2003-05-14(May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 14,
2003, at 5:45 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at
5:48 p.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker 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 5:45 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Mandy Burbage was present to state her opposition to the Hollymead Town Center request
which is on the agenda later tonight. She has concerns about traffic on Route 29 North.
Mr. Steven Bach said he hopes the Board will ask the applicant to come up with a better way to
allow citizens a way to use their bicycles. This would help reduce the traffic pressure on Route 29.
Mr. Perkins said at the Board's last meeting, three of the five people who spoke under "Matters Not
Listed on the Agenda" actually spoke about matters which were part of the official agenda. The Board
needs some way to clarify what these people will be talking about.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve Item 5.3 on
the Consent Agenda, to accept Items 5.4 and 5.5 as information, to leave Item 5.1 for another meeting, and
to take up Item 5.2 later in the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: February 5, 2003. No minutes had been read.
Item 5.2. Resolution to Deny Napier Claim. (Note: This item will appear at the end of tonight's
agenda.
Item 5.3. Proclamation recognizing May 18 through May 24, 2003, as Emergency Medical
Services Week.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the following proclamation:
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK
Whereas, emergency medical services is a vital public service; and
Whereas,
the members of emergency medical services teams are ready to provide
lifesaving care to those in need twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week;
and
Whereas, access to quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival and
recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury; and
Whereas, emergency medical services providers have traditionally served as the safety
net of America's health care system; and
Whereas,
emergency medical services teams consist of emergency physicians,
emergency nurses, emergency medical technicians, paramedics,
firefighters, educators, administrators, and others; and
Whereas, nationally, approximately two-thirds of all emergency medical services
providers are volunteers; and
(May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Whereas,
the members of emergency medical services teams, whether career or
volunteer, engage in thousands of hours of specialized training and
continuing education to enhance their lifesaving skills; and
Whereas, residents of our community benefit daily from the knowledge and skills of
these highly trained individuals; and
Whereas,
it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of
emergency medical services providers by designating Emergency Medical
Services Week; and
Whereas, injury prevention and the appropriate use of the emergency medical services
system will help reduce national health care costs;
Now, Therefore, I, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors, in recognition of this event, do hereby proclaim the
week of
May 18 through May 24, 2003
as
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK
and encourage the community to observe this week with appropriate
programs, ceremonies, and activities.
Item 5.4. Notice from the State Corporation Commission of an Application of Virginia Electric and
Power Company d/b/a Dominion Virginia Power for Approval of Retail Access Pilot Programs (Case No.
PUE-2003-00118), was received as information.
Item 5.5. Copies of draft Planning Commission minutes of March 11, April 8 and April 22, 2003,
were received as information.
(Note) At 5:57 p.m., the Board recessed in order to attend the Albemarle County Police
Department and Care and Support Enforcement 2003 Community Candlelight Service (Police Memorial
Week) on the front steps of the County Office Building.
The Board reconvened in Room 241 at 6:36 p.m. and continued with the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-2002-063. CVS Pharmacy, Store #1554 Drive-In Window (Sign # 35).
Public hearing on a request to allow drive-in window to serve retail pharmacy in accord w/Sec 22.2.2.10 of
the Zoning Ord. TM 32, Ps 41A & 41D1, contains 1.85 acs. Loc on US Rt 29 N across the street from
Timberwood Boulevard intersec. Znd C-1. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the
Daily Progress on April 26 and May 5, 2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the stafff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the
permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant proposes to develop the site as a
CVS Pharmacy with a drive-in window at the corner of Route 29 and Timberwood Boulevard. He said the
Planning Commission had a work session in November, 2002 to discuss this request along with the
Hollymead Town Center request. Staff was concerned about how aspects of the design were affecting the
ability to achieve certain principles of the Neighborhood Model. The applicant insisted that they use their
standard prototype for the building. At the time, staff expressed a concern that this could set a precedent
for future decisions, most notably on the out parcels proposed to be located adjacent to Route 29 North at
the Hollymead Town Center.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Architectural Review Board found no objections to the request. They
recommended approval subject to conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 8, 2003,
by a vote of 4:3 recommended approval subject to conditions. The Commission did change Condition No.
2 recommended by staff in order to be sure that certain infrastructure improvements would be provided
along Timberwood Boulevard.
Ms. Thomas said on Page 1 of the staff's report it is noted that there is no pedestrian connection to
the public right-of-way. She said that seems to be strange. She asked if that can be required. Mr.
Cilimberg said there will be a sidewalk along Timberwood Boulevard.
With no further questions for staff, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Jo Higgins and a representative from Kimley-Horn were present for the applicant. She said
there is a CG12 ramp shown and a section of sidewalk that will run parallel to Route 29 to tie in with the
sidewalk which is part of the condition added by the Commission.
Mr. Kirk Cooper with Kimley-Horn Associates was present for CVS Pharmacy and REPKE
(May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Company. He said they have worked diligently with County staff to develop a site plan which addresses the
intent of the Comprehensive Plan. It meets the needs of CVS Pharmacy. They have been before the ARB
and Commission on several occasions. After listening to the concerns, they addressed many of them by
making revisions to the site plan to address the Neighborhood issues. He said the ARB did not object to the
request, and the Commission recommended approval. One row of parking was removed from the front of
the building, and moved to the rear of the building. The building was moved 15 feet forward toward Route
29. This will allow CVS to work well with all of its neighbors. Approval of the drive-through on this site
allows for a reduction of parking. In addition to moving a row of parking on the site, they took several other
steps to insure that parking does not dominate the site or the building. They provided an unique, custom
exterior for the store. It is not the prototypical exterior and it helps the building to become a focus while
fitting into the scale and character of the existing area. He said it is critical for this retail use to have a single,
controlled access front door with parking in close proximity. They understand the County's struggle with the
new way of looking at parking, so they made significant changes to this site to address those concerns.
They agree with the recommended conditions of approval. He is present to request approval of a special
use permit for a drive-through window which is the primary reason for relocation of this store from its
existing location at the Forest Lakes Shopping Center.
Mr. Rooker asked if there has been discussion of a third lane being added to Route 29 and how
that would impact the design of this property. Ms. Higgins said there is additional right-of-way along Route
29 to accommodate another lane.
There being no further questions for staff, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the
public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said the ARB wants the shrubs to be 36 inches high. Is there any way to be sure they
are maintained at that height? Mr. Davis said if the site plan shows them at 36 inches in height, because
that is a requirement of the ARB, the site plan will take care of that.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is possible to make sure there is a pedestrian connection. Mr. Cilimberg
said he thinks the applicant has offered to do that. These are improvements which are not specifically part
of the plan.
Mr. Rooker said one of the ramps appears to be shorter than the other. Mr. Cilimberg said they all
come up the north side going to Seminole Commons. Ms. Higgins said the ramp is shown, but not the
crosswalk. Mr. Cilimberg said if that is going to be added to the written condition the pedestrian access
could also be described.
Ms. Thomas said it is covered if it is part of the March 3 plan, and then the Board could add to that.
Mr. Davis asked when that would be constructed. Ms. Higgins said the crosswalk could be put in without
any delay; it would be done with the painting of the parking lot to tie it to Seminole Commons.
Mr. Rooker mentioned the March 3 plan and the cross-hatched area to the south that aligns with
the sidewalk, and asked if that is the ramp being talked about. Ms. Higgins said there is a ramp at the curb
for wheelchair access.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there are any benches located outside of the store. Ms. Higgins said there
could be, but in the City they had a problem about loitering in front of a store. She thinks a place to sit could
be added. Mr. Dorrier said he mentioned it because the County is trying to get pedestrians to use the area,
so there needs to be some place to sit, particularly if waiting for a prescription.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Davis had any language to add to the condition about the crosswalk. Mr.
Davis said he thinks the Board is talking about the condition "A crosswalk shall be required to provide
access across the parking lot to provide connection to parking shown on the site plan."
Mr. Cilimberg said it might be better described as a connecting northern ramp. He said a ramp is at
the end of that sidewalk. Mr. Davis asked if saying "Provide an access across the parking lot to connect to
Seminole Commons" would be better language.
At this point, Mr. Martin offered motion to approve SP-2002-063, CVS Pharmacy, Store #1554
Drive-In Window, with the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and an additional
condition that would provide for a crosswalk between the ramp on the north side of the building, crossing
over to Seminole Commons.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The site shall be developed in general accord with the attached plans, entitled
CVS/Pharmacy Site Plan, dated March 3, 2003, CVS Pharmacy Landscape
Section, dated February, 2003, and CVS Pharmacy Landscape Perspective,
dated February, 2003;
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the applicant shall either post a
(May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
one (1) year term bond subject to the approval of the County Attorney and the
Director of the Department of Engineering and Public Works for an amount
sufficient to cover the cost of full frontage improvements along the Timberwood
Boulevard extension, to include the construction of a one hundred (100) foot
taper and one hundred (100) foot turn lane, the permanent entrance, street
trees, and a five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk or complete these required
improvements. The bond may be extended annually, based upon the County
Engineer's approval of a completion schedule for the proposed Timberwood
Boulevard extension and the frontage improvements and upon adjusting the
amount of the bond to cover the then current estimate of the amount necessary
to complete the improvements, as shown on the CVS/Pharmacy Site Plan, dated
March 3, 2003;
Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, and
review and approval of a revised landscaping plan to include the following:
a. Provide alternative ground cover, shrubs that are suited for
embankments, and replacement trees along the 2:1 slope area to the
rear of the site. A blank slope with only ground cover is not appropriate;
b. Revise the buffer shrub planting heights from twenty-four (24) inches to
thirty-six (36) inches at time of planting; and
c. Add one shade tree in each parking island east of the building, at the
ends of the parking row fronting the building. Shade trees with fifteen
(15) foot to twenty (20) foot maximum heights are appropriate. Revise
the parking as required for adequate island width in those two (2) areas.
Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such
as by-pass lanes, signage, and pavement markings as indicated on the site plan;
and
A crosswalk shall be required to provide access across the parking lot from the
ramp at the end of the sidewalk on the northeast corner of the CVS/Pharmacy
building to the sidewalk on the southwest side of Seminole Commons.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-2001-019. Hollymead Town Center, Regional Service Area B (Sign
#87). Public hearing on a request to rezone 24.7 acs from RA & HC to PD-MC to allow for shopping
center. Portions of TM 32, Ps 41 D, 42B, 42C, 42D, 42E, 43, 43A & 44. Loc on Rt 29 N approx 1/4 mile S
of Timberwood Boulevard/Rt 29 intersec. (The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as the
Hollymead Town Center in the Hollymead Community & recommends Mixed Use/Regional Service uses.)
Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on April 26 and May 5, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2001-063. Hollymead Town Center, "Drive-In A". Public hearing on a
request to allow drive-in window in accord w/Sec 25A.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ord. TM 32, Ps 42B, 42C, 42D,
42E, 43 & 43A, is 24.7 acs. Loc on Rt 29 N approx 1/4 mile S of Timberwood Boulevard/Rt 29 intersec.
Znd RA & HC. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on April 26 and
May 5, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2001-064. Hollymead Town Center, "Drive-In B". Public hearing on a
request to allow drive-in window in accord w/Sec 25A.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ord. TM 32, Ps 42B, 42C, 42D,
42E, 43 & 43A, is 24.7 acs. Loc on Rt 29 N approx 1/4 mile S of the Timberwood Boulevard/Rt 29 intersec.
Znd RA & HC. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on April 26 and
May 5, 2003.)
Mr. Tucker said the applicant has requested that these petitions be deferred until June 11,2003.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer these petitions to June 11,
2003.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to know if there is anyone present who came to speak at the public
hearing on these petitions. Before voting, he wants the Board to hear public comments.
Mr. Martin said if the Board hears comments from citizens tonight, he thinks the applicant would
want to speak also.
Mr. Rooker said he has no objection if the applicant wishes to speak tonight.
Mr. Davis said that procedurally, because there is a motion on the floor which has been seconded,
unless the person making the motion consents to withdrawing the motion, the Board needs to take a vote
unless there is a substitute motion.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the Board can vote on the deferral, and then let the public speak. Mr.
Rooker asked if the Board would open the public hearing. Mr. Davis said "no", it would just be taking public
comments.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
(May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
NAYS: None.
Mr. Dorrier asked if any member of the Board wanted to make a comment at this time.
Mr. Jim Grimes asked if the applicant will be making changes between tonight and June 11.
Mr. Martin said he assumes the deferral was requested to allow the applicant to have time to
modify the plan or proffers.
Ms. Thomas said the public should have access to whatever is given to the Board. Mr. Tucker said
the public will have the information by June 6 when it is sent to the Board members.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board is going to hold a work session tonight on these requests.
Mr. Dorrier said he had the Clerk send the Board members copies of all of the minutes dealing with
the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Hollymead Town Center.
At this time, Mr. Cilimberg briefed the Board concerning these petitions. He said it would be helpful
for both the staff and the applicant to know of any issues the Board members may have. He said there are
four areas which are in some stage of review at this time. Area []B[] would have been the subject of the
public hearing tonight, which is the Dierman Realty proposal. Area "A" includes a large amount of the main
street, as well as additional retail/commercial at the regional service level. That was deferred by the
Commission at the applicant's agreement, to further define it. It is not scheduled yet for reconsideration by
the Commission. Area "D" and Area "C" are two other applicants, and both of those proposals will be
before the Commission on May 27.
Mr. Cilimberg said that on Page 3 of the Executive Summary, staff identified some outstanding
issues. He will not go over those in detail, but they are items staff felt should be addressed. Staff also
provided recommendations of things which they feel, at a minimum, the applicant should make a
commitment to if the Board approves this rezoning proposal as it currently stands.
Mr. Cilimberg said that last week a letter was received from Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer,
which states that VDOT does not support the new median cut and signal on Route 29 proposed for the
development at the existing cemetery entrance. Improvements proposed at this entrance are not sufficient
to mitigate the impacts to the transportation infrastructure.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that is the reason the applicants asked for a deferral.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Cilimberg expects the applicant to address that issue with a change in
design. Mr. Cilimberg said he did not know. He said there were a series of transportation improvements
adopted into the Comprehensive Plan by the Board before the amendment concerning the Hollymead
Town Center was adopted. Area "B" fronts on a location on Route 29 where one of the recommenda-tions
in the Comprehensive Plan had bearing on this project. That recommendation was that a crossover may
be required if traffic conditions warrant. It left the decision as to the crossover to the result of a traffic study.
In the Hollymead Town Center amendment that was listed as a critical ingredient for the main street
concept. It will be a significant factor in consideration of this project.
Mr. Cilimberg said there are other improvements on Route 29 North which were identified as part of
the Comprehensive Plan change two years ago that bears a relationship to the project, but which does not
address the frontage. Staff noted the possibility of getting a connection from Area "B" northward to Airport
Road through the proposed main street. It is not in their development, but staff noted that it is an important
factor. Since the Comprehensive Plan amendments were adopted, there are other transporta-tion system
improvements which need to be considered (under review by CHART are ideas such as taking the main
street from the town center and extending/connecting it to Hollymead Drive, and also going south and
crossing the River and potentially connecting it to Berkmar Drive. That idea is not in any plan, but is part of
the transportation improvements which have been before the Board for the last three years, and which are
now under review by CHART). He said Areas "A", "D" and "C" are just as important to the overall picture
and the overall relationship to Route 29. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Rooker noted a statement on Page 2 of the staff's report: "Unexpected changes include
additional square footage for the big box, elimination of trees internal to the parking lot, elimination of tree-
lined pedestrian interconnections, and addition of a loading dock adjacent to Route 29". He asked if that
statement is still accurate, and if the trees internal to the parking lot were eliminated.
Mr. Michael Barnes, Planner, said that statement refers to the difference between the plan the
Commission reviewed and the plan before the Board this evening.
Mr. Rooker asked the difference in the size of the big box between the time the Commission saw
the plan on March 11,2003, and split 3:3 on the vote to approve ZMA-2001-010, SP-2002-064 and
SP-2002-064, Area "B" proposals, and what the Board received in its materials for this meeting.
Mr. Barnes said that previously the big box was 142,000 square feet. They added a little to the plan
(85 feet by 178 feet). Mr. Rooker said that is 16,000 square feet.
(May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin both asked that the applicant be allowed to speak.
Mr. Rooker said he wants to understand the nature of the changes made by the applicant, and why
they were made. From the public's perspective, if you look at Comprehensive Plan criteria, he thinks they
are negative changes. He asked why the Architectural Review Board (ARB) should not review this proposal
before this Board does. Other than that, hopefully the seven issues raised by staff (see Page 4 of staff's
report) will be addressed by the applicant in the proffers.
Ms. Thomas said there is also the question of whether Area "A" has been so impacted by the
grading that it makes it difficult to complete Area "A". The Board needs to be sure that the decisions being
made do not preclude other things assumed in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rooker said he has concerns because Area "A" did not come forward with the rest of the
proposals. He said the inducement for the Board to approve the change in the Comprehensive Plan,
included all of the areas at one time and the building out of the town center. Looking at the map, Area "A"
is the heart of the town center. What the Board has before it now is Area "B" and he does not think the
Board would have approved Area "B" as a separate item in the configuration presented today. It is a
different matter to look at Area "A" and not know if it will ever develop in the form being looked at on the
map. He thinks that is a significant concern; the Board ends up getting the shaft, and the goal never gets
produced.
Mr. Martin said Areas "B", "D" and "C" are all coming to the Board on June 11, and "A" has to take
place. When it does, the Board will get a chance to review it just like it is reviewing the other areas. "A" then
becomes more critical and is like the Comprehensive Plan expects it to be. He thinks the Board knew that
Area "B" would come first.
Mr. Rooker said in reading the minutes of the Commission, the developer talked about Area "A"
and said it might develop out in ten years, or maybe it would be 15 years. He envisioned that this whole
thing would move forward as a single application plan, and when the Board acted on a rezoning for this
property it would be acting on it as a whole so the Board would be assured that the plan was consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. For example: Area "B" by itself has no open space.
Mr. Bowerman said all the pieces fit together. The Comprehensive Plan amendment said the
whole thing stands as a whole, or falls individually. Mr. Tucker said he understands the proffers will
address what Mr. Rooker said in terms of Area "A".
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful to have proffers for this development.
Ms. Thomas said she wants to be sure that nothing is done which precludes or makes it difficult for
Area "A". She assumes the applicants are making notes today of what the Board members have said, and
that the Chairman will give them an opportunity to speak.
Mr. Dorrier said the master plan by Daggett & Grigg is also part of the Board's materials today
(Attachment G-5). He asked if that is still the overlying master plan for the project. Mr. Cilimberg said that
is a Comprehensive Plan reference. There are some changes from that master plan based on their closer
look at how to provide for roads and development.
Mr. Rooker asked about the road shown across the middle of the property. Mr. Cilimberg said that
road is shown in the location where the big box will be located. Mr. Rooker said an important feature of the
road network was to have a series of roads parallel to Route 29 through this property, so there could be
walking in the area. Now, instead of having a road which parallels Route 29, there is a building in the
middle of the property. Mr. Cilimberg said within their shopping center is where they are providing the
connection that otherwise would have been provided through the road shown on the master plan and in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Martin said they also pulled the stores closer to that road and put parking over to the side.
Mr. Rooker asked where the road connects on the south. Mr. Cilimberg said the movement
provided by the road shown in the master plan is along this part of the center, and then down to the front of
the supermarket. Mr. Rooker asked if that is considered a road in front of the supermarket. Mr. Cilimberg
said they are considered accessways. There are also travel aisles.
Mr. Rooker said there is a difference between a travel aisle and a road.
Mr. Martin suggested having the applicant answer Mr. Rooker's questions.
Mr. Steve Blaine said he was present to represent the applicants. He said as to the size of the
Target Store, they did not intend to increase or change the size of the store. They tried to address some of
the comments from the Commission and from the ARB. One of the comments was to increase some
massing on the frontage along Route 29. An earlier plan showed much smaller stores fronting on Route
29, with not so much of a sense of place and a streetscape. To address that, they moved retail to another
location and increased the size of other buildings. This was in direct response to Commission comments.
As a result, in order to accommodate parking for these structures and Target, the Target store was thinned
down so it appears to be a longer frontage. It was also done to reduce the frontage on Route 29. When
the site plan is done, and the store measured, it should still be about 143,000 square feet. It was not the
intent to eliminate trees from the previous plan. An application plan was submitted, but not a landscaping
(May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
plan. They will put in the landscaping plan, which will be critiqued by the ARB, and the preliminary site plan,
and will add trees along the drive aisles where sidewalk improvements will be located. If necessary,
sidewalk grates. In terms of the road network in the Comprehensive Plan, what was done with the
landowners was to adapt uses to basic grid patterns. The idea was to provide a grid pattern and through
access, and where possible, to provide that pedestrian streetscape. He then explained some of the parking
patterns, two-thirds of which will be relegated. He said that in terms of a through nature, the road was
always designed to connect to Timberwood and then access Route 29. Its essence is the same as in the
Comprehensive Plan, but the road evolved to accommodate the particular uses and grades. In terms of
Area "A", Mr. Rooker raised a point which was discussed in numerous work sessions with the Commission.
He said the owner submitted an application for rezoning of this area which depicts just the plan the Board
wishes to have implemented. His application was deferred by the Commission, and he encourages the
Board to advance that plan.
Mr. Rooker said he understood it was a joint decision to defer the application for Area "A". The
Commission did not think they had adequate information in order to take action on the request. Mr. Blaine
said Mr. Rooker expressed concern about making sure Area "A" is developed. The Board has a willing
landowner putting forth land to be developed. It is proposed to be developed as the Board wishes. If the
Board, on its own motion, decided to rezone the land in conformance with that plan that would not
guarantee that it would be built. Just rezoning and planning does not bring the actual buildings. The
market will dictate that.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant could have provided the necessary details for Area "A" so the
Commission could act. Mr. Blaine said those details will evolve right down to trees in the street and proffers
that will address those. That is what is left on Area "A". He said the Board holds the entitlements (the
cards) for that.
Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant has a binding commitment from Target at this time that they will
locate in this area. Mr. Blaine said that is proprietary. Target has indicated by letter of intent that they will
locate in this center. The rezoning has to happen first.
Mr. Rooker said it has been mentioned several times that it is a Target center, but a rezoning is not
retailer specific. Mr. Blaine said that is correct. The applicant hopes the Board will consider this rezoning
based on its merits and not based on a store name.
Ms. Thomas said staff indicated the ARB has not completed its review. Mr. Blaine said as part of
the preliminary site plan approval, a certificate of appropriateness must be obtained. A preliminary site plan
was submitted, but they were told the plan could not be processed without having the land rezoned.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the Board can get the ARB's input when the land has not been rezoned.
Mr. Cilimberg said, the plan, in an earlier form, was before the ARB. The plan given to the Board tonight
was received shortly before this meeting.
Ms. Thomas asked if the ARB could complete its review before these petitions come back to the
Board on June 11. Mr. Cilimberg said not for a certificate of appropriateness, but they could make
comments. Mr. Tucker said he understood Mr. Blaine to say the applicant amended the plan to
accommodate what the ARB recommended in terms of the massing of the buildings on Route 29.
Ms. Thomas said the grading appears to make it difficult to develop Area "A". Mr. Blaine said the
grading is to accommodate this site and Area "A". The owner of both areas is the same, and is proceeding
with a plan of development. The design has been done in a way so there could be shared parking behind
the two retail stores which will front on access Area "A". The grading and design is in concert, so they don't
understand that comment by staff.
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful if that were worked out so staff understands it in the same way
as the applicant. Mr. Barnes said a couple of things are taking place. Significant grading is required on
Area "A", removal of as much as 20 feet from the top of the hill. Grading plans were provided to staff, but it
is not clear whether some of the road grades are feasible. There are questions about what type of retaining
walls might be needed on the ridge.
Mr. Rooker asked if there are retaining walls between Area "A" and Area "B". He asked if Mr.
Blaine had an idea of how the grading is taking place. Mr. Blaine said the change in grade between Route
29 and Ridge Road is significant. The way that has been addressed on the Area "B" site plan is to step up
and use grade arms and landscaping bays to break that up so it was not a single five percent, or seven
percent slope in the parking lot. There have been deliberate landscaping techniques using small retaining
walls and berms between Area "A" and Area "B". There is a plan on Area "A" to use structured parking and
two-story buildings to adapt to that terrain differential. For Area "A", the applicant is designing to address
the change in grade. It will accommodate the type of development this developer of Area "A" anticipates.
Mr. Martin mentioned stormwater detention, and the fact that staff said there be may some
inappropriateness, although Mr. Blaine said it has been worked out. Mr. Blaine said the statement is that
on-site stormwater management cannot be accommodated. That is not true. It is being accommodated
using a 30-foot berm that is located behind the Target store. That is not shown on the Application Plan. On
the preliminary site plan which was submitted, but which no one is reviewing, it shows that it can be
accommodated. That will be an engineering exercise on which the Engineering staff will make
recommendations as to how to use additional on-site stormwater management. He would rather the staff
comment be "It does not appear from the Application Plan that it is being accommodated". That would be
(May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
an accurate statement.
Mr. Rooker asked if the detention area mentioned is only on Area "B". Mr. Blaine said that is
another matter. He was only talking about the comment about on-site management. The off-site facility
which will accommodate the southern third of the project is a regional facility which is what was
contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. The one-third of the site which drains to the south will be
accommodated by that area on Area "A". There will need to be easements and accommodations to
address that.
Mr. Rooker asked how that is covered in the Application Plan if it is off-site. He thinks it should be
dealt with in a proffer. Mr. Blaine said it is a fairly standard thing with an off-site facility in a site plan, but he
does not see a problem with adding a proffer.
Ms. Thomas said she is more nervous about stormwater than just a few months ago. The County
must now treat stormwater. The County and the taxpayers will be responsible for stormwater which is not
done right in the first place. This will be the first big plan coming to the Board after the County submits its
NPDES Plan. Most of what is read about stormwater calls for a stormwater plan for the whole area ahead
of time. She asked if that is being done in this case.
Mr. Rooker said to the extent that the applicant controls the area which is the primary stormwater
treatment area for Area "B", he should be tied to doing that as part of this plan. Mr. Tucker said the
applicant cannot get approval of a site plan unless they can accommodate stormwater.
Mr. Davis said the issue is whether or not the Board wants to guarantee that the regional facility is
located in some particular spot. At the site plan stage, the applicant will have to either accommodate all the
stormwater on site, or have a reasonable alternative to accommodate it offsite. The site plan does not
guarantee it will be in any particular location, so if that is an issue for the Board, then it needs to be dealt
with at the zoning stage.
Mr. Rooker said there is no plan for Area "A", but they seem to be making that facility large enough
that it is somewhat of an amenity. He thinks it is important to assure that for Area "B" stormwater detention
takes place.
Mr. Mark Graham, County Engineer, said his office is still working with the applicant on the large
basin on Area "A". Not all the issues are resolved. There are issues about the amount of intrusion into the
stream buffer. Whether the facility can be sized to serve the entire area is still a concern. He said Mr.
David Hirschman has been advocating for more source control, capturing the stormwater with some
infiltration, some bio-swales and things at the source, rather than relying strictly on an end-of-pipe solution.
He said that not all of this has to be resolved as part of the rezoning. They would like to have a concept
that they are confident can go forward.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff could have a concept for the public hearing that they feel would be
workable. Would that suffice for the other concept of having a stormwater plan for a development this big?
Mr. Graham said in an ideal world there would be a comprehensive stormwater management plan for this
as a single development, but that is not what is happening. It is being dealt with on an application-by-
application basis. Originally, they considered a sizeable regional facility down in the upper end of the
stream, but the State has recently changed their criteria for protection of streams, and the State said the
County cannot get a permit in order to have a true regional facility. Staff is working with a solution which
has a lot of compromises. He has not seen anything with the rezoning that would restrict staff's ability to
insure compliance with the Water Protection Ordinance at the time of site plan.
Mr. Rooker asked if the large basin on the southern part of Area "A" will end up being part of the
overall stormwater treatment for this property. Mr. Graham said it will be for a good portion of the property.
There are issues which must still be resolved, but not necessarily before the time of rezoning.
Ms. Thomas asked what this proposal does to Route 29. She said the Rio Road intersection has
30 lanes in it now; it is the largest intersection in the State. According to her calculations, that same size
intersection would be at Woodbrook Drive and at Timberwood Boulevard and at Proffit Road. Of course,
the State does not have the money needed to do any improvements. The Comprehensive Plan, and work
with the Eastern Planning Initiative, and other work with CHART, suggests that some alternative roads be
done, some true city blocks be made so that people can get around without every single trip having to go on
Route 29.
Mr. Martin said one of the things he said to the applicant yesterday, was to use a CDA to suggest
some kind of partnership with the County and VDOT to get a bridge across the River so this road might
connect to Berkmar.
Mr. Rooker said if the Board approves this development, he is in favor of having a proffer in hand
that they would participate in a CDA. As Ms. Thomas said, there are probably over $100.0 million of
needed road improvements from Wal-Mart northward on Route 29.
Mr. Bowerman said all of those improvements are not necessitated by this development.
Mr. Rooker said the need for the improvements is greatly accelerated by this development, and a
number of these improvements might never be required without this development.
(May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Ms. Thomas said it is a regional attractor, so it has a different level of traffic than a neighborhood
shopping area.
Mr. Rooker said in terms of the package of improvements that will ultimately be decided upon for
the Route 29 corridor, cost/benefit studies are needed to assure that whatever package of improvements
will be implemented, the County gets the most for its money. There is talk of a bridge over the River, and
the bridge on Route 29 was just widened. He does not disagree that it is an improvement that should be
looked at. What would the adding of that crossing do for traffic in that corridor, and what is its cost?
Hopefully CHART will get some rough estimates of cost and also have traffic models run to see what they
do to improve the traffic flow.
Mr. Martin said it would make this into a great parallel road such as Berkmar Drive. Everything is
moving more and more toward the possibility of the County having to share in the cost of any
improvements. Another CDA has been mentioned, and now there is the idea of having one for this project.
Mr. Bowerman said Berkmar was started privately behind Wal-Mart and Rio Hills Shopping Center,
and the County came in and finished the road.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it would probably cost $30.0 million or more for a bridge to cross the
River.
Mr. Dorrier said he thought a CDA would come back to the Board at a later date. Mr. Tucker said
he thinks the Board is encouraging these developers, and the developers of Albemarle Place, to at least
proffer to participate in a CDA. They may or may not be reviewed concurrently with a development. That is
not necessary. There is still a lot of transportation planning needed along the entire corridor, even from the
Route 250 Bypass northward to the area in question. Maybe the City might even be a part of this as a
solution to some traffic problems.
Ms. Thomas asked if there were a proffer for a CDA and then the cost of putting in a bridge and
dealing with other transportation impacts adds 50 cents to the tax rate. Mr. Davis said there is a 25-cent
maximum on the tax rate unless all property owners agree to a higher rate. It has to be unanimous
agreement.
Ms. Thomas said hypothetically, can a proffer still hold if the cost were more than originally
thought? Mr. Davis said the proffer envisioned is a proffer where the applicants petition for and stay in a
CDA once it is formed by the County within the framework of the statute.
Mr. Rooker said the Albemarle Place developer has already said they would participate in a CDA.
Mr. Martin said North Pointe is the group that first brought it to his attention.
Ms. Thomas said they want a different sort of CDA.
Mr. Davis said the key to the rate is the cost of the improvements and the assessed values of the
properties that are included to pay for the debt service.
Ms. Thomas said at this stage of the zoning process, it is the Board's responsibility to be sure it is
not bringing about something that will essentially be an attractive nuisance, that is to cause the failure of the
transportation system on Route 29, which is what the application does at this point. If the Board makes its
decision based on the assumption that it can keep the transportation system from failing because there may
be a CDA, she wants the Board members to be clear about what a CDA can do and how these applicants
can be bound to that CDA. Otherwise, the Board will have put upon the community a failing transportation
system. The Board's responsibility under the State's enabling legislation for zoning is not to do that. That is
the reason she is asking what a CDA can do.
Mr. Martin said he is not pining his hopes to a CDA. He thinks Ms. Thomas is. He is saying it is a
plausible solution and gives the Board better ideas and more opportunities. In his opinion, since the Board
first told these applicants to go forth and bring back a plan for this area, with the County working on a
master plan for Crozet, with the County trying to increase densities in the growth areas, the Board has
known that traffic problems would be created. The Board is doing this with the purpose of keeping
residential development out of the rural area. To him, the Board knows there is a traffic issue. He said
VDOT was supposed to be in the process now of building extra lanes on Route 29 along with parallel lanes
to Route 29. They shut down that process. He is not willing to base everything on one issue. The question
is whether the Board is willing to protect the rural area. If this request is voted down, what will happen to the
residential areas.
Ms. Thomas said she wants to be sure the Board knows as much as possible about how to solve
what is otherwise a failure of the County's main transportation link.
Mr. Rooker said this proposal by itself increases the traffic in the Route 29 corridor by one hundred
percent. The Board needs to have its eyes open when reviewing these requests.
Mr. Martin agreed. It sounds like the Board would like to be able to convince these developers to
provide a Grade A travelway in that area when it is not good during rush hour at this time.
Ms. Thomas said the staff's report and VDOT only talk about not making it worse. Neither says it
has to be raised in service level.
(May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Martin said it is an issue that the Board needs to work through.
Mr. Dorrier said between now and June 11, the transportation issues will be studied by staff. He
asked if Board members had further comments tonight.
Agenda Item No. 10. Appoint Georgina Knisley as Senior Deputy Clerk.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to appoint Georgina Knisley as
Senior Deputy Clerk through December 31,2003. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board has a resolution to deny a claim against the County which the Board
discussed during closed session. Motion to adopt the following resolution to deny a claim asserted by
Carolyn Napier and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION TO DENY CLAIM
ASSERTED BY CAROLYN NAPIER AND
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY
WHEREAS, Carolyn Napier and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, by
counsel, have asserted a claim for damages in the amount of $121,059.06 against the
County of Albemarle, as specifically set forth in a letter dated April 7, 2003, arising from
alleged damages to property in connection with certain storm drainage improvements
that occurred in 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors previously denied a claim asserted by
these parties in May, 2002 for these same damages; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the present claim is, again, not
supported by the facts or by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, denies the claim of Carolyn Napier and State Farm Fire &
Casualty Company for alleged damages in the amount of $121,059.06.
Ms. Thomas said the public is just becoming aware that the County will no longer be offering the
Blue Bag Recycling Program. Ms. Diana LaSauce, who is a member of the RWSA Citizens Advisory
Committee pointed out that the Advisory Committee wrote the Board a letter over a month ago with
suggestions. Ms. Thomas said she has encouraged Ms. LaSauce to update that letter and resubmit it. She
said the County's Engineering Department will be working on some plan. It may be something to be
publicized because some of the problems with recycling are national problems.
Mr. Mark Graham said this is a Strategic plan objective. Staff is looking for a steering committee
team now. One of the first things to do is to work out a schedule. Staff anticipates that during the Summer
it will be a staff effort assembling materials. In the Fall, there will be a number of public forums. One of the
things which they would like to do is bring in the various focus groups, one at a time and make sure the
County understands their concerns and issues.
Mr. Rooker said at the MPO meeting this morning cost estimates were given for the Hydraulic Road
triangle traffic study and its package of projects, the cost is estimated at $170.0 million.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the package of projects is. Mr. Rooker said the study recommends an
overpass at Hydraulic, connecting Hillsdale to Angus Road and running Angus Road under Route 29, a
whole package of improvements.
Mr. Dorrier said the Virginia Work Force Strategic Planning session is on June 4 in the evening in
Alexandria.
(May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 8:13 p.m.
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 08/06/2003
Initials: GKS