documents for provisions adequate to insure
compliance with conditions of~approval contained herein.
Currently the church has a deed restriction in place which
restricts commercial development on its boundaries. In
specific, this deed restriction says "that portion of the
property which is located within 200 feet of the boundaries
of the 12 acres reserved by t~e grantor as described above,
shall be developed only for residential uses unless the
grantor or his successors agree in writing to some other
use." Deed Book 709, Page 68~i.
In addition to current deed restrictions, twenty (20) foot
landscaping buffers shall be ~rovided at the time of
development by the developer ~etween commercial areas and
residential areas within the P~UD. In particular, the
developers of commercial properties of the PUD shall supply
these twenty (20) foot landscaping buffers on their proper-
ties. Twenty (20) foot landscaping buffers shall be estab-
lished between Hillsdale Driveland the residential areas
within the PUD. The members o~ the PUD shall establish
twenty foot (20) landscaping buffers between the PUD
property and other adjacent prpperty. Fencing and/or
appropriate screening may be r~quired between residential
and commercial areas and betweMn the PUD and adjoining
parcels. Area B of the PUD is!ispecifically exempt from
these landscaping requirements~ provided that the Planning
Commission may require landscaDing in accordance with
Section 32.7,9 LANDSCAPING AND}SCREENING REQUIREMENTS of
410
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
the Zoning Ordinance at time of approval of any development
within Area B.
Each owner of a specific section (A, B, C, D, E OR F)
shall be responsible for any and all improvements indicated
on this plan which falls on their property. The church
Area B is specifically excluded from any responsibility for
any improvements on their property (For Area B only). The
only exceptions to this are as follows:
The owners of Area C and E shall split the cost of
adding the fifth 72 inch pipe under Greenbrier Drive.
The owner of Area C shall construct the walk on one
side of the church road.
STO~MWATE~DETENTIONANDDlhkINAGE PlAN
The requirements established herein are based on studies by
engineering consultants hired by the owners to .be reviewed and
approved by the Albemarle County Engineering Department. This
report dated 3/28/88 from Gloeckner & Osborne }s attached hereto
as supporting documentation. Portions of a general and unified
drainage plan have already been approved and have allowed for
the initial development of the PUD. In order to accommodate the
ultimate impact to the PUD on surrounding properties, the
following unified drainage plan is submitted.
o
The individual members of the PUD agree t~ grant drainage
easements for the benefit of the PUD. Th~ owners of the
PUD agree to take the necessary measures Go implement these
improvements.
A Wetlands Water Quality area will serve as a partial
detention area. In cooperation with the Qounty Engineering
Department and the University of Virginia~-the owners of
the PUD empowered the owner of Area E to build a Wetlands
Area. Due to the probable transfer of properties to owners
other than the original PUD members, the ~wner of Area E or
F will deed an easement to the County of ~ibemarle for the
most effective continual monitoring of th~ wetlands area.
If at somefuture time, the County Engineering Department
determines that the wetlands is no longer ]Serving its
intended purpose of water quality managem~nt,~ the project
will be terminated and the easement vacate~. Alternative
development of this land will be possible ~t that time,
following standard site plan procedures, a~d provision
of
stormwater management measures in accordance with Section
32.7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance for all of~ ~k~rea E and F.
The 27-inch diameter pipe positioned under the existing
church road will not be increased or decreased in diameter.
The size of this pipe limits the velocity ~f stormwater
flow, effectively creating a natural detention area on Lot
4 of Area F. The stormwater detention capacity of the area
upstream of this pipe within the PUD will not be decreased
in any way whatsoever. This natural detention area and the
27-inch diameter pipe under the church roa~ shall be
maintained by the owner of Lot 4 Area F.
The six foot by six foot box culverts through Area E
control stormwater runoff from areas west ~f Route 29
through the PUD to the point shown on Exhibit 1.
The current HUD flood hazard overlay map i~dicates a one
hundred year flood plain at elevation 399 ~ithin the
Branchlands PUD. It is understood that an~actual
one
hundred year flood may exceed this limit,~ ~ence the members
of the PUD have agreed to this unified drainage~ plan. A
channel designed to accommodate the one hUid~dred year storm
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
411
shall be approved by the Albemarle County Engineering
Department. The channel will be constructed though the PUD
as shown on Exhibit 1 and as shown on the specific drainage
plan prepared by Gloeckner & Osborne. Riprap of the
channel will be installed to a standard sufficient to
provide channel stability and control effects of channel
erosion. This channel will allow the development of Area C
to fill to the drainage easement necessary for the channel.
Construction of the channel will proceed with the develop-
ment of Area E, Area F, or the filling of Area C whichever
shall occur first. In addition, a fifth 72 inch pipe shall
be added under Greenbrier Drive at the time of the con-
struction of the drainage channel.
C. TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Primary ingress and egress for Areas A, B, E and F will
derive from Route 29 North, north and south at Branchlands
Boulevard. Secondary access will derive at Rio Road and
Fashion Square Mall through Squire Hills, by way of Hills-
dale Drive. Branchlands Boulevard and Section 1 of Hills-
dale Drive to Branchlands Boulevard are currently under
construction to a standard approved by VDOT for acceptance
into the state highway systemi! The remainder of Hillsdale
Drive shall be designed for aeceptance into the state
system by VDOT, and constructed at time of development of
any portion of Area E or F.
Direct access to Route 29 North shall occur only at Branch-
lands Boulevard, and the developer shall provide signaliza-
tion of the intersection of Route 29 North and Branchlands
Boulevard at time of any development of Area E or F.
The extension of Greenbrier Dr~ive from the end of state
maintenance to Hillsdale Drive shall be designed in accor-
dance with VDOT standards to ~Ccommodate traffic antici-
pated from the Hillsdale Driv~ and Areas C and D, and
dedicated for acceptance into the state highway system at
time of development of any portion of Area E or F. From
Hillsdale Drive to Areas C an~ D, Greenbrier Drive shall be
designed in accordance with V~OT standards to accommodate
traffic anticipated from Areas C and D, and dedicated for
acceptance into the state highway system.
Access Road II from 29 North ~o Hillsdale Drive and then
through Area C is no longer d~emed necessary and shall not
be installed. ~
4. With the exception of Brookmi~l Drive, pedestrian walkways
will be provided on one side o~ all public roads to VDOT
standards. An additional pede~strian walkway will be
provided across Area C to Hil!~dale Drive along one side of
the existing church road. Pedestrian trails should be
constructed along open space corridors (stream beds) or
sewer easements. Such construction shall occur with each
phase of development on the open space corridors and sewer
easements located within or i~nediately adjacent to that
phase of development.
LAND USE PLA~
Locations and acreages of various land uses and residential
densities shall comply with the Revised Application Plan,
Exhibit 1.
Staff recommends the following land use schedule:
412
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
Area
A
B
C
D
E
F
Lot 5
Lot 6
Lot 6A
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 7
Lot 4
Acreage Use
7.04
12.00
26.63
14.915
1.50
8.11
1.00
4.09
1.00
5.84
3.285
82 dwellings or 106 low/moderate cost units
Church
312 dwellings elderly housing
90 dwellings
Net usable acres - office
Net usable acres - commercial/service
Net usable acres-commercial/service or wetland
Marriott (commercial/service)
Net usable acres - office
Net usable acres - commercial/service
No development
MODIFICATION ANDWAIVER OF ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS
Section 8.5.6.4 Building Permits shall not apply to exist-
ing structures in Areas B and C unless the provisions of
32.0 require a site development plan prior, to issuance of
such permit.
Section 20.8.6 Setback and Yard Regulations shall be
established at time of final approvals as~opposed to
establishment at time of rezoning. ~
Section 20.4 Permitted Uses: Commercial/~ervice;
Section 20.9 Regulations Governing Commerdial/Service
Areas. Section 20.4 shall apply to AreasiC, E and F. For
Area C, Commercial/Service areas established in accordance
with 20.8.3 shall be in addition to uses tO be located in
the existing manor house. Limitations of i~0.9.3 shall not
apply to Areas E and F. i~
Section 20.9.4 Building Permits shall not ~apply to Areas C,
E and F.
Mr. Bain said he appreciates Mr. Lindstrom's remarks~ on increasing the
velocity through the Meadow Creek and the downstream effects of the fitlin,
but he thinks that the plan is good and the wetlands and ~etention measures
already in effect will at least insure that the County will be no worse off
with this PUD.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve
SP-87-09, Branchlands First and SEcond Land Trust, and SP988-4, Republic
Homes, with the conditions recommended by the Planning Cohmission.
Mr. Lindstrom said he supports the motion and agreesithat the applicant
is proposing measures which may mitigate the effects of the fillin. He asked
the staff to consider the cumulative effect of fill-ins in the future.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote: ~
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst~om, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions for approval of both SP-87-09~and SP-88-4 are as
follows:
bo
County Engineer approval in accordance with requirements of 30.3
FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT simultaneous with .approval of unified
drainage plan; ~.
Approval of appropriate local, state and federa~ agencies;
Ail channel improvements within Brookmill (Area D) to be accom-
plished at time of any filling in the flood plain under SP-88-04
Republic Homes.)
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
413
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-88-09. Marriott Corporation (The Colonnades).
To rezone 59 acres from R-4 to PRD to develop a Lifecare Retirement Community.
The plan proposes: 180 independent living units, 40 cottage units, and 98
nursing/assisted living beds, for a resulting density of 3.74 dwelling units
per acre. Property located off the south side of Route 654 (Barracks Road),
adjacent and west of Canterbury Hills Subdivision. Tax Map 60, Parcel 24
(part). Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 21
and June 28, 1988.)
Mr. Home presented the following staff report:
"Petition: The Marriott Corporation petitions the Board of Super-
visors to rezone 58.91 acres from R-4 (PROFFER) to PRD, Planned
Residential Development, to permit establishment of a retirement
community with life care facilities. Property, described as Tax Map
60, Parcel 24 (part)-is located on the south side of Route 654 west
and adjacent to Canterbury Hills Subdivision.
Applicant's Proposal (on file):
The Colonnades Lifecare Community would 'provide for a full continuum
of residential opportunities and care.' The schedule of proposed
development is as follows:
Site Summary:
Total Site Area:
Total Developed Area including grading,
utilities and new structures
58.91 acres
22.0 acres
Areas to remain undisturbed
36.91 acres
Open spaces as a percent of site area
60 percent
Program Summary:
Density
Independent Living Units
Cottage Units
Total Units
Dwelling Units/acre
180 dwelling units
40 dwelling units
220 dwelling units
3.74
Health Center/Assisted Living:
Nursing
Assisted Care Living Facility
54 beds
44 beds
Square Footages:
Community Center
Health Center
(Nursing/A.C.L.F)
Independent Living Units
Cottages
Total Building Area
25,750 square feet
55,250 square feet
210,000 square feet
55,500 square feet
364,500 square feet
Zoning Proffers:
This site was rezoned from R-1 to R-4 in 1984 subject to the fol-
lowing zoning proffers (ZMA-84-19):
The maximum overall density of the 58.91 acre tract will not
exceed three dwelling units per acre or a total of 176 dwelling
units.
Only single family detached dwellings will be located within 200
feet of the boundary of other parcels not owned or optioned by
HEC, Incorporated, as shown on the attached drawing.
Smithfield Road will not be extende~ or used as a connector road
in any way. ~
414
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
The minimum lot size for single-family detached dwellings to be
located within the 200 foot strip adjacent to other ownership
will be one-third of an acre based on gross areas.
A wooded buffer area 30 feet in width will be preserved along
the margin of Route 654. An additional 30 feet setback will be
observed for the location of structures along this highway.
(This was clarified to mean a total of a 60 foot setback mea-
sured from the Route 654 right-of-way line).
This development will be served by a single access from
Route 654.
Storm sewer system will be designed to intercept drainage and
direct it into Meadow Creek basin.
8. Ail roads within this development will be public roads.
During discussion with the University Real Estate Foundation (UREF)
and Marriott, staff recommended that these proffersbe altered only
to the extent necessary to accommodate the retirement community.
Marriott proposes changes to proffers 1, 2, 4, and 8 as follows:
1. The maximum overall density of the 58.91 acre tract cannot
exceed 3.74 dwelling units per acre or a totallof 220 dwelling
units. ~
Only one story single-family attached dwelling~ can be located
within 200 feet of the boundary of other parceis not owned by
the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation. These may
have exposed walk out basements. No dwelling may be located
closer than 150 feet from the boundary of other~parcels not
owned by the University of Virginia Real Estat~ Foundation.
4. Proffer #4 shall be removed.
8. Ail roads within this section will be private roads.
Marriott states that:
'These changes are designed to meet the specific requirements of
the lifecare program while addressing the original concerns of
the County and abutting property owners. The change to proffer
#1 reflects the proposed project density as identified in the
accompanying plans. The accompanying traffic studies demon-
strate that the proposed lifecare development will generate less
total traffic than traditional housing development allowed under
current zoning. Modifications to proffer 2 will result in less
impact to abutting properties, as the rear yard setback required
under the current zoning would provide only a 20 foot buffer,
and current structure height limitations allow up to a 35 foot
maximum. The proposed cottages are single stor. y and will come
no closer than 150 feet to the property .lines noted. Because no
individual lot sales are proposed, proffer 4 is not relevant to
the proposed development, and the appliCants ask that it be
removed. Changes to proffer 8 are requested ba~ed on the need
for overall site security and because the Colo~ades development
will be managed under a single entity.'
Note: Southwest and adjacent to this site is 41.2 a~res owned by
UREF which was rezoned to R-4 with proffers in 1985 ~{ZMA-85-04),
permitting construction of about 100 dwellings. Among the proffers
was a limitation that only 30 units access to Route 855 at St. Annes-
Belfield with the remaining units accessing to Barraaks Road.
Approval of this current rezoning would preclude access to Barracks
Road, effectively limiting development of the 41.2 acres to 30 units.
Staff Comment: Section 8.5.4 of the Planned Development regulations
requires the Commission in its recommendations to the Board to
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
415
certain include findings. The remainder of the staff report will
address these issues.
Comprehensive Plan/Relation to SurroundinK Area: This site is in an
area recommended for low-density residential development (i.e., one
to four dwellings per acre). The Colonnades would have a density of
3.74 dwellings per acre, exclusive of the 98 nursing/assisted care
beds.
In regard to relation to the surrounding area, emphasis has been
placed on compatibility to Canterbury Hills Subdivision. A 150-foot
building setback and comparable limits of clearing is provided to
adjoining properties. One-story, single-family attached dwellings
would be situated between Canterbury Hills and the larger two- and
three-story central building complex. A 100-foot building setback
and comparable limits of clearing is provided along Barracks Road.
Site Characteristics/Comprehensive Plan: The Application Plan
favorably reflects standards of the Comprehensive Plan related to
site development:
Only areas proposed for improvement would be disturbed.
Wooded buffer areas would be maintained. About 60 percent
of the site would be open space area.
Steeper areas toward the west would remain undisturbed.
Development involving critical slope areas is negligible.
Stormwater from developed areas would be directed to a
stormwater detention basin. Post development runoff to
areas of Canterbury Hills would remain unchanged.
The Soil Conservation Service has commented that the sandy loam soils
in the area are moderately deep to hard~rock and that 'they are very
erosive.' This factor should receive sPecial attention in grading
plan review.
Public Utilities: Public water service is available from a 12-inch
line at Barracks Road with anticipated fire flows of 3,000 GPM at 20
PSI. Initially, sewer service was propQsed by lift station and force
main to a gravity line at Barracks Road.~ This option was proposed by
Albemarle County Service Authority and ~lanning staff as not being in
the public's best interest. The Application Plan has been revised to
show gravity service to an existing sewer line in Smithfield Road.
Albemarle County Service Authority has sltated that 'the concept of
gravity sewer service for this site as shown on the revised site plan
is acceptable to the Service Authority shbject to an agreement being
reached between the Service Authority, ~arriott Corporation, and the
University Real Estate Foundation for elliminating the existing
Canterbury Hills sewage pumping station'i~
Transportation: After review of the applicant's transportation
analysis plan, Virginia Department of Tr~ansportation has commented
that the 'study indicates that the total generation from the proposed
retirement community would be less than development allowed under the
current zoning.' Staff will require a left-turn lane in accordance
with VDOT comments as a part of entrance improvements.
Staff opinion is that the divided entranceway reasonably satisfies
the need for two emergency access points to the development. The
plan has been modified to show emergency vehicle accessways consis-
tent with Fire Official comments.
Staff Recommendation: Locationally, staff opinion is that the
proposed site offers many advantages as ~ retirement community.
While in proximity to shopping and other conveniences, the site is
protected by Comprehensive Plan recommen~[ation that new development
in the area be residential. The site is convenient to emergency
services and hospitals.
416
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
The Application Plan favorably reflects prior zoning proffers govern-
ing the property and has been revised to incorporate design recom-
mendations of the Site Review Committee. Particular attention has
been afforded to issues of compatibility to Canterbury Hills Subdi-
vision.
Staff opinion is that the Colonnades PRD generally satisfies the
requirements as to findings by the Commission under Section 8.5.4 of
the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of ZMA-88-09, The
Colonnades, subject to the following revisions, modifications, and
agreements:
Agreement in accordance with Albemarle County Service
Authority comments of June 2, 1988, among Albemarle County
Service Authority, Marriott Corporation, and UREF for
eliminating existing Canterbury Hills sewage pumping
station;
me
Acceptance of applicant's proffers as set forth in this
report;
3. Administrative approval of site plan."
Mr. Home said the Planning Commission heard this request at its meeting
on June 21, 1988, and unanimously recommended approval subject to the staff's
recommended conditions of approval.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to
addressed the Board.
Mr. Tom Witt spoke and said he is the project manager for the Marriott
Corporation. He thanked the staff and said he concurred with its recommenda-
tions. Given the lateness of the hour, he said, he will limithis presenta-
tion to answering any questions members of the Board may have.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thought there was supposed to .be a buffer of one
hundred feet from Barracks Road, yet proffer No. 5 statesi that the applicant
will provide a wooded buffer of 30 feet and an additionall 30 feet for a
setback. If the plan shows a buffer zone of 100 feet, Mr~ Witt said, that is
what will be established. He said the Zoning Ordinance requires the thirty-
foot setback and thirty-foot buffer zone.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Witt would object to a change in the condi-
tions of approval to state that there will be a one hundred foot setback along
Barracks Road, which will be maintained as a wooded area. ~ As long as the
Marriott Corporation has room for the necessary utilities'~ Mr. Witt replied.
He said he expects part of this buffer zone may have to b& used during con-
struction, but the Corporation would let the woods grow bRck.
Mr. Horne asked if the applicant would be willing to~,establish a one
hundred foot structural setback from Barracks Road and a fifty foot wooded
buffer. Mr. Witt said the Corporation intends to have as wide a wooded buffer
as possible, certainly 30 feet, possibly 50 feet and mayb~ 60 feet.
Mr. Bowie asked if the staff planned to enforce the one hundred foot
setback. Mr. Horne said "yes'
Since no one else wished to speak concerning this application, Mr. Way
closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has a question about another buffer. He said he
thinks the staff assumed that the buffer along the boundary with Canterbury
Hills would be 200 feet and 150 feet would be wooded. Mr. Witt said the plan
shows a setback of 150 feet, which would make the wooded t ortion less than 150
feet. He said the original proffer required a no-build sE~tback of only 50
feet. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said the original proffer dealt with a structure type and
density that was consistent with the adjoining property ard this application
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
417
does not. He said he is concerned that there be a substantial vegetative
buffer between the two properties and asked if the Corporation plans to clear
this area. Mr. Witt said the Corporation plans to disturb as little vegeta-
tion as possible and let what is disturbed grow back. Mr. Lindstrom said he
would rather the Corporation fill in the disturbed areas with something other
than honeysuckle and raspberry bushes. In many cases, Mr. Witt said, the
setbacks agreed to by the Marriot Corporation are larger than the lots adja-
cent to them, so he feels the Corporation is doing its share.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that the Corporation is increasing the
density and changing the character of the structures that adjoin this single-
family residential development. Nevertheless, he said, he is willing to move
approval of this request despite the increase in density, because this is to
be a retirement conm~unity and will have fewer people per dwelling unit, fewer
vehicle trips per day and generally less commotion. He said he wants to have
a sentence added to proffer 2 stating that a 75-foot wooded buffer shall be
maintained within the one hundred and fifty foot setback along the boundary of
the Canterbury Hills subdivision. He said he also wanted to amend proffer 5
to require a wooded buffer area of thirty feet and a building setback of 100
feet for a total building setback of 100 feet.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve
ZMA-88-09 subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission and the appli-
cant's proffers, amending proffers 2 and 5 as set out below. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following reco=ded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are is follows:
Agreement in accordance with Albemarle County Service Authority
comments of June 2, 1988, among A15emarle County Service Authority,
Marriott Corporation, and University Real Estate Foundation for
eliminating existing Canterbury Hitls sewage pumping station;
Acceptance of applicant's proffers~!as attached hereto; amended by
the Board as follows:
2. Only single family detached dwellings can be located within 200
feet of the boundary of other ~arcels not owned by the Univer-
sity of Virginia Real Estate E.oundation. A 75 foot wooded
buffer shall be maintained within the 150 setback from
Canterbury Hills along the Canterbury Hills boundary.
5. A wooded buffer area 30 feet in width must be preserved along
the margin of Route 654 (Barracks Road). An additional 70 foot
setback must be observed for the location of structures along
Route 654 (total of 100 foot Setback);
3. Administrative approval of site plan.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to amend and reenact
Section 2-2.1 of the Albemarle County Code entitled "Compensation of board of
supervisors" to increase such compensation by a factor of four and one-half
percent. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on 3une 21 and June 28, 1988.)
(Note: Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. St. John left the meeting a 10:54 P.M.)
Mr. Agnor said that State laws allows the Board of Supervisors an infla-
tionary increase on their salary each year, but it has to be through adoption
of an ordinance. The ordinance advertised allows the Board members the same
four and one-half percent increase granted toliCounty employees.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak
concerning this request. Since no one wished~*to speak, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
(Note: Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at this time.)
418
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt the
ordinance as set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 2-2.1 OF THE CODE OF
ALBEMARLE ENTITLED "COMPENSATION OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS" AS ALLOWED
BY VIRGINIA CODE SECTION 14.1-46.01:1(2)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 2-2.1 of the Code of Albemarle entitled
"Compensation of Board of Supervisors" is hereby amended and reen-
acted to read as follows:
Sec. 2-2.1. ~.Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors is hereby set as follows:
Seven thousand nine hundred fifty-five dollars~and thirty-eight
cents for each board member; provided, that in addition to his/her
salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of twenty-five
dollars for each and every meeting chaired; provided, further, that
in addition to his/her regular salary, the chairman?shall receive a
stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars.
FURTHER, this shall be effective on and after July 1, 1988.
Agenda Item No. 11. Appropriation: Thomas JeffersOn Health Educator
Grant.
Mr. Agnor said the Board, earlier this year, authori!zed the County's
participation in a "Health Educator-Risk Reduction" grant program. This
program involves the employment of one person funded entirely through this
state grant which has now been approved. As fiscal agent for the grant, an
appropriation is needed to record approval for the audit6rs.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. !Bain to adopt the
following appropriation resolution and to authorize Mr. ~gnor to sign a
contract with the Health Department relevant to this requ~gst. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst~om, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of A~lbemarle County,
Virginia, that $21,289.94 be, and the same hereby is!~ appropriated
from the Grant Fund for the purpose of funding the 1987/88 Thomas
Jefferson Health Educator Grant.
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: November 18, 1987.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of November 18, 1987,!pages one to 12,
ending at Item 7, and found them to be in order. ~
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. ~indstrom to approve
the minutes which had been read. Roll was called and the~imotion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst~om and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Perkins.
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
419
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and Public.
Mr. Horne handed to the Board copies of a deed dated June 23, 1988, from
the Earlysville Forest Land Trust, in which the Trust proposes to give the
County certain lands in that subdivision.
Mr. Bain said he has represented one of the property owners in
Earlysville Forest subdivision and so he will abstain. Mr. Lindstrom also
abstained.
Mr. St. John said that normally a grantee does not have to have a deed
signed by the person receiving the grant, but in this case, the Board must
authorize the Chairman to sign on behalf of the County accepting the grant.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Perkins to
authorize the Chairman to sign the deed set out below which transfers the land
to the County. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Bain and Mr. Lindstrom.
THIS DEED made this 23rd day of June, 1988, by and between
GEORGE HARRISON GILLIAM, TRUSTEE FOR THE EARLYSVILLE FOREST LAND
TRUST under Trust Agreement dated April'30, 1981, hereinafter some-
times referred to as the Grantor, and COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINAI,
a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter
sometimes referred to as the Grantee, whose mailing address is 401
McIntire Road, Charlotttesville, VA 22901;
W ITNES S ET H :
That for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS
($10.00), cash in hand paid by the Gran~ee to the Grantor, and other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of all
of which are hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT,
BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the
County of Albemarle, Virginia a political subdivision of the Common-
wealth of Virginia, all that certain lot or parcels of land, situate
in Albemarle County, Virginia, shown as Parcel R, "Public Recreation
Area" on the Compiled Plat Showing Septic Drainfield Area on Parcel
R, Public Recreation Area, Section One, iEarlysville Forest, Albemarle
County, Virginia, made by R. O. Snow, InC. dated May 25, 1988 (the
"Plat"), a copy of which is attached hereto and recorded herewith,
RESERVING, HOWEVER, UNTO EARLYSVILLE FOREST LAND TRUST, and its
successors and assigns, the perpetual easement and right to use the
Septic Drainfield Area shown on the Plat for sanitary sewerage lines
and appurtenances to serve the Commercial Area shown as Parcel C on
the Plat. As a part of said reservation~ Grantor reserves unto
itself, its successors and assigns the r$ght to enter upon the
servient property for the purpose of installing, constructing,
maintaining, repairing or replacing the septic tank and drainage
field, and further reserves the right or,ingress and egress thereto
as reasonably necessary to construct, maintain, repair or replace
said septic tank and drainage field. Aniy work within said area shall
be done in a good and workmanlike manner~ and any disturbed earth
shall be restored to its condition immedliately prior to such work.
Said property is a portion of the land conveyed to the Grantor
herin by deed from Mary H. Lupton and ThOmas G. Lupron, dated May 1,
1981, of record in the clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book ~17, page 030.
This conveyance is subject to all easements, reservations,
restrictions and conditions contained in!duly recorded deed, plats,
and other instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain
of title to the above described property which have not expired by a
420
July 6, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
time limitation contained therein or otherwise have become ineffec-
tive.
The Grantee, as evidenced by the signature of the Chairman of
the Board of County Supervisors, accepts this conveyance.
Mr. Agnor referred to a motion made earlier today to advertise for a
public hearing on a meals tax. He said the figure given was three percent,
but the the Board is allowed to go to four percent by State law.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to
amend the former motion, and set the meals tax at four percent for public
hearing purposes. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No 14. Adjourn. Withno further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:03 P.M.