2003-07-16(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 16,
2003, at 6:00 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, 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, Chief of Community Development, David W. Benish.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 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. Katie Hobbs was present on behalf of the League of Women Voters. She said the LOWV
regrets the resignation of Larry Tropea as Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and
the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. Much was accomplished during his brief tenure. He led the community
to a consensus in a sound, multi-step, integrated water supply strategy for the future. He developed an
emergency water supply plan which saw the community through last year's severe drought. He also
initiated effective measures to clean up the landfill. He articulated a vision for comprehensive water
management based on sound environmental policies. He took every opportunity to communicate with and
respond to citizens, raising the level of community understanding about water, wastewater and solid waste
issues.
Mr. John Martin, a resident of Free Union, was present to speak about Mr. Larry Tropea. He came
before the Board previously to speak about the Larry Tropea/Rivanna Board conflict matter to no effect. As
things stand now, citizens such as himself, do not have much to show for five years of interest and work on
water supply matters. The RWSA issued an RFP for executive search proposals, and by July 10 had
received about eight. The Rivanna Board is reviewing those proposals and will soon enter into negotiations
and a contract for a company to recruit for Mr. Tropea's replacement. He thinks that contract will be issued
before the Board of Supervisors meets next. This is the last chance for the public to address the Larry
Tropea situation.
Mr. Martin said he would like to convince this Board to place a temporary hold on the award of a
contract for the executive search. He thinks a committee should be formed with City Council to examine the
situation, to mediate the dispute, and see if there is any way to reach a resolution of the conflicts between
Mr. Tropea and the RWSA Board. The public does not know much about the nature of the conflicts, but it
does know about Mr. Tropea's accomplishments. Before Mr. Tropea arrived, he was viewed with
skepticism and suspicion, but in a short time citizens generally came to trust him. His service has been a
credit to local government. He plotted the water supply future, and at long last, brought peace to Ivy. The
importance of maintaining the public trust cannot be underestimated. The public needs to trust
government, and toward this end, it is essential that the two governing bodies involve themselves in a
careful review of this matter. The ultimate question is not what is best for the Rivanna Boards, the ACSA,
and the City's Department of Public Works, but what is the best decision for the people of this community.
Only this Board and City Council can make that judgment. The citizens pledge their trust and consent to be
governed. That trust is not to be taken lightly. In light of what is at stake, it only makes sense to be sure
that the conflicts which have developed are, in fact, irreconcilable. He personally believes there can be a
reconciliation. Failure to maintain the public trust in one area is a slippery slope to governmental
ineffectiveness in all areas.
Mr. Ed Strange said he lives in Ivy and is a neighbor of the landfill. He supports what the LOWV
and Mr. Martin said. He thinks the situation can be resolved. He does not want to see things revert back to
the way they were with the landfill. Getting someone new means the community will have lost about two
years worth of time. He does not think it is in the public's interest. He thinks Mr. Tropea is an exceptional
individual and the issue needs to be resolved.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.3 and to accept the remaining item on the Consent Agenda for
information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 5.1. Resolution to accept road(s) in Lake Reynovia Subdivision, Phase 7, into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the Board adopted the following
Resolution by the vote set out above:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Lake Reynovia Subdivision, Phase 7, described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 16, 2003, fully incorporated herein by
reference, is 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 street 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 roads in Lake
Reynovia Subdivision, Phase 7, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A)
dated July 16, 2003, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant tq 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 road(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Starcrest Road (State Route 1194) from existing ed of State Maintenance
Route 1194 to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 04/02/1996 in
the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
1668, pages 536-538, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.15 mile.
Item 5.2. Resolution to accept road(s) in Rio East Commercial Area into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County's Engineering Department, and by the recorded vote
set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Rio East Commercial Area, described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 16, 2003, fully incorporated herein by
reference, is 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 street 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 roads in Rio
East Commercial Area, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated
July 16, 2003, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant tq 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 road(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1) Rio East Court (State Route 1562) from Rio Road (Route 631) to the cul-de-
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
sac, as shown on plat recorded 09/26/2002 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 278, page 443, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.12 mile.
Total Mileage- 0.15 mile.
Item 5.3. Resolution to accept road(s) in Grayrock Subdivision, Sections 1 & 2, into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
By the recorded vote set out above, at the request of the County's Engineering Department,
the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Grayrock Subdivision, Sections I and 2, described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 16, 2003, fully incorporated herein
by reference, is 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 street 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 roads in
Grayrock Subdivision, Sections I and 2, as described on the attached Additions Form
SR-5(A) dated July 16, 2003, 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 road(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Grayrock Court (State Route 1382) from the intersection of Grayrock
Drive (Route 1381) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded
05/22/2000 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1924, pages 71-75, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.04 mile.
2)
Grayrock Drive (State Route 1381) from the intersection of Jarmans
Lake Road (Route 1380) to the west intersection of Grayrock Drive
(Route 1381), as shown on plat recorded 05/03/2001 in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2020,
pages 131-137, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.21
mile.
3)
Grayrock Drive (State Route 1381) from the end of state maintenance
to the intersection of Grayrock Drive (Route 1381), as shown on plat
recorded 05/03/2001 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 2020, pages 131-137, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.04 mile.
4)
Grayrock Drive (State Route 1381) from the intersection of Grayrock
Drive (Route 1381) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded
05/03/2001 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 2020, pages 131-137, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.05 mile.
5)
Grayrock Drive (State Route 1381) from the intersection of Jarmans
Lake Road (Route 1380) to the intersection of Grayrock Court (Route
1382), as shown on plat recorded 05/22/2000 in the office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1924, pages 71-75,
with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05 mile.
6)
Grayrock Drive (State Route 1381) from the intersection of Grayrock
Court (Route 1382) to the intersection of Laura Lane (Route 1383), as
shown on plat recorded 05/22/2000 in the office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1924, pages 71-75, with
a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.04 mile.
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
7)
8)
9)
Grayrock Drive (State Route 1381) from the intersection of Laura Lane
(Route 1383) to the end of state maintenance (Route 1381), as shown
on plat recorded 05/22/2000 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1924, pages 71-75, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.11 mile.
Jarmans Lake Road (State Route 1380) from the intersection of
Jarmans Gap Road (Route 691) to the intersection of Grayrock Drive
(Route 1381), as shown on plat recorded 05/03/2001 in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2020,
pages 131-137, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05
mile.
Laura Lane (State Route 1383) from the intersection of Grayrock Drive
(Route 1381) to the end of state maintenance (Route 1383), as shown
on plat recorded 05/22/2000 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1924, pages 71-75, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.03 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.62 mile.
Item 5.4. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for May 27, 2003, and June 24, 2003, were
received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. 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.)
Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 30 and July 7, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 7. 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. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 30 and July
7, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 8. 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. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 30 and July
7, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-2001-020. Hollymead Town Center (Sign #56). Public hearing on a
request to rezone 37.13 acs from C-1 & LI to PD-MC to allow mixed-use development. TM 32, Ps 41 D,
43A, 44, 45 & 46. Loc on Rt 29 N at Timberwood Blvd/Rt 29 intersec. (The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as the Hollymead Town Center in the Hollymead Community & recommends
Mixed Use/Regional Service/Community Service uses.) Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in
the Daily Progress on June 30 and July 7, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2003-030. Hollymead Town Center. Public hearing on a request to
allow residential uses in accord w/Sec 25A.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ord. TM 32 Ps 41 D, 43A, 44, 45 & 46,
contains 37.13 acs. Znd LI & C1. Loc on Rt 29 N at Timberwood Blvd/Rt 29 intersec. Rio Dist. (Notice of
this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 30 and July 7, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-2002-002. Hollymead Town Center (Signs #58 & 59). Public hearing
on a request to rezone 24.1 acs from RA to NMD to allow mixed-use development. TM 32, Ps 46 & 41D.
Loc on Rt 29 N at Timberwood Blvd/Rt 29 intersec. (The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
the Hollymead Town Center in the Hollymead Community & recommends Mixed Use/Community Service &
Urban Density uses.) Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 30
and July 7, 2003.)
Mr. Benish said the applicant and staff have worked until the last minute to address some questions
and concerns. He said the Board has before it three rezoning requests which together constitute a mixed-
use development consisting of commercial, retail, office service and residential uses on a total of 86 acres.
The area is generally referred to as the Hollymead Town Center which is located on Route 29 North across
from Forest Lakes Shopping Center and Holly Memorial Gardens Cemetery. The rezoning requests are
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
referred to as Areas B, C and D. The first, Area B, is ZMA-2001-019, and includes two special permits for
drive-through windows. It is on 24.7 acres currently zoned RA and HC. The proposed zoning is PD-MC.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as the Hollymead Town
Center and is proposed for mixed-use regional service. The development includes 300,000 square feet of
regional retail uses, including an anchor department store and grocery store.
Mr. Benish said the second rezoning (ZMA-2001-0200) is referred to as Area C which is for the
Virginia Land Company. It consists of 37.0 acres which is currently zoned C-1 and is proposed for mixed
use development, PD-MC zoning. It consists of 275,000 square feet of retail and office, and up to 120
residential units.
Mr. Benish said ZMA-2002-002 is for the Kessler Group and is referred to as Area D. It consists of
24 acres which is proposed for a Neighborhood Model District. It is currently zoned RA, and is proposed for
between 97 and 370 residential units, and up to 50,000 square feet of commercial and office.
Mr. Benish said the Planning Commission held public hearings on all three of these proposals and
made varying recommendations. For Area B (ZMA-2001-019, Dierman Realty), the Commission split (3:3)
on a vote to recommend approval of the project to the Board. For Area C (ZMA-2001-020, The Virginia
Land Co.), the Commission, although they liked the applicant's proposed site design, voted 3:2 to
recommend denial because the traffic impact and fire and rescue issues remained unresolved at that time.
For Area D (ZMA-2002-002, The Kessler Group), the Commission voted 3:2 to recommend approval on
the condition that the traffic impacts and fire and rescue issues be adequately addressed at the time of
Board action.
Mr. Benish said mitigation of traffic impacts remains the principle issue to be resolved with these
rezonings. Attached to the staff's report are letters from VDOT setting forth the transportation
improvements required to support the Area B and Area C rezonings. County staff agrees with VDOT's lists
of required improvements. The specific improvements relate to entrances and improvements on the Route
29 interconnected streets which connect all three developments and other adjacent roadways including
Airport Road, together. The recommendations also include larger network improvements similar to the
improvements this Board reviewed, accepted and forwarded to the CHART regional planning process.
Those improvements included roads that connected Route 29 to Dickerson Road and extended Berkmar
Drive to what is referred to as Ridge Road, one of the spine roads in this development.
Finally, Attachment G summarizes staff's continuing concerns related to improvements that should
be provided to offset impacts generated by the individual projects. In this attachment, VDOT's and staff's
concerns are summarized in the first column. In the third and fourth columns, staff has summarized the
applicant's efforts to mitigate the individual concern and an assessment of that mitigation effort. Attachment
H is a map showing not only the recommended and proposed road improvements, but also where the
applicants have agreed (in concept) to make the necessary improvements (attachments are on file in the
Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors.)
Mr. Benish said the applicant had been working with VDOT and staff until today's meeting.
Collectively, the proffers try to address these improvements through two methods. One is through proffers
that specifically identify the immediate improvements to be made by the applicants. They also petition and
consent to participation in a Community Development Authority (CDA) which is a revenue-raising authority
to raise funds for the larger regional improvements necessary to support development in the corridor.
Mr. Benish said the proffers for Area B today, substantially meet the recommendations and
required improvements identified by VDOT staff. For Area C, the applicant attempted to substantially meet
most of the transportation improvement proffers. Based on the existing written proffers in hand (the
applicant has recently given staff new proffers, but they have not been reviewed at this time), there are still
some outstanding issues with the language of the proffers, and also, signatures are required. Therefore,
staff cannot advise the Board that the proffers are ready to be signed.
Mr. Benish said for Area D, there are still some outstanding issues, mostly to do with transportation.
Those proffers are not acceptable at this time in terms of language and signatures. Attachment G in the
Board's packet is a table setting out all of the improvements recommended by VDOT and staff. He asked if
the Board would like to go over the list, and he will provide a status of each item.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that since the proffers for Areas C and D are not in final form, it may be
more appropriate to focus on the ones for Area B. Mr. Benish said he thinks the proffers in hand have
addressed all the issues for Area B.
Mr. Martin said he understands the proffers for Areas C and D have not been reviewed and signed,
but the applicant had pretty much agreed to what staff asked for. He suggested that the Board review
Attachment G and go through all of the proffers.
Mr. Davis said he would like to clarify the status of the proffers. The Area B proffers are ready for
the Board to consider. Staff has reviewed those proffers and they are in a format that staff can explain and
the proffers can be accepted by the Board. For the Area C proffers, staff has responded to a draft that was
submitted yesterday morning. Staff did not get those comments out until today. A representative for Area
C hand-delivered to him tonight a revised set of proffers which appear to address the issues staff raised, but
staff has not been able to review those proffers. Just giving them a casual look, there are some minor
revisions and some clarifications which may still be necessary. For the Area D proffers, staff received a
copy of signed proffers on Monday. There are some changes which staff thinks will be forthcoming to those
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
proffers.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Board needs to proceed with the public hearing on all three areas.
Mr. Rooker questioned whether each petition would have a separate public hearing. Mr. Martin suggested
having a review of the proffers in Area B since they are substantially ready. Then, hold the public hearing
on all three areas and then discuss Area B first, and then Area C and Area D. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the
process needs to be simplified for the public which does not know all the significant differences between the
petitions. He thinks the Board can consider the proffers which are ready.
Mr. Davis said the Board has the discretion to hear each petition separately. Legally, and the
practice of the Board in the past has been that for related zoning matters, all public hearings can be
opened at the same time, hear all comments from the public at one time, close all the public hearings, then
the Board would act on each zoning application separately. Mr. Tucker said that to make it simpler for the
public, the sign-up sheet listed all petitions as one hearing.
Mr. Bowerman said this conversation began with a question from Mr. Benish as to whether the
Board wanted him to review the information on Attachment G. That would give the Board the current status
of the proffers, and staff's comments on the proffers.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks it would make more sense to just go down the petitions in order.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board will then hold the public hearings together and consider the items as it
goes along. He then read to the public the Board's rules for holding a public hearing. He asked the
applicant to come forward.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Benish had not finished the staff's report.
Mr. Benish said he would quickly explain Attachment G. This chart shows who is responsible for
the recommended improvements. He said that No. 1 on the list - two additional through lanes on Route 29,
etc. - has been resolved by the newest set of proffers. No. 2 - dual left-turn lanes on Route 29 northbound,
etc. - has been addressed in the draft proffers provided by Virginia Land for Area C. No. 3 - construct entire
length of Timberwood, etc. - has been addressed. No. 4 - construct entire length of Access Road C, etc. -
has been addressed. No. 5 - two additional lanes on Route 29, one in each direction, etc. - has been
addressed. No. 6 - dual left-turn lanes on Route 29 northbound, etc. - has been addressed. No. 7 -
regrading Route 29 southbound to match the vertical curve, etc. - has been addressed by Dierman Realty
in Area B. No. 8 - provide for design and installation of proposed cemetery signal - has been addressed.
No. 9 - construct Access Road C, etc. - has been addressed. No. 10 - participation in a CDA, etc. - has
been broken down into the three subdivisions related to the proffers. The Dierman Group and the Kessler
Group have addressed that question. Virginia Land is still part of the negotiations, and he understands they
have agreed only to a part of the site for participation in the CDA. No. 11 - contribute toward the Route 29
Regional Transportation Corridor Study - shows the contributions proposed by the developers. No. 12 -
extend Access Road A west to Dickerson Road - Dierman Realty in their proffers for Area A address that
question. Nos. 13, 14 and 15 -various road improvements -these are proposed to be resolved through a
CDA. Nos. 16 through 19 - the project's site design - the Planning Commission's recommendation for each
item is shown, and he will not go through those recommendations. No. 20 - provision/contribution toward a
fire/rescue station - Virginia Land is now proposing to proffer $1200 per dwelling unit toward the fire station
(there are as many as 120 dwelling units). Mr. Davis said the draft proffer tonight proposes $2400 per
dwelling unit for Area C. Mr. Benish said for the Kessler Group, they propose $1200 per dwelling unit
toward transportation or fire/rescue improvements. Verbally, there has been discussion of providing more,
but there are no written proffers in hand for that.
At this time, and with no further questions from Board members, Mr. Dorrier opened the public
hearing, and asked the applicants to speak.
Mr. Wendell Wood said he is the owner of Parcels A and B. He said "A" has an application
pending. Area "B" is the object of this public hearing. He said this idea has been pending for 41 months.
He appreciates everyone's time in the last few days trying to get some of the additional proffers. The
proffers are being made by himself and Regency and Dierman. Yesterday he was asked to do the road up
to Dickerson Road. He agreed yesterday to do that. He believes they have met all the proffers requested
by the Virginia Department of Highways, and the County. It has taken a long time and a lot of work with a
lot of cooperation from everyone concerned to get the petition to this point. Since their proffers are in order,
they ask the Board for consideration tonight since there are time issues involved. He said that since there
are several people present who wish to speak, he would ask that anyone present in support of application
"B" stand (approximately 75 people stood). He said that more than 1000 people have signed a petition in
support of the requests.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Wood if the road he mentioned would be completed. Mr. Wood said it is a
new road from Ridge Road connecting all the way to Dickerson Road (the road paralleling the Airport). It is
about 2000 feet long and will cost approximately $1.5 million to construct. There will be no cost to the
taxpayers, and it will be dedicated to public use. That is in addition to $7.0 million that Regency and himself
have agreed to contribute.
Mr. Steve Blaine said he represents the co-applicants, Dierman Realty and Regency Centers. He
said that herculean efforts on behalf of County staff in the last several days have enabled the statement
heard tonight that the proffers are in order. He has a lot of confidence that the Board, through its many
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
work sessions and meetings and reports from staff, has a good grasp on the issues. He said he would
elaborate for the public the amount of scrutiny that the public officials and County staff put into this process,
and the commitments from the landowners. In February, 2001, the Board asked this group of landowners
to come together to develop a common master plan for the Hollymead Town Center. The landowners
include The Kessler Group, Mr. Wood, the Virginia Land Company, and his clients, Regency Centers and
Dierman Realty. These people then embarked on a master planning process. They had many work
session because they had to first agree to the many aspects of a co-development. Aspects involved off-site
infrastructure, not just road improvements. They did that and made a commitment to the Board to come up
with a master plan that had an integrated road network to help mitigate the overall transportation
challenges in this area. A Comprehensive Plan amendment was adopted in October, 2001. There was a
determination that these land uses were appropriate for the area. The Hollymead Town Center is the entire
area which includes Area "B" (Target, Regency Center, Dierman and Mr. Wood).
Mr. Blaine said that after adoption of the CPA, various rezoning applications were filed in the fall of
2001. They worked with VDOT and staff to develop comprehensive transportation and traffic studies. That
analysis was to consider the entire combined impact of the town center at full build-out. A lot has been said
about the levels of service and the amount of traffic generated, but the traffic analysis takes into account the
total build-out which they expect to take between 10 and 15 years. Before the Board tonight are the initial
phases of that build-out. The traffic improvements, referred to and reflected in the newest proffers, are
perhaps beyond what each individual applicant would be required to do if their rezoning were considered
independently. As a condition on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, these developers pledged to come
together with an integrated road plan. The road mentioned by Mr. Wood will enable residents of the County
to access the Town Center from Dickerson Road. There has been talk about other parallel road systems
such as Berkmar Drive which will enable shoppers to get to uses which may front on Route 29 without
having to actually access Route 29. The other improvements will include extending this access road and
another parallel road, which combined with the proffers that will be included with the rezoning for Area "C",
will enable another access to the north to Airport Road. The combined proffers of Areas "B" and "C" are in
excess of $11.0 million. He asked to reserve his remaining time for questions from the Board.
Mr. Katurah Rouell said he represents the applicant for Area "C". He will address some of the
issues brought up in the review by Mr. Benish. He said they do not want to include the residential units in
the CDA because they do not want to burden the individual homeowners or apartments with additional
taxes on their properties. They are willing to come up with some kind of appropriate up-front fee without
driving up the base price. Originally they offered $1200 and have doubled that to $2400, with a minimum of
a $144,000 total contribution toward a local fire house. If they build more units, the County will gain more
funds. This amount is based on 60 units, which is all the property is designed for currently. He said the
transportation network is an integral part of the plan and includes significant improvements to Route 29 and
the three access roads. They would like to proceed in a timely manner after tonight. Their proffers were
presented to the County late today. They have been revised, signed, and official copies turned in. They are
intact, and may be more than requested. It has been six years since he started working on this project. He
thanks staff for all of its efforts in trying to come up with what is a sensible plan. He hopes that in a few
years everyone will be proud of this effort. He is fully in support of a planned development, as opposed to
by-right typical construction, limited to strip development. He hopes to soon see an end to this process. He
asked the Board's consideration and approval this evening.
Mr. Don Franco of the Kessler Group said between 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. today, they got
feedback on their proffers, from timing of the moneys being proffered to the amount. He is dealing with
three owners, and one partner is out of town. They are not prepared to submit signed proffers tonight or
have their plan acted on. Based on the comments received today, he hopes to get some feedback that the
owners can react to. They are aware of the proffers and the amounts, and what Area C is moving forward
with. He is confident that their owners group is prepared to work in a consistent manner.
Mr. Dorrier asked which area Mr. Franco represents. Mr. Franco said it is Area D. They are
primarily the residential portion of what is being called the Hollymead Town Center. As the residential
component, there is a fairly wide range of what their units will cost, depending on whether it is a townhouse
or an apartment. They need feedback from the Board as to whether the amount they are proffering will
relate to a type of unit or to the general impact expected. The other issue has to do with timing. They have
been asked to advance the money based on a time line versus issuance of CO's for the units. They are
willing to advance that somewhat, but are hesitant about moving money forward in advance of any
approval. If they are going to give $400,000+, they would like to know that the project can be approved. He
offered to answer questions.
With no further comments from the applicants, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing on all agenda
items.
Mr. Jim Grimes said he lives in the Advance Mills area. He said the summary of data he has seen
on the County's website says the Planning staff does not support Area B because it does not meet the
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan asks for tree conservation but the area is clear cut. The Plan asks for
green space, but it is nearly 100 percent covered with asphalt and concrete. The Plan asks for pedestrian
orientation, yet there are huge parking lots. There is a lot of debate over the traffic impact. VDOT
estimated 39,000 additional trips, but the consultants said that was 5300 too high. Either way it is a large
difference in traffic. The plan for Area B alone has more than 1200 parking spaces. It is important to note
that Area B comprises 14 percent of the land in this project, and will contribute 37 percent of the traffic
according to VDOT. The Fiscal Impact Study shows that the county will gain an additional $208,000 of
revenue over the current zoning. He sent a letter to the Supervisors earlier in the summer with calculations
showing how certain changes in traffic would save a tremendous amount of money paid for gasoline. Also,
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
his calculations show that what he recommended would provide for no increase in vehicle trips per day. In
order for the County to reap the $208,000, the citizens in northern Albemarle have to spend the same
amount in wasted fuel, and frustration. He has seen it reported several times that the people want this
store. Certainly, some people do. The closest thing he found to provide an answer is the survey carried out
as part of the County's Strategic Plan. Last on the list of concerns of citizens was economic development.
One-third of the citizens responded by saying they were dissatisfied by growth in the County. He does not
believe the majority of Albemarle residents would support rezoning for this project. He thinks that in order
to vote for this rezoning, the Board would have to either ignore the data or hope it is wrong.
Mr. Don Lawson said he supports the proposed project for both Target and Giant. He does not
believe this is a novel idea considering the businesses presently in the Route 29 North corridor. He is a
resident of Route 29 North and it does not bother him. This area was designated business by the Board
and the Planning Commission. This would give the County a broader tax base and help take the tax burden
offthe working poor and the seniors who are homeowners in Albemarle. As to the impact on traffic, this is a
15-year project. He believes economic conditions will improve. VDOT plans to make Route 29 North eight
lanes to Airport Road, and then four lanes to the Airport. Of course, a Route 29 Bypass is not off of the
table, and should help alleviate some of the traffic concerns.
Ms. Mandy Burbage said that last week some residents of Charlottesville and Albemarle County
gathered outside of the County Office Building to host a voluntary tax collection day. They were trying to
raise as much money as possible from the public to go toward the transportation costs associated with the
Hollymead development. Their goal was $100.0 million. They chose that sum because it was the amount
VDOT estimated would be needed to pay for the transportation improvements to Route 29 to
accommodate the traffic that will be generated by the Hollymead Town Center development, including
widening Route 29 to 11 lanes in some places. They were able to raise $1.67. She presented a check for
this sum to the Board. She does not know where the balance will come from, and wonders if this project
will take precedence over other needed transportation improvements. She urged the Board to spend tax
dollars wisely on transportation projects which will lessen traffic problems, rather than complicate them.
New roads are not long-term solutions to the transportation problems. She urged the Board to deny the
request until a better transit and pedestrian-oriented proposal is put forward.
Ms. Joanna Salidis asked that the Board deny the request for rezoning, especially for Area B. She
is opposed to the Center because she believes it will cause undesirable changes in the transportation
infrastructure, increase traffic congestion, even with the proposed changes, raise taxes, and encourage
rapid and sprawling development in the nearby area. A lot of people think that doing all these
improvements will lessen the strain on the traffic flow in the area. The Surface Transportation Policy
Project has an excellent webpage where there are numerous simple, easy to understand, presentations
showing numerous statistics and how transportation is affected by projects. Basically, they conclude that
you can't build your way out of traffic. The only choice is to change development patterns, and increase
ability with effective public transportation, and compact and cluster development near existing population
centers. On one hand there will be increased auto dependence created by these improvements. On the
other hand there is the choice of where to shop.
Mr. Bill Morrow said in projects of this nature, the names of many developers are mentioned, but
not the names of the small business people who work behind the scenes, but are involved in this project.
The majority of this development will be populated by small businesses which are locally-owned, run and
managed by County residents. He has been a resident of Albemarle for over 20 years as is his partner. In
their design business, they have traveled over the country looking for good ideas to bring back to this area
and put into this project. While the project has lasted far longer than they ever dreamed, their involvement
has been over six years, they have focused on building a quality project. He is affiliated with the "C" parcel,
the one with the retention pond in the front, the one with the fountains, the waterfalls, etc. This is one of the
first projects people will see when as they travel down Route 29, and from the Airport. He thinks it is a
project which will rival anything in Williamsburg or Hilton Head. It is a gem Albemarle County can be proud
of. He hopes the Board will allow them to move forward with this project. This has been an unprecedented,
collective action by a lot of people who have never worked with one another before. He also would like to
compliment County staff for their work with these people on this project.
Mr. Tony Seaman said he works for a local financial institution. He has been in commercial real
estate development for twenty years. There are three components of this proposal that will make the Board
proud of this development and make it an asset to Albemarle County. First, the quality of the developer
and the care and diligence shown in developing this project. He said this is a top quality developer who has
spent almost four years working on this project. He has been responsive to staff, and been sensitive to the
impact this project will have on Albemarle County. Second, this project is well-located, well-designed, and
has quite a bit of aesthetic appeal. Compared to other projects he has seen around the State, more time
and diligence has been put into developing this project so it is one that everyone can be proud of. Third,
there has been a lot of public support. Albemarle County needs this project; it needs the jobs, the tax
revenue, and the additional shopping for people in the area. He said there are additional retail centers now
being developed in Richmond and they are close to Albemarle County. He thinks there are many
compelling reasons for the Board to support this project.
Mr. Bill Howard said he is a local, commercial Realtor. He is not involved in Mr. Wood's project, but
has been involved in the development of the Forest Lakes/Hollymead area since its inception. He said
there is no place for the people who live in that area to shop. Everybody who lives in northern Albemarle
County goes into Charlottesville to shop. There is only one restaurant in Forest Lakes. The other thing that
disturbs him is that there are two developments north of Albemarle County which would love to have some
of the tenants who are looking at the Hollymead Town Center. He was involved in bringing Nimbus
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Records to this area. They actually located in Greene County because Albemarle County would not talk to
them. They were a one hundred percent clean air business. Albemarle is losing too much to Greene
County. He supports this project because he thinks the area needs it.
Mr. Alexis Ziegler was opposed to the project. He thinks the majority of people in the County love
this County because of its beauty and because the air and water is cleaner and the quality of life is good.
He grew up just north of Savannah, Georgia, in a county that resembled Albemarle. They paved a lot of it,
and that has not improved the quality of life, nor has it improved the tax rate. He hopes the Board will vote
down the proposal. He does not think the majority of Albemarle citizens want to see a "big box" on this
property. Personally, he does not need a Target Store, and believes there are other places where a Target
store could be placed other than in a massive new development.
Mr. Joseph Booth said he is from Earlysville. He believes people are against this project because
they are concerned about the potential increase in traffic. He feels this will provide unwanted growth like
that seen in Northern Virginia. There are people who want the wide variety of choices this project will
present. Lack of variety causes people to travel outside of the area to shop. He is a small business owner
and his business is located on Route 29 North on the outskirts of this town center. When opening his
business, one of his biggest decisions was the location for his business. Everything showed that he should
place his business across from Forest Lakes because of the potential for growth in the area. He wanted his
business to grow with the area. He has talked with some of the other business owners around him, and
they also said the reason they are there is because of this potential growth. His business continues to grow
every month, and with the town center, he can be exposed to a larger customer base. His shopping center,
Seminole Commons at Forest Lakes, has already lost three businesses and a fourth may be leaving. He
said a majority of small business owners in Albemarle approve of this project, and he asked that the Board
consider this proposal favorably.
Mr. Steve Delo said he supports the Hollymead Town Center. He handed to Mr. Dorrier a petition
containing more than 100 names of those in support of this center. He understands the biggest problem so
far has been the infrastructure of the roadways. From what he heard this evening, that appears to be
cleared up by the proffers submitted. There will be job growth in the area and additional revenue
generated. He thinks the County said the center will generate $11.0 million in revenue when the center is
built-out. He thinks that is in today's dollars, and not 10 to 15 years from now.
Mr. George Mahanes said he has lived in Albemarle County for most of his adult life. He came to
support the proposal for the Hollymead Town Center, particularly on his wife's behalf, for her friends at
church, at work, and for their neighbors. He said many of the ladies are upset with the variety of shops in
the area. He recently heard on one of the business talk shows that Target represents a greater total in
retail sales than Sears and J. C. Penney combined. He thinks this is an opportunity that should not be
passed up. The ladies are tired of driving sometimes in excess of an hour or more to get to Richmond, to
Tyson's Corner and to Fredericksburg, to get to the variety of shops they are looking for. He thinks
approval of this project would help the job market. The additional revenue generated would be a
tremendous help to the County. He thinks a lot of the information the public has gotten from various
publications, is in error. He then handed to Mr. Dorrier a petition containing more than 100 names in
support of this request. He was upset with the picture he saw on the front page of the Progress that a
former speaker mentioned. He asked the Board how something like this could happen when there cannot
be a nativity scene on County property. He found that to be very upsetting.
Ms. Kay Slaughter said she is speaking for the Southern Environmental Law Center. She read a
prepared statement which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board of
Supervisors. They asked that the Board postpone a vote tonight and that the Board direct staff to answer
the questions in her statement, to list the costs of increased transportation needs and other infrastructure
costs, and the feasibility of phasing improvements with construction. Finally, all of the final proffers should
be submitted, reviewed and the public allowed to see them. The impacts of Area "A" should be considered
along with these requests. There should be a traffic impact analysis as recommended by VDOT and there
should be a phasing plan. The Board and staff articulated the full costs for transportation needs on 29
North and adjacent roads, and the public should have an opportunity to review this information before a
decision is made by the Board. She said that twenty years ago, a decision by the Board led to the strip
development along 29 that has clogged the roads and made the entrance to Charlottesville a visual
nightmare. She asked that those present tonight who are opposed to this project, stand. (Approximately 30
people stood).
Ms. Eleanor Breeden said she lives across the road from where this development will be located.
She supports the project because she shops at Target and one is needed in Charlottesville. She can't see
why Charlottesville cannot have more stores in that area for the elderly people. She would be able to walk
to this project. She asked that the Board give consideration to this project.
Ms. Rachel Doddy said she is proud of the community now. She actually does all of her shopping
in Charlottesville in the stores located here. She has lived in places such as Northern Virginia. She
understands what a critical time this is and she urged the Board to not make a fast or premature decision.
She asked that the Board wait until all of the proffers have been submitted and staff has reviewed them,
and the public has had a chance to see what it is getting. Important to her is someone who bikes and rides
the bus to different places. She asked that the Board consider the safety impacts of widening Route 29
further. She does not think most people could walk across the road from Hollymead. She asked that the
Board consider the traffic implications. Everyone will have to live with this decision for a long time.
Mr. Neal Harris submitted a letter from a Mr. Benson who could not stay for the meeting (on file).
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Harris said he is in support of the project. From an economic standpoint, he thinks it is important to
recognize that there are significant benefits for all of the citizens. There will be new jobs, additional
property taxes, more sales tax, and road improvements paid for by private funds. Most of the traffic
volumes from these retailers will come at non-peak times. The stores in that center will generate almost 40
percent of that volume on Saturday and Sunday. The traffic does not overlay with the rush hours Monday
through Friday. The hours from the morning rush through the middle of the day are not big retail times. He
has experienced this with his work for over 20 years.
Ms. Kathy Spain said she supports the town center. She is a small business owner; a hairdresser.
All of her customers complain about going out of town to shop. She said jobs are needed as is revenue.
As to traffic, it is bad every where. She does not think stopping people from coming all the way into town to
shop and to eat will take traffic out of the middle of town. She lives on Route 29 North and there is no place
to eat or shop. They must come into town to do so. She hopes the Board will support this proposal. She
then handed to the Board a petition signed by many people in support of the proposal.
Mr. Bill Stokes said he lives and works in the County. He supports Parcel "B". He said that looking
at the number of petitions received by the Board, as well as seeing the citizens present in support of this
project, there seems to be overwhelming support for the town center concept. The design of this plan
seems to fit what has been recommended for this area over the last couple of years. He suggested looking
at the job base this will bring to the marketplace. It will bring revenue and a substantial tax base to the
market, and it will bring good citizens like Target who support education. Everybody talks about the quality
of life in Charlottesville and Albemarle, so what better partner is there than a landowner who was born and
raised in Albemarle? He thinks the proffers and the number of dollars committed to make this project work
is an indication of the developer's commitment to this county, this market, and to this development. He
asked for a positive consideration of Parcel "B".
Ms. Jennifer Tobin said she is not present to speak against a store called Target. She does not
think the issue is Target, but how this area will choose to grow. There needs to be thought given to the
issue of growth and economic expansion, and how the area will live on a day-to-day basis. She grew up in
Fredericksburg, and Route 3 is now an abomination. She urged the Board to think about what happened to
her hometown because of development and economic expansion gone wild. She asked if any Board
members had ever lived in an area choked by traffic congestion, air quality problems, and water quality
problems caused by runoff from ever increasing pavement. Regarding the issues of proffers, there is no
proffer that can fix the dirty air, the traffic congestion, and the effects of cloning Northern Virginia in
Albemarle County. She urged the Board to either deny the rezoning or at the very least defer the decision
until it has all the information on how this project would impact the quality of life for everyone in Albemarle
and Charlottesville.
Mr. Chris Webster said he lives in Forest Lakes South. He expressed his approval and urged the
Board to also approve the proposed commercial development. Both the Target and Giant Stores which are
planned are quality stores. He believes this will be a quality development. The developer has put forth the
proffered improvements to address the traffic concerns. He drives Route 29 every day going south and he
is quite aware of the traffic and how it will be impacted in the future. He said Forest Lakes is a walking
community. His daughter walks to school everyday. They see this development as another opportunity to
walk in their community. He hopes the Board will approve this development.
Mr. Bill King said he is present in support of the town center. He lives in Northfields, but works in
Greene County. He travels Route 29 every day. He does not see a real traffic problem. After passing over
the bridge at the River, the traffic seems to open up and it is not that bad. He thinks the locality needs a
bypass, although the idea has been around for at least 30 years and it has not happened. He does not
believe this development will adversely affect the traffic on Route 29. He views it as a win-win situation.
This will bring a strong tax base to the County. This developer has had a number of quality projects around
the area. He thinks that over 1000 people have signed petitions in favor of the project. He believes it would
be nice to go back to where the majority rules, and he hopes the Board will vote in favor.
Mr. Brett Richie said he has been a resident of the County since 1994. He came to this area to
attend the University of Virginia, and after graduation he and his family decided to stay in the area. They
enjoy the quality of life here. They are in favor of the development. He is a business owner. He and his
wife have created between 12 and 15 jobs in the area, and the problems they encountered for these skilled
positions was finding affordable housing and shopping opportunities. This is the type of housing product
they feel is needed. A third of their employees live in Greene County and commute to Charlottesville each
day because of the lack of affordable housing. He is a retailer, but is not opposed to competition. He does
see the bigger benefits to the area and is willing to put aside any potential competition of his own in the
short-term for the long-term benefits. He thinks the County has done a wonderful job being careful about
this project, putting in reasonable limitations and qualifications and there have been a number of things
added to be sure it is controlled and done in a sensible manner. He appreciates that as a taxpayer and
citizen of the County. He thinks it is time to take this well-thought out plan and put it into effect. He handed
to Mr. Dorrier some petitions signed by those in support of this request.
Mr. Travis Salidis said he thinks a key consideration is whether the community is being built for
people or for cars. Looking at the thousand parking spaces, it looks like a proposal where the
overwhelming number of people would drive to it, and it is not in line with the Neighborhood Model which
the County adopted. He would like to see what the proposal would look like if the County extended free,
rapid transit to this area. It would look nothing like this if instead of widening Route 29, building the 29
bypass, building the Meadow Creek Parkway, and putting all that money into further subsidies, a fraction of
that money was put into priority transit between urbanized points in the County and the City. That proposal
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
would truly be mixed-use and walkable and fit the Neighborhood Model. There has been mention of the tax
money which will come from this proposal. He thinks a lot of that money will come from other existing
businesses. The County's Fiscal Impact Planner said that if all these proposals are built (there are five
proposals before the County), the demand will be exceeded by supply by a factor of 50 percent. It has
been mentioned that Greene County is planning its own shopping centers. Will these be built for people
who in just a few years will have shopping centers closer to them? He said Hollymead is clearly sprawl,
car-oriented development. This is a waste of habitat, air, water, energy and public money in terms of the
initial road infrastructure. There are secondary costs to sprawling development, such as utilities, patrolling
and maintaining the extra roads. There is an extra cost for residents who are forced to own and operate a
car in order to have a life. Transportation not only connects, but shapes the places that are built.
Ms. Jean Nadkarni asked that the Board put off its decision on this project. As an average citizen in
the County, she does not think the Board has enough information about what is being offered to mitigate
some of the impacts of the project on the community. She thinks the citizens want to be able to tell the
Board what they want, fully informed. She encouraged the Board to consider the traffic issues in a larger
sense than simply adding a few lanes to Route 29. People will be coming to this development from all
points on the compass, and not just from the community. That will have spill-over impacts into traffic areas
that are already congested. Since the developers of this project will realize a tremendous profit on their
investment, the citizens of Albemarle should and must expect them to contribute a great deal to the
infrastructure needed to support this project. Whenever a proposal like this is put forth, there are always
people on the extremes of the issue. There are the anti-growth people who would like to ride their bikes to
the market for all of their food shopping. There are developers who want to put up high density residential
and commercial all over the County. She thinks most of the citizens are somewhere in the middle. She
encouraged the Board to get more details about the proffers still being worked on. They should then be
presented to the citizens. The citizens should be allowed to make comments before it makes a decision.
Mr. Archie Thornton said he has lived in the area for over 12 years. Last week he was in St.
Paul/Minneapolis, Minnesota, and he had the opportunity to visit a Target Center. He believes that if the
citizens in the surrounding area could see that Center, they would welcome one here. He lives
approximately four miles out of town. He also has traveled all over Virginia, and in many other states. He
has not entered a City where there is such a lack of housing. He thinks this project would add to the
entrance to Charlottesville. Over 30 years ago he lived in Washington, D.C., when they were attempting to
do the same thing for the subway that is being done here tonight. People were against it. He said progress
has to take place, and he believes this center will be progress for future people. He asked that the Board
vote in favor of the project.
Mr. Josh Freeman said he is a County resident and works for a local financing institution with
experience in commercial real estate. He supports a well-designed development which will provide a
significant net benefit to the community. He thinks that is what this project will provide. It looks attractive.
There is a professional and experienced development team. There are a group of strong retailers who
support their community. There is also the potential for significant new job growth, a larger tax base, and
stimulation to the overall economy. He asked that the Board consider the overall benefits of this project
when making its decision.
Mr. Jeff Cushing said he is a County resident and is in favor of the development. He handed to the
Board a petition signed by 55 people in favor of the project. He said that once a month he and his wife go
to Fredericksburg for a whole day, and shop. It would be nice to have those places locally as it would save
a whole day.
Ms. Ann Malleck said she lives on a farm in Earlysville. She is an Albemarle County native. She
hopes the Board is pleased with the increased public participation in the planning and zoning process for
this town center. She thinks all are concerned about the magnitude of changes this project will bring to this
section of the County. She wants the approval process on Parcel "B" to wait until all the evidence is
available concerning costs and consequences. While she understands the theory of taking all three
parcels together tonight, she thinks "C" and "D" incorporate the characteristics of the Neighborhood Model
to a far greater extent and do a much better job of planning than does Parcel "B" which seems to fail to
incorporate the Neighborhood Model. She said changes in drainage suggested by the engineers were
never made. This means that the present drainage plans will inhibit the possibility of Parcel "A", the main
street and heart of the Hollymead Town Center, from being properly developed. Without Parcel "A" is
another strip mall, just set back a little farther from the highway. The developers said there has to be a strip
mall with a "big box" store in order to pay expenses. Does this mean the next owner will have more money
to do the job correctly with parking structures, real parks and sidewalks? If stores are desperate to locate
here, then they can do the job right. It will never be less expensive to build the project than it is now. This
will be a precedent-setting decision by the Board. She asked that a decision be withheld until all needed
information is obtained and all design changes have been implemented. She said the CHART Committee
is the long-range transportation planner for the community, and they are working to provide alternative ways
to get around in the area. One of those is the extension of Berkmar Drive all the way through to UREF.
They hope that a public/private cooperative effort would be able to bring that road and many parallel
connections between that road and Route 29 into fruition.
Mr. Chris Harrison said he is a resident of Forest Lakes North. He understands the County is
encouraging walkable, pedestrian-friendly development and that Hollymead Town Center was to be guided
by this policy. Yet, the plan offers no connections from the Town Center to Hollymead itself, or to any of the
houses that cluster across Route 29 North. The Forest Lakes and Hollymead communities have many
walking trails that are heavily used. He asked that safe bike and pedestrian access across Route 29 be
added. The crossing at Timberwood Boulevard would benefit from an island in the median so that
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
pedestrians would not have to cross the entire width at one time. At the southern end of Area "A", a large
culvert currently drains under 29. If widened and lit, it could provide a safe underpass crossing of 29. He
said the same path in Hollymead Town Center could easily connect right into the main street area. He
understands the highway will need to be regraded anyway, so this bike path could be added without great
additional cost to the developer. This presents a one-time opportunity to give pedestrians and bikers a
chance to safely cross Route 29 North.
Mr. Forest Hyde said he is a resident of the County near Route 29 on Rio Road, so is very familiar
with the traffic. He believes that most of the traffic at this center will come from Forest Lakes, Hollymead,
Greene County, Earlysville and will not create extreme traffic on Route 29 south of the center. When he
goes to Culpeper, there is a nice bypass with no traffic light. You hardly know Culpeper is there. Going
through Warrenton, there is one traffic light only. Lynchburg has had a bypass for 20 years on Route 29.
He said that in Stanardsville, there was one stop light they had to bypass. He thinks VDOT has their
priorities mixed up. He just went to Williamsburg, and they are building a rest stop that looks like the old
Capitol Building. He is in favor of this project. The area is fortunate to have quality developers who are
willing to put their money out for roads, etc., before they get any income. He then handed to the Board a
petition signed by people in favor of this project.
Mr. Tim Kasmarick said he is a small business owner south of the Hollymead Town Center. He is
a resident north of the Hollymead Town Center so drives that corridor every day. One thing that has not
been mentioned is that just like the new BestBuy, if this is drug out much longer, businesses will just go into
the City. The same people who drive that north corridor will drive past what would have been the
Hollymead Town Center to get to other retail locations. He said that he and his wife also make monthly
trips to Richmond or Northern Virginia to travel to a Target Store and then spend their money in businesses
in other areas. He knows many other people who do the same thing on a regular basis. He then handed in
a petition containing the signatures of 56 people who are in favor of this request.
Mr. John Gersbach thanked the Board for allowing him to express his opinion about the proposed
rezoning. He is a resident of Forest Lakes South and travels Route 29 to work every morning. He said the
results of the traffic study for this project have not been available to the public. He thinks the public needs
to review these plans in order to make an informed decision. At this time, estimates range from $100.0
million to $250.0 million to modify the road to accommodate the proposed center. Last year there was a
drought which put the area to within 50 days of shutting down because of lack of water. He reviewed some
reports and the Water Supply Plan adopted by the Board last October. As an engineer, it is apparent to him
that the information available to the County's engineers leaves them with questions about supply and the
needs of the existing population of the County. This project will put an additional burden on the water
supply. At this time, estimates for capital improvements in the area of wastewater treatment are about
$80.0 million with another $13.0 million needed for improvements for the water supply system. If projects
like this are added without any thought as to their impact on the community, citizens like himself will end up
picking up the tab, so there is no benefit to him. He would like to see the County address the current needs
in water supply and wastewater treatment to be sure they will be adequate for the near and distant future.
Also, he questions the economic value associated with this project. The primary beneficiaries are the
developers. He has looked at the areas directly across the street in the Hollymead Professional Center. It
has approximately a 30 percent unoccupied rate at this time. Forest Lakes North has a parcel of about
three and one-half acres which is for sale for commercial and office development. He thinks this is a
charming area, and the people who are attracted here are attracted by the beauty of what is outside and
now what is inside. They don't move here for what is on the clothing racks or on the shelves of the stores.
They move here for the beauty of the environment and for the people who live here. He is against this
project.
Mr. Logan Martin said he runs the Ron Martin Appliance Store on Route 29. He said that 15 years
ago, his father bought their property when it was just a field out on Route 29. He did so because he
believed that was where the growth would occur. Any land for sale on Route 29 will be expensive because
that is where the growth is occurring. He does not understand what the problem is. It is a shopping center,
and it is obvious to most of the citizens that it is what will be there eventually anyway. He said the
environment the County creates when it puts up barriers to development is to create a scenario where only
the wealthiest people can get into business. The amount of money that has been wasted by developers to
get this started makes him wonder how they can be so polite to this Board. He would be furious. He said
this has been coming for a long time. For a beautiful place like Albemarle County, people will want to move
here. It is going to grow, and if someone wants to live in the country, there is land that is really cheap in
surrounding counties. He has two children and hopes they decide to live in this community. He reminded
the Board that the house each lives in was probably on land that was a farm at some point. He said there is
no going back. He wishes the Board would deal with that.
Mr. Joe Gamma said he owns Classics Domestic Center on 29 North where approximately 600
families come in each week from all over the area. The vast majority of them are interested in having this
development. He handed to the Board petitions containing nearly 200 signatures of people in support of
the project. He urged the Board's support of this project.
Mr. Tony Vanderwarker said he is Co-chairman of the Albemarle Smart Growth Initiative. He asked
that the Board work hard to separate the issue of having a Target Store from the other issue. He said there
have been proposals from other developers to put Target Stores in other locations. The Board is facing the
question of whether this is the right place for a regional development. However, the developers have a lot
of imaginative lay-outs, and he thinks the entire project is coming together nicely. The Board has to decide
whether a "big box" should be located here or at Albemarle Place where it was suggested a year ago. He
called the developer a couple of days ago because he could not remember why that developer was no
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
longer proposing to put a "big box" there. He said the Planning Commission had told them they could only
have a 75,000 square foot footprint, and that was too expensive for Target to build on two levels so they are
going to Hollymead. Could that Planning Commission decision be changed to enlarge the footprint at
Albemarle Place so that Target could locate there? Could the developer of Hollymead Town Center be
asked to have the same footprint as that in Albemarle Place? There needs to be imagination used when
locating the "animal". The decision the Board makes tonight will affect its reputation for years to come.
One other option is that there is a big development going on Fifth Street Extended. Would it be better to
have a Target Store in that development? He thinks the Board has the opportunity to make the kinds of
decisions which will affect the County long-term. Instead of rushing to judgment, he suggested taking the
time to be thoughtful, imaginative and creative about how to integrate a regional shopping center into this
County.
Mr. Anthony Valenti said he has lived in Charlottesville for about 15 years, and he is in favor of this
project. He thinks it will offer the people in the area diversity in shopping. He does not think the problem
with parking and traffic will be horrendous because it will spread shopping into different areas of town.
When there are multiple areas for shopping, the traffic goes the same way. He would appreciate the
Board's support of this "here" project.
Mr. Chris Gleason said he is a native of Charlottesville and he works on Route 29 north. He is
present to support the project. He collected nearly 250 names of people who also support the project. He
found in talking to these people that the overwhelming number are in support and are not opposed to the
development. People say they have been traveling out-of-town for years to do their shopping, particularly to
stores like Target. There will be additional job opportunities in the area, and better priced housing
communities in the 29 North corridor. He thinks these people are "the silent majority", people who are not
comfortable coming to a forum like this, but overwhelming would like to have a development like this be
approved.
Mr. Derrick Van Der Linde said he represents the Blue Ridge Ice Hockey Association, a non-profit
group organized for educational purposes to stimulate and encourage interest in ice hockey as a participant
sport. They have 77 family memberships who would like to give their support for the future construction of
the Target Store in Albemarle County. He said Target Stores are a major supporter of ice hockey in
Virginia. They believe as an association that Target will be a good neighbor and would be an asset to
Charlottesville and Albemarle.
Mr. Timothy Hulbert, President of the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce, said for the
past several weeks their members have been looking for an opportunity to talk about this marvelous idea of
a Community Development Authority. He would like to mention the thoroughness of what the staff and
these developers have done. This is as complete a record submission as he has ever seen in his
professional life. He same to speak about the tool, a CDA, which is a funding tool for the Commonwealth,
as well as this community, which will help address identified needs for which there are no resources. This is
an innovative and imaginative mechanism. There are a group of developers who came together at the
Board's suggestion and have put growth in an area where the County said growth is wanted and responded
to a host of needs including needs beyond their borders. They are providing $11.0 million to address needs
the County and VDOT cannot pay for. He thinks this is an opportunity for the County "to walk away." He
thinks it is a good tool, and he thinks it will be used in the future. He thinks the Board should take the
chance to capture this opportunity.
Mr. Madja Paska said he is a small business owner. He also lives in Charlottesville. He is in favor
of this shopping center because it provides competition between the stores. He thinks it will be good for the
town.
Mr. Jerry Valle said he lives in Charlottesville. He drove for 45 years over Northern Virginia,
Maryland, Washington, D.C. and for 25 years from Charlottesville to D.C. He has seen in many areas the
negative affects projects of this type have on the highway system. He said there is a semantic
misconception tonight. Some developers used the words "transportation network" to refer to a "roadway
network." There has been no provision for looking at high capacity transit. Also, there were references to
"highway improvements." He said Mr. Barnes (Planner) prepared a document for the Planning
Commission's work session back in February where one of the improvements was for triple turn-lanes from
Route 29 to Rio Road. He does not think that is an improvement, but madness. He thinks the projects
collectively will seal the doom of Route 29 as an inter-city corridor. He urged that the petitions not be
approved until they include some kind of provision for transit corridors that will collect travelers from various
places, such as Ruckersville and Charlottesville and bring them to this center.
Mr. Steve Blaine, speaking for the applicant, said he would respond to some of the comments
made tonight. The location of this facility was addressed in the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The
question of why large single-story retail would be allowed here and not at Albemarle Place was a deliberate
decision in the Comprehensive Plan amendment made in 2001. As to the question of the completion of the
record, there are those in the public who would like the opportunity to review and comment on the proffers.
He said all of their proffers have been available to the public as they have been drafted. There are some
proffers which have been in the files since March, 2003. He has heard no comments about those proffers.
The last additions to the proffers were supplemental. If there were no comments on the proffers before last
Thursday, there would only be better proffers today. He said the staff and those involved on behalf of
County officials are quite qualified to advise the Board on the adequacy of those proffers.
Mr. Blaine said Target, as a good neighbor, contributes over $2.0 million a week nationally, on a
per store average to local charitable causes. There are grants, and credit card contributions made to local
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
schools. In terms of the fiscal impacts, the hard facts are that this center will contribute retail sales taxes
based on $250.0 million in annual sales. The traffic analysis has been in the public record since
November. Their proffers have been available. They are present tonight to answer specific questions
about them. He thinks this is the appropriate time to take action on Area "B".
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the pubic hearing was closed. Mr. Dorrier called
for a recess at 8:25 p.m. The Board reconvened at 8:43 p.m.
Mr. Dorrier called the meeting back to order, and asked if any of the developers who did not speak
had any comments to make at this time. He then asked if Board members had comments.
Mr. Rooker said the Hollymead Town Center is located in a designated growth area. The
Comprehensive Plan, as a strategy, tries to focus more dense development in the growth areas in order to
help preserve the rural areas. There are about 2000 people moving into the County each year. Those
people have to be accommodated someplace. He is not a fan of trying to attract people to move into the
area, but the growth that comes must be accommodated. Many of the arguments against approving the
Hollymead Town Center are really disagreements with the fact that the area is in a designated growth area.
That decision was made decades ago.
Mr. Rooker said this has been almost a six-year process. He was a member of the Planning
Commission when this idea first came up. There was a request presented to change the designation in the
Comprehensive Plan for about 25 acres of the property in that area. The Commission said they did not
want to look at just 25 acres as a separate matter, but wanted to look at a larger area and be sure there
was an integrated plan of development. There were numerous Commission work sessions and hearings
over the years. When the Comprehensive Plan change was approved, it was a unanimous decision, and it
had a 65,000 square-foot limit on the largest, single footprint in the development. He supported that
limitation, which means he did not support having a "big box" in the area. When that recommended change
to the Comprehensive Plan went to the Board of Supervisors, it was approved unanimously, but they
eliminated the 65,000 square-foot limit on the footprint which means that the change made contemplated
that this area might have a big box.
Mr. Rooker said there was also a change made at that time which took away the inward focus of
the development that had been contemplated by the Commission. The Comprehensive Plan amendment
for the Hollymead Town Center which was adopted by the Board has many Neighborhood Model principles,
but it also includes provisions for large retailers such as Target. Although he did not agree with some of the
changes made by the Board at that time, he analyzed what the Comprehensive Plan recommended for that
area. The Board asked the three owners of property in the area to come back with an integrated plan of
development which matched the Comprehensive Plan. That is difficult because there are roads which
traverse different areas owned by different people, debates over who should fund infrastructure
improvements, stormwater management, etc. The alternative to that would have been for each owner to
present a separate plan for his property that did not necessarily fit into an integrated plan. These properties
have a potential for 14 entrances along Route 29. Without an integrated plan, there could well be a bunch
of individual small projects that did not fit together, or include significant proffers or help transportation in the
area.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the proposals for traffic improvements match the Comprehensive Plan.
He said the development group has now proffered to do substantially all that VDOT requested or required.
Additionally, they have proffered to build Access Road "A" all the way to Dickerson Road. A connection
between Route 29 and Dickerson Road will enable the entire western part of the County to access this
development without ever getting on Route 29. He is confident the package of improvements being offered
by the developers reasonably mitigate the traffic impacts. But, in addition to short-term needs, there are
long-term transportation needs. At one time in the County's traffic plan for the area there were additional
lanes from the South Fork Rivanna River to Airport Road. That was taken out of the plan by the
Commonwealth Transportation Plan because of a lack of funding. There are numerous other
improvements which may be necessary over time, such as potential overpasses to connect Hollymead East
to the town center. That is a part of the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. There is a potential
need for a grade-separated interchange at Airport Road.
Mr. Rooker said that in addition to specific improvements, the developers have proffered to
participate in a community development authority which would create a special tax district to provide
revenues for long-term transportation improvements in the corridor. If they do so, it would be the first CDA
in Albemarle County. It would provide a way to address some of the long-term transportation needs, and
perhaps there will be additional State funds. He believes this proposal provides for development and
transportation integration. It includes a number of the principles of the Neighborhood Model. He thinks
failure to approve this integrated plan of development might backfire on the community and result in much
less attractive development than the proposal before the Board. After a long period of internal debate over
this proposal, with the proffers being presented, he supports the request.
Mr. Bowerman said he echoes Mr. Rooker's statement. The only thing he disagrees with is that he
believes this area could house a large retailer. Otherwise, he agrees with everything Mr. Rooker said. He
supports the development; Area "B" tonight, and, most likely, Area "C and Area "D" when the proffers are
perfected.
Mr. Martin said for the first five years of this proposal's existence, the land was in the Rivanna
District. Because of the last census, it became a part of the Rio District. He has been on the Board for the
entire six years mentioned by Mr. Rooker. The arguments in opposition to this proposal would hold a lot of
weight if it were not for the 2000 people a year who continue to come to this community. If there were some
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
way to legally say "no more growth" and be able to back it up, that would be one thing. These days people
run around saying "no growth", but the only thing they are doing is putting their head under their pillow while
someone is breaking into their house. Instead of facing it, they are hiding, and saying it is not there. Given
the fact that there is the growth, it has to be dealt with. One of the ways the Board decided to deal with it
(and that decision was made long before he became a Board member), was to concentrate growth in the
growth areas to prevent sprawl throughout the County. This is an opportunity to do that. It was done with
Forest Lakes and with Glenmore which allowed them to higher densities because they provide more
amenities. He has to support this request. As Mr. Bowerman said, he has felt all along that a big box was a
viable option because everybody in Albemarle County cannot afford to shop in fancy boutiques. Some
people need to get the reduced values from the big boxes. The traffic has been a big issue. A lot of that
came about because six years ago it was planned for VDOT to build extra lanes on Route 29. Then VDOT
backed out, and now the developers are having to step forward and put money into building a portion of
those lanes on Route 29. In addition, there is the interconnectivity that will be provided by the road that
goes to Dickerson Road, as well as to Airport Road. He lives on Route 29, and he said everybody knows
there are certain places where if caught in a traffic jam, you must just sit and wait it out. The roads the
developers are providing will give other alternatives when stuck in traffic near the cemetery. There will be
other options available. He, like Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Rooker, will support this wholeheartedly; Plan "B"
tonight, and Plans "C" and "D" as soon as the proffers are ready.
Mr. Perkins said he appreciates hearing the history Mr. Rooker just gave of this whole process.
This is something the Board asked for and for it not to proceed would be "shooting ourselves in the foot."
There will be other projects like this in the County because the pattern of land ownership will require the
County to ask different landowners to come in and cooperate in developing a master plan such as this one.
Maybe it could be better, but this plan meets the requirements the Board outlined.
Ms. Thomas said she does not think most of the opposition has anything to do with opposing
designated growth areas. She said designated growth areas are the way the County will protect the rural
area. The goal in the Comprehensive Plan since sometime in the 1970s has been to have 80 percent of
new development in designated growth areas and not in the rural area. She said that last year the County
came close to reaching that goal. The Hollymead Town Center will be one of those designated growth
areas, and there is a need for attached housing and the sort of housing being proposed. Although the
County wants development in the growth area, it also wants it to be designed so it is attractive for the people
living there, as well as for the developers. She said that is a lot of the anguish over the past years has been
about getting the diverse landowners together to get this developed. A lot of good things have come out of
what they have done, in some cases in the last 24 hours. She has not seen those new proffers. Staff
handed the Board members two bunches of proffers as they sat down this evening. Staff received some
proffers at 10:30 p.m. last night, and has done its best to deal with those proffers today. She has a lot of
admiration for staff, but thinks this is one of the most important zoning decisions this County has ever made
and it should not be made before the Board has had a chance to read those proffers. She does not think
staff has had a chance to look through them. A quick glance brought to mind the question of whether the
Board wants to leave the design and determination of 29 North totally up to VDOT. VDOT has not been
known as the arbitrator of the best transportation designs. VDOT's decision is only the impact of a median
cut and ameliorating that impact. It is not dealing with any of the impact on the Rio Road intersection or the
Woodbrook intersection, or the others shown in the traffic study. Ms. Thomas said she is not speaking
against this concept or against what is before the Board because she does not know if the other Board
members have read the proffers. She does not see how the Board can approve a rezoning of this
magnitude with proffers that were handed to the Board members as they sat down this evening.
Mr. Dorrier said he has talked with the County Attorney and thinks the proffers are in order for Area
"B". He thinks the Board needs to look at the whole picture. He said the developers have worked hard
together to make this work, and have sacrificed their differences. For the County to get a $7.0 million
improvement in a public system, and an expenditure of $35.0 million in the long run, brings quite a financial
asset to the County. He thinks the Board needs to look closely at what it will do to that section of the
County. If developers were allowed to develop by-right, Mr. Rooker is correct in that it could be a much
worse situation. He thinks the improvements will be a win-win situation tax wise, and a win for the citizens
tax wise and customer wise. He knows the developers, and they are high caliber people. He has great
confidence in this development team. He finds this to be a remarkable moment for the County. Nobody
likes the traffic on Route 29 North, but he thinks that in the long-run this will help alleviate some of the
problems. He hopes the Board can support this project and continue to move it forward.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman offered motion to approve ZMA-2001-019, Hollymead Town Center
Regional Service Area "B", with the proffers as submitted to the Board dated July 16, 2003, and approved
by the County Attorney's Office tonight. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Mr. Rooker said the reason he is comfortable going forward with the proffers is that the proffers
have been floating around for a long time. He does not know of any recommendation from a Board
member that has not been incorporated into the proffers. In his mind, it is not a last minute situation. Every
change made between the last draft and this draft is a change that is beneficial to the County or the
citizens. He does not know of anything that has not been dealt with in the two or three months that the
proffers have been floating around.
Mr. Martin said he agrees with Mr. Rooker. Several months ago County staff asked VDOT how the
traffic concerns could be mitigated. VDOT said what would be needed to be done.
Ms. Thomas said when she looked at the proffers after she sat down tonight she saw there is a
proffer for two pedestrian ways and she does not know if that limits what otherwise might be requested on
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
the site plan. She does not know enough about these proffers. Based on that, she thinks it is her
responsibility not to take an action tonight on something she has not had a chance to thoroughly analyze.
The proffers were handed to her as she sat down. She actually got an earlier version at four o'clock this
afternoon. She has not had adequate time to read these proffers and she thinks it is the Board's
responsibility not to take action when it has so little personal knowledge as to what it is about to vote on.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier called for a roll call.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The approved proffers are set out in full below.)
ZMA-01-019
PROFFERS
Hollymead Town Center
Regional Service Area B
July 16, 2003
TAX MAP PARCELS 32-41D (part), 42B (part), 42C (part), 42D, 42E, 43, 43A (part) and
44 (part), 24.7 Acres
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Code (the "Code"), the owners, or their
duly authorized agents, hereby voluntarily proffer the conditions listed below which shall
only be applied, except as specifically set forth herein to the area identified as Regional
Service Area B on the Application Plan, (defined below) comprising all or some of the
above referenced tax map parcels (the "Property").
These conditions are proffered as part of the requested zoning 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 request:
1. Development shall be in general accord with the Application Plan entitled
Rezoning Application Plans for Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area B, (Sheets
A-l, A-2, and A-6 of 7 only), prepared by Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC, revised
February 15, 2002, last revised April 29, 2003 ("Application Plan"). The owners have
presented, as part of their rezoning applications, a number of conceptual plans and
illustrations for various purposes, but principally to provide justification for the rezoning
actions they are seeking. Unless specifically referenced in these proffers, all plans and
illustrations submitted as part of Applicant's rezoning application, other than the Application
Plan as defined above, shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plans and illustrations
shall not be deemed proffers. The owners reserve the right to reconflgure the outparcel
improvements, consisting of buildings, parking and drive aisles and drive-through window
features that are the subject of SP-01-63 and SP-01-64 and as shown on the Application
Plan in order to: i) comply with conditions imposed by such Special Use Permits, and ii)
assure compliance with ARB requirements.
2. The owners of Area B, as shown on the Application Plan (the "Owner")
shall cause completion of the following road improvements:
A. Access Road A, as depicted on the Application Plan, across from
the Hollymead Memorial Gardens Cemetery at US Route 29 up to the western boundary of
Area B. This shall include the two eastbound lanes located on Area A pursuant to road
plans approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") and the County as
part of the Area B site plan. Access Road A also shall include dual left and dual right turn
lanes at the intersection with Route 29.
B. Dual left turn lanes at the intersection of Route 29 and Access
Road A, from northbound Route 29 into Access Road A. The dual left turn lanes and
signalization at Route 29 and Access Road A shall include median cut and cross-over
construction at the Hollymead Memorial Gardens Cemetery location, (the "Cross-over") as
scheduled in coordination with VDOT. The Owner also proffers to construct a single
southbound left turn lane on Route 29 at the intersection (to allow left turn movement into
the cemetery). All turn movements shall be signalized at the intersection of Route 29 and
Access Road A, as approved by VDOT.
C. The Owner shall dedicate land, if necessary, and construct a
continuous right turn lane on Route 29 southbound from the northern boundary of the
Property to the entrance road, (Access Road A). The Owner proffers to construct a third
southbound through lane on Route 29 from the northern boundary of the Property to the
entrance road, (Access Road A) and beyond the entrance road, (Access Road A) for a
distance of 1000 feet.
D. The southbound through lanes of Route 29 shall be
re-constructed to the profile grade of the northbound lanes to meet adequate sight
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
distance requirements at the Cross-over, based upon a 50 mile per hour design speed and
a maximum 4 percent cross-slope requirement.
E. A third northbound through lane shall be constructed on Route
29, 1000 feet in length on each side of the Cross-over.
The road improvements listed in 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and 2E above
shall be constructed, in accordance with road plans submitted by the Owner and approved
by VDOT. All of the foregoing improvements shall be i) constructed to VDOT design
standards pursuant to detailed plans agreed to between the Applicant and VDOT, and ii)
accepted by VDOT for public use or bonded for VDOT's acceptance as a condition for
issuance of any certificate of occupancy for Area B improvements. The width, length,
(except as specified in 2C and 2E above) location, (inside median or outside existing
pavement), type of section (e.g., urban vs. rural), and geometrics of all lane improvements
shall be as required by VDOT design standards and detailed plans submitted by the Owner
and approved by VDOT.
3. The Owner shall cause to be constructed and dedicated the segment of
Access Road A from the western boundary of Area B to its intersection with State Route
606, also known as Dickerson Road and as shown on the attached map entitled Future
Roads, dated July 15, 2003 ("Exhibit A"). Construction of this section of Access Road A
shall be completed for acceptance by VDOT for public use and dedication of a minimum
60-foot-wide right-of-way and all necessary easements have been dedicated to the County
within three (3) years from the date of approval of ZMA-01-019. This section of Access
Road A shall be constructed to accommodate two travel lanes (one in each direction).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the road proffers described in this paragraph 3 shall be
satisfied if plans for all such road improvements have been submitted for review by VDOT
and, although such improvements are not accepted by VDOT for public use within three
(3) years from the date of approval of ZMA-01-019, sufficient bond has been supplied to
satisfy all costs to complete such improvements in accordance with plans approved by
VDOT. Further, the road proffers described in this paragraph 3 shall be satisfied if and
when any portion of Area A is rezoned, and the owner of Area A makes a proffer binding
Area A, or any portion thereof to all the obligations contained in this proffer 3.
4. The Owner also shall cause to be constructed and dedicated Ridge Road
from its intersection with Access Road A to the northern boundary of Area A (with Area C),
as shown in blue on Exhibit A. Construction of the section of Ridge Road as shown on
Exhibit A shall be completed for acceptance by VDOT for public use within one (1) year
after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Area B. This section of Ridge Road
shall be constructed initially to accommodate two travel lanes (one in each direction) and a
bicycle lane only (without parallel parking and sidewalks). The area to be dedicated,
however, shall be not less than sixty (60) feet in width to allow future widening. No
certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any use within Area B until the segment of
Ridge Road required to be constructed by this proffer is either constructed to VDOT's
standards, or a sufficient bond or other form of surety is provided to the County in an
amount sufficient to assure its construction and VDOT's acceptance. If the owners of Area
A refuse after request from the County to dedicate land sufficient for Ridge Road as
contemplated herein, then the Owner shall pay the costs to acquire such land, which costs
shall include VDOT's normal costs of acquiring by condemnation, including land
acquisition, engineering, surveying, reasonable attorneys fees, and the cost of construction
of this section of Ridge Road, and other related expenses.
5. Owner proffers to contribute $50,000.00 to the County or VDOT, on behalf
of Area B and Area A for the purposes of funding a regional transportation study for the
Route 29 corridor. The $50,000.00 contribution shall be made within thirty (30) days after
requested by the County following site plan approval for Area B and, if not expended for
such purpose after three (3) years from the date the funds were contributed such funds
shall be refunded to the Owner.
6. Upon the request of the County, Owner shall petition for and consent to a
Community Development Authority ("CDA") established pursuant to Section 15.2-5152, et
seq. of the Code of Virginia ("Code") to be created for the purpose of financing, funding,
planning, establishing, constructing, reconstructing, enlarging, extending, or maintaining
(except to the extent VDOT maintains any public improvements) Route 29, and roads and
other improvements associated therewith, which shall include, but may not be limited to,
improvements to Route 29 from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport Road or the
extension of Ridge Road as depicted on Exhibit A, to the south and across the Rivanna
River to connect to Berkmar Drive. This proffer shall only apply if all of the owners of the
lands subject to ZMA-01-018, ZMA-01-19, ZMA-01-020, and ZMA-02-002, as such
applications exist on July 16, 2003, excluding residential property, have joined or been
caused to join the same or a similar CDA for the purposes described herein. This proffer
shall apply only if, at the time of the formation of the CDA, the rate of any special tax
imposed shall be uniform and shall not exceed twenty-five cents ($.25) per $100 of the
assessed value of any taxable real estate within the CDA, unless all the owners within the
CDA subsequently consent to any proposed rate or level of assessment otherwise.
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
7. There shall be two (2) pedestrian walkways/grade arms located within
parking areas depicted on the Application Plan, located to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Community Development. These pedestrian walkways/grade arms within
the parking areas shall be tree-lined, by planting street trees at least every fifty feet (50') on
center.
Submitted as of the 16th day of July, 2003, by:
DRG development, LLC
By: (Signed) Jeffrey B. Dierman, Manager
River Heights Associates Limited Partnership, a Connecticut limited partnership
By: (Signed) Wendell Wood, General Partner
By: (Signed) M. Clifton McClure, Trustee of NYC Land Trust
By: (Signed) Robert M. Calla.qhan, Trustee of NYC Land Trust
By: (Signed) M. Clifton McClure, Trustee of GLF Land Trust
By: (Signed) Robert M. Calla.qhan, Trustee of GLF Land Trust
By: (Signed) M. Clifton McClure, Trustee of MMS Land Trust
By: (Signed) Robert M. Calla.qhan, Trustee of MMS Land Trust
By: (Signed) M. Clifton McClure, Trustee of the One Ninth Land Trust
By: (Signed) M. Clifton McClure, Trustee of the Sixty-four 616 Land Trust
By: (Signed) Robert M. Calla.qhan, Trustee of the Sixty-four 616 Land Trust
Tower of Deliverance Church
Mr. Bowerman moved for approval of SP-2001-063, Hollymead Town Center Drive-in "A", subject
to the recommended conditions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The Architectural Review Board may alter the locations and/or orientation of
drive-throughs to protect the Entrance Corridor; and
The Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices,
such as by-pass lanes, signage and pavement markings shown on a site plan for
the development.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve SP-2001-064,
Hollymead Town Center, Drive-in "B", subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The Architectural Review Board may alter the locations and/or orientation of
drive-throughs to protect the Entrance Corridor; and
The Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices,
such as by-pass lanes, signage and pavement markings shown on a site plan for
the development.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the items which the Board has not voted on. Mr. Tucker said those
petitions are connected to Areas "C" and "D".
Mr. Dorrier asked what the Board should tell the applicant about these petitions. Mr. Davis said in
looking at the proffers, the major unresolved issues relate to the cash proffer provision. There needs to be
a little bit of work to clarify how that cash proffer provision will work, and to coordinate the cash proffer
provision of Areas "C" and "D" so that it is more similarly collected. He thinks what the applicants and staff
need from the Board is some direction on whether or not the amount of the cash proffers sufficiently
address the impacts, and also whether or not the restriction on the use of those funds is appropriate. In
Area "C", the proffer is currently restricted to be applied for use for fire and rescue department purposes.
The proffer in Area "D" is being restricted to be used for road improvements in the Hollymead area. There
is some question by staff as to whether or not those funds should be used for both purposes in both areas.
If the Board has concerns or comments on that, it might be helpful to the applicants and staffto hear those
comments now.
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Martin said the proffers for Area "C", call for$2400 per unit, while in Area "D" they call for $1200
per unit. However, he understands that Area "C" is mostly townhouses while Area "D" may be apartments.
He thinks "C" and "D" should be synchronized to the extent that if Area "C" is offering $2400, then Area "D"
should also offer $2400 for townhouses. He does not think it would be appropriate to ask for the same
amount for a townhouse as for an apartment. He would suggest going back to the $1200 amount for the
apartment and $2400 for the townhouses. As far as the use of the proffers for fire purposes versus roads,
may be there is some way to leave that open. He does not know if the Board should give staff directions, or
vice versa.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the amount should be at least $4000. It is proposed that the residential
property will not participate in a CDA. In lieu thereof there will be a fee paid up-front to be used for
transportation or other infrastructure purposes. The present value of the stream of payments that is in
effect lost by saying the property is not included in a CDA is probably more like $12,000 per unit. He thinks
the Board needs to recognize that if too high of an expense factor is put on a unit, it essentially factors them
out of the market by making them non-competitive. To him, $4000 per unit is a reasonable amount for the
property not to be included in the CDA. He thinks it would be difficult to establish different amounts for
different kinds of units. If North Pointe comes forward and is ultimately approved, there will be single-family
homes there and he is not sure how a CDA will work if you try to differentiate between different kinds of
units. The fairest way might be to do it on value, but that raises a lot of questions about the structure of a
CDA.
Mr. Martin said when he suggested using units, he was really talking about square footage. The
square footage of a townhouse is usually larger than the square footage of an apartment. He personally
has concerns about raising that amount too high. In talking about an up-front amount like this, he thinks
that cost will be passed to the person buying or renting that property. He believes that if a $4000 per unit
fee is tacked on, the townhouse will cost $4000 more. He does not think the developer will "eat that fee."
Mr. Rooker said he does not disagree, but this area will have a higher degree of amenities. A lot of
those amenities are being provided at public expense. To him, if the Board is looking at a model for the
future, setting an amount that is so much lower than the revenue which would come in from a CDA, will
impact the amount of funds coming out of these projects to be used for public purposes. He is not
suggesting that the Board say the amount should be $12,000, but he does not think $4000 is an outrageous
sum in order for the property not to be included in a CDA. The Board could include it in a CDA, but it was
said that from a buying standpoint, people discriminate against an area by not buying there because their
taxes would be higher.
Mr. Martin said when Glenmore was being built, the amount they agreed to give to the County that
would go exclusively to education was $1000 per unit. In this case, they originally offered $1200, and that
amount has now been changed to $2400. That is a 100 percent increase over what was asked of the
developers of Glenmore. He is not concerned that this cost would be passed to the person purchasing the
townhouse. If the townhouses will cost between $150,000 and $200,000, he does not think $4000 will be
felt that much.
Ms. Thomas said she has a different issue, particularly with Area "D". That area has some property
that might end up being the correct property for the firehouse, particularly if it is part of the need to get
another road connected into Airport Road. Although it might not be located in Area "D", it might be part of
the property of the owners of Area "D". Likewise, there is some property which those owners have already
given to the County in Forest Lakes. She would like it to be as flexible as possible. She does not know if
this is a legal possibility because there may be something in lieu of that which could end up with everyone
receiving something of greater value than the $2400 per unit. As long as staff has a few days to work on
this, she would urge them to think of how this could be done as flexibly as possible.
Mr. Martin said he thinks it would be a good idea for staffto give the Board some directions.
Mr. Tucker said there is the question of whether it is fire rescue or roads. The County will want
flexibility in terms of tying it to any type of infrastructure. Hopefully, by August 6, staff can have something
ready.
Mr. Martin said he does not want to use the word "defer" that does something which is not intended.
He thinks this should be continued until the Board's next meeting with the hope that staff can work out
something with the proffers.
Mr. Bowerman said from a dollars and cents point-of-view he agrees with Mr. Rooker that the
present value of the money being given up is closer to $4000. However, he does not know what the dollar
amount contribution should be.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it is important that the proffers read the same with regard to use of the
funds, and that it be flexible.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman to defer ZMA-2001-020, Hollymead Town Center Area
"C", to August 6. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to defer SP-2003-030,
Hollymead Town Center, to August 6, 2003. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to defer ZMA-2002-002,
Hollymead Town Center Area "D", to August 6, 2003. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Juvenile Court Facade Design Options.
The staff's report forwarded to the Board gave the following information. Plans for the renovation
and expansion of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court building have been in the preliminary design
phase for the past year under the oversight of a small committee, composed of a member from City
Council and the Board of Supervisors, the City Manager and County Executive, and the Assistant City
Manager and Assistant County Executive. A former City Council member, Mr. David Toscano, a member of
the initial committee, has also remained on the committee past his term of office.
The Committee completed its work on the interior design elements, as well as the parking deck
and the courtyard design, but could not come to a consensus on the most appropriate fa~;ade design, one
being a more traditional fa(;ade and one a more modern approach. These two designs, shown in drawings
handed to the Board members tonight by Mr. Tucker, were presented for discussion and input at a public
meeting on June 19 at the Juvenile Court Building.
The next step in this process is that the City will take the two design options to the Bar Association
(BAR) on Tuesday, July 15, for input and suggestions. The Committee will meet on Thursday, July 17, to
review both the BAR suggestions and any public comments. Hopefully, a decision to recommend one of
the offered concepts or possibly recommend pursuing a third design option with the architect will follow.
Mr. Martin said as the Board's representative and since he will not be able to attend Thursday's
meeting, he is requesting the Board's guidance on the fa(;ade designs. The Board's stated preference
between the two options proposed will provide some guidance to both Mr. Tucker and Ms. White, for
Thursday's committee meeting.
Mr. Martin said the Board had looked at this question in the past and felt the historical fa~;ade was
the most appropriate. A majority of City Council agrees with the Board. However, they would like for the
Board to reaffirm its conviction for the historical facade.
Ms. Thomas said she attended the meeting two weeks ago. It was very educational. The
architects explained how they came up with their designs. She said they are both actually new facades.
She went to that meeting prepared to support the modern building appearance because it had been
described to her as being a neutral, background sort of building letting the true, historic buildings in the area
stand out. She was surprised to see that it is not at all neutral. It has very narrow columns rising up to a
portico type of thing that flies out at you. She chided them for being stereotypical architects having to make
a statement with their building, rather than what she had expected. The BAR notes are very lengthy, and
they did not come to a conclusion. She asked Mr. Martin about the true need for a front porch because that
is where a lot of young people and their families meet or stand outside. They need some protection from
the weather. The people who actually use the porch, such as the substitute judge, felt strongly that it was
needed. That seems to be the kind of guidance that should be given to the architects if the Board agrees.
Mr. Martin said there is basically no way to have a porch since the building has been moved forward
toward the street. Neither one of the designs have much of a cover. To him, what is important is that this
Board stay with its original ideas. The reason everyone now has to move out onto the porch is because
there is no lobby. Now, there will be elevators, and a lobby, with more space for the attorneys to meet.
There is less reason, other than to accommodate smokers, to actually be outside. He thinks that if the
Board stays with its original ideas, then this project will move forward. If it waivers, it will get caught and be
stuck for another year. He thinks that is important. He feels certain a majority of City Council agrees with
the Board. If you put those two groups together, this project moves forward. If this waivers, he thinks the
whole thing will end up being thrown back into disarray and indecisiveness. He is bringing this to the Board
again at the request of City Council.
Ms. Thomas said there were "threats" made at that meeting in June that the BAR would not
approve it. She thinks a unified message would help. The ARB of the County looks at the unity of the
entrance corridors in order to keep any one thing from sticking out. The County ends up with a colonial
looking gas station at times because it fits in with what is in that entrance corridor. Members from the City
laughed at that because if you looked at each of those buildings, they are not a praise-worthy architectural
design. She understands that, but she thought that what was being done with this building was more akin to
what the County's ARB does, that is something that would be fairly neutral and would let the true historical
buildings stand out. She does not think the Board has to say it is enamored of this particular design.
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Martin said he swears that if the Board becomes indecisive, this whole thing becomes a mess.
Ms. Thomas said she is afraid it will be a mess with the BAR if the Board is decisive.
Mr. Martin said he is making his recommendation to the Board members based on the majority of
City Council wanting him to make this recommendation, and take another vote.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Martin's recommendation.
Mr. Martin said a name does not have to be put on it, just recommend the historical facade. Mr.
Tucker said this was dropped off in his office at 5:30 tonight. This is the modern, contemporary design
which has an atrium on the front porch.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board is talking about a design which incorporates historic elements
into the design; no particular design.
Mr. Martin said the architects have time to put together some compromises.
Ms. Thomas said they actually looked around Charlottesville and picked up elements they call "the
Mclntire Era" in Charlottesville architecture, when Mr. Mclntire was buildings the downtown Library, the Levy
Opera House, etc. This has just as many contextual elements as the modern one.
Mr. Martin said the architects can show how they used many buildings to come up with their design.
At this point, if he could just take a stance and say "we don't care", he would say that. However, he is trying
to do the things that will move the project forward and not just let it sit there.
Mr. Bowerman said this is a serious issue for the court.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the most important thing is to move forward jointly with the City. It should
be a cooperative project, and he will support what Mr. Martin has recommended.
Mr. Martin offered motion to go with the more historical approach for the design of the Juvenile
Court fa(;ade. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Martin said at last week's meeting there was someone from St. John Baptist Church who came
to request the Board to expedite their request. Mr. Martin asked that the Board hear SP-2003-041 on
August 6, 2003.
Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks someone needs to speak about the issue brought up at the beginning
of the meeting about Mr. Larry Tropea. She thinks he brought trust and peace to some issues in her district.
She has not had any communications from these citizens and does not know on what basis they are
making suggestions to the Board on a finished matter. If there is some basis, it would certainly be
everything from less expensive to less disruptive to having a new contract with the person who has been
serving in that role.
Mr. Martin said he does not know how the County got to this point. He would have no problem
supporting something that could be done, but if it can't be done, he is not asking anyone to put themselves
in a position to make it happen. However, it does sound like a good idea.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks Mr. Tropea did a good job, but there may be some things this Board does
not know. The Board does not want to micro-manage what happens at the RWSA or RSWA. He does not
think it is the Board's role to influence any decision by the RWSA.
Mr. Rooker said this is a separate authority with a separate board. When this Board makes
appointments to that board, these people are trusted to make whatever decisions are required. He
personally liked Mr. Tropea. He was impressed by him in meetings. He did a good job of obtaining public
confidence. But, there were a number of things included in the water capacity plan that did not move
forward even close to the time frame that had been set. The dredging which was to take place in August
through December, never took place. Mr. Rooker said he is not involved on a day-to-day basis, so cannot
judge why that did not occur. Unless the Board members are willing to become closely involved with the
RWSA Board and its decision, it would be difficult to jump in on a particular case and micro-manage that
board. If any Board member has a particular interest, they should talk with some of the RWSA board
members and find out the whole story and the basis for the decision.
(July 16, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Martin agreed, and said he would take back his comments.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:37 p.m.
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 11/05/2003
Initials: GAS