2001-12-12December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
December 12, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 7:20 p.m.), Ms.
Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There was no one present who wished to speak at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to approve the items on the Consent Agenda. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
__________
Item 5.1. Proclamation recognizing January, 2002 as Leave A Legacy Month.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved:
(After the vote was taken Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Thomas D. Kennedy, Director of the Leave A
Legacy-Thomas Jefferson Area, to come forward and she then read the proclamation into the record. Mr.
Kennedy expressed the organizations gratitude for the proclamation.)
=
LEAVE A LEGACY MONTH
WHEREAS,the Thomas Jefferson Area chapter of the Leave A Legacy program is a
consortium of not-for-profit organizations and professional advisors; and
WHEREAS,Leave A Legacy, a program of the National Committee On Planned
Giving, is a collaborative effort among local not-for-profit organizations,
the estate and financial planning professions, community foundations,
corporate funders and a variety of media outlets; and
WHEREAS,the Leave A Legacy campaign is a community-based county-wide
program designed to encourage prospective donors to work with the
development officers of charities they all ready support, or the estate
planning professionals with whom they all ready have a relationship, to
establish a charitable bequest or other planned gift; and
WHEREAS,on January 1, 2002, the Leave A Legacy program of the Thomas
Jefferson Area begins a month-long education drive to encourage
people from all walks of life to make gifts from their estates;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, does hereby declare
January 2002
as
Leave a Legacy Month
in the County of Albemarle and encourages all our residents to support
the goals of the Leave A Legacy program of the Thomas Jefferson Area.
__________
Item 5.2. Funding request from TransDominion Express Steering Committee.
The following letter dated December 3, 2001 was received from Mr. Tucker:
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
"The TransDominion Express Steering Committee is soliciting support for education, marketing and
lobbying efforts in the 2002 General Assembly. As you know, Charlottesville is scheduled to be
one of the station locations identified in the 1998 Feasibility Study.
For a county of our population size, they are requesting $1,000. Unfortunately, contributing to this
entity directly is similar to the problem we faced with funding the High Grown Coalition a couple of
years ago. As you will recall, we eventually funded their lobbyist directly. Under this proposal,
however, we could fund the TransDominion Express through our IDA, the Visitors Bureau or some
other similar entity.
I am enclosing a copy (on file) of the Steering Committee's request and, with your approval of this
Consent Agenda item, we will prepare the proper appropriation, if necessary, for transfer of funds
to the TransDominion Express Committee."
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board requested the IDA to authorize expenditure of
$1,000 to the TransDominion Express Steering Committee.
__________
Item 5.3. Resolution to accept Stonewood Drive in Stonewood Subdivision into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the following resolution was
==
adopted:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Stonewood Subdivision described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in
Stonewood Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
'
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts,
fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)Stonewood Drive (St Rt 1034) from the intersection of Route 784 to the
end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 01/19/1999 in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
1812, pages 421-422, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.21 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.21 mile.
__________
Item 5.4. Resolution to accept roads in Cory Farm Subdivision into the State Secondary System of
Highways.
At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the following resolution was
==
adopted:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Cory Farm Subdivision described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in
Cory Farm Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
'
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts,
fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)Cory Farm Road (St Rt 1260) from the intersection of Windy Ridge Road
(Route 1261) to the end of State maintenance, as shown on plat
recorded 03/05/1997 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1597, pages 210-219, and Deed Book
1899, pages 661-666, with a 120-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.09 mile.
2)Filly Run (St Rt 1265) from the intersection of Windy Ridge Road (Route
1261) to the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded
03/05/1997 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1597, pages 210-219, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.16 mile.
3)Glenview Court (St Rt 1264) from the intersection of Cory Farm Road
(Route 1260) to the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded
03/05/1997 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1597, pages 210-219, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.03 mile.
4)Summit View (St Rt 1262) from the intersection of Windy Ridge Road
(Route 1261) to the intersection of Filly Run (Route 1265), as shown on
plat recorded 03/05/1997 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1597, pages 210-219, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.33 mile.
__________
Item 5.5. Appropriation: Special Election for 25th State Senate District, $23,040.00 (Form #2001-
037).
It was noted in the staffs report that a vacancy in the 25th State Senatorial District occurred upon
=
the death of State Senator Emily Couric, and a Special Election to fill the seat is scheduled for December
18, 2001. The 25th State Senatorial District includes 25 of the 27 voting precincts (including the Central
Absentee Precinct) in Albemarle County.
The Department of Voter Registration and Elections is requesting an additional appropriation in the
amount of $23,040.00 to cover the cost of holding this special election. The need for a Special Election
was not known at the time the original FY 2001-2002 Budget was adopted, and these additional costs were
not anticipated. The additional costs reflect the requirements to provide nearly the same level of election
support for the special election as that done for a regular election in 25 precincts of the County. These
costs include overtime for Department staff members, paying approximately 110 to 120 election officials to
staff the polls, and the costs of preparing and delivering voting machines to the polls, advertising, printing,
and other related costs.
The funds to cover this request will be derived from the appropriated Board Contingency Fund and,
therefore, do not need to be processed as a budget amendment under the provisions of 15.2-2507 of the
'
Code of Virginia. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #2001-037 in the amount of $23,040.00 for
conducting the special election in the Albemarle County voting precincts encompassed within the 25th State
Senatorial District.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001/02
NUMBER: 2001-037
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THE 25TH STATE SENATE DISTRICT
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 13020 120000 OVERTIME WAGES$1,230.00
1 1000 13020 210000 FICA95.00
1 1000 13020 312510 ELECTION OFFICIALS14,060.00
1 1000 13020 350000 PRINT & BIND - EXTERNAL400.00
1 1000 13020 360000 ADVERTISING375.00
1 1000 13020 390000 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES5,300.00
1 1000 13020 520100 POSTAL SERVICES165.00
1 1000 13020 520300 TELECOMMUNICATIONS700.00
1 1000 13020 540200 LEASE/RENT - BUILDINGS115.00
1 1000 13020 550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE200.00
1 1000 13020 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES200.00
1 1000 13020 601700 COPY EXPENSE200.00
1 1000 95000 999990 CONTINGENCY FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS(23,040.00)
TOTAL$-0-
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
TOTAL$-0-
__________
Item 5.6. Department of Human Resources Reorganization.
It was noted in the staffs report that a comprehensive review of the operations of the Human
=
Resource Department has been conducted to define current and future human resource needs of the
School Division and Local Government. This review included: needs analysis with internal customers
(principals, department directors & administrators); task analysis of all current human resource procedures;
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities & threats analysis; focus group discussion with customers to identify
issues and solutions; and, comparison to other school division human resources support.
This comprehensive review led by the new Human Resources Director, Kimberly Suyes, identified
the need to redesign the department in order to align it as a strategic business partner with its customers.
To be effective, the implementation of the proposed redesign requires one additional position, which is
being requested to be effective January 1, 2002.
In addition to the analysis which showed that the Human Resources Department requires an
additional person to be effective, there are some immediate staffing issues which require that this position
become effective now rather than waiting for the normal budget request process. Three staff members,
two Human Resources Specialists and the Recruitment Coordinator, are either on medical leaves or on
leaves of absence for up to 12 weeks each. In addition, three other staff members, two Human Resources
Specialists and the Assistant Director of Human Resources are resigning by their own choice over the next
30 to 60 days. Therefore, the next six months will be a time of significant transition and stress for this
department. Because of this and some past concerns about the quality of human resources support to
both Local (General) Government and the School Division, staff believes it is critical to add this position on
January 1, 2002. Information from other governments supports this need by showing that Albemarle
County's level of staffing in Human Resources has not been completely adequate. Albemarle County is
staffed at one Human Resource staff member to 175 employees in comparison to Hanover County at
1:145; Henrico County at 1:85; and, Chesterfield County at 1:167.
In order to realign Human Resources with the appropriate span of control and line of sight, it is
recommended that one Human Resources Manager position be added to the Department. The new
structure will allow for partnering with customers through an assigned client group. This Manager will
become an integral member of the team and will actively provide services and solutions to all customer
needs in such areas as: performance management; attracting, selecting and retaining the best talent
possible; and, improving people systems and processes.
Approximately $8510.00 in salary and benefits (General Government's share) will be needed for
the short-term (FY 2001-02). For the long-term, approximately $17,250.00 in annual salary and benefits
will be needed (General Government's share). Staff requests approval of one additional Human
Resources Manager position for the current fiscal year at a total cost of $8510.00 for Local Government. If
approved, these funds can came from the Board's approved Contingency Fund. An official appropriation
form will be brought to the Board at its meeting on January 9. The School Board is scheduled to approve
its contribution of $28,490.00 (77%) from its Contingency Reserve on December 6, 2001.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved adding an additional Human
Resources Manager position to the Human Resources Department for the current fiscal year (FY
2001-02) at a total cost of $8510.00, with the funds being taken from the Board's Contingency Fund.
__________
Item 5.7. Resolution endorsing the naming of Carter's Bridge.
At the request of Mr. Dorrier, made at the Boards meeting on December 5, 2001, the
==
following resolution was adopted by the recorded vote shown above:
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
RESOLUTION FOR CARTER'S BRIDGE
WHEREAS, there is a bridge located in Albemarle County on State Route 20
South approximately midpoint between Charlottesville and Scottsville, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, this bridge has been known for its long history as Carter's Bridge;
and
WHEREAS, this bridge, crossing the Hardware River in southern Albemarle
County, is located near a large tract of land known as "Redlands," the ancestral home of
the Carter family for six generations, a local, state and national historic landmark, and is
presently the home of Mrs. Robert Carter; and
WHEREAS, John Hammond Moore, in his book
Albemarle, Jefferson's County,
, notes that one of the pioneers of the attempt to extend the Tidewater to the
1727-1976
foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountain in the 1700's was "John Carter, son of the wealthy
Robert Carter of the Northern Neck, ... secretary of the colony of Virginia;" and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has approved a plan to
realign Carter's Bridge; and
WHEREAS, this planned realignment of Carter's Bridge has received the
unanimous support of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the bridge called Carter's Bridge has not been included among
formerly named bridges by the Virginia Department of Highways; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County recognizes the name
of Carter's Bridge as being the only known name for the said bridge; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County recognizes the
contributions and heritage of the John Carter and Robert Carter families to the
Commonwealth of Virginia and to Albemarle County;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the bridge located on State Route
20 South approximately midpoint between Charlottesville and Scottsville, Virginia, be
named for the Carter family, to include the late John Carter and Robert Carter and their
descendants; and
BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER, that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the
Virginia Department of Highways pursuant to Virginia Code 33.1-250 and to Mrs. Robert
'
Carter, "Redlands, 852 Redlands Farm Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-1999-011. Clover Lawn Village (Preston Stallings) (Sign #42). Public
hearing on a request to rezone 6.80 acs from R-1 & HC to PD-MC. TM 56, Pcls 107, 107A & 107A1. Loc
on Rockfish Gap Tnpk (Rt 250W), across street from Blue Ridge Building Supply at 5221 Rockfish Gap
Tnpk. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density Residential, recom for 3-6 du/ac
in the Village of Crozet.) White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress
on November 26 and December 3, 2001.)
__________
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2001-006. Clover Lawn Village (Preston Stallings) (Sign #41). Public
hearing on a request to allow residential uses in PD-MC zone. Clover Lawn Village. White Hall Dist.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on November 26 and December 3,
2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg handed to the Board members a packet of information referred to in an E-mail from
Elaine Echols which contained a complete set of the proffers (she noted that there are a number of
attachment pages to the proffers and copies of those attachments were included with this packet of
information). He said there is a very long history to this project. It originated with a request for 7.0 acres to
be rezoned from R-1 and HC to PD-MC. He said a portion of the property was requested in 1999 for
rezoning. At that time, the Planning Commission and the Board asked for more detail. The applicant was
asked to consider combining all three parcels which he owned in a single unified development. What is
before the Board represents the applicants effort on that request.
=
Mr. Cilimberg said the request under consideration is a rezoning and an associated special use
permit for residential units. When this request first went to the Commission in June, 2001, as the proposal
was originated on the three parcels, staff felt there was merit to the rezoning and special use permit, but
numerous issues prevented recommending approval at that time. The Commission concurred. Following
that meeting, there were several other meetings in which the Commission and the applicant exchanged
information. This request came back to the Commission in November. In the staff report for that meeting
dated November 6, staff highlighted the number of changes which had occurred to address Commission
concerns.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff believed the design based on the changes was appropriate for develop-
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
ment and recommended approval with some minor modifications to the proffers. Staff acknowledged that
the alignment of Radford Lane with Route 250 had not been accomplished with the proposal and
associated proffers, and that the preferred solution was out of the control of the applicant and related to the
design of the Blue Ridge Shopping Center and the existing Radford Lane location. Staff also
recommended approval of SP-2001-006 for a mixture of residential and commercial uses.
Mr. Cilimberg said at their meeting on November 13, 2001, the Commission recommended
approval, but asked that four items be addressed and changed before these requests came to the Board.
Those issues were:
1.Reorientation of the townhouse units whose rear portion faces the commercial area and
Route 250.
2.Provision of a proffer that Radford Lane be available to be relocated in the stormwater
management area should the Blue Ridge Shopping Center design be modified to move the
entrance closer to the Blue Ridge Builders Supply building and regional stormwater
detention provided to serve this drainage area.
3.Make the pedestrian pathways interconnect better, especially with a reorientation of the
townhouse units.
4.Make the building footprints match with the elevations.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission also recommended approval of a special use permit for
residential use without conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has provided a revised set of proffers, and a revised Application
Plan showing the reorientation of the townhouse units and pedestrian pathways. The applicant has not
proffered reservation of right-of-way for the realignment of Radford Lane through the stormwater
management area. Neither has the applicant modified the building footprint.
Mr. Cilimberg said regarding the possible relocation of Radford Lane, a letter was received from
Don Wagner with Great Eastern Management indicating they do not have under consideration any change
to the Blue Ridge Shopping Center plan which would move the entrance to any location other than that
opposite Radford Lane. Staff continues to believes that the issues related to Radford Lane and the
entrance to the Blue Ridge Shopping Center are separate from this rezoning, but also acknowledges that
the request for the proffer to realign Radford Lane on the Clover Lawn site allows for more flexibility in the
redesign of the Blue Ridge Shopping Center should another design, other than that contemplated by the
owner, become necessary.
Mr. Cilimberg said regarding the difference between the footprint of the building shown in the
Application Plan and the proffered perspective drawings, the applicant has asserted that the footprint shown
on the Application Plan provides specific guidance about the location and the commercial structures. Staff
believes the Application Plan can easily accommodate the architectural features shown in the perspective
drawings and detailed matching footprints to elevations not critical at this time, but should be shown on the
Preliminary Site Plan rather than the final site plan, which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Architectural Review Board (ARB) looked at this proposal a second time on
December 3 and expressed no objection to the request for the special use permit or the rezoning with the
understanding that their recommendations will be followed. Since the Planning Commission meeting,
property owners on Radford Lane and in the area raised issues about the proffered privacy fence at the
rear of the parcel asserting that the placement of the privacy fence in the old Route 250 right-of-way is
inappropriate because that right-of-way provides legal access to properties. Staff reviewed the location of
the fence at the rear of the property and did not see that it impedes access to adjoining properties that
currently exist; he believes the concern is about the right-of-way that is no longer used. Since the
Commission meeting, property owners also requested landscaping on the back side of the fence so that the
fence as seen from this property is softened with plantings. Although the applicant has not responded
directly to all of the Commissions issues, staff believes the concerns are addressed with the exception of
=
the relationship of the Blue Ridge Shopping Center entrance to Radford Lane and, if the Board concurs with
staff, approval of the rezoning with the proffers and the special use permit is appropriate.
Mr. Cilimberg noted the 4:3 vote of the Planning Commission. He said those who did not vote in
favor had one significant concern, that had to do with density and the number of dwelling units proposed, a
total of 29 with the 24 townhouses. That was an issue of particular significance. He noted a plan posted on
the wall of this room which is the Application Plan for the proposal, as well as the Site Development Plan.
The staff has shown the Crozet Growth Area in general, and more specifically gave some context as to this
particular site and the area in which it is located. A couple of the renderings are also posted, along with
specifications on dwellings and structures. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas asked if any Board member had a question.
Ms. Humphris said Proffer No. 1a mentions a unified development of all three parcels of land, etc.
She said the next sentence says that does not preclude phasing of this development and it does not
preclude a subdivision of this parcel. She did not understand that language. Mr. Cilimberg said that would
be the ultimate subdivision after the Application Plan is effected. It notes a combination of parcels by plat
A
or deed prior to site development plan approval for the first site plan. Once the developers go through the
@
site plan process, they would most likely want approval of plats to create individual lots for the townhouses.
This language would allow that to happen.
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Ms. Humphris said another thing she did not understand in the proffers and did not remember
seeing discussed in the one set of Planning Commission minutes the Board received, was about the by-
right uses in the PD-MC District that would be proffered out. Gasoline pumps were proffered out, but
automobile service stations were not proffered out. She asked how there could be an automobile service
station without a gasoline pump. Mr. Cilimberg said he would need to check the Zoning Ordinance for this
particular district to see what uses are allowed. He said discussions occurred over a long period of time,
and he cannot say that something did not get left out. Mr. Davis said to him that seems to be inconsistent.
Ms. Humphris said by-right automobile service station is not proffered out in C-1. Mr. Cilimberg
A@
said their hours of operation are restricted. They are not proffered out altogether.
Ms. Humphris said she cannot image that people who live near this site would want those uses so
close. Also, under HC, automobile service stations are still listed as by-right uses without gasoline pumps,
A@
even though the gasoline pumps are proffered out. She thinks that will need to be dealt with. She,
personally, does not think that gasoline pumps should be allowed. That should be a use which is proffered
out. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant may want to address this issue.
Mr. Perkins said he had a question about Radford Lane and the old Route 250 roadbed. Proffer
No. 4 says in the event it obstructs any future County road project. He asked what the County would ever
A@
need that roadbed for. Mr. Cilimberg said if Radford Lane ever became a public road, it could serve any
development north of Route 250. He said at one point, staff was looking at the old Route 250 right-of-way
as providing east/west access in an ultimate road network. It was decided that would not be likely because
the distance from Route 250 to that location is about 300 feet, and it would be more likely that an east/west
road would be further north where the old Route 250 right-of-way is located. It could potentially be used for
some lesser access, but staff did not see that as being part of a bigger road network.
With no further questions for staff, the public hearing hear was opened and the applicant asked to
speak.
Ms. Jo Higgins said she was present to represent the applicant, Preston Stallings. She said they
originally presented a request for rezoning of 6.2 acres between the Masonic Lodge and the existing
highway commercial parcel, and across from Blue Ridge Builders Supply which is currently zoned HC. At
that time, the Board asked for a more cohesive plan integrating the three parcels under the same
ownership. The total acreage of those three parcels is 6.8. As a result of DISC, it was recommended that
the applicant seek PD-MC zoning which is the application before the Board tonight, with a residential
component by way of a special use. The Clover Lawn plan before the Board supports the five goals
outlined in Volume I of the DISC Report. (Note: Mr. Dorrier arrived at the meeting at 7:20 p.m.) These
goals are: facilitate in-fill development within Development Areas including both redevelopment, and
minimize the expansion into rural areas; establish flexible residential use; establish a mixture of commercial,
industrial, open space and public land uses in the developed area to support County residential needs; and,
plan and provide for necessary infrastructure improvements that are impediments to development of vacant
sites.
Ms. Higgins said Clover Lawn is in the Development Area. The majority of the land included under
this application is redevelopment. There was a service station with gas pumps, a retail shop, and seven
residential units on the two parcels to the east. The smaller portion, or the in-fill parcel was between this
highway commercial and the Masonic Lodge. The infrastructure to support Clover Lawn exists. The site
has direct access to Route 250, a proffered interconnection to Radfords future expansion, water and sewer
=
utilities exist in close proximity and are planned to serve this site. Since the applicant started this multi-
family process, the density, number of units and square footage of the commercial use has been reduced
several times.
Ms. Higgins said Clover Lawn is a reasonable balance of the DISC principles, and the 12 principles
of the Neighborhood Model. Clover Lawn will be a walkable community of a small scale, have
neighborhood friendly streets, internal streets and sidewalks, and a network of connections between the
residential and commercial areas. There is to be an interconnection of the three parcels whereby they are
served by one joint entrance. As independent parcels, they would have three. It is a goal of VDOT and the
Route 250 West Task Force to reduce entrances onto Route 250. There is a proffered internal connection
to the future development of Radford Lane and a reserved right-of-way for this purpose. They do not think
it is reasonable, but the potential reuse of the old Route 250 location is not precluded by this plan.
Ms. Higgins said there is to be a social area at the center, which was important to the Planning
Commission, to serve as a focal area for gathering. The lawn in the center is approximately 21,000 square
feet. Together with the proffered area to the stormwater management land to the west, it is a total of about
40,000 square feet; almost an acre. This is an open space area for passive recreation. The Neighborhood
Model specifically states that an increase in density in the Development Areas from the current levels is
anticipated. The gross residential density, based on the 29 units, 24 town homes and five flats, is 4.2
du/acre. The Clover Lawn commercial area is not intended to compete with the center commercial area in
Crozet, but to supplement the redevelopment of the existing HC area as a neighborhood service. The
human scale of the development is served with the three POD residential structures that are about 2200
square feet each which is approximately the footprint of the neighboring single-family residences.
Ms. Higgins said the commercial building front elevation, which is proffered, is a design in scale with
this development. Seventy-six percent of the parking is regulated to the side and rear of the commercial
buildings with only a small percentage along the front, which meets the principles and desires of the
Architectural Review Board to minimize parking along Route 250. The mixture of uses under PD-MC
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
zoning will accommodate this goal, and with special use for residential, there are a variety of housing types
possible. There are five variations of housing types that range from the smallest unit of 1260 square feet
without a basement to the largest unit of 2268 square feet with a basement. The fifth size would be the
optional floor flats on top of the commercial space.
Based on the County Housing Directors information, using the form accepted by the Board in 2001
=
dollars, Ms. Higgins said the affordable housing equation equates to $145,000 at the top of the range of
what is defined as affordable housing. Within Clover Lawn, it is anticipated that some of the units in the
townhouse section will be in the range of $150,000 to $160,000 which is close to the affordable range. This
would provide an opportunity for young couples, or single professionals, to own their own residence in the
west side where this is currently not available. Since the infrastructure is virtually the same to support the
24 units, if the unit number goes down, the cost per unit will go up.
Ms. Higgins said the County had a plan several years ago to provide 30 affordable housing units at
Crozet Crossing. This is an opportunity for the private sector to provide 24 units close to the school, and
under site plan requirements, landscaping and amenities are required and approve the acceptability of less
expensive housing.
Ms. Higgins said the basket shop and gas station have been vacant and abandoned for a number
of years. This land placed in a higher use improves the tax base, in this case substantially. Raising the tax
base is a specific goal in the DISC principles. The site planning respects terrain; existing grades are being
used at the front of the site, the grades increase to the rear, but overall are close to what exists. Only 45
percent of the site is impervious. That was a goal the applicant strove for during the design phase. As far
as clear edges, which is the 12th Principle, this development area is not exactly at the edge of the
Development Area. There is still Highway Commercial across the road, but it is in a transitional area. It is
still within the Comprehensive Plan guidelines.
Ms. Higgins said this plan represents many months of interaction with County staff, the community
and property owners. Although the details have been incorporated in response to this issue, it has not
satisfied everyone. Due to Route 250 being an Entrance Corridor, there are those who would prefer this not
occur on Route 250, that the dwelling units be kept to one per acre, and other issues. Details incorporated
in the plan do mitigate the impact. The lay-out itself, the six-foot privacy fence, the reservation of right-of-
way to serve the future development of Radford Lane, the contribution to the traffic signal at Route 250 at
either of two locations, are all included in the proffers. There are many details still required before the Plan
is finalized. All the significant elements are proffered, the Plan itself, the commercial building elevation, the
residential building elevation, and the amenities on the site.
Ms. Higgins said the number of uses that are currently by-right for the 4.2 acres zoned HC have
either been proffered out or restricted based on input by staff and others. The Plan represents less square
footage of commercial use than the by-right development which could include significantly more square
footage. The proffers associated with this development are substantial in comparison to the scale of the
request. Most importantly, this proposed development at any location, even within the designated Growth
Area, has been a difficult proposition. Redevelopment and in-fill is a factor that makes this decision
different than any the Board will face in the near future. This Plan will actually prevent another set of gas
pumps on Route 250, which all agree is preferable. The developer has diligently pursued and persevered
through the process to get to this point to come before the Board with an integrated plan that is
recommended for approval by both the staff and the Planning Commission. It is in general accordance with
the 12 principles of DISC and achieves the DISC goals. A number of different options were looked at and
this plan has an overall better use of the land than any of the by-right alternatives. For this reason, the
Board's support of the project is requested.
Ms. Higgins offered to answer questions. She said in reference to the question about a proffer, at
the time they started with a list of things to restrict or eliminate, automobile service stations was included in
the restricted uses. During the discussion with the Planning Commission, gasoline pumps were repeatedly
mentioned. If one looks at all of the uses, gasoline pumps is not listed as a specific use. It is an accessory
use to other things, convenience stores, etc. Therefore, to make clear that gasoline pumps would not be
allowed, it was listed in the proffer under the uses which would not be allowed. But, in order to make the
proffer clearer, there is no problem with removing automobile service stations from Proffer No. 7b and
A@
placing it in Proffer No. 7a.
Ms. Thomas asked that Board members hold their questions until after the public hearing is held.
She then explained the Boards rules for taking comments during public hearings, and then opened the
=
hearing.
Mr. Bob Cross was first to speak. He said he is a resident of Radford Lane. He was present on
behalf of the Radford Lane property owners to comment on the misalignment of Radford Lane with the
Blue Ridge Shopping Center on the other side of Route 250. The history of this problem goes back to 1998
when the Food Lion site plan was approved. Nobody noted that it was offset by approximately 80 feet from
Radford Lane. During discussions with Mr. Ball and Mr. Kesterson, they were told that the misalignment
was an oversight. They have expressed concerns about traffic conflicts between their road (Radford Lane),
the Clover Lawn project and the Food Lion project. Both VDOT and the Route 250 West Task Force
recommend that Radford Lane and the entrance to the Food Lion site should be aligned. Approval of the
Clover Lawn proposal should be made contingent on solving the road alignment issue. Mr. Stallings is the
property owner of both sites, and is responsible for what happens on his property. He and Great Eastern
Management should work together to correct this mistake.
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Cross said the traffic from his Clover Lawn site will contribute to an unsafe condition on Route
250 and it appears that in the future there will be a joint stormwater management arrangement between the
two sites. The mistake of alignment creates several problems. It creates an unsafe intersection on Route
250, it complicates traffic management on Route 250, and for all practical purposes it blocks access to 50
acres immediately behind the Clover Lawn project in the Development Area. With the misalignment,
Radford Lane is not a safe access to be used when developing the acreage behind it. The access to the
east and west, as was covered in a letter from the property owners (on file), is prevented for various
reasons. There are no roads to address this area in the Six-Year Road Plan. In recognition of the safety
issue, Mr. Stallings has proffered land for a right-in/right-out traffic triangle which the residents found
objectionable, and it does not address the issue of access to the property behind the Clover Lawn site. He
said there are four alternatives for solving this problems. They were covered in a meeting with Mr. Perkins.
Their preference of alternatives would be the direct alignment of Radford Lane with the Food Lion site, but
they feel strongly that there needs to be a backup plan with the flexibility that Mr. Cilimberg mentioned
earlier. They question what will happen with this site plan if approval of the Food Lion does not go through.
(time expired) Mr. Cross said in conclusion, the residents do not feel it is in the public interest to proceed
with additional development in this area until the problems of safety, orderly traffic control and future
development have been solved. They appeal to the Board to not let this mistake be compounded with
another approved site plan.
Mr. Davis reminded Ms. Thomas that there are actually two public hearings on this question, a
request for a rezoning, and a request for a special use permit. She said that the Board would be taking
comments on both applications at the same time.
Mr. Bob Johnson said he and his wife have been residents of western Albemarle for 26 years. He
has always thought that the Crozet setup was ideal from a planners point of view because Route 240 runs
=
through the center of Crozet for about a mile off of Route 250 West. Then there is a proposal for a bypass.
They wanted to avoid a situation on Route 250 similar to that on Route 29 north of Charlottesville. He said
developers have been working for years to parlay some unfortunate grandfathered clauses to develop
Route 250. It appears that another traffic light will be needed if this development takes place. The strip
zoning on Route 250 is what should be avoided. He said this is the edge of the development zone of
Crozet, but it is the periphery. The commercial should be built in the center of Crozet, and this proposal will
break Crozet apart. There is not good access between this spot and the center of Crozet, so it just like a
new center rather than building into Crozet. He thinks strip zoning should be avoided as much as possible.
He does not know how things are grandfathered, but there was a small basket shop and a defunct gas
station on this property, and somehow that will be changed into a major development by-right. He thinks this
is the wrong place for it, and thinks development should be minimized in this particular area. With the
exception of Windham, he does not think there is an area with a higher density of housing, although this
proposal calls for less than the Plan shown at the last meeting he attended. It is still a higher zoning than
he would want. It is a small area, but is its own little piece which is isolated from Crozet. He recommended
that everything possible be done to avoid using the grandfathered development to mess up Route 250.
Ms. Max Cobel said he lives directly behind this proposed project. He said Mr. Anderson, the non-
voting member on the Planning Commission, said this is a ready, aim, fire thing. He got to think about
A@
DISC and he did some studying. He said we have been building DISC ever since we came to this
A
continent. Wherever two trails crossed, there was a need for housing and supplies, so the same thing was
@
built, a DISC. He said this is like reinventing the wheel, and it is not needed, especially since there is a
village only a mile away with all the facilities needed. There is no connection to the surrounding area where
there are single-family residences, and family farms. He would like to keep it that way. He said the housing
market is slowing down. A lot of places being built now can't be sold. He said we are out of water. He
A@
thinks there needs to be a moratorium on building until the water supply is built. He said this development
idea has been hanging over our heads for five years. He thinks they will suffer a lot from this thing. He
A@
does not plan to ever develop his land behind this property, and his children dont. He asked that the Board
=
consider everybody else's rights. He suggested to Mr. Stallings that he build a nice retirement center.
There are many other things he could do with this property.
Ms. Ellen Waff said she lives on Route 250 West and is the adjacent property owner to the east.
There is another property owner between her property and Clover Lawn. She is impressed with the
improved architectural input since the beginning of this project. It was pretty basic and pretty awful, so she
appreciates the work Mr. Stallings has done. He has been extremely patient over the year. She asked at
the first Planning Commission hearing that there be an opportunity for citizen and neighborhood input. This
has been through many meetings. She said this is the first such project in this part of the County, but is a
project of monumental impact on Route 250, and on the rural area. She feels this project reflects staffs
=
work over a long year of work sessions both here and in the field. This demonstrates their willingness, and
desire as adjacent property owners, to work together for a common solution for most people. However,
she feels this plan should be denied because: the density, lack of acceptable transition from the
single-family existing neighborhood and surrounding farms in the rural area is of monumental consequence
to all residents in the area. She suggested that since Crozet was recently selected as the first area to be
considered for a DISC Master Plan, this plan for Clover Lawn Village be retroactively put into that plan and
dealt with at that time. At this point, this plan is premature. (time expired) Recently, as she was driving
west, when the tractor trailers come out of Blue Ridge Building Supply, they actually cross three lanes and
almost enter into the entrance into Clover Lawn Village, to make their turn left. This is a traffic problem that
is of concern to her.
Ms. Thomas asked that the next speaker be given five minutes since she represents a task force
appointed by this Board.
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Ms. Diana Strickler said she is a member of the Route 250 West Task Force appointed by the
Board of Supervisors and charged with making recommendations to the Board regarding transportation
issues along the corridor. She handed to the Board a letter from the Task Force dated October 22. In it,
the Task Force gives its recommendations regarding the Clover Lawn site plan as it relates to Route 250.
First, they recommended that the number of entrances on Route 250 be limited. Second, the entrance to
Clover Lawn be aligned with the commercial entrance to Blue Ridge Builders Supply. Third, that the
=
entrance to Blue Ridge HC (also referred to as Blue Ridge Shopping Center), be aligned with Radford
Lane. Fourth, should a traffic signal eventually become necessary in this area of Route 250, there be only
one signal. Finally, to make it feasible to have only one traffic signal, they recommend that there be internal
access to the signaled intersection from all developments on the north side of Route 250, i.e., Clover Lawn
and any subsequent development, as well as internal access to the signaled intersection from all south side
developments, mainly the existing Blue Ridge Builders Supply and the proposed Blue Ridge Shopping
=
Center.
Ms. Strickler said that at a meeting of the Task Force last night, they decided to state their views
more strongly. They believe it would be a serious mistake not to insure before proceeding that Radford
Lane is aligned with the entrance to the proposed Blue Ridge Shopping Center development. They urge
the Board to think 20 years into the future as to the likely traffic flows on 250. They want the County to
avoid a Boars Head/Farmington kind of situation. If, during development of the Boars Head/Ednam Forest
==
Subdivision, someone had thought to align the entrance with Farmington, there would not be two traffic
signals just a few hundred feet apart. The County must give serious thought to the existing and proposed
intersections at the Clover Lawn site in light of development potential north of Radford Lane.
Ms. Stickler said the Board adopted a resolution in May, 2000 to maintain Route 250 West as a
two-lane corridor and to preserve the community, scenic and rural character of the corridor. In order to
A@
make these words come true, every decision the County makes along 250 West must address the current
and, more importantly, the future impacts of those decisions on Route 250. These include traffic flow and
safety, as well as how individual developments will look from the roadway. The Task Force realizes the
Boards job is not easy, and is why the Task Force volunteered to assist in developing the Transportation
=
portion of the Crozet Master Plan. They realize specifically that the Radford Lane alignment issue is not
easy because of the previously approved site plan for the Blue Ridge Shopping Center. Nonetheless, they
urge the Board to do whatever it can to insure the creation of a rationale and safe intersection in the Clover
Lawn area which will serve the County well, not only now, but in the decades to come.
Mr. John Savage said he lives in Cory Farms, so he is not immediately affected by this
development, but from a traffic standpoint would be affected. He asked that the Board do whatever it can
to make the traffic flow in this area as effective and as safe as possible in aligning the various roads to be
put in the development. He said as someone who lives in a single-family development, he has no problem
with the concept of multi-family development with higher density. About 35 years ago, when he had just
finished college, he and his wife were looking for housing and could not afford the larger single-family
homes that seemed to dominate in that area. He thinks it would be good for western Albemarle to have a
certain amount of diversity and to have housing available in lower price ranges for younger couples to come
in and populate the area.
Ms. Cindy Aller-Jackson said she lives at 720 Radford Lane. She does not doubt that a plan for the
Clover Lawn site could be created that addresses everyones needs. What is presented tonight is still not
=
that plan even after a years worth of deferrals and recommendations by the Planning staff. The owner
=
never coordinated a meeting with the ten local homeowners about the residential development. This is the
first time she has seen a front-view of what the residential development is proposed to look like. The
Planning Commission asked that this be done so they could work together on the details for a
neighborhood model. As this plan stands, it does not meet nine of the 12 guidelines for a neighborhood
according to the way these residents read those guidelines. They request that no variances be granted as
the plan does not comply with the Albemarle County Code, the Comprehensive Plan or the Crozet
Community Study. They request a reduced density of R-3 to R-6 as guided in the Comprehensive Plan, or
R-1 to R-4 as suggested by the Crozet Community Study. They request a change in the housing types to
include detached single-family homes in conjunction with the attached single-family homes to reflect a
harmonious blend that will go along with the existing neighborhood. The harmonious blend is something
that is required in Section 32 of the County Code. They demand that a minimum setback of 50 feet from
the property boundaries be adhered to so that a more rural landscaping buffer can be used to protect the
privacy of new and existing neighborhoods. By adhering to the 50-foot setback, all three of her points would
be addressed. Mr. Stallings could create a village-feel that could blend into the neighborhood and remove
the privacy fence which the ARB commented was unnatural and would be visible from Route 250 and the
front doors of four neighbors. She handed to the Board members a map showing the area to be developed
by Mr. Stallings in relation to the property of the nearest neighborhood. It also shows the property that Mr.
Stallings either owns or has all ready developed, which includes part of the Blue Ridge site on the south
side of Route 250. It shows the effect on the surrounding area from such a density. She asked that the
Board deny the plan.
Mr. Scott Peyton said he is president of a citizens organization known as Scenic 250. He said this
A@
past spring, Scenic 250 entered into a dialogue with the applicant in a good faith belief that there was a
unique opportunity to create a development plan for the Clover Lawn site that could be far superior to what
might otherwise be accomplished by right. The applicant has disappointingly failed to meet that expectation
or to address their fundamental concerns in a substantive way. He said many of their concerns with this
proposal are directly related to its density. In overview, they feel the developer is using the PD-MC
framework to completely expand the density of the residential component of this plan, far in excess of
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
anything allowed by right. Of this proposed development, 2.6 acres are now zoned residential, with the
Comprehensive Plan calling for a range of three to six units per acres. Even if the Board allowed the
maximum of six units per acre, which is completely without precedent within the Crozet Growth Area and
exceeds the density the developer has achieved in his own Cory Farm development just west of this site,
there would be only 15 residential units. At the very least, they have felt that 15 residential units should be a
starting point. This developer has consistently and rigidly held to a much higher density.
Mr. Peyton said the PD-MC format would suggest a well-integrated site plan blending both
residential and commercial uses. No way does the plan begin to accomplish such a model. What is seen
is an overly dense residential development backed up to a commercial development with no natural
relationship between the two. None of this is compatible with the existing single-family detached residential
neighborhood which all ready exists on Radford Lane. Other concerns about this proposal relate to its
complete lack of connectivity to the internal part of Crozet. This is a reflection that this site is on the
absolute outer perimeter of the Crozet Growth Area. The only access and egress to this site is on and off
the scenic 250 highway. He said Scenic 250 strongly believes this is the wrong project in the wrong location
and that it stands to have a very negative impact and precedent on the 250 corridor. They fully respect that
the developer has a by right option to develop this property, but due to the numerous deficiencies and
shortcomings of the current proposal, they urge the Board to deny the request for rezoning that is before it
tonight and thereby allow the developer to proceed by right. He said there can be no justification to support
a rezoning under the current circumstances. He asked that other people present tonight in opposition to
this zoning request, stand. About 20 people stood.
Mr. John Jackson said he is a resident of Radford Lane. He has an easement on the edge of this
property for access to Route 250. He would like to address two specific areas. One, it does not work within
the Countys planning guidelines for the Neighborhood Model. Two, there are variance requests for the
=
setbacks on this property. He supports the concept behind mixed use developments, but he does not see it
being implemented in this plan. In the Neighborhood Model guidelines, there are a number of tests as to
whether a project meets those guidelines. One is whether there is a pedestrian orientation. In order to
have pedestrian orientation, children should be able to walk to school or activities. Simply putting a
sidewalk between a group of townhouses does not give a development pedestrian orientation. There is
nothing to walk to from this area. Within the Neighborhood Model, there should not be affordable housing
enclaves which impact on what can be developed around a particular area. This is clearly an enclave of
one particular type of housing, rather than being mixed use as advocated by a number of speakers tonight.
Mr. Jackson said there is no connectivity between this development and any other development. It
is strictly a POD sitting on Highway 250. That is another guiding force behind the Neighborhood Model. It
says that all the neighborhoods should be interconnected. There is no integration into the existing
neighborhood. There is an existing neighborhood of single-family homes here. This is not just sitting in the
area in isolation. Homes completely surround this plan. Instead of integration, they put a fence around the
edge of their property. That leads into the issue of setbacks, landscaping and variances. The proposal
requests a setback of 25 feet within the property line. The code sets the setback at 50 feet because the
Board of Supervisors has the option of giving a variance. The proposal also places a fence right in the
middle of that road easement as access to the other parcels along the back edge of this property. A minor
reduction in density and a minor reworking of this site plan would eliminate the need for these variances.
The Board has the flexibility to increase or decrease the setbacks as necessary. Some of these
townhouses are proposed to be three-story high townhouses, so he asks that the setbacks be increased
rather than decreased. This reduction to 25 feet in the setback has a number of problems. It makes the
project more invasive into the existing neighborhood. (Time expired) It eliminates any possibility of effective
landscaping along Radford Lane, and a number of other issues. It pushes out the perimeter of this
particular property too far. In conclusion, there should be strong justification for many proposals that ask for
a variance in the County Code. In this case, creating a setback variance really undermines the Countys
=
own Neighborhood Model.
Mr. Tom Loach said he is a resident of Crozet. He is interested in the process. To him, the
process in the Neighborhood Model is just as important as the product. Many neighbors and residents in
the area made requests tonight because the applicant did not listen. They have been very consistent with
the Neighborhood Model saying they would accept a mixture of housing types. The definition of mixture of
A
housing types is not a reconfiguration of attached homes, but a mixture of single and attached houses.
@
They also agreed to accept residential over the commercial thereby giving more residential density overall,
but also providing additional affordable housing. They have been consistent all along with applying the
Model Neighborhood. The suggestion for the 15 houses came from Planning staff because it was based
on the logic for 2.6 acres at R-6. There is an average of 1.7 in most residential developments. At this point,
that 15 suggestion should have been the starting point for negotiations between the community and the
developer to come up with an acceptable density, and an acceptable model. The developer said this has
been a long and arduous process. It has, but not because of the neighborhood. This is not a NIMBY
situation. The neighbors have been willing all along to meet and move forward with this plan, but what the
applicant has done is to design by incrementalism. Each time the plan was close to being denied by the
Planning Commission, the applicant would request deferral, move back and redesign. After the first time
there was not much public input except at the public meetings. This is not the way the Neighborhood Model
process should take place.
Mr. Loach said he has great fears going into the Crozet Master Planning process that this process
will set a precedent and that there will be a negative feedback group in Crozet. He said at the last meeting
where they were told they are looking at another 800 home development and golf course, there was
significant angst in Crozet about the amount of development going on now, and which will be going on in
the future. He thinks the process is as important as the product. What the Board has heard tonight is that
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
the neighborhood supports both the process and the Model Neighborhood product, but unfortunately, got
neither.
Mr. Mike Marshall said he is president of the Crozet Community Association. The Association does
not take official positions on projects, as it exists to be a forum for community discussions. He said his
remarks should not be taken as a vote or formal action by the Association, but he does speak with some
authority on what the community thinks. He said the Master Planning process which will start next month is
something the community is very happy to have happen. There is anxiety about the rate of growth in
Crozet. There is wide-spread sentiment in town that they would rather there be no rezonings in town while
the master plan is being drawn. By-right is by-right, but they feel that variances over the next year will
undermine the latitude and seriousness with which master planning is undertaken. Basically, the town
wants to see emphasis put on saving the downtown area of Crozet. It has been mentioned that this is not a
very large project, but there is available commercial space downtown. The problem with Clover Lawn is
that it is about half of a shopping center. The other half is on the other side of the street, but it does not get
represented during these discussions if those two areas are combined, there is basically the equivalent of
the commercial space of downtown. He said this area is grandfathered. In the mind of Crozet people, they
think what was grandfathered was the basket shop and a one-bay gas station. It Mr. Stallings wanted to put
back a basket shop and a one-bay gas station, there would be no objection. If a shopping center were
wanted in Crozet, and it had to have x amount of space, would this location be chosen for it? The answer
A@
would be no. The reason this is being discussed is because it was grandfathered. They want to see the
A@
downtown area get the first emphasis, and they do not want to see competing commercial areas develop.
Looking at the number of people contemplated for Crozet, there will be a need for extra commercial space.
They would like for the master planning effort to examine downtown and its potential first. If there is going
to be stuff on the periphery of the growth area, then it should be more in keeping with that. They would
rather there be no rezonings while the master planning is being drawn.
Mr. Larry Hayes said he is a County resident. He would like for the Board to discuss how much this
project will cost the taxpayers next year, and over the next five years. As larger and larger projects come
up, the bills will be larger and larger.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said the Board actually did get a fiscal impact study for this project. As is done with all
major proposals, it was actually run through the Countys Fiscal Impact Model. It was a good suggestion,
=
and one which the Board spent years developing.
Mr. Davis reminded Ms. Thomas that the applicant was not afforded any rebuttal time. Ms.
Thomas said she had assumed that the Board members would have questions of the applicants
=
representative. The Board allows five minutes at this point.
Ms. Higgins said she would like to mention a couple of points. The 50-foot setback is a
requirement in the Zoning Ordinance under general commercial that sets out the setbacks between
residential zoning and commercial zoning. In this case, there are two townhouses as close as 35 feet. All
the commercial buildings are subject to that setback. This Plan was passed at the Planning Commission
level with that understanding. She said she respects the commitment to preservation of the rural character
of the area, but the areas the neighbors would prefer they match are areas within the Development Areas
and are shown in the Comprehensive Plan for medium density. To match that density now would be
shortsighted with respect to the goals of developing within the Development Areas to relieve the Rural
Areas.
Ms. Higgins said the other issue relates to the entrance alignment and is an involved subject.
There were discussions with Great Eastern Management and they came before the Planning Commission
on a couple of occasions. There were numerous meetings with staff. A plan will be coming forward in
January to redesign the Blue Ridge HC, which is the formal name of the site plan, to accommodate this
entrance realignment. It is in the best interests of Great Eastern to realign because it appears as if Radford
Lane is going to be a corridor for development. Clover Lawn has accommodated it in every way it can. The
issue about proffering to move the entrance to Radford Lane has to do with moving the entrance toward the
east across the area that could be either stormwater management or recreational area. The reason that
proffer is not on the table has nothing to do with the applicant not being willing, it has to do with VDOTs
=
confirmation that the entrance to Radford can move no closer to the existing Blue Ridge Builders Supply
=
entrance. The separation between that existing entrance and the Blue Ridge Builders Supply existing
=
entrance is 390 feet. VDOT does not want entrances to crowd upon each other. They either need to align
exactly or have separation. That is why Great Eastern is not pursuing a plan to move it to any other location
than what exists.
In reference to interconnectivity, Ms. Higgins said there is a proffer about interconnecting with
Radford Lane away from Route 250. The fence was not the developers idea to isolate this development,
=
but was proposed to diminish the impact of the development on the neighbors. He would gladly do away
with the fence if that is the desire of the neighbors. The neighbors did ask for some softening to the look of
the fence. That is agreeable, and they intend to work that out in the final site plan stages. As to the issue
about meetings, they did hold a meeting and invited all of the residents, and several attended. Mrs. Waff
was one of those who attended. Some residents declined. She has met with Mr. Cross many times. He
was the point of contact for the Radford Lane property owners, so the applicant felt the owners were well
informed. Most recently, all of the revisions made to the Plan came as a result of direct input from the
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Commission and staff. There is staff support of the Plan. Due to the lay-out of the Plan before the Board,
the applicant would lose a lot if they moved toward by-right development. The two parcels that are zoned
Highway Commercial are away from Radford Lane, so the potential interconnectivity of the 50 acres behind
Clover Lawn will be lost when that property is developed. It would more isolate the existing zoning that is on
Route 250.
Ms. Thomas asked if Board members had questions for Ms. Higgins.
Mr. Dorrier asked that the water and sewer situation for the development be explained. Ms. Higgins
said water is available in Cory Farms. The Plan for the Blue Ridge highway commercial and Clover Lawn
will be served from the extension of the water line across the front of the Masonic Lodge. They all ready
have an easement in place to extend the sewer out of the cul-de-sac in Cory Farms to serve this
development. There is a proffer for the joint stormwater detention with the Blue Ridge highway commercial
Mr. Martin said the density levels have gone down each time there was a Planning Commission
meeting. He asked what density staff recommended in the beginning. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know
since he was not involved with the petition in the beginning. He knows that staff recognized later in the
process that the number of dwelling units seemed reasonable in that area. Of course, measured density
starts with what is all ready residential, but there is also the measured density some people had made
against the total area, which is much larger than the current residential area.
Mr. Martin asked if it was more like 20 or more like 50. Mr. Cilimberg said it would have been more
like 20 than 50. It started as a request for 40 in the original concepts. Mr. Martin said he knows it started at
40, then went to 32, and then 24, and now people are suggesting 18 and 16. Mr. Cilimberg said a lesser
number than the 24 was something brought up at the Planning Commission meeting. It is actually 29 now,
but that includes five units over top of the retail office space.
Ms. Thomas asked how the square footage of this compares to the commercial development
across from Forest Lakes where the Sip N Dip is located. She asked if this is comparable to the size of
A>@
that. Mr. Cilimberg said the first floor area is about 22,000 square feet. The second floor of what is shown
for office commercial could be residential or it could be additional space for office commercial. He does
not know the square footage of those buildings at Forest Lakes, but the Woodbrook Shopping Center is
over 30,000 square feet.
Ms. Higgins said she was the project manager for Seminole Commons. The individual buildings at
Seminole Commons are less than 10,000 square feet. This plan was modeled depth and length wise by
the buildings at Seminole Commons. There are two individual buildings and they do not have a second
floor, but the facade makes them appear taller. The bottom floor of these buildings is similar, and these
buildings only propose to have a partial second floor. The total of these buildings, as far as the footprint is
concerned, is less around 20,000 square feet with the upper floors only being partial floors.
Mr. Dorrier said pedestrian orientation has been mentioned tonight. He said the Hollymead Town
Center is on Route 29 North, a major highway, and this proposal is near a major highway. The Neighbor-
hood Plan encourages pedestrian orientation. It is the first consideration of the 12 principles in the
Neighborhood Model. He thinks developments along major highways would have problems adding that
pedestrian orientation. He asked what this applicant has done that would give it any sort of pedestrian
orientation. Mr. Cilimberg said what they have done is internal to the project because there is no pedestrian
system outside of the development. As Crozet gets master planned, staff will want to lay out a total
pedestrian system, and this will even lengthen that.
Mr. Dorrier asked if a system of bicycle paths, walkways, etc. is envisioned. Mr. Cilimberg said he
does not know exactly what will be proposed, but it will be to provide for bicyclists and pedestrians through
pathways and sidewalks, and on street bike lanes. That will be worked out in the master planning. As the
street networks are laid out, associated with them will be pedestrian and bicycle networks, as well.
Mr. Dorrier said people will basically drive to this development, people living there might be
pedestrian oriented, but they drive to it, and then they drive away from it. Mr. Cilimberg said it will have to be
that way in this case, except for the immediate residents in walking distance, people would be coming by
automobile. As that area around it might develop in the future under a master plan concept, it would be
hoped that there would be much more pedestrian opportunity.
Mr. Davis said in regard to the proffer and the interconnection to Radford Lane, he interprets
Proffer No. 1b as proffering a future interconnection to Radford Lane, but there is no proffer guaranteeing
that there will be an interconnection at any point in time. It leaves the possible interconnection solely at the
discretion of the landowner. It provides that there could be a possible interconnection in the future, but it
does not guarantee it. Mr. Bowerman asked if that is a proffer.
Mr. Davis said the possible interconnection is a proffer, but it does not proffer a connection. Mr.
Martin asked how that is voiced when there is no control of the future. How could it be reworded to make it
more likely? Mr. Davis said they could proffer that they would connect to Radford Lane if Radford Lane
was ever made a public road, or private road with public access. But they did not make that proffer.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks what happens at Clover Lawn will depend on what happens at the Blue
Ridge Shopping Center. There is also the question of the master planning for Crozet. The Blue Ridge
Shopping Center has been on that site since about 1987. His biggest concern is the same as that
expressed by the neighbors, that there needs to be some transition in density which could probably be
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
accomplished with some single-family residences on the north side of this property. He does not think the
Board could accept and approve this plan tonight without knowing what will happen with Radford Lane,
what will happen with the regional detention basin, what Blue Ridge is asking for and whether it might be
granted. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know if their request will be approved, but it is tied to the site plan
for the Shopping Center.
Mr. Martin said one of the things he noticed is that the density could be increased without changing
much of the footprint. He said Mr. Perkins mentioned that there could be residential to the north of this site
so he wonders if there could be a trade-off of some residential to the north, with increased density to the
south keeping the concept of this as a footprint. The request started with 40 units, but now is at 24. People
have mentioned increasing problems with increasing the density, but he does not know if that would be true.
From his personal experience, he is familiar with living in a transitional area. When townhouses are in an
area first and then single-family unattached residential added, no one has any problem with buying a single-
family home within one-half acre of a townhouse, but not in reverse.
Ms. Perkins said one place to get more density and get more affordable housing is in the second
story of commercial areas. A rental unit there would be ideal for someone working at one of the schools in
that area.
Mr. Dorrier said when the Neighborhood Model was developed, it was envisioned that densities
would be increased to take the pressure off the rural areas. He does not think the density is out of line with
what was anticipated in the Growth Area, it could go up to six units per acre. Mr. Cilimberg said in the
Comprehensive Plan that is the maximum. Mr. Dorrier asked if the density of this proposal is at three units
per acre. Mr. Cilimberg said it is zoned R-1 now for about a third of the total 6.8 acres, so it is one dwelling
unit per acre for that part of the land. It is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for between three and six
dwelling units per acre for the residential area.
Mr. Dorrier said the request is higher than what is allowed by right, but is less than the maximum.
Mr. Cilimberg said it depends on what the maximum is figured against. There are 6.8 acres, some of which
is being used for a combination of commercial/residential. Mixed use gets into the question of what is
A
density? An important factor that came out in the Neighborhood model is that density really begins with
@
design. It is not always a question of the number, but how the project is being designed.
Mr. Martin said based on this applicants first proposal and staff recommending this design, he
=
takes for granted staff feels the objectives were met. Mr. Cilimberg said yes.
A@
Mr. Dorrier asked if the three Planning Commissioners who voted against this request were
concerned about the density. Mr. Cilimberg said density was the common theme. There were some other
concerns which were particular to individual members of the Commission.
Mr. Dorrier asked the density of the area outside of this proposed development. Mr. Cilimberg said
it is one dwelling unit per acre or less. It is an area which for a long time has developed into fairly large lots.
Mr. Martin said this area is similar to that on Proffit Road. There were houses in that area, most on
lots of two acres, then all of sudden duplexes were built next to them. It is that border. People then sold
their single-family homes to new people, and those new people are perfectly happy with what currently
exists. It was the people who lived in the area before the duplexes were built who were upset. Mr.
Cilimberg said this is an example of what might be seen in areas which although designated for
development have not yet started to develop. The first project will be the toughest because it is truly a big
change.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board had before it last month a request for a rezoning on Rio Road for
commercial and residential right next to single-family homes and it fit right in. He does not think it is so
much a question of density as of configuration. Staff has said the request meets certain criteria. That is not
saying this is the best design that could be conceived, and he is particularly concerned about the future
traffic issues. He said the County has created plenty of them in the past, any they have come back to haunt
the Board. He does not want to see that continue since there is the opportunity to deal with the traffic
situation on Route 250 in a much better way than is proposed. It seems to him that as much as this
proposal has gone through, there are still a few more layers it could go through to be acceptable to the
community, meet the principles of DISC, fit in, and also meet the traffic needs of the future.
Mr. Martin asked that the thought of higher density and more transition be considered. That means
higher density to the south with more transition to the north in terms of a few single-family homes so that the
people buying those new single-family homes are buying them with increased density in front of them to the
south. He is not talking about going back to 42 units. He asked the thoughts of the other Board members
on this question.
Ms. Thomas asked if when Mr. Martin said south he was suggesting not having so much
A@
commercial. Mr. Martin said south is where the commercial is located, but the way the buildings are
designed, he thinks the same footprint could be taken and the density increased in that building, and
possibly increase density between the edge of the north and the beginning of the commercial to the south.
Ms. Thomas said she had a thought along those same lines, but she does not know what is
planned surrounding this area. It is very low density surrounding this land. She thinks the Board needs to
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
see more about what the Comprehensive Plan and probably what the Crozet Master Plan will call for in this
area. If this is an area which will develop more densely than it is now, then these units will fit right in. Today
they stick out like a sore thumb. She needs to see more of what is planned for this whole area, as well as
picking up on what people in the audience and Mr. Bowerman said about the traffic. She thinks the Board
has a threat of making a real nightmare for traffic if it is not careful. She said the Cory Farm Road is
probably the Route 250/240 connector that comes in just down the road from this property, then there is
Radford Lane, and then there is the connection that faces the Home Builders Supply. There will be three
=
major roads right in that area. She knows that is fewer than if the property were done by-right, but she
thinks it should be looked at more before establishing that this is precisely what is wanted.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Thomas if she was suggesting that this rezoning is tied to a master plan.
Ms. Thomas said it is tied to her knowing more about it. For her it is not the density of the proposal, but the
traffic situation being created on Route 250. She is delighted that somebody is looking at more nearly
affordable housing in this area. It is just whether this is the right place, and what the plan sees as going on
in the surrounding area. She would like for the Board to have more information before making a decision.
Mr. Martin said he has some sensitively to the fact that the applicant started this process a long time
ago, before DISC was even completed. Then staff went to that person and asked for a more developed
plan. He has some sensitivity to now saying lets toss all of that and ask for the applicant to hold on for
A=@
another couple of years while the County does an entire new master plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff looked at the location of existing roads and where they thought there could
be interconnects in the future. Getting into road system analysis and associated land use will be part of the
Master Plan work. Based on what was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting last night, there is a
desire to get some level of analysis done in the master plan early on, particularly fiscal analysis and
environmental analysis. That might help guide some of the decisions which need to be made. At this time,
staff has for Crozet only the plan posted on the wall tonight.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this commercial area started out as spot zoning. Mr. Cilimberg said the Blue
Ridge Shopping Center and this particular property are very old commercial zonings which predate the
1980 Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Dorrier asked when they were first built. Mr. Cilimberg said these properties
were zoned to represent what was all ready established on them when the first Zoning Ordinance was
adopted in 1968. There has been no new land zoned for commercial use in that area.
Mr. Dorrier said there is no large development along that road except at the intersection of the road
going into Crozet. Mr. Cilimberg said that is the next location for commercial development. There are
some scattered commercial uses along the road on properties which are not zoned for commercial uses.
Ms. Humphris said her main concern with the proposal is the traffic problem, but she is not sure the
Board is in any position to solve it. She said there is definitely a traffic safety problem there. She does know
that where the detention basin will go is a determining factor. It will either go on that corner or it will be sub-
regional across the road. The Boards goal is to provide higher density in the Development Areas and this
=
proposal does that. The Board knew when it made that decision that it would make some people unhappy
because the Board knew that in-fill development would butt up against properties which are not of a like
design. She does not think the proposal for 24 units is bad. The difference between 18 and 24 units would
not a significant difference. If there were fewer units, the housing there might not be as affordable. The
Board needs to cling to the idea that although these units will not be cheap, it will be more affordable for
some people who would like to live in this location. She thinks there is a benefit to it being a unified site
under the PD-MC change rather than having it split as it is now. She thinks having the one entrance on this
piece of property is much better than the three entrances which would be allowed under current zoning. If
this proposal is to be approved, she hopes there would be a change in the proffer to make sure there would
always be the potential to connect to Radford Lane. She does not think possible is acceptable. For sure,
A@
there is a need to proffer out automobile service stations on this piece of property. She thinks there is a big
problem of traffic safety, and wishes she had a solution to that problem.
Mr. Bowerman said no one is saying this is an awful plan. Mr. Dorrier said VDOT has not spoken
against this. Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT actually requested the connection to Radford Lane because of the
potential development of the land behind this proposal, and the idea of not bringing more people out on
Route 250 than is necessary.
Ms. Higgins said the proffer Mr. Davis referred to was intended to be written to connect to Radford
Lane. The language has been through the planner, herself, and the County Attorneys Office several times.
=
The way it reads now is a little wishy-washy. It was intended that this development connect to Radford
A@
Lane in the event Radford Lane were upgraded. They want to clarify the language as necessary. They
want to remove the auto service station from the restricted hours aspect. VDOT reviewed this plan and
recommended the interconnection, but they could not connect to it in Radford Lanes current design and
=
configuration. It would not be appropriate; it is an access easement to private property. Ms. Higgins said
they have VDOTs concurrence with the location of the entrance aligning with Blue Ridge Builders Supply,
==
so they are perfectly willing that those proffers be clarified under a condition, or however is appropriate.
Mr. Cilimberg said if the entrance into Clover Lawn off of Route 250 is where it is planned, it would
not be desired to move Radford Lane any further to the east which would get it into the area where the
stormwater management facility is, because of the distance between this entrance and that kind of
relocation. He does not think VDOT would want to see that. They would rather, very honestly, see Radford
Lane relocated further west, I am sure. In fact, they would probably just as soon the Blue Ride Shopping
Center entrance stay where it is, and Radford Lane connect to Route 250 further west to get more
separation. Ms. Thomas said that runs into the Lodge. Mr. Cilimberg said the Masonic Lodge controls that.
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Ms. Thomas asked if anyone ever considered having only Radford Lane as the sole entrance/exit to
this property. Mr. Cilimberg said that was not discussed. Having the entrance to this development serve
through to the properties behind so that Radford Lane would no longer be necessary as an access was
discussed. That idea was not acceptable to the applicant.
Mr. Perkins said that some of the residents on Radford Lane are concerned that if Radford Lane
does not align, that they be given a right-of-way through this development. If there is to be a connection
there, that may be a possibility.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks this proposal fits in with the Comprehensive Plan and the Neighborhood
Model. The Board knew when it developed the Model that higher density is wanted in the Growth Areas,
and this property is in the Growth Area. He said the Neighborhood Model concludes by saying: It is
A
recognized that all of the 12 principles will not be achievable on each site for new development. It appears
@
that the mixed use, the neighborhood streets, the street interconnected with Radford, the affordability, clear
boundaries, the open space in the development, buildings and spaces of human scale, relegated parking,
and pedestrian orientation aspects (which probably will not be realized for many years into the future), are
met by this plan. He does not see how the Board can say that now it is not wanted. He is not sure what the
Board would use as a reason for not wanting it, other than some of the objections of the residents. On a
legal basis, he is not sure the Board has the grounds for the denying the application.
Ms. Martin said he thought Ms. Humphris stated it perfectly, and it could be restated as a motion.
Mr. Davis said the proffers would have to be amended in writing prior to any action being taken by the
Board.
Mr. Perkins said what this plan does not do which is important and will be important in future
rezonings is that there is not a harmonious transition. That is what is lacking, and that is what the neighbors
complained about. He does not think it is density. Something like this will never meet all the neighborhood
models, it will take a large area to meet all the DISC principles. What the neighbors are the most
concerned about is that the transition is so abrupt, it goes from what is there now to what is proposed. He
thinks that could be worked out with some single-family units even if the density was kept the same. In fact,
there could be more housing units by having smaller units, and with having apartments or whatever over the
commercial areas. It fails to meet the harmonious transition, and that is a very important part of the whole
DISC model, whatever new comes in has to meld in with what is all ready there.
Mr. Martin asked if the Board could approve it along the lines Ms. Humphris stated, and then set a
time frame whereby the neighbors and the developer could work together to get more transitioning with
single-family homes at the same DISC density, or even above. Mr. Bowerman said a site plan will be
coming to the Commission. Mr. Martin said he thinks that would take a lot of the other issues off of the
table so the Board could deal with the main issue, and let people focus on what might be a better
transitioning.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Board can require that the road be realigned. Mr. Perkins asked what
the Board can do about the road. He asked if the developer can be required to align the Shopping Center
and Radford Lane.
Mr. Martin said if the Board defers this request, every issue will be brought back into the discussion.
He said the Board needs to move forward.
Ms. Humphris said she did not think approval should be contingent on something which may or
may not happen in the future. She said there is no idea of what might happen with Radford Lane.
Mr. Dorrier said the applicant is willing to proffer to align the two entrances.
Mr. Thomas said that is not correct. The proffer is that they will connect over to it when that is a
possibility.
Ms. Humphris said they do not have any responsibility for lining it up. That is not in their purview.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board has no control over this question. Ms. Thomas said it does in the sense
that the Blue Ridge project will be coming before it in the future. She said the master plan for the area
surrounding this proposal should probably consider transitioning, rather than requiring this developer to do it
on six acres. Mr. Martin said he was simply talking about a couple of single-family units in the back, with a
density increase up front which would allow for more transitioning on this six-acre property. Ms. Thomas
said she would be in favor of that if it cut down on the commercial. She thinks a very large commercial strip
is being created on this property.
Mr. Tucker said the Board needs to keep in mind that this is a planned development application, so
the site plan is tied to the rezoning and cannot vary substantially from what is seen in the rezoning. If the
Board wants to do something like what is being discussed, the applicant would have to redesign that site
plan to show that plan, so that when this is approved, the plan is being adopted.
Mr. Martin said he is suggesting that the Board adopt this plan, but allow some working between the
community and the developer between now and the final site plan. Then the Board can decide if it wants to
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
approve it.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Tucker is saying this site plan is tied to this rezoning. Mr. Cilimberg said it
would involve amending the rezoning if a change such as that discussed where made to the site plan. Mr.
Martin said in that case, he would approve what is before the Board tonight.
At this point, Mr. Dorrier offered motion to approve ZMA-99-11 subject to all the conditions issued
by the Planning Commission, staff recommendations, and consideration of realignment with Radford Lane.
He thinks something needs to be put in to address this subject.
Ms. Thomas suggested that the Board take a recess so the applicant can work on the proffers. Mr.
Bowerman asked if this can be approved by the Board if Mr. Davis agrees since it was not in writing at the
beginning of the meeting. (Note: At 8:55 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 9:02 p.m.)
Ms. Thomas called the meeting back to order and asked Mr. Davis to address the question of the
proffers.
Mr. Davis said two amendments to the proffers were committed to writing and signed during the
recess. One change is to Proffer No. 1b which now reads: Access from a single entrance across Route
A
250 with a future interconnection to Radford Lane, when Radford Lane becomes a public road or private
road with public access. He said this proffer will assure that interconnectivity be conditioned upon
@
improvements to Radford Lane. Mr. Davis said the second change is under Proffer No. 7a, Automobile
Service Station, under the applicable sections, has been proffered out of the permitted uses. Under Proffer
No. 7b, Automobile Service Station has been removed as a use with a restricted time because it is no
longer a use which is permitted. Otherwise, the proffers are the same as before.
Mr. Perkins requested that this be deferred to give the applicant time to work this plan, and possibly
add some single-family residential units for a transitional zone. Also, the Radford Lane issue comes to the
Planning Commission in January, and that issue could be addressed in a months time. He said this thing
=
has been discussed for a long time, and traffic is a problem. The Board has an opportunity to address that
issue. Deferment does not kill anything, it is just asking for some additional tweaking from the applicant, as
well as giving the County an opportunity to see how the Radford Lane thing works out. He asked that this
petition be deferred until February.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the County does not have an application at this time for a site plan change
for the Blue Ridge Shopping Center. Once that is in hand, it will be less than 60 days before it gets to the
Planning Commission as a preliminary site plan. He said the next submittal for site plans is in January, so
the Board would not get this back until sometime in March.
Mr. Perkins said he understands the Blue Ridge thing will be submitted to the County in January.
Mr. Martin said at the time the Board recessed, a motion had been started by Mr. Dorrier. Ms.
Thomas said procedurally, Mr. Dorrier has the floor in that sense. She thinks the applicant sees where the
Board is at this point. She wondered if the applicant had any interest in asking for a deferral.
Ms. Higgins said with all due respect, the applicant was deferred by the September 11 canceled
Planning Commission date. They don't have a time frame, but would like to be in preliminary plan approval
stage by February, 60 days from this approval. She knows a lot of work is being done, and they have
received confirmations along the way, and the work will proceed. She said they cannot agree to a deferral
at this time.
Mr. Dorrier asked if public comment will be taken at the site plan level. Mr. Cilimberg said the site
plan can go to the Planning Commission and there would be public comment. He said site plans are based
on what is in the ordinance, and the proffers attached to the rezoning. There is not real discretion at that
point. Mr. Bowerman said it is administrative at the site plan level; it is legislative at this point.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the two proffers made tonight would be binding on the Radford Road situation.
Mr. Davis said what has been proffered is that they will reserve the right-of-way necessary for Radford
Lane, and if it becomes a public road, or private road with public access, they would interconnect to it. The
proffers dont do anything more than that.
=
Mr. Dorrier said a month from now the Board will not know any more about this situation. What
would be gained by a month deferral?
Mr. Bowerman asked if the motion had been completed. Mr. Dorrier said he had moved to
approve ZMA-99-11 subject to the proffers and the conditions of the staff and Planning Commission. Ms.
Thomas said there are no conditions, only the proffers. Mr. Davis said that is correct, but due to the nature
of this application, there are two applications before the Board. One is to approve the PD-MC zoning, and a
second application to approve a special use which would allow residential uses in the PD-MC.
Procedurally, he suggests that if there is a motion to approve the PD-MC, that there also be a motion to
approve the special use and deal with it in one motion.
Mr. Perkins said the Planning Commission had two motions. Mr. Davis said he thought about that,
and he does not see any way that one could be approved without the other, so they really are linked
because of this master plan. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Rieley knew that because he voted against the
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
rezoning, and then moved approval of the special use permit. Mr. Davis said it can be dealt with more
effectively with one motion tonight.
Mr. Dorrier said he would offer motion to approve ZMA-99-11 subject to the proffers and to
approve SP-2001-006, Clover Lawn Village. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Ms. Thomas said it has been moved and seconded that what is before the Board be approved with
the small changes to the proffers. She will not vote for approval of this application. She thinks the Board
has a chance to produce something good. She thinks the Board will be sorry for the traffic situation as
presented. She is in no hurry to have an additional commercial development in the suburbs of Crozet
before getting the Master Plan for the downtown part of Crozet. She thinks deferring it and being involved
in the Master Plan for this area is a viable option. This has come to the Board in fairly quick order, so she
does not feel the Board is delaying things by deferring it as Mr. Perkins suggested.
Ms. Humphris asked when the Planning Commission will be dealing with the alignment on the
south side of Route 250 relative to Radford Lane. Mr. Cilimberg said if the applicant for Blue Ridge
Shopping Center submits a site plan in January, then it would get to the Commission, assuming the
Commission is going to review that, in a little less than 60 days. That assumes that once the submittal is
made, and the site review committee makes its requests for changes, the applicant turns those changes
around in the normal allowed time frame.
Ms. Humphris asked if the earliest a decision could be made by the Board would be in March. Mr.
Cilimberg said that is the way it looks. Ms. Humphris asked if that is too long to wait. Ms. Martin said he
does not think March is too long to wait, but sometimes he gets concerned. He hears Ms. Humphris say
until March, but he hears Ms. Thomas saying until the Master Plan is finished. If the Board waited for the
Master Plan, there might be a better product in two years, but is that fair to someone who started out in
1999 to get something done on their own property? Who is to say there would not be something else to
wait for at that time? Originally, the Board said to wait until the DISC Committee made its report. That was
a year ago. He gets concerned that it becomes like a tornado that gets caught up in something and he
does not think that is fair. He is trying to be fair to everyone. He is not trying to ramrod this through. He
said Ms. Humphris said March, but in March she will not be a member of this Board with her very clear
thought.
Ms. Humphris said that is her problem. She would never consider asking this applicant to wait for a
master plan. That is not fair. Her question was simply, is March too long to ask the applicant to wait? Mr.
Bowerman said the applicant has answered that. Ms. Humphris said she was asking whether it is too long
for the Board to wait. She is not talking about waiting for the master plan because she does not think that is
fair, but is asking whether waiting until March is too long. Mr. Bowerman said if that were a date certain, that
would one be issue, but that is not a date certain.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board has not asked other applicants, where master plans have not been
developed, to wait. The delays in this applications process have created a better product, but it appears
=
that the Board has hit the end of the road more or less.
A@
Mr. Perkins said a lot of things have come together, and it is because there were forces causing it
to come together. He does not think it is the best product that could be obtained. Mr. Dorrier asked what
more Mr. Perkins envisions can be done to make the product better. Mr. Perkins said the Board should
certainly know what will happen with the Radford Lane situation to avoid an intersection that does not line
up. Mr. Dorrier said he agrees that the intersection does need to line up and he thought that is what the
proffer was going to encourage.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it is more likely to happen if the Board approves it or defers it? Mr. Perkins
said the pressure is off of everybody if the application is approved. Mr. Bowerman said it then becomes less
certain where Radford Lane will be if the application is deferred, and it becomes a moving target.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board would know in March where Radford Lane will go. It is just a wild
guess that there will be an answer in March. That is the one issue he would like to see resolved. But, he
does not think the Board should hold up the applicant on this application.
Ms. Higgins said if it would relieve the concerns about Radford Lane itself moving, there is nothing
in the design of Clover Lawn that has to do with the alignment across the road on the south side with the
existing Radford Lane. She asked if the concern would be relieved to include in that proffer that a
movement of Radford Lane in the direction of Clover Lawn would be accommodated within that stormwater
management area? That is the only other issue, although she knows that VDOT will not let it move any
closer. Otherwise, there is no change proposed for Clover Lawn when that entrance is aligned.
At this point, Ms. Thomas asked that the Clerk call the roll on the motion to approve both
applications. The vote for approval passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas and Mr. Perkins.
(Note: The approved proffers are set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: 12/1211/01/2001
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
ZMA # 99 - 11
Tax Map Parcel(s) # 56- 107, 107A, 107(A)1
2.65/4.15 Acres to be rezoned from R1/HC to PD-MC
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its
duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall
be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the
requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for
the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning
requested.
(1) See attached Clover Lawn Proffers 1 through 6, on pages 2 of 3 and 3 of 3
A@
(Signed) 12-12-01
Preston O. Stallings Preston O. Stallings 11-01-01
Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date
Clover Lawn Village - Proffers
In connection with the applicant's rezoning application, the following proffers are made:
1.The Application Plan, dated November 1, 19, 2001, Sheet 2 of 2 is proffered as the
Application Plan for the development and is attached hereto. Specific features of
the Application Plan that will be a part of the development are:
a.A unified development of all three parcels of land (TMP56-107, 107(A)1, and
TMP 56-107A) including a combination of these parcels by plat or deed prior
to site development plan approval for the first site plan. This does not
preclude phasing this development and it does not preclude a subdivision of
this parcel.
b.Access from a single entrance across RT 250 with a possible future
interconnection to Radford Lane. when Radford Lane becomes a public
road or private road with public access.
c.A mixed-use development with residential uses at the rear of the development
and commercial and residential uses at the front of the development.
d.Pedestrian access in the locations and widths as shown on the Application
Plan. Sidewalk and pedestrian paths shall meet standards established by the
Director of Engineering.
e.Architectural Features in general accord with the elevation of the Commercial
Building by Stoneking/von Storch dated 7/05/01 and front elevation of the
Townhouse(s) dated 10/31/01 and photo of the townhouse rear face dated
10/31/02 attached hereto (on file). The rear face of Townhouse block A and
block G shall have additional window treatment and screening as approved by
Architectural Review Board. Modifications required by Architectural Review
Board shall be deemed as consistent with this proffer.
f.A maximum of 29 residential units which includes a maximum of 24
townhouses and a maximum of 5 residential units overtop the commercial
buildings.
2.Radford Lane, as shown on the Application Plan, shall be reserved for dedication
upon the demand of the County, should the County establish the need for a public
road at this location. The area to be dedicated shall be the minimum amount
required for a public road and shall be no more than 25 feet from the property line
except at the entrance to RT 250 where the reserved area is wider as shown on the
Application Plan. If before the County demands dedication for a public road, the
County approves a private road at this location under the Subdivision Ordinance,
then the land reserved for dedication shall be available for construction of a private
road. This proffer shall be in effect until December 31, 2011. Should the County
not make demand or approve the private road design plan at this location within
this time period, the owner shall be released from the obligation. The owner is not
proffering a gift of the land for a private road and is not proffering to construct any
improvements to that road.
3.Recreational amenities shall consist of a "recreational area" as shown on the
Application Plan in which a Tot Lot shall be installed. The area shall be a
minimum of 20,000 square feet. At a minimum, recreational amenities shall
include two benches, a sidewalk, and a pathway as shown on the Application Plan.
These amenities and the Tot Lot shall be installed or bonded prior to certificate of
occupancy of the 15th residential unit. This proffer does not prohibit the Director of
Planning and Community Development from substituting recreational facilities
provided those facilities satisfy the requirements of Sections 4.16.2.1.
4.No structure or landscaping shall be placed within the Old Route 250 road bed
shown on the Application Plan with the exception of the six-foot tall privacy fence in
the general location shown along the rear property line. Existing vehicular access
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
across the rear boundary of the development shall remain unobstructed.
Screening plants required at the rear of the development where the Old Route 250
road bed abuts the property line shall be placed outside of the 20 foot buffer. A
privacy fence of six-feet in height is proffered in the general location shown on the
Application Plan. This proffer acknowledges that the segment of the privacy fence
located within the old Route 250 roadbed may be relocated in the event it obstructs
any future County road project.
5.The Owner shall make a pro-rata contribution for the installation of a traffic signal
at one of two potential locations - either the intersection of Clover Lawn Lane and
RT 250 OR Radford Lane and RT 250. The Owner's pro-rata contribution shall be
based on the cost established by VDOT when that signal is warranted. The
location of the traffic signal shall be determined by VDOT. The amount of the
contribution shall be based on a pro-rata share of the traffic volume contributed by
this site as determined by the Albemarle County Engineering Department. This
proffer shall be in effect until December 31, 2011.
6.If a sub-regional stormwater management facility is available for use by this
development, the Owner shall make a contribution consistent with the County's
program in lieu of an on-site stormwater management facility. The area shown on
the Application Plan for this use will be designated for recreational use.
7.Uses allowed by-right in the PDMC district are attached hereto (on file) as Section
22.2.1 Commercial -C-1, 23.2.1 Commercial Office -CO, and 24.2.1 Highway
Commercial -HC, from the Zoning ordinance in effect at the time of this rezoning,
copies of which are attached hereto, with the following exceptions:
a.The following uses shall not be permitted in this district:
Cemeteries (Sections 22.2.1(b)(3), 23.2.1(4),24.2.1(5))
Fire and rescue squad stations(Section 22.1.1(b)(6))
Funeral homes (Sections 22.2.1(b)(7),24.2.1(14))
Indoor theaters (Sections 22.2.1(b)(9), 24.2.1 (38))
Auto truck repair shop(Sections 22.2.1(b)(22), 24.2.1(2))
Gasoline pumps
Automobile service stations (Sections 22.2.1(b)(16), 24.2.1(3))
b.The following uses shall be restricted to hours of operation between 6 a.m.
and 11 p.m.:
Laundries, dry cleaners (Section 22.2.1(b)(10))
Laundromat (Section 22.2.1(b)(11))
Nurseries, day care centers (Sections 22.2.1(b)(13), 23.2.1(12))
Automobile service stations (Sections 22.2.1(b)(16), 24.2.1(3))
Indoor athletic facilities (Sections 22.2.1(b)(24), 24.2.1(42))
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2001-039. The Clifton Inn (Sign #68). Public hearing on a request to
allow increased seating in dining area of Clifton Inn. Znd RA. TM 79, P 23B. Contains 7.85 acs. Loc on Rt
729 approx 0.25 mls from intersec w/Rt 250. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised
in the Daily Progress on November 26 and December 3, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report. He said the applicant wishes to amend SP-91-058,
=
which allows for a 14-room bed and breakfast and a 24-seat single-seating restaurant (all evening diners
are served at one time), with occasional larger events. This amendment would increase the restaurant to
52 seats with multiple seatings, and would remove the approval for any special events in excess of current
capacities. He said the Inns existing facilities are sufficient to support the increased restaurant seating, and
=
the requested changes are expected to have no significant impacts on the surrounding area. The applicant
is giving up permission for occasional events that might have higher levels of traffic and parking impacts
than normal daily use. One factor unfavorable to the request is that overall use might be increased
because of the availability of multiple seatings. However, multiple seatings can spread the traffic impacts
out more evenly.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval subject to two conditions. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on November 27, 2001, unanimously recommended approval, but amended
the wording of Condition No. 2 to clarify the intent of the hours of operation for the restaurant. He said staff
suggests changing the wording of that condition to further clarify it. It would read: Hours of restaurant
A
operation for the public other than guests of the inn and those attending special events shall be from 6 a.m.
to 11 p.m.
@
Ms. Thomas asked what the applicant is giving up in terms of special events. Mr. Cilimberg said
previously it was stated in Condition No. 1 that Except for lodging guests and occasional lunches, wedding
A
receptions, cocktail parties, and the like, the restaurant usage is limited to not more than 24 diners per
evening. This not a significant change, but they wanted to get a standard allowance for restaurant usage.
@
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing, and she asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Larry McElwain said he was present on behalf of the applicant. He said the economics of
running an historic property like Clifton exceeds its ability to generate the money necessary based on the
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
single-seating, 24-seat restaurant allowance now. A side issue is that for special events under the current
A@
special use permit, there is no delineation of the size of the special event. They want to clarify that based
on ability to dispose of septic and the number who can be served by the kitchen. The applicant and staff
arrived at the number of 80 which fits in with their traffic control system as far as the entrance is concerned.
His second point is that under the proposal, there is no need for any additional construction on the
property. The facility is able to start using this additional capacity tomorrow. He commended County staff
for the effort they put into this request. He offered to answer questions.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve SP-2001-039 subject to the two conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission, but adding the words and those attending special events to
A@
Condition No. 2. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.Approval is limited to a fifty-two (52)-seat restaurant with full dinner hours
available (no limited seating) plus fourteen (14) guest rooms. At no time shall
the aggregate of guests of the Inn, the restaurant, and any special events on the
premises exceed eighty (80); and
2.Hours of restaurant operation for the pubic, other than guests of the Inn, and
those attending special events, shall be from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2001-045. Seven Oaks Farm (Signs #26 & 27). Public hearing on a
request to allow Home Occ Class B for artist management company. Znd RA & EC. TM 55, P 15.
Contains 98.54 acs. Loc at 200 Seven Oaks Farm, off Rt 250, approx 1 ml W from I-64/Crozet interchg.
White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on November 26 and
December 3, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report. He said this is a request for a Home Occupation-
Class B to manage artists involved in the music industry. There will be two employees, other than the
owner, on the site. It will occur in an accessory building located in the center of the property which is about
100 acres in size. All business is done by Internet, telephone and fax. There is one daily delivery. All
meetings with vendors take place off of the site. No business meetings are anticipated at the farm. This
use will not generate a significant amount of additional traffic. Therefore, staff did not recommend the
improvements that VDOT recommended.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 27, 2001, concurred with
staff and recommended approval of this petition subject to one condition.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Andy Dondero, Comptroller with Red Light Management, the applicant, said he would be happy
to answer questions.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Perkins to approve SP-2001-045 subject to the condition
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Humphris. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The condition of approval is set out in full below.)
1.The home occupation shall be located in an existing 1076 square feet accessory
structure (Coleman Cottage).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2001-050. Tomlin (Triton PCS - CVR 385D) (Sign #87). Public hearing
on a request to allow 105' high wireless telecom steel monopole. Znd RA. TM 75, P 9. Contains 10.32
acs. Loc at 1064 Goodwin Farm Ln on E side of Rt 29S, approx 2 mls S of I-64. Samuel Miller Dist.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on November 26 and December 3,
2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this request is for a steel monopole with flush-mounted antennas, along with the
necessary transmitting and receiving equipment on Goodwin Farm Lane off Route 29 approximately two
miles south of I-64. This is a residential and agricultural area immediately adjacent to Route 29. Staff
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
determined that the facility will be minimally visible from the property across from Route 29 for a short
distance. The ridge on which the proposed pole would be located is heavily wooded, and it is anticipated
that existing topography and existing vegetation will help minimize visibility of the facility from Route 29. He
said there was a balloon test which staff witnessed. The balloon was camouflaged within a hillside of trees
from nearly every angle. The only location from which the balloon was visible without a wooded backdrop
is from the northbound lane of Route 29 where it intersects with Goodwin Farm Lane. In that area it was
skylighted above the trees and visible for approximately 100 yards.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of the request at the requested height which would
have put the pole 10 feet above the trees. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 27,
2001, decided that a lower height was more appropriate. They included wording in the condition to limit the
height of the pole above the tallest tree within 25 feet to seven feet. Not only is this language inclusive of
the height of the pole above the trees, but is also inclusive of an ultimate height of the pole and the top
elevation against which that pole could be measured. In effect, that would not allow the pole to be any
taller if the trees grow. The Board may want to consider that in its action.
Mr. Bowerman asked why this number keeps changing. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know the
details of this particular application. The real question is whether the Board feels the pole should be
allowed to remain at seven feet above the tree height forever, versus placing a maximum height which it
cannot exceed. A factor that can play into some of these requests is the skylighting of the pole. This pole
does have in its visible area some skylight. The standard condition used in the past stated: The height of
A
the pole shall not extend the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet by more than x distance.
>=@
Ms. Humphris said she would like to clarify. If the first recommended condition were changed to
state: The top of the monopole shall not ever be more than seven feet taller than the tallest tree within 25
A
feet of the monopole that would follow the Commissions recommendation. And, there is no reason not to
@=
have it simply that way. Mr. Cilimberg said the only reason would be if the Board determined that it did not
want that pole to go any higher than when it is first put on the property. Mr. Davis said that means even if
the trees grows. Mr. Bowerman said that would decrease skylighting. Mr. Cilimberg agreed. Ultimately,
there is the potential that the trees would grow beyond the poles height. Ms. Humphris said there was no
=
discussion at the Planning Commission meeting indicating that was their intention. Mr. Cilimberg said they
did not get into any kind of discussion like that. Ms. Humphris said she believes this was probably just a
misunderstanding. Mr. Cilimberg said he had in his notes the same thing that was in the Planning
Commissions minutes. Based on what was said at the meeting, he thinks it may have been a
=
misunderstanding in what was intended in the condition when it got changed.
Mr. Cilimberg said there was also the addition of Condition No. 2h regarding the color of the pole,
antennae and ground equipment. That came from the Commission meeting. There was the addition in
Condition No. 3 that The facility shall be located and built as shown on the attached plan .... Then under
A@
Condition No. 4c, in the third sentence, However, in no case shall the outside edge of the antennas project
A
out from the face of the pole more than 14.7 inches.
@
Ms. Humphris asked if that was to specify whether the measurement was from the inside or the
outside. Mr. Cilimberg said that was correct. Finally, staff recommends that Condition No. 6 include the
language the Board included last week regarding bonding, if the Board decides to do that. That wording
would be If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the
A
facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check,
a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount
sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
@
Mr. Cilimberg said that Conditions No. 13 and 14 in the staff report were not included in the
Planning Commissions recommended conditions.
=
Ms. Humphris asked about Condition No. 2f The pole shall be no taller than the height described
A
in the attached plan .... She said the attached plan shows the pole at 780 feet. Mr. Cilimberg said if the
@
Board decides to limit the height above the tallest tree to seven feet, that condition would be applicable. Mr.
Davis said Ms. Valerie Long suggested some language in her letter that would work in that situation. That
suggested language is: The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in
A
condition number one of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an amend-ment to this
special use permit. The pole could then grow with the seven feet. Mr. Cilimberg said this condition was
@
definitely linked to Condition No. 1 the way it was originally developed by staff.
Ms. Humphris and Ms. Thomas both asked Mr. Davis to repeat what he had just said. Mr. Davis
said if Condition No. 1 is modified to the seven-foot condition, Condition No. 2f could read: The pole can
A
never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in Condition No. 1 of these conditions of
approval, without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit.
@
Mr. Bowerman asked why this is necessary. Mr. Davis said because the plan now shows the pole
at a height certain, and the pole height could actually increase if the trees grow.
Ms. Humphris said she hopes this Board remembers that there is a policy and it does not receive
material on applications after the packets are delivered to the Board members on Friday. She got Ms.
=
Longs long letter delivered to her yesterday. This is getting to be a habit on certain kinds of applications.
=
She said it puts a burden on the Board members, and she thinks the Board should stick to the policy. If
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
Board members are going to receive new material, new requests, then the petition should be automatically
deferred to another meeting so the Board members have time to deal with the information.
Mr. Dorrier had no knowledge of the policy. Ms. Humphris said it is a long-established policy that
everything concerning an agenda item is in the Boards packet when it is delivered on Friday. She said
=
some Board members probably only have the weekend in which to review their packets, and so cannot deal
with things which come in on various days after that. Mr. Dorrier agreed that keeping up with all of those
materials is difficult. He said that tonight the Board was receiving materials as applications were being
discussed. Ms. Humphris told Mr. Cilimberg that the Board is not getting the Commission minutes in time.
Mr. Cilimberg said they only have a part-time person working, and that was the night the Planning
Commission met in the Auditorium to discuss another rather controversial petition, a meeting which lasted
five hours. He said there will need to be a longer time period between the Commission and Board
meetings in order to get the minutes completed.
Ms. Thomas, at this time, opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward and
speak.
Ms. Valerie Long was present to represent Triton PCS. She is respectful of the time constraints of
Board members. She was trying to be helpful. She did not receive the final action letter until December 7.
When she received that and reviewed the conditions as approved by the Planning Commission, she
realized there was a lot of confusion. She worked with Planning staff to try and determine why the
conditions were different, and the best way to address that question. She thought she was being helpful in
trying to put everything in writing so the Board could look at her letter before the meeting, rather than trying
to explain it tonight. She said the Planning Commission likes to have correspondence delivered before a
meeting, even it is only a few hours. She could not hear the Planning Commission as they discussed this
petition in the Auditorium. She tried to get the minutes, and they were not ready. Then she was not able to
get an action letter from Planning Staff until just a few days ago.
Mr. Long said it has been hard for her to prepare adequately for this public hearing tonight. She
said it sounds as if the Board is inclined, if it approves the application, to approve it using the standard
conditions that would allow the pole to grow with the height of the trees. That is an important concept to the
applicant when using the treetop poles. It would be many years before making any adjustments because it
is very expensive to make those adjustments. But, it provides them with that flexibility should the trees begin
to grow.
Ms. Long said the only issue left is the height at which the pole is approved. Her client wants it
approved at 10 feet above the tallest tree. She does not believe there was any concern expressed about
the visibility of this facility. She does not believe any concerns about visibility were expressed at the
Commission meeting. The planner told her the reason the Commission decided to limit the height to seven
feet above the tallest tree was because the applicant had made no statement that it was functionally
necessary to be at the higher height. However, it is important to her client to get the full 10 feet.
Ms. Long said visibility is the most important factor. Planning staff viewed the balloon test and
expressed no concerns. The ARB staff also viewed the balloon test and recommended approval at the full
height of ten feet above the trees. There is no neighbor opposition to the visibility. There is visibility for a
very short distance, a total of four-tenths of one mile, only while traveling north. With the exception of a
span of only 100 yards, the pole has backdrop. She has handled many applications for Triton, and it is her
opinion that this is one of the best sites they have in terms of visibility.
Ms. Long said Triton has worked with these landowners for over a year because they felt this was
the most appropriate location. They worked hard negotiating a lease. She then pointed out the site on a
map and explained its location. One of the challenges of the site is its topography. Triton has another
facility at its Arrowhead site. There are mountains close to the road in this area. Dudley Mountain is nearby
and Britts Mountain is very close to the road. She said the two facilities have to connect by line of sight.
She said Britts Mountain is in the way, so the reason for the higher height is so the signal can extend above
and beyond Britts Mountain. She cannot say the facility will not work at seven feet, but it works much better
at ten feet above. Every foot matters when working with treetop facilities because the antennae panels are
so close to the trees and the leaves suck up the signal. The greater distance between those the better.
A@
She said if visibility if not a concern, then she hopes the Board will consider the request to approve this at
ten feet above.
Mr. Dorrier asked the range of that antenna. Ms. Long said it varies. Antennas do not all have the
same range, it depends on the terrain, the topography, whether there is a mountain in the way, how wide
the roadbed is, how close trees are to the road. Mr. Dorrier said he was only talking about this particular
antenna. Ms. Long said for this one, there are about two miles between each facility. No tree removal will
be needed.
Mr. Bowerman said the applicant is actually doing what this Board has requested. Ms. Long said
she believes they are. They looked at another site on the other side of the mountain which would have
required the building of a very long access road up the side of a very steep mountain. This site has an
existing driveway and an existing path that would be upgraded and graveled, but there is an existing cleared
area there. With the exception of one 12-inch tree, no tree removal will be needed. To find a location so
close to the road which is heavily wooded, and which has the elevation this site has, is always a challenge.
Ms. Thomas said one thing that affects the visibility of these poles and which has been found to be
amazing when talking about the Boards policy, is the flush mounted antennas. They are really not flush-
=
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
mounted, but are within a foot. Under this application, they will be within 15 inches, and she does not like
that creep. She asked what is wrong with keeping the outside face 12 inches from the pole.
Mr. Long said it would not be any different from what is all ready there now. In the past, it has never
been specified whether that 12-inch distance was being measured to the inside of the panel or to the other
side of the panel. It was her understanding that it was measured to the inside of the panel. In all of their
applications since they have been required to show on their plans that the distance would not exceed 12
inches, it shows the distance to the inside of the panel, 12 inches maximum.
Ms. Thomas asked if 12 inches to the outside would be satisfactory. Ms. Long said they think they
can go back and order new brackets, and they are going to look at that. Ms. Thomas said she was not
suggesting that Triton go back to all the poles put up, she was only speaking about this one. Ms. Long said
they think they might be able to find brackets that are shorter so they can get it closer. One thing, the panel
antennas are not always the same at every location. Sometimes they vary depending on the terrain.
Sometimes for radio frequency, they use a different antenna panel depending on coverage needs. At this
location, the panels have a depth of 2.7 inches. They do not vary much in terms of depth, but do vary in
terms of length. They also tilt the panels to achieve maximum propagation. Her client wonders what will
happen if they need to tilt the panel antenna to achieve the propagation necessary to obtain coverage. She
does not believe any of these really exceed 12 inches. It is just a measurement issue, but the applicant is
concerned about the creep, that it will limit their ability to provide the coverage they need in the long run.
Ms. Thomas asked if the angle would be so extreme that 12 inches might not work. Ms. Long said
it probably could. She believes they make those analyses and decisions early in the process. Ms. Thomas
said that for this one they know the angle is such that they can do it with the 12-inch limit to the outside of
the panel. Ms. Long said they are not certain they can do that here because of the topography challenges
on this site and because of the curves in the road, they have to have it tilted at a very sharp angle in order to
provide coverage around that mountain. For this application, they dont think they can, but for future
=
applications she can ask them to look at it more carefully, and if they dont think 12 inches is enough, they
=
can be more precise as to what it would require.
Mr. Perkins asked the height of the balloon test. Ms. Long said it was flown at 105 feet. She E-
mailed pictures of the test to all Board members except Ms. Humphris whose message was returned.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said this site is in her district. She thinks if the Board is going to encourage applicants
to find a position where they have trees behind the facility, it is important to encourage that when possible.
She thinks ten feet is a reasonable height at this location.
Ms. Humphris said she would move approval of SP-2001-050 changing the first line of Condition
No. 1 to say: The top of the monopole shall never be more than ten feet taller than the tallest tree within
A
25 feet of the monopole. Mr. Davis said that language is not consistent with the standard language. He
@
suggesting replacing the first sentence of Condition No. 1 with the following language: The top of the pole,
A
as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed ten (10) feet above the top of the tallest tree
within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL).
@
Ms. Humphris asked what happens to Condition No. 2f. Mr. Davis said he thinks that condition is no
longer necessary, it should just be deleted. Mr. Martin said 2f only applies if a top height is set out.
Ms. Humphris then offered motion to approve SP-2001-050 rewording Condition No. 1 to state:
The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed ten (10) feet above the top
A
of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No
antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole.;
@
hat Condition 2f be deleted; Condition No. 6 should be amended to read: The facility shall be disassem-
A
bled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications
purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to
guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning
Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfac-
tory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of
surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney. The
@
motion includes all of the other conditions recommended by the Planning Commission at its meeting on
November 30, 2001.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed
ten (10) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the
facility, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with
the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole;
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
2.The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a.Guy wires shall not be permitted;
b.No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as
provided by condition number nine (9) herein;
c.The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all
equipment attached to the pole shall be no larger than the specifications
set forth in the attached plan (copy on file) entitled Triton PCS, Tomlin,
dated November 6, 2001;
d.A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose
width shall not exceed one (1)-inch diameter at the base and tapering to
a point, may be installed at the top of the pole;
e.Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole installation, the
permittee shall provide a statement to the Planning Department
certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground
level and in elevation Above Sea Level (ASL);
f.The diameter of the pole shall not exceed twenty-six (26) inches at its
base, and twelve (12) inches at the top; and
g,The pole, antennas and ground equipment shall be painted a flat, dark
brown color;
3.The facility shall be located and built as shown on the attached plan (copy on
file) entitled Triton PCS, Tomlin, dated November 6, 2001.
4.Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a.The number of antennas shall be limited to two (2), at the sizes shown
on the attached plan (copy on file) entitled Triton PCS, Tomlin, dated
November 6, 2001;
b.No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole;
c.Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that
project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support
structure shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the outside edge
of the antennas project out from the face of the pole more than 14.7
inches. The antennas shall be painted to match the color of the
monopole;
5.Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment
cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan,
developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and
procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both
inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the
Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction
or installations associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary
access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree
conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the
Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not
remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the lease area, or the
vehicular or utility access. A special use permit amendment shall be required for
any future tree removal within the two hundred (200) foot buffer, after the
installation of the subject facility;
6.The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90)
days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is
discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is
required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee
shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety
satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an
amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type
of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and
the County Attorney;
7.The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per
year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the
pole and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunication service
provider;
8.No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be
created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other
stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed;
9.Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor
luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a
horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of
the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete
lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to
the power supply;
10.The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
11.The permittee shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of
Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building
permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans
to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been
addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans;
12.The applicant shall obtain an easement, acceptable to the county attorney,
prohibiting development on the part of the abutting lot sharing the common lot
line that is within the wireless facility's fall zone; and
13.If trees exist along the Entrance Corridor, outside the right-of-way, that contribute
to the screening of the pole, include a note on the plan indicating that these trees
will remain.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-2001-048. Regional Public Safety Radio Project (Peters Mtn) (Signs #77
& 78). Public hearing on a request to allow 110' tall lattice, self-supporting, emergency com tower
w/antennas extending up to approx 125', ground equip & a 12'x32' equip shelter on 2 acs Znd RA. TM 50,
P 1D. Loc on Peter's Mountain Rd approx 4.5 mls from intersec w/Turkey Sag Rd (Rt 640). Rivanna Dist.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on November 26 and December 3,
2001.)
Ms. Thomas said the Board has been requested to defer this hearing until January 9, 2002. Mr.
Davis noted that this petition will need to be readvertised. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Martin,
seconded by Ms. Humphris, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: September 27(A), October 10 and October 17(A),
2001.
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of October 10, 2001, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of October 17(A), 2001, and found them to be in order.
Motion to approve the minutes which had been read was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms.
Humphris, and carried by the recorded vote set out below:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Perkins mentioned a call he received from a constituent regarding cats. A neighbor of this
person has 13 cats and he wondered if there are any communities which have ordinances regulating cats.
Mr. Davis said if this person calls Animal Control, Animal Control will visit the site and determine if the
animals are being properly housed. Mr. Perkins said that is not the problem. Mr. Davis said there is no
restriction on the number of cats on a piece of property under any County ordinance.
__________
Mr. Perkins said in the study of the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan, there is an
Historic Preservation Committee which will have input, and also the Bio-Diversity Committee. The Farm
Bureau would like for there to be a committee of farmers, landowners, etc. to have input in this matter. Mr.
Cilimberg said when the Rural Areas review first started, it was decided that there would be no committee,
but there would be a focus group. That focus group will include representatives from various interests. Mr.
Perkins asked that staff insure that a representative of the Farm Bureau is included.
__________
Mr. Martin said he did not realize this was Ms. Humphris last meeting as a Board member. He told
=
her the other day that he loved her, and he meant that from the bottom of his heart. He said that when all
the Board members started together, he was new and thought he knew everything, and didn't have
appreciation for Ms. Humphris wealth of knowledge. Over the years, he said Ms. Humphris has come to
=
remind him of his mother, not in age, but in wisdom and grace and he has grown to truly admire how much
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
she cares about Albemarle County, even though they have disagreed at times as to what is in its best
interests. He has loved serving with Ms. Humphris on the Board. Ms. Humphris said that is sweet and she
has to say ditto to that remark.
Mr. Dorrier said he will second what Mr. Martin said and also recognize her as a rare breed in the
County, she is a native, and her maiden name was Yancey. He respects her for what she has done for
Albemarle County.
Mr. Perkins said Ms. Humphris will be missed.
Ms. Humphris said everyone knows how much being on the Board has meant to her. It is the most
important thing, next to her family, that she has done in her life. She feels lucky to have had the opportunity
to do this. There are not many people who get the opportunity to serve. To work with the five Board
members all of these years has been great. To work with Ella and Laurie and with Larry and Wayne and all
his people, and Bob, has been a real job. She has told people in the past that she has never lost a minute
of sleep over anything she has done while a Board member. She tried to do her homework and do the best
she could. An example was the Clover Lawn petition tonight which was a difficult decision for each Board
member. She will miss everyone. She does not know what she will do, but one thing, she will get to read
some books, and to play with Anna, which she is looking forward to. This is very sad.
Mr. Bowerman said he has never been here without Ms. Humphris, it has been 12 years that they
served together.
__________
(Note: Mr. Martin left the meeting at 10:05 p.m.)
Mr. Tucker said the High Growth Coalition has sent an invoice for their retainer for the 2002
General Assembly Session in the amount of $1000.00. If the Board wants to continue to be a part of that
program, he needs approval of $1000.00 to remit to this retainer fund.
Motion to approve the request was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, and
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 2001-046
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR HIGH GROWTH COALITION
TRANSFERS
1 1000 89000 566230 HIGH GROWTH COALITION$1,000.00
1 1999 95000 999990 BOARD CONTINGENCY($1,000.00)
__________
Ms. Carey told Ms. Humphris that she has been a joy to work with and will be greatly missed. On
behalf of the Board of Supervisors and staff she presented a small gift, of a clock, as a token of their
appreciation. The clock was engraved with Ms. Humphris name and dates of service as a member of the
Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Thomas said she and Ms. Humphris know how women are determined not to cry in public, so
she has been trying hard to hold back on the nice things they want to say to Ms. Humphris. She said they
have all been said now, so she hopes that Ms. Humphris will have dinner with the Board members at some
point in the future, as there will be no more gifts, or long speeches.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, at 10:15 p.m.,
motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to adjourn this meeting until 4:00 p.m. on January 9, 2002. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bowerman and passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 03/13/2002
Initials: EWC
December 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)