2004-09-08N
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 8, 2004, at 6:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
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.
Mr. Tobey Bouch said he represents the Central Virginia Family Forum. He is a resident of
Albemarle County. This is the third meeting they have attended. At the first meeting, they made the
Board aware of their concerns with the building at 2964 Hydraulic Road. They feel there has been a
change in use, and they think the special use permit under which the building is now operating does not
fit the use. There have been about 130 people present at both meetings. He said the building has been
defined by Planned Parenthood as a hospital, has been built to the specifications for a hospital, was
functioning as a hospital, so they reiterate their concern that the use has changed significantly from the
professional office building approved by the Board in 2000.
Mr. Bouch said he asks again tonight for action to be taken by this Board. The Board’s attorney
has advised that no action be taken based on the fact that professional office building fits within the
definition of a hospital, the words are synonymous. To him, the word “hospital” and “professional office
building” are two distinct terms. The residents in the area also feel they are two distinct terms. They do
not feel the current use fits the approved use. He said they want the Board to take action. There are
obviously two things that can happen, but to this point, no action has taken place based on the attorney’s
advice that the Board has no legal obligation or right to take action. Based on the fact that hospital and
professional office building are different terms and different uses, he thinks the Board can enforce the
special use permit approved in 2000, and by enforcing it, the Board would have to state that the current
occupant is in noncompliance and needs to become compliant. Mr. Bouch would be satisfied with that
course of action. If the special use permit is not complied with, he asked that the Board take action and
revoke the permit.
Ms. Tighe Walker said she is a resident of the area. She thinks this all took place in a veiled
manner. The Board gave approval for one use, and without the Board’s knowledge, another use is being
enacted. She is upset because no one had any warning or chance to address this issue. She thinks the
entire zoning process has been subverted and the citizens don’t feel they had a chance to address the
issue. There has been no conversation or movement publicly from the Board. She asked the Board to
begin bringing the property into compliance.
Ms. Tanya Ewing said she is a former Garden Court resident. When they first moved to
Charlottesville, they were excited to be there, but never would make the same choice given how the
neighborhood has changed because of this facility. It changes the neighborhood negatively for children.
The only place to ride a bike in those townhouses is on the sidewalk on Hydraulic or Rio. It is a place
where kids play and the neighborhood has changed. It is also the place where a school bus stops, and it
terrifies her that a school bus stop can have an abortion clinic next to it with no input from the citizens.
She is also concerned about the effect of this clinic on property values. Since they moved out, their
landlord has had trouble finding renters and she does not think that is a coincidence. She thinks it is
unfair to take away the home equity of people who have lived in the area for a number of years. She also
has collected signatures from about 1500 people (signatures on file in the Clerk’s Office) asking that the
Board reconsider and take some action on the issue.
__________
Mr. Ted Armentrout said he is Chief of the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company. He is asking
that the Board consider what County Fire/Rescue has done to the staffing levels at their station. Starting
in 1998, at the request of three volunteer companies, Fire/Rescue provided daytime coverage during the
weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Stony Point is able to man the station in the evening and on the
weekends, but cannot respond to calls during weekday hours. So far this year, they have run 307 calls.
He referenced a memo from Tom Foley last week stating that in the past six months, during daytime
hours, Stony Point has only run 34 calls. That is incorrect. In their primary area, which does not include
mutual aid calls to surrounding areas, they have actually responded to 96 calls. Mr. Foley referenced that
career staff had responded to only 23 calls, when they have really responded to 61 calls. Mr. Foley
referenced that the volunteer-only staffing from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. had only run 11 calls, but it has
actually run 39. Basically the numbers are three times higher than what was reported to the Board. He
said the disturbing thing is that Stony Point now has four career staff in the station working from 6:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m. The time from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. is high traffic time, rush hour time, and when school
buses leave their schools. They have two elementary schools in their service area, Stony Point and
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Baker-Butler. Initially they asked for additional personnel for the stations. The other stations are now
running a 12-hour shift, four days a week. But at Stony Point, they are working ten-hour days and leave
at four o’clock. He requested that the Board consider what is happening in the Stony Point area, and get
it changed.
Mr. John Vermillion said he is president of the Board of Directors of the Stony Point Volunteer
Fire Company. He thinks County Fire/Rescue has done a disservice to Stony Point by cutting their
coverage by two hours in the afternoon. The Company responds to more rescue calls than fire calls.
However, if you lived in the Stony Point community and your house caught on fire at four in the afternoon,
there is no one in the fire house to respond to that call. The rest of Albemarle County is covered. The
changes in the schedule reflect that, but they have been short-changed in their coverage. They are
asking that staffing stay the same because it has been working.
__________
Ms. Paula Rondon said she is a twelfth grader at Albemarle High School. She came to a
previous Board meeting to speak about the abortion clinic which is going up close to the high school. She
is here again because the situation has become more urgent to her. She said students are now in the
schools only 1000 meters from an abortion hospital. The abortion hospital now has a name and appears
to be open. She said that when she was at Greer Elementary she learned that she had to take
responsibility for her mistakes. That is obviously something an abortion hospital is against. At Jack
Jouett Middle School she learned abstinence, not abortion. Basically what the abortion clinic will be doing
is contradicting the values that Albemarle County has set for the students. In Albemarle High School, she
is learning how to become a responsible citizen and a caring adult. Knowing a hospital which kills babies
is so close to where she has learned so many good things is detrimental to her learning and to that of
other students. She is collecting names from students who are against the abortion hospital being put so
close to Albemarle High School. Although some of them are in favor of abortion, they do not want the
clinic to be so close to students. She will be collecting petitions and will bring them to the Board soon.
She is speaking for much of the population in Albemarle High School as well as the voice of the unborn
child.
_________
Mr. Dorrier said that ends this agenda item. He asked if the Board members want to respond to
any of the issues presented.
Mr. Boyd said members of the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company had contacted him. He is
going to attend one of their Board meetings. When the Board was working on the budget, he did not
know that the end result would be that they would be without coverage for two hours. He thinks the
Board needs to discuss that further.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said since Mr. Tobey Bouch mentioned him personally, he will just say that the Board
has gotten word from its attorney that there is nothing that can be done on this issue. The issue has been
decided by the Zoning Administrator. It is not something he can act on personally.
Mr. Rooker said this Board does not have the legal authority to revoke this special use permit.
When there is a difference of opinion on zoning, there is a process for challenging a zoning act. It is
initially decided by the Zoning Administrator, and that decision can be appealed to the Board of Zoning
Appeals. Decisions of the BZA can ultimately be appealed to the Circuit Court. This Board does not
have the legal authority to revoke the special use permit of a landowner. The Board does not tell the
Zoning Administrator how to rule. If she finds there is a violation, she can make that determination, there
is a set process used. That is an enforcement decision. He wants it to be clear for the record that the
Board members have been urged to take action in person, by e-mails, and by letters, and he has
personally tried to communicate with the people who contacted him.
Mr. Bouch asked to be heard. Mr. Dorrier said he could make a brief comment. Mr. Bouch said
Section 18.34 of the Zoning Ordinance states that revocation of a special permit lies in the hands of the
Board of Supervisors.
______________
Agenda Item No. 8. ACE Annual Report/Recognition Ceremony. (This item had been removed
from this agenda.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. PUBLIC HEARING on the proposed issuance of general obligation school
bonds of Albemarle County in the estimated maximum principal amount of $9,630,000. The purpose of
the proposed bonds is to finance capital projects for public schools. (Notice of this public hearing was
published in the Daily Progress on August 25 and September 1, 2004.)
Mr. Tucker said the FY 2004-05 Capital Improvement Budget was approved with the intent to
issue approximately $9,630,000 in bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) for the
following projects:
ADA Structural Changes $ 50,000
Hollymead Elementary Building Renovations 757,000
Scottsville Elementary Construction 420,000
Southern Elementary School 1,625,000
Henley Middle School Building Renovations 2,833,000
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Albemarle High School Construction 649,000
Murray Education Center Building Renovations 1,024,000
Maintenance Projects 2,272,000
Total $ 9,630,000
Mr. Tucker said resolutions authorizing the application to VPSA were adopted by the Board of
Supervisors and School Board on August 4, 2004, and August 16, 2004, respectively. This Resolution
authorizes the issuance of the bonds not to exceed $9,630,000, the sale of the bonds to the VPSA, and
approves as to form the Bond Sale Agreement and the Proceeds Agreement. Staff recommends
adoption of the Resolution to proceed with this project and to meet the bond issuance guidelines after the
public hearing.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion
was immediately offered by Ms. Thomas to adopt the following resolution. The motion
seconded
was by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS, SERIES 2004A,
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA,
IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $9,630,000
TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF
WHEREAS
, the Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) of the County of Albemarle, Virginia
(the “County”), has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow a principal amount
not to exceed $9,630,000 and to issue its general obligation school bonds for the purpose of
financing certain capital projects for school purposes; and
WHEREAS
, the County has held a public hearing, duly noticed, on September 8, 2004,
on the issuance of the Bonds (as hereinafter defined) in accordance with the requirements of
Section 15.2-2606, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the “Virginia Code”); and
WHEREAS
, the School Board of the County has, by resolution adopted on August 16,
2004, requested the Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds and consented to the issuance
of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS,
the Bond Sale Agreement (as defined below) shall indicate that $9,630,000
is the amount of proceeds requested (the “Proceeds Requested”) from the Virginia Public School
Authority (the “VPSA”) in connection with the sale of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS,
the VPSA’s objective is to pay the County a purchase price for the Bonds
which, in VPSA’s judgment, reflects the Bonds’ market value (the “VPSA Purchase Price
Objective”), taking into consideration such factors as the amortization schedule the County has
requested for the Bonds relative to the amortization schedules requested by other localities, the
purchase price to be received by VPSA for its bonds and other market conditions relating to the
sale of the VPSA’s bonds; and
WHEREAS,
such factors may result in the Bonds having a purchase price other than par
and consequently (i) the County may have to issue a principal amount of Bonds that is less than
the Proceeds Requested but in no case greater than the Proceeds Requested in order to receive
an amount of proceeds that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested, or (ii) if the
maximum authorized principal amount of the Bonds set forth in Section 1 below does not exceed
the amount of the discount the purchase price to be paid to the County, given the VPSA
Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, will be less than the Proceeds Requested;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
:
Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds
1. . The Board hereby determines
that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue and sell its general obligation school bonds in an
aggregate principal amount not to exceed $9,630,000 (the “Bonds”) for the purpose of financing
certain capital projects for school purposes, including without limitation, the projects described in
Exhibit B. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon
the terms established pursuant to this Resolution.
Sale of the Bonds
2. . It is determined to be in the best interest of the County to
accept the offer of the VPSA to purchase from the County, and to sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at
a price, determined by the VPSA to be fair and accepted by the County Executive, that is
substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested, except that the Bonds may be sold for a purchase
price not lower than 95% of the Proceeds Requested if issuing the Bonds in the maximum
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
principal amount authorized by Section 1 of this Resolution is insufficient, given the VPSA
Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, to generate an amount of proceeds substantially
equal to the Proceeds Requested. The County Executive and such officer or officers of the
County as either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized and directed to
enter into a Bond Sale Agreement dated as of September 29, 2004 (the “Bond Sale Agreement”),
with the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA. The Bond Sale Agreement shall
be in substantially the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby
approved.
Details of the Bonds
3. . The Bonds shall be dated the date of issuance and
delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated “General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2004A”;
shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually on each January 15
and July 15 beginning July 15, 2005 (each an “Interest Payment Date”), at the rates established
in accordance with Section 4 of this Resolution; and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a
“Principal Payment Date”) and in the amounts set forth on Schedule I attached hereto (the
“Principal Installments”), subject to the provisions of Section 4 of this Resolution.
Interest Rates and Principal Installments
4. . The County Executive is hereby
authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by the VPSA,
provided that each interest rate shall be ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the
interest rate to be paid by the VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date of the bonds to
be issued by the VPSA (the “VPSA Bonds”), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to
purchase the Bonds, and provided further that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed
five and sixty one-hundredths percent (5.60%) per annum. The Interest Payment Dates and the
Principal Installments are subject to change at the request of the VPSA. The County Executive is
hereby authorized and directed to accept changes in the Interest Payment Dates and the
Principal Installments at the request of the VPSA, provided that the aggregate principal amount of
the Bonds shall not exceed the amount authorized by this Resolution and provided further that
the final maturity of the Bonds occurs no later than December 31, 2025. The execution and
delivery of the Bonds as described in Section 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such interest
rates established by the VPSA and Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments
requested by the VPSA as having been so accepted as authorized by this Resolution.
Form of the Bonds
5. . The Bonds shall be initially in the form of a single,
temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Payment; Paying Agent and Bond Registrar
6. . The following provisions shall
apply to the Bonds:
(a) For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, all payments of
principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds
to the VPSA at, or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment
Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia
banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next
preceding such Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or
redemption.
(b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law, interest
shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds.
(c) SunTrust Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as bond registrar and payment
agent for the Bonds (the “Bond Registrar”). The County may, in its sole discretion, replace at any
time the Bond Registrar with another qualified bank or trust company as successor Bond
Registrar.
Prepayment or Redemption
7. . The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by
the VPSA coming due on or before July 15, 2014, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds
held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2014, are not subject to
prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal Installments of the Bonds
held by the VPSA coming due after July 15, 2014, and the definitive bonds for which the Bonds
held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature after July 15, 2014, are subject to prepayment
or redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any
date on or after July 15, 2014, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed
as percentages of Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be
redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption:
Dates Prices
July 15, 2014, through July 14, 2015 101.0%
July 15, 2015, through July 14, 2016 100.5
July 15, 2016, and thereafter 100.0
Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior
to their stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written consent of the
registered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not
less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption.
Execution of the Bonds
8. . The Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board, either
of whom may act, and the Clerk of the Board or any Deputy Clerk, either of whom may act, are
authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County
thereto.
Pledge of Full Faith and Credit
9. . For the prompt payment of the principal of and
premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and
credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds
shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with law an annual ad
valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount
to provide for the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds
as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without
limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the
County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for
such purpose.
Use of Proceeds Certificate and Certificate as to Arbitrage
10. . The Chairman of
the Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers of the County as either may
designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized and directed to executea Certificate as
to Arbitrage and a Use of Proceeds Certificate, each setting forth the expected use and
investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in
order to show compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(the “Code”), and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on
the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the
proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in
such Certificate as to Arbitrage and such Use of Proceeds Certificate and that the County shall
comply with the other covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the County shall
comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will
remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax purposes.
State Non-Arbitrage Program; Proceeds Agreement
11. . The Board hereby
determines that it is in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct the Director of
Finance of the County to participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the
Bonds. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers of the
County as either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized and directed to
execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of
proceeds of the Bonds by and among the County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA
Bonds, the VPSA, the investment manager and the depository, substantially in the form submitted
to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved.
Continuing Disclosure Agreement
12. . The Chairman of the Board, the County
Executive and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate, any of whom may
act, are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set
forth in Appendix F to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed
by the County and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance
with the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 and directed to
make all filings required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be
determined by the VPSA to be a MOP (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement).
Filing of Resolution
13. . The appropriate officers or agents of the County are
hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the
Circuit Court of the County.
Further Actions
14. . The members of the Board and all officers, employees and
agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or any one of them may
consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any
such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed.
Effective Date
15. . This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. PUBLIC HEARING pursuant to Va. Code § 15.2-1800(B), on a proposed
Easement Agreement with Central Virginia Electric Cooperative to provide electrical service to the
Emergency Communications Center’s 800 MHz Public Safety Communications Tower site located at
Peter’s Mt. in northeastern Albemarle County. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily
Progress on August 30, 2004.)
Mr. Tucker said that under Virginia Code Sec. 15.2-1800b, the Board must conduct a public
hearing before agreeing to conveying any interest in County owned property. The Peters Mountain tower
site, which is part of the 800 mHZ public safety communications system, is titled in the name of the
County, but is jointly owned by the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the University of Virginia.
Central Virginia Electric Co-op needs an easement and a right-of-way over the Peters Mountain property
where the new tower is currently being constructed. After holding the public hearing, staff recommends
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
that the Board approve the easement agreement and membership application with CVEC and authorize
the County Executive to execute that agreement and application on behalf of the County.
Ms. Thomas asked if these lines will be underground. Mr. Tucker said he is not sure they will be
underground.
Ms. Thomas said this is an area of high visual concern. The whole tower has been a matter of
grave concern to residents. She thinks the tower has turned out not to be too visually intrusive. But, she
was hoping the lines would be underground, and she assumes that is within the ability of the Board to
effect. Mr. Tucker said “yes.” The paperwork does say the lines are underground.
With no further comments, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jeff Werner said he is speaking for the Piedmont Environmental Council. He said Peters
Mountain lies in the Rivanna District, and he does not think there was a more contentious issue when this
tower site was approved. He said there are federal regulations involved and he is of the opinion that the
federal regulations were skimmed over. This easement agreement says “for an underground electric
power line”, but in the paragraph below that language it says “on, along, through, across, under the
above, the right to cut down, trim, clear any shrubs, growth, wire, transformers, pedestals, risers, and
pads.” He agrees there has to be power on the site. But, if the process had been done right from the
beginning, this would have been discussed during the federal review process.
Mr. Werner said he received a copy of a letter at his office this morning from the Department of
Historic Resources. The letter, from Mr. Marc Holma, Architectural Historian in the Office of Review and
Compliance, is addressed to Ms. Science Kilner at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. It
discusses a request to build a 250-foot tall tower on Peters Mountain. Mr. Holma replied that only a 105-
foot tower was approved after a lot of debate. He thinks this has something to do with the $6.0 million
grant. Given this letter and this easement agreement, he suggests that whatever language is necessary
be added to absolutely cover the bases relative to the conditions of the Memorandum of Agreement,
which appears to have been revised. There is a tree protection easement only on the County’s portion of
the land to make sure no trees are removed. In his layman’s reading of this easement, it appears to grant
quite a bit of latitude. He thinks that when people find out that a 250-foot tower is proposed all hell will
break loose.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board should change the easement language to make sure the
easement applies only to underground lines. He said CVEC needs the ability to get on the property to
repair the lines, to clear the way for the trench, etc. He has worked through that kind of easement with
utilities in the past, and put changes in to make it clear that the easement is only for an underground line.
The utility usually goes along with that change. He asked that those additions be made to the ultimate
easement agreement.
Mr. Wyant asked if it does not already say that on Attachment A to the easement. It says “right-
of-way easement, 20-foot in width for an underground electric power line ....”
Mr. Rooker said the language below it seems to expand on that right when it says “together with”.
The Board should put a couple of modifiers at that point to make it clear that the easement applies only to
the right-of-way for the underground line.
Mr. Davis said he does not know how they would access an underground line if there were a
problem with that line. He understands the issue and can try to make the language as tight as possible
so they cannot disturb anything that does not have to be disturbed in order to install that line
underground.
Ms. Thomas asked if the term “tree conservation plan” is actually in the agreement for the Peters
Mountain tower. One way to do it would be to make sure CVEC abides by the tree conservation plan
which is a common condition for towers.
Mr. Davis said he thinks there is a condition about maintaining a 200-foot tree buffer, but most of
that buffer is not on County property. To the extent the buffer is on County property (it lies below the
tower so it does not shield the tower at this point in time), the special use permit limits the amount of
clearing that can be done of those trees. The conditions of the special use permit are referenced in the
Memorandum of Understanding. It was always contemplated that there would have to be power
extended to this tower.
Ms. Thomas said it was pointed out that the trees are scraggly and she thinks they could snake
the line through without cutting down trees, but only if they are required to do so.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks everybody is relying on memory and that can be dangerous. He would
suggest that if the Board wants to make sure all of those items are covered, that this easement be
deferred to October 6.
Mr. Davis said that would stop their schedule. He would recommend instead that the Board rely
on staff to modify the agreement so it does not violate the tree conservation plan, and make it clear that
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
the easement only applies to underground utility lines. With those changes, the easement could be
executed by Mr. Tucker.
Mr. Rooker said that in the third line of the “together with” section, the word “underground” should
be added in front of the words “ducts, vaults, cables.” Transformers have to be above ground. Clearly
there should be “underground” put in front of cables and wires.
Ms. Thomas said the motion should say the Board only agrees to this easement if the protective
tree buffer is assured. Leave the actual wording to Mr. Davis. She thinks CVEC should have been told
this beforehand. She will only vote for this if there is that kind of assurance, both the underground and
the tree conservation plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked if CVEC is required to provide electricity to the tower. Mr. Tucker said
“yes.”
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Bowerman is asking if CVEC is legally compelled to provide electricity to the
tower. Mr. Tucker said this is their area of operation, so they are the ones who would provide power, but
he does not know that they are legally required to do so.
Mr. Boyd said he had glanced at the letter mentioned by Mr. Werner. He asked if the plans have
been changed to increase this tower by 100 feet. Mr. Tucker said this is the first time he has heard about
this.
Ms. Thomas said she and Mr. Rooker have copies of the letter because Mr. Werner handed them
copies this afternoon. The State is being asked to respond to a request for a 250-foot communication
tower on Peters Mountain; additional appurtenances to the tower at the Albemarle County Emergency
Communication Center; to the University of Virginia Kloeckner Stadium light pole communication
equipment; and, also modifying the towers on Bucks Elbow Mountain, Fan Mountain and Carters
Mountain.
Mr. Davis said staff has not heard about this before tonight.
motion
At this time, was offered by Mr. Boyd to approve the easement agreement with CVEC
with the caveat that legal staff include language regarding preservation of trees, right-of-way, and that in
as much as possible, all cabling and equipment be located underground.
seconded
The motion was by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
__________
Motion
was then offered by Mr. Boyd to authorize the County Executive to sign the application
seconded
agreement with CVEC on behalf of the County. The motion was by Mr. Rooker. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-2003-084. Dennis Enterprises - Rio Rd (Sign # 55). Request to allow
car dealership in accord w/Secs 22.2.2.8 & 30.6.3.2.b of the Zoning Ord. TM 45, Ps 100, 101 & 101B,
contains 2.54 acs. Znd C-1 & EC. Loc Rt 631 (W Rio Rd), approx 250 ft E of intersec of Rio Rd &
Berkmar Dr on N side of the street. Rio Dist. (Deferred from April 14, 2004) (Notice of this public hearing
was readvertised in the Daily Progress on August 23 and August 30, 2004.)
Motion
The applicant had requested that this petition be deferred until November 3, 2004. to this
seconded
effect was offered by Mr. Bowerman, by Mr. Rooker, and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
___________
Agenda Item No. 12. CPA-2003-02. Fifth Street Avon Street Mixed Uses. PUBLIC HEARING on
a proposal to change the Comp Plan, Land Use Plan designation from Industrial Service to Regional
Service, to allow development of mixed-use complex including community & regional level retail &
service, multi-family housing, industrial service, connector road, employment, & open space & park land
uses. Property consists of approx 89.4 acs. TM 76M(1), Ps 2A, 2B, 4A & 77. Loc between Rt 631(5th St
Extd) & Rt 742 (Avon St), immediately N of I-64, in Neighborhood Four. Existing zoning is LI & EC.
Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 23 and
August 30, 2004.)
Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior Planner, said this site is located south of the Willoughby residential
development, north of Interstate 64, between Avon Street Extended and Fifth Street Extended. The
property is located on the City’s boundary and has received a lot of attention over the last few years.
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
There was a similar Comprehensive Plan amendment submitted in 1997. It was reviewed over a two-
year period by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, with participation by the City.
Ultimately, that proposal was withdrawn, but much was learned about the features of the area, natural
and man-made, during that process.
Ms. Susan Thomas said this proposal is more extensive and includes the property between the
former Grand Piano Furniture warehouse and Avon Street Extended. This is the complete area from Fifth
Street to Avon Street north of the Interstate so it makes a lot of sense to look at the entire area. For the
proposal before the Board tonight, both staff and the Commission agreed that retail is a desirable and
needed use in this portion of the urban area. The Commission agreed with the applicant that a change
from the Industrial Service designation in the Comprehensive Plan to a designation which would allow
retail use should be recommended to the Board. Just what that designation should be and how it should
be described in the language of the Plan constituted the majority of the Commission’s discussion during
three work sessions and a public hearing.
Ms. Susan Thomas said the second work session of the Commission was actually a joint meeting
with the City Planning Commission. Industrial Service is no longer considered to be an inappropriate
designation. But the Commission was concerned that the area’s holding capacity, and its potential for
employment, should be preserved. The property is well located for transportation, is in established
neighborhoods, and, is close to other businesses. In addition to larger employers, there is a shortage of
flex space in the area. Staff talked with appraisers, developers and realtors to see if a product from 2000
to 6000 square feet in size would be appropriate in this area.
Ms. Susan Thomas said the Commission discussed at length what mixture of uses could go on
the site and the character of the area. Should this be a true neighborhood model site with all the
principles of the Neighborhood Model represented? Should it have a residential component? Should
identified natural features be preserved? Should the scale of the big box commercial be left exclusively to
the market, or defined in the CPA language? How can it be assured that impacts will not get ahead of
infrastructure? How can disturbed areas on the site be redeveloped in a positive way? Does this
development need a sense of place?
Ms. Susan Thomas said the Commission left many issues to the market and prioritized the
elements they felt needed clear definition and limits. It settled on a hybrid designation of Community
Service/Mixed Use to signal that this site has inherent limits, both environmental and from a land use
standpoint. The site should not be considered for the largest scale retail model. The Commission said it
is not the same kind of site as in the northern part of the urban area where the biggest models can be
done without repercussions or negative impacts. For that reason, the Commission recommended a
scaled-down approach to commercial development. It is the language of the amendment itself rather
than the designation that tells the story, so even though it is called Community Service/Mixed Use, there
is a lot of language in the description that opens the door to many things that would normally be in a
community service designation.
Ms. Susan Thomas said that in order to have a healthy mix of uses on the site, the Commission
felt a few compromises in size and use were appropriate. The applicant has also proposed language for
this CPA amendment, and in the final version several portions of the applicant’s language were
incorporated into the recommendation by staff (Attachment A).
Ms. Susan Thomas summarized her report by listing the following recommendations from the
Commission: residential may occur on the site but is not required; continued employment opportunities
are significant and valuable on the site; a town center design should characterize the western portion of
the site and it should be a focal point for the southern urban area and not merely another commercial
development; and, it should have a sense of place. She said employing a mid-sized big box design
would leave capacity on the site for a better mix of other uses. The maximum of big box uses on the site
should be 230,000 square feet with this figure being adjusted upward under defined circumstances that
bring benefits to the site as a whole; structures of less than 100,000 square feet, even if they are big box
uses in the sense of the retailer, are not limited in the language; the wooded bluff overlooking Moores
Creek, the rock outcropping, and specimen trees which have been identified on the site, are valuable
natural features that should be preserved and used to enhance site design; the existing access road has
an attractive parkway alignment now which should be incorporated without major change into the
transportation network on the site; and, development of the site should be phased so that infrastructure is
developed as impacts are created.
Ms. Susan Thomas said the City’s Assistant Transportation Engineer had sent a letter concerning
this CPA. County staff has met with the City and the applicant since preparation of the packet mailed for
this evening’s meeting. All agreed that many of the City’s concerns would be best addressed at the
rezoning stage.
Ms. Sally Thomas said she had a question. Last night she sat through a meeting which involved
a Light Industrial site. There was concern expressed that there are not enough LI sites in the community.
She also was told that the Chamber of Commerce, during a radio show, was highly critical of the County
for not making available enough LI sites. She wonders about the conversation that had to do with
eliminating the LI on this property. She asked if staff sees this amendment as having opportunities for LI
in terms of the mix of uses mentioned.
Ms. Susan Thomas said “yes.” That is one of the reasons for promoting the idea of having a mix
and limiting uses that could easily dominate and squeeze out something like an employment-oriented
light industrial mix; flex space is light industrial. There is light industrial zoning on the property which
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
should make it easier for interested users to develop a light industrial use. One big challenge on the site
is that the eastern portion is where the old City landfill was located so development in that area is likely to
be more expensive. She thinks the County is looking for retention of the industrial element in the mix.
Mr. Benish said that is a concern of staff because most of the County’s industrial areas are
concentrated in just a couple of sites. They do think balance can be created.
Ms. Sally Thomas asked if the Board adopted the Planning Commission’s recommendation if it
would be including opportunities for LI. Ms. Susan Thomas said “yes”.
Mr. Rooker said he assumes that at the time of the rezoning, the uses would be crystallized.
Mr. Boyd said he was concerned about the big box verbiage Ms. Thomas just recited. She
seemed to say that there could be a big box store above a certain size, but the language set out in the
recommendations is very specific. There can only be one store of 130,000 square feet, and no other
store of more than 100,000. Ms. Susan Thomas said they started with a limit but added some language
supplied by the applicant that allows more flexibility in the upward limit. This language would allow the
Commission and the Board to increase the limit using the applicant’s criteria because certain positive
factors were being addressed.
Mr. Boyd said the Board had received copies of two recommendations, one from staff and one
from the applicant. He did not know which one Ms. Thomas was reading from. He asked if there is a
third recommendation.
Ms. Susan Thomas said staff did borrow some language from the applicant and that shows in
Attachment A which is the staff’s version of the recommendations.
Attachment A
Recommended language to be added to the Neighborhood Four Profile, page 59, Land Use Plan:
The area located south of the Willoughby residential development and north of Interstate 64
between Fifth Street Extended and Avon Street Extended, accessed via Bent Creek Road, is
designated for Community Service/Mixed Use development. It is intended to fulfill a “town center”
role by providing a commercial and employment focal point within Neighborhoods Four and Five.
When developed, it should provide retail and employment opportunities while incorporating a
flexible range of uses that may include but are not limited to commercial, professional
office/industrial/light industrial, residential, live/work, open space and parkland, public amenities
and spaces appropriate for such a commercial center. Compatibility with the scale and character
of adjacent and nearby City and County neighborhoods should be maintained. Because of its
location between three entrance corridors, at the confluence of Biscuit Run and Moore’s Creek,
this site is of high aesthetic and environmental sensitivity and importance.
Environmental Protection
A. Several acres of elevated land located at the western edge of Tax Map 76M1 Parcel 2B,
fronting the former Grand Piano and University Corporate Research Park access roads
and extending north and south from the Bent Creek bridge along these roads contain
woodland features considered to be significant to both the site and area. These features
should be preserved as a visual buffer from Fifth Street Extended and be emphasized in
site design. Existing vegetation, especially exemplary specimen or old growth trees,
should be preserved on this tract. Rock formations sloping down to the existing roads
should also be preserved.
B. Bluffs and riparian forest along the existing Grand Piano access road/Moore’s Creek
corridor should be protected to minimize adverse impacts to the creek from major grading
activity. Low-intensity design should be used to help accomplish this protection.
C. To the greatest extent possible, streams and stream buffers should be retained and
enhanced in conjunction with the development of the property. Emphasis should be
placed on natural stream channel improvements, such as landscape stabilization and
bioengineering enhancements, to the degraded portions of the existing Moore’s Creek
tributary. Where streams are to be disturbed, site development must assure that
downstream properties and habitat are protected through implementation of measures for
water quality and quantity. If crossing and/or filling of the small tributary to the east of the
existing warehouse is essential to development of the parcel, innovative water protection
management measures should be incorporated into the development.
D. A greenway along Biscuit Run and Moore’s Creek as recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan Greenway Plan should be established. Greenway trails should be
constructed and dedicated at the time of site development.
E. The existing vegetated buffer adjacent to the I-64 corridor should be preserved and
enhanced. In addition to its screening function, this green buffer is an important aesthetic
and natural resource that contributes to the appearance of the corridor.
F. The floodplain area northeast of the confluence of Biscuit Run and Moore’s Creek should
become public open space for a natural area or multi-purpose field or other low-impact
outdoor use.
G. Development of the property should incorporate principles of low impact development
and sustainable design to support and enhance water protection efforts. Impervious area
should be minimized through a site concept that emphasizes complementary uses,
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
shared parking, and protection of critical resources. In particular, green roof technology
should be considered as an appropriate and effective technology for managing
stormwater on this site.
Transportation
H. The City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, Virginia Department of Transportation,
affected property owners, and interested stakeholders should work together to develop
an integrated transportation system to serve the site. As a part of the integrated system,
traffic signal timing and coordination should be improved and alternative transportation
solutions such as Transportation Demand Management may be necessary. Phasing of
development should take place so that transportation improvements are concurrent with
transportation needs generated by the development.
I. The integrated transportation system should include the necessary improvements,
including roadway improvements, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and site design, to
accommodate mass transportation in an area encompassing the following streets and
intersections: (a) Fifth Street Extended and the Bent Creek Road (linked by a connector
road); (b) Avon Street Extended and the connector road; (c) intersections with the
connector road within the subject property; and (d) the connector road.
J. Concurrent with development of the site, a connection from Fifth Street Extended to Avon
Street Extended via the Bent Creek Bridge should be constructed (the Alternative ‘D’
recommended by the Southern Cities report). This connection may incorporate one or
more new roads as well as the existing bridge and former Grand Piano warehouse
access road. This connector road should not be regarded as a replacement or substitute
for the Southern Connector and, as such, should be viewed as one element of the
City/County/VDOT regional transportation network. The road should be designed for
speeds of 35 miles per hour and should provide improved inter-neighborhood access
within the Southern Urban Development Areas.
K. The former warehouse access road should become a parkway along Moore’s Creek, but
should not be designed as a major thoroughfare. The road should be improved, primarily
within the existing travelway and disturbed area. To avoid additional disturbance to this
stream buffer, sidewalks should not be required on this road. The greenway along
Moore’s Creek is recommended as a pedestrian alternative.
L. One of the new roads on the site should be designed as a main commercial street
traversing the town center into this portion of the site. The road should have curbing,
sidewalks, street trees, and other Neighborhood Model elements. To accommodate
service traffic primarily, a second new road segment should be considered at the
southern portion of the site.
M. The intersection of existing and new roads with the Bent Creek Bridge should be
designed to avoid or minimize disturbance to the 100-year floodplain, stream buffer, and
the preserved area located above and to the east of it.
N. Where considered important to the Willoughby residents, construction of a pedestrian
bridge should be considered between the south side of Moore’s Creek and the
Willoughby residential property.
Land Use
O. The Community Service/Mixed Use “hybrid” land use designation for this area is
intended to describe a commercial area which supports community and neighborhood
needs and values. Uses should include retail, offices and other areas of employment,
residential needs (housing and/or goods and services), environmental protection, and
recreation. In acknowledgment of the size of the developable area, as well as
environmental and aesthetic considerations, where large retail uses are planned, a mid-
sized big box model is recommended on this site. Development of “super-sized” big
boxes is not appropriate due to the site’s relatively small developable area, environmental
sensitivity, and high exposure to three Entrance Corridors, immersed location within older
neighborhoods with established character and scale, and the desire to mix and balance
uses on the site and create a bona fide town center. The size and scale of regional retail
complexes in the northern urban area (“super-sized” big boxes, such as the existing
Lowe’s store on Route 29 North) is not appropriate in this location. However,
development may involve an expansion of the customary building limitations associated
with the Community Service designation and no overall density limitation is established
for the site.
P. The continuation of employment opportunities is significant and valuable in this location,
particularly in the eastern portion of the site but also throughout the town center area.
The existing Light Industrial use opportunities available under the current zoning should
be used to support and encourage development of flex space and/or other employment-
oriented uses along Avon Street Extended.
Q. Development on the site should balance retail with employment-based uses and other
land uses.
R. Residential, live/work and/or small professional office uses are recommended along the
bluff at the northern edge of the town center area. These uses should be sited to
minimize disturbance to the natural features described under Environmental Protection
(above). It may be appropriate for such uses to occur as infill opportunities, to further
balance retail and commercial uses on the site.
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
S. A town center design should be a feature of the western commercial area. This area is
intended to be a compact, high density area which mixes retail businesses, services,
public facilities and civic spaces. Large footprint retail of a regional nature may be
appropriate in the town center, if it is consistent with the Neighborhood Model principles.
Specifically, the buildings should be oriented to major roads; designed, sized and massed
with consideration for adjacent and nearby smaller uses in the Center and on the larger
site; and parking should be relegated to the greatest extent possible.
T. The architecture, urban design and landscape treatment of the property should be
carefully integrated to ensure that the visual interest, massing, scale and organization of
the development contributes to the role of the site as a town center and commercial focal
point for the Southern Urban Area. The town center area should provide a functional,
attractive and distinct destination for shoppers, visitors, employees, and residents of the
larger neighborhood with particular emphasis on pedestrian convenience. Architectural
and landscape design guidelines should be prepared to address:
?
;
The integration of building facades and rooflines
?
Architectural massing and form of individual buildings;
?
Architectural materials and color;
?
Design of parking areas;
?
Design/landscape treatment of streets and interior travelways, pedestrian,
bicycle and vehicular, including traffic calming;
?
Buffers and screening in areas impacted by critical sight lines;
?
Enhancements to preservation areas and open spaces and improvements to
planned public civic and greenway areas;
?
Street lighting, signage and hardscape features;
?
Recreational and civic improvements.
U. The largest single big box footprint should not exceed 130,000 square feet including
outdoor display, sales and storage areas (approximately the size of the existing Wal-Mart
on Route 29 North), and development on the site should be limited to one use whose
square footage exceeds 100,000 square feet. There is no limit on uses of less than
100,000 square feet.
V. Maximum total square footage of big-box structures, including outside display, sales and
storage areas, is 230,000 square feet. If the big-box structures are developed in a two-
story or greater configuration, this limitation may be adjusted upward. Buildings of
increased footprint may be considered, and a corresponding increase in the total big-box
square footage, subject to demonstration by the applicant that environmental and other
impacts of such increased footprint can be offset by (a) design that is sensitive to
architectural massing and quality, (b) building that complements the setting of the larger
project, (c) parking and traffic accommodation that complements building form,
pedestrian access, and building siting, (d) environmental design that enhances existing
natural conditions within areas to be conserved, and (e) a commitment to a project
phasing plan that ensures that a mix of retail and other uses of varying size and scale will
be developed concomitantly with the expanded big box use.
W. Preference will be given to rezoning proposals that maximize the range and mixture of
uses, along with a phasing plan that assures a mixture of uses and addresses all parts of
the site during the development of the project.
Public Space and Public Facilities/Amenities
X. Provision should be made on the site for transit service and a park and ride facility.
Y. At least 10% of the gross site acreage should be devoted to amenities and 15% should
be preserved or created as green space. Public amenities can be paved areas, such as
plazas, courtyards or patios, landscaped areas such as parks or water features and/or
natural areas left largely in their undisturbed state. Preserved areas should count toward
both amenity and green space percentages.
Mr. Benish said the flexibility being referred to is actually set out on Page 4, paragraph “V”.
Ms. Susan Thomas said staff knows there are ways to compensate for a larger big box in a way
that is positive for the site as a whole and does not close the door on that mix. They added in “wiggle
room”, flexibility. They hope it requires a “high test” at the rezoning stage, and will be a superior design.
Mr. Boyd asked if Paragraph “U” on Attachment A is proposed to be changed. Ms. Susan
Thomas said Attachment A is staff’s final language.
Mr. Rooker said the language in Paragraphs “U” and “V” would need to be combined in order to
get flexibility on the 130,000 square feet. He said the language which provides, under certain narrowly
defined circumstances, the ability to increase the size of the boxes appears to him to only apply to the
230,000 square feet total, but not to the 130,000 square foot use.
Ms. Susan Thomas said that was staff’s intention, but she cannot say it is expressed perfectly.
The idea was that the 130,000 square feet could increase. Maybe there needs to be a reference in
Paragraph “V” to Paragraph “U”.
Mr. Rooker suggested that both Paragraphs “U” and “V” be modified.
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Benish said the intent was that if both thresholds were met in the rezoning, the 130,000
square feet could go to a higher number.
Ms. Susan Thomas said she has concerns about the total big box square footage on the site
because a mix is wanted. There are a lot of different templates.
Mr. Boyd said he understands staff would not approve the rewritten recommendation submitted
by the applicant (Attachment B).
Ms. Susan Thomas said staff did not feel they could do that because Attachment A was put
together from the Commission’s recommendations. The Commission discussed the 130,000 square foot
limit. Staff felt there had been enough discussion at the Commission level about flexibility and design that
the applicant’s language was in the spirit of some of that discussion.
Mr. Benish said the Commission directed staff to provide for flexibility. Staff did so within the
parameters directed by the Commission, not feeling comfortable changing the number the Commission
had agreed to.
Mr. Wyant asked the number of acres on this site.
Ms. Susan Thomas said there are probably 59 developable acres. The site contains a lot of flood
plain and steep slopes, areas which are not developable. There is also the old landfill on the east side
which has not been specifically discussed.
With no further questions for staff at this time, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Steve Blaine said the applicant is New Era Properties. He is present tonight with Mr. Frank
Cox and Mr. Mike Fenner of the Cox Company. He said the parcels comprise about 90 acres. The
applicant is asking for a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation from Industrial Service to
Regional Service. The applicant’s proposal now includes approximately 90 acres which are comprised of
the former Brass, Inc. parcel, the Grand Piano parcel and the Enterprise properties referred to as the
former City dump site. Over the past several years, the applicant has consolidated these properties in an
effort to bring forth a consolidated plan. Since acquiring these parcels, the owners have been
approached by a number of representatives of national retail stores. The market studies of these retailers
recognize that there is a heavy demand for retail uses in this area of the County, specifically, home
improvement, grocery, pharmacy, soft goods, household goods, apparel, etc.
Mr. Blaine said the current Land Use Plan guidelines indicate 40 acres of this site as a
Community Service land use. That is a smaller acreage than what is being dealt with tonight. Therefore,
they felt the appropriate land use designation (as contained in the County’s land use guidelines) is
regional service which is deemed appropriate for parcels of 30+ acres with a 250,000 square foot
minimum. What is before the Board tonight is enough of a departure from the County’s guidelines that
the applicant felt it would be appropriate for the Board to consider this from a policy and macro
standpoint.
Mr. Blaine said the applicant thinks the development patterns and the infrastructure surrounding
this site support regional service uses. There is development occurring rapidly in the southern portions of
the County, specifically in Neighborhoods 4 and 5. This is the last remaining large undeveloped parcel in
Neighborhoods 4 and 5. This request includes a proposed road connection from Fifth Street to Avon
Street which would be constructed as part of the development. This would allow residents of the
southern portion of the County access to the development and Fifth Street, and also to I-64. He said
market studies indicate that residents in this part of the County are looking for weekly shopping
opportunities and home improvement stores. This use, at this location, would receive consumer traffic
that otherwise would go to Route 29 North.
Mr. Blaine said the primary difference in approach to the land use language in the
Comprehensive Plan has more to do with the macro approach, looking at it from a regional land use
perspective as opposed to looking at site constraints. They believe that 95 percent of the language in the
staff’s proposal deals with site constraints. They do take issue with the language that limits the flexibility
to design the site so it both meets a regional service potential, addresses site constraints, environmental
concerns and preservation of critical areas. They feel the rezoning should be allowed and then let site
engineering deal with those issues.
Mr. Blaine said the larger limitation on the big box which they propose in their language may not
be achievable. In dealing with potential users, and in submitting a rezoning, they do not want the
Comprehensive Plan language to limit them. They propose a limitation that would allow a user (such as
Lowe’s) to have a 130,000 square foot building footprint. That would not include garden centers,
balconies and other elements to the footprint, so they want a limitation that would preclude them from
having that size of a store. They recognize that the rezoning would have to address massing,
configuration, architectural urban design and the landscape treatment in what staff has proposed (in
Letter “R” on Page 4). They agree with that and think they are appropriate standards. It has been said
that there should be flexibility and the applicant should be allowed to design a big box appropriate for this
site. However, they think the current draft is confusing, limiting, and unclear. He proposes to clarify that
and get feedback tonight on specific language. He then offered to answer questions.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks this is a critical site to the County; it is critical to the southern part of the
County. He thinks this proposal is excellent. He does not know the problems connected to the previous
proposal, but thinks the proposal before the Board tonight does something the County wants by
connecting Fifth Street and Avon Street thus providing a connector road. It also utilizes the property to its
highest and best use. It can be done in such a way that it protects the environment and provides
commercial use and a retail outlet for many companies. It will provide a shopping opportunity for the
southern and western parts of the County. Because of the road situation, it becomes more of a feasible
development area and when considering that Route 29 is jammed with traffic. This site would take some
of that traffic pressure off of Route 29. He said it would serve a number of different purposes which fit
with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. He thinks this applicant should be commended for drawing up a
proposal that puts in a road, at a cost of $3.0 million, which links two critical roads. As far as the big box
size, he thinks the Board should provide some flexibility to the applicant to bring this plan about. He
thinks the total plan for the total area is the way the County needs to go so as not to have sites developed
piecemeal. He is highly in favor of this project. He thinks it is a step in the right direction.
Mr. Rooker said he is in favor of the use proposed and thinks the staff, Commission and applicant
have done a good job drafting the language which will make certain the property develops in an attractive
way. He does not think there is a better site in the community if more big box stores are going to be
allowed. He said this is one site off of Route 29 that could provide shopping and it has excellent
transportation connections. If the Board were to limit the site to “Mom & Pop” type shops, cutting down
on transportation trips to Route 29 would not be achieved. He thinks the Board should review the details
of some of the language proposed by the applicant versus the language proposed by staff.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not have a problem with letting the square footage of what goes on
the site be determined by the free market recognizing the unique travel characteristics that exist in this
area with the Interstate highway and Fifth Street Extended. He has no problem with the upper limit on the
size of the building.
Mr. Rooker asked Ms. Susan Thomas why size limitations were discussed and why staff and the
Commission had an interest in size.
Ms. Susan Thomas said the Commission supported retail uses but did not want to lose the
capacity to have other things on the site. One of those things was employment. The other was a mix of
smaller uses which are important to neighborhoods. They felt it would be hard to achieve a well-rounded
compatible mix of different uses if the site was dominated by one very large big box which basically used
a lot of the parking space. Since this site is not a site which will be completely graded, and there are
features which need to be protected, the starting point should be a midrange big box. Also, they did not
feel that a development such as the Hollymead Towne Center is an appropriate urban template in every
situation.
Ms. Sally Thomas said when she read the Commission minutes she was taken with the
realization that many Commission members and the staff want this to be a “center” rather than a big box
with a parking lot. She assumed that is what drove a lot of the recommendations.
Mr. Boyd said some people might argue that what is missing from the area is a big box.
Mr. Bowerman said the area needs some very large-scale retailers.
Mr. Boyd said this is the first Comprehensive Plan amendment the Board has considered since
he became a member. He asked if the language on Page 1 about Regional Service areas is the existing
language in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Susan Thomas said that is correct.
Mr. Boyd asked why five pages of language should be added to the Comprehensive Plan for this
one site.
Mr. Benish said these are general guidelines to go with the “purple” color on the Land Use Map.
Specifically, this amendment adds language to the neighborhood recommendations.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Benish is indicating that there is this type of language for every project. Mr.
Benish said for projects of this nature and scale there has been some very specific language added to the
Plan.
Mr. Rooker said there was a similar type of Comprehensive Plan amendment for Albemarle Place
and also for the Hollymead Towne Center.
Mr. Boyd asked if changing the Comprehensive Plan is part of the Neighborhood Model
philosophy and it was not done prior to that Model being adopted. Mr. Benish said this type of
amendment was done prior to the Neighborhood Model being adopted. In this case, staff tried to apply
those Neighborhood principles to be sure the Neighborhood Model was consistent with other guidelines.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Benish is indicating that this is a common practice. Mr. Benish said “yes.”
Mr. Wyant said he has no problem with the proposal. He thinks the environmental concerns, etc.
will be addressed before getting any plan approved. He does not have a problem with the big box issue
on that side of town. He thinks people from Crozet, and even White Hall, would use I-64 to come into
town to shop at this facility.
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Boyd said he would go along with Mr. Rooker’s suggestion to compare the language in
Attachment A to the language in Attachment B. He actually has no problem with the applicant’s revisions
to the Commission’s language.
(Note: Attachment B as prepared by the applicant is set out below.)
Attachment B
Recommended language (with Applicant’s suggested changed) to be added to the Neighborhood
Four Profile, page 59, Land Use Plan:
The area located south of the Willoughby residential development and north of Interstate 64
between Fifth Street Extended and Avon Street Extended, accessed via Bent Creek Road, is
designated for Community Regional Service/Mixed Use development. It is intended to fulfill a
“town center” role by providing a commercial and employment focal point within Neighborhoods
Four and Five. When developed, it should provide retail and employment opportunities while
incorporating a flexible Neighborhood Model principles recognize that this area, on a macro-level,
is located in the center of existing residential neighborhoods as well as planned future residential
development areas. Neighborhoods 4 and 5 comprise many of the characteristics of the
Neighborhood Model, with the exception that this area currently does not have a “commercial
center”. When developed, it should provide primarily retail and employment opportunities without
precluding a range of uses that may include but are is not limited to commercial, professional
office/industrial/light industrial, residential, live/work, open space and parkland, public amenities
and spaces appropriate for such a commercial center. Compatibility Notwithstanding the
Regional Service designation, compatibility with the scale and character of adjacent and nearby
City and County neighborhoods should be maintained. Because of its location between three
entrance corridors, at the confluence of Biscuit Run and Moore’s Creek, this site is of high
aesthetic and environmental sensitivity and importance.
Environmental Protection
A. Several acres of elevated, wooded land located at the western edge of Tax Map 76M1 Parcel 2B,
fronting the former Grand Piano and University Corporate Research Park access roads and
extending north and south from the Bent Creek bridge along these roads are contain woodland
features considered to be significant to both the site and area. These features should be
preserved as a visual buffer from Fifth Street Extended and be emphasized in site design.
Existing vegetation, especially exemplary specimen or old growth trees, should be preserved on
this tract to the extent feasible. Rock formations sloping down to the existing roads should also
be preserved.to the extent feasible. These features should be preserved as a visual buffer from
Fifth Street Extended and be emphasized in site design.
B. Bluffs and riparian forest along the existing Grand Piano access road/Moore’s Creek corridor
should be protected to minimize adverse impacts to the creek from major grading activity. Low-
intensity design should be used to help accomplish this protection.
C. To the greatest extent possible, streams and stream buffers should be retained and enhanced in
conjunction with the development of the property. Emphasis should be placed on natural stream
channel improvements, such as landscape stabilization and bioengineering enhancements, to the
degraded portions of the existing Moore’s Creek tributary. Where streams are to be disturbed,
site development must assure that downstream properties and habitat are protected through
implementation of measures for water quality and quantity. If crossing and/or filling of the small
tributary to the east of the existing warehouse is essential to development of the parcel,
innovative water protection management measures should be incorporated into the development.
D. A greenway along Biscuit Run and Moore’s Creek as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan
Greenway Plan should be established. Greenway trails should be constructed and dedicated at
the time of site development.
E. The existing vegetated buffer adjacent to the I-64 corridor should be preserved and enhanced
where feasible. In addition to its screening function, this green buffer is an important aesthetic
and natural resource that contributes to the appearance of the corridor.
F. The floodplain area northeast of the confluence of Biscuit Run and Moore’s Creek should become
public open space for a natural area or multi-purpose field or other low-impact outdoor use.
G. Development of the property should incorporate principles of low impact development and
sustainable design to support and enhance water protection efforts. Impervious area should be
minimized through a site concept that emphasizes complementary uses, shared parking, and
protection of critical resources. In particular, green roof technology should be considered as an
appropriate and effective technology for managing stormwater on this site.
Transportation
H. The City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, Virginia Department of Transportation, affected
property owners, and interested stakeholders should work together to develop an integrated
transportation system to serve the site. As a part of the integrated system, traffic signal timing
and coordination should be improved and alternative transportation solutions such as
Transportation Demand Management may be necessary. Phasing of development should take
place so that transportation improvements are concurrent with transportation needs generated by
the development.
I. The integrated transportation system should include the necessary improvements, including
roadway improvements, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and site design, to accommodate mass
transportation in an area encompassing the following streets and intersections: (a) Fifth Street
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Extended and the Bent Creek Road (linked by a connector road); (b) Avon Street Extended and
the connector road; (c) intersections with the connector road within the subject property; and (d)
the connector road.
J. Concurrent with development of the site, a connection from Fifth Street Extended to Avon Street
Extended via the Bent Creek Bridge should be constructed (the Alternative ‘D’ recommended by
the Southern Cities report). This connection may incorporate one or more new roads as well as
the existing bridge and former Grand Piano warehouse access road. This connector road should
not be regarded as a replacement or substitute for the Southern Connector and, as such, should
be viewed as one element of the City/County/VDOT regional transportation network. The road
should be designed for speeds of 35 miles per hour and should provide improved inter-
neighborhood access within the Southern Urban Development Areas.
K. The former warehouse access road should become a parkway along Moore’s Creek, but should
not become the primary connector.be designed as a major thoroughfare. The road should need
not be improved with curbing and but should, to the extent feasible, be confined mainly to, the
existing travelway and disturbed area. To avoid additional disturbance to this stream buffer,
sidewalks should not be required on this road. The greenway along Moore’s Creek is
recommended as a pedestrian alternative.
L. One of the new roads on the site should be designed as a main commercial street traversing the
town center into this portion of the site. The road should have curbing, sidewalks, street trees,
and other Neighborhood Model elements. To accommodate service traffic primarily, a second
new road segment should be considered at the southern portion of the site.
M. The intersection of existing and new roads with the Bent Creek Bridge should be designed to
avoid or minimize disturbance to the 100-year floodplain, stream buffer, and the preserved area
located above and to the east of it.
N. Where considered important to the Willoughby residents, construction of a pedestrian bridge
should be considered between the south side of Moore’s Creek and the Willoughby residential
property.
Land Use
O. The Community Service/Mixed Use land use designation for this area represents a
commercial area which supports community and neighborhood needs and values. Uses should
include retail, offices and other areas of employment, residential needs (housing and/or goods
and services), environmental protection, and recreation. Development of this site may involve an
expansion of the customary building limitations associated with the Community Service
designation.
O. Development within this area should achieve moderate to high levels of density inasmuch as (a)
the existing and planned transportation network, utility, and other public infrastructure as the
capacity to support such development and (b) there is no remaining undeveloped land of
significant area within Neighborhoods 4 and 5 that can meet the Comprehensive Plan’s Regional
Service development criteria. The continuation of employment opportunities is significant and
valuable in this location, particularly in the eastern portion of the site but also throughout the town
center area. The existing Light Industrial use opportunities available under the current zoning
should may be used to support and encourage development of flex space and/or other
employment-oriented uses along Avon Street Extended.
Q O. Development on the site should may balance retail with employment-based uses and other
land uses.
R P. Residential, live/work and/or small professional office uses are recommended along the bluff at
the northern edge of the town center area. These uses should be sited to minimize disturbance
to the natural features described under Environmental Protection (above). It may be appropriate
for such uses to occur as infill opportunities, after the commercial and retail uses have been
established.
S. Q. A town center design should be a feature of the The western commercial area. This area is
intended to be a compact, high density area which mixes retail businesses, services, public
facilities and civic spaces. Large footprint retail of a regional nature may be appropriate in the
town center, if it is consistent with the Neighborhood Model principles. western portion of the
area. Specifically, the buildings should be oriented to major roads; designed, sized and massed
with consideration for adjacent and nearby smaller uses in the Center and on the larger site; and
parking should be relegated to the greatest extent possible.
T. R. The architecture, urban design and landscape treatment of the property should be carefully
integrated to ensure that the visual interest, massing, scale and organization of the development
contributes to the role of the site as a town center and commercial focal point for the Southern
Urban Area. The town center area should provide a functional, attractive and distinct destination
for shoppers, visitors, employees, and residents of the larger neighborhood with particular
emphasis on pedestrian convenience. Architectural and landscape design guidelines should be
prepared to address:
;
a. The integration of building facades and rooflines
b. Architectural massing and form of individual buildings;
c. Architectural materials and color;
d. Design of parking areas;
e. Design/landscape treatment of streets and interior travelways, pedestrian, bicycle and
vehicular, including traffic calming;
f. Buffers and screening in areas impacted by critical sight lines;
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
g. Enhancements to preservation areas and open spaces and improvements to planned
public civic and greenway areas;
h. Street lighting, signage and hardscape features;
i. Recreational and civic improvements.
In acknowledgment of the size of the developable area, as well as environmental and aesthetic
considerations, a mid-sized big box model is recommended for this site. Development of “super-
sized” big boxes is not appropriate due to the site’s relatively small developable area, high
exposure to three Entrance Corridors, immersed location within older neighborhoods with
established character and scale, and the desire to mix and balance uses on the site and create a
bona fide town center. The size and scale of regional retail complexes in As a base guideline for
maximum building footprints, (excluding outdoor storage, display, awnings, etc.) the northern
urban area (“super sized” big boxes, such as the existing Lowe’s store on Route 29 North) is not
appropriate in this location. The largest single box footprint should not exceed 130,000 150,000
square feet, including outdoor display, sales and storage areas (approximately the size of the
existing Wal-Mart on Route 29 North), and development on the site should be limited to one use
whose square footage exceeds 100,000 square feet. There is no limit on uses of less than
100,000 square feet, except as described in V below. Buildings of increased footprint may be
considered, subject to demonstration by the applicant that the environmental impact of such
increased footprint can be offset by (a) design that is sensitive to architectural massing and
quality, (b) building that complements the setting of the larger project, (c) parking and traffic
accommodation that complements building form, pedestrian access, and building siting, (d)
environmental design that enhances existing natural conditions within areas to be conserved, and
(e) a commitment to a project phasing plan that ensures that a mix of retail uses of varying size
and scale will be developed concomitantly with the expanded big box use.
S.
V. T. Maximum total square footage of big-box structures, including outside display, sales and
storage areas, is 230,000 350,000 square feet. If the big-box structures are developed in a two-
story or greater configuration, this limitation may be adjusted upward.
W. U. Preference will may be given to rezoning proposals that maximize the range and mixture of
uses, along with a phasing plan that assures a mixture of uses and addresses all parts of the site
during the development of the project.
Public Space and Public Facilities/Amenities
X. Provision should be made on the site for transit service and a park and ride facility.
X. At least 10% of the gross site acreage should be devoted to amenities and 15% should be
preserved or created as green space. Public amenities can be paved areas, such as plazas,
courtyards or patios, landscaped areas such as parks or water features and/or natural areas left
largely in their undisturbed state. Preserved areas should count toward both amenity and green
space percentages.
Mr. Dorrier said for the applicant to construct this road is a boon to the whole County. He thinks
the County should reciprocate. He does not think there will be a detriment if the applicant is allowed to
increase the square footage of the big box.
Mr. Bowerman said the people who live in the City in that area all go to Route 29 North now to
shop. This may be the only access that this area and others have to I-64, so to him it is a unique
opportunity and the only chance the County gets to work with the one applicant who has proposed a
design the County is looking for.
Mr. Wyant said this proposed road will give people who live south of town easy access to I-64
rather than going to the Route 20 exit.
Ms. Sally Thomas said she thinks it will be a much used road after constructed.
Mr. Wyant said people steer away from areas where landfills have been located, but they are not
as difficult to deal with as some people think.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks everything said about the road is important, but he keeps coming back to
the concept of taking some of the traffic congestion off of Route 29 North. He thinks this will be a great
help to the local traffic situation depending on what stores locate in this development. He thinks the
Board should facilitate this project by moving it forward.
Mr. Dorrier asked if a Board member wanted to make a motion.
Mr. Bowerman said he is not sure how to go forward.
Ms. Sally Thomas said there are big implications to some small word changes the applicant
made. There is a particular area shown on the model by three straggly trees and a rock. She calls it the
“Walter Perkins Memorial Grove of Trees.” When the Board walked that area during the last application,
Mr. Perkins changed his mind about what should take place on the site when he saw those significant
specimen trees. Although one Commissioner said “they are old, and they are gonna die anyway”, that is
not the view a majority of the Commission members took. The applicant says there is not much chance
for preservation of vegetation (Page 7 of the Commission’s minutes). She thinks that is a significant thing
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
which is either being wiped out or held to be important. Including the words “to the extent feasible” makes
a difference.
Mr. Rooker asked if Ms. Thomas is referring to Paragraph A under “Environmental Protection.”
Ms. Sally Thomas said the applicant added the words “to the extent feasible” to Paragraph A.
She thinks that makes a great deal of difference as to whether the Board will be proud it amended the
recommendation or not. (Second sentence in applicant’s Paragraph A reads: “Existing vegetation,
especially exemplary specimen or old growth trees, should be preserved on this tract to the extent
feasible.”)
Mr. Rooker said right before that language, the applicant eliminated the words “These features
should be preserved as a visual buffer from Fifth Street Extended and be emphasized in site design.” He
would like to leave that sentence in, but add the words “to the extent feasible.”
Mr. Wyant said the sentence Mr. Rooker just read has been moved to the end of that paragraph.
Mr. Blaine said the intent was to apply all of these features. It was more or a grammatical
change. “To the extent feasible” is probably implied. If they are old growth trees which are on their
deathbed, then it would not be feasible to design a project around them. The applicant’s change just
implies some reasonableness in the language. If that is understood, it can be deleted. Moving that
sentence to the end of the paragraph was to emphasize that there are woodland features. There are
actually 25 acres of woodland area that they contemplate preserving under the plan.
Ms. Sally Thomas pointed to a green area on the map posted on the wall, and said that is not the
area where the specimen trees are located.
Mr. Blaine said there are two areas. There is one area along Bent Creek Road as well as the
rock formations sloping down to the existing roads which would be preserved.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it can be stated “without any topographical changes to the north side of
the stream?”
Mr. Blaine said the stream meanders around so the land is on both the south and east sides.
Mr. Bowerman said he was referring to the amount of “solid green” shown on the map.
Mr. Wyant asked what actually goes into the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if this would not be
captured in the tree conservation plan. He does not think there should be so much detail included in the
Comprehensive Plan. Capture that and the County has many other documents which keep this from
occurring.
Mr. Rooker said the County does not have other documents which would impose these features.
Ms. Sally Thomas said the other Board members may not feel strongly about this issue, but if a
majority of the members do feel strongly, it is only fair to say it to the applicant in the Comprehensive Plan
amendment as opposed to “crossing our fingers behind our back” and hitting them with it at time of site
plan and rezoning. This is the time to say the things that will be important to the County during a
rezoning. It is not kindness to the applicant to not include things which will be important. This is the time
to give the applicant guidance.
Mr. Dorrier asked that someone point out on the map the grove of trees to be protected.
Mr. Bowerman said as you enter the site and come up around the knoll to where the existing
buildings are located is where the trees are located.
Ms. Sally Thomas said it is where the parking is to be located.
Mr. Blaine said there are old trees throughout this 90 acres. It is the applicant’s intent to develop
a site preserving as many trees as possible. The trees can be identified as important features, but his
client is interested in preserving trees throughout the site and an area as a greenway along the proposed
connector with a greenway trail to connect with the trail system. Right now it is a lovely spot that no one
has a chance to appreciate. They propose to make this available along the greenway trail for others to
appreciate.
Ms. Sally Thomas asked that Mr. Blaine point to the specific trees being discussed. Mr. Blaine
said they can have a comprehensive tree study done to find all the old growth trees. He then pointed to
an area on the map and said they think there have been some trees identified in that area.
Mr. Rooker suggested going back to the last sentence in Paragraph A proposed by the client. He
suggested that the sentence read: “The natural features described in this paragraph should be preserved
as a visual buffer from Fifth Street Extended and be emphasized in site design.” He would be
comfortable with that language.
Mr. Dorrier asked if that is something the applicant can live with. Mr. Blaine said as long as there
is an element of reasonableness. These are natural features which do not live in perpetuity. Trees will
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
die. It may not be feasible to preserve every tree, but they will do everything possible in developing the
site to preserve not just the trees identified tonight, but others throughout the site, up to 25 acres.
Mr. Rooker said he had not changed the applicant’s language other than to make it clear it is
talking about the natural features described in the paragraph.
Mr. Blaine said he thinks the proposed language is entirely reasonable.
Mr. Davis asked if there is concurrence that this proposal should be Regional Service rather than
“Community Service” as recommended by the Commission. That is one issue that needs to be clarified.
Mr. Benish said in looking at the typical primary uses and the Purpose and Intent section in
Community Services, there are a broader variety of activities discussed. Under “Typical Uses” discount
stores are listed as are building supply stores. This was intended to send the message that these are
more of a community scale. The next level up is a standard Regional Service. The Commission
recommended Community Service.
Ms. Sally Thomas said in reading the Commission’s minutes, she found their discussions very
interesting and instructive. She thought their hybrid of Community Service/Mixed Use embodied very well
the type of flexible situation that would allow for larger boxes, but with an explanation required as to how it
fits into the center as a whole. She thought that gave the applicant a clearer description of what would be
requested of them, rather than just flat Regional Service. The applicant did not include the words “Mixed
Use” in his application.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that would keep the spirit of what the Commission discussed, and
keeps the mixed use terminology.
Mr. Rooker said the Board could take the applicant’s proposal to change the Community Service
to Regional Service in the first paragraph, and make the change recommended in Paragraph A; he asked
if the Board needs to discuss other parts of the applicant’s recommendations.
Mr. Bowerman said Paragraph “O” was rewritten, but he thinks it still says the same thing.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks that overall the applicant’s reworking of the language is in keeping with
what the staff recommended other than the square footage issue.
Ms. Susan Thomas said that is true to a certain extent. The Commission was committed to
preservation in the first area mentioned and did not want the words “to the extent feasible” included
because the Comprehensive Plan amendment is an advisory document with specificity coming about
during the rezoning. Things may come up at that time which must be tempered. This language should
set out the vision. Based on prior experiences, they worry about using the words “to the extent feasible”.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks Ms. Sally Thomas made a good point. If the Board wants to make
something more confining, it should be set out in the Comprehensive Plan now rather than saving that
discussion for later.
Mr. Rooker said when the applicant files for a rezoning for a specific proposal, the words “to the
extent feasible” would not bother him. These words are subject to interpretation.
Mr. Boyd said he finds the words to be non-visionary. He thinks the Board should allow the
applicant to keep the word “Regional Service.” As the applicant tries to sell the project to other people,
there is a significant difference between “Community Service” and “Regional Service” in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rooker said the amendment will set out the stipulations which apply to the development.
Those will override whatever is on the applicant’s chart, which is just a general chart.
Mr. Boyd said if the proposal is closer to “Regional” in reality, why not just use the word
“Regional”?
Mr. Rooker said the Commission’s minutes show that they had a lengthy discussion of this issue.
He is somewhat convinced by their discussion. He does not think “community” restricts significantly what
the applicant can do on the property, except that the tone of the kind of development expected is a little
different under “community” than under “regional.”
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is anyway to respect that tone and still recognize that the maximum
total square footages, etc. can go from 230,000 to 350,000 square feet as requested by the applicant
(see Paragraph “T” in Attachment B).
Mr. Rooker suggested going through the applicant’s proposal (Attachment B) one
recommendation at a time.
Ms. Sally Thomas said she would like to ask staff a question. In the applicant’s Paragraph “K”, is
there a difference between a primary connector and a major thoroughfare? She does not understand the
implications of the recommended change.
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Ms. Susan Thomas said County staff had already changed that language. The existing
warehouse access road should be a road which is incorporated into the transportation network on the
site. Mr. David Hirschman pointed out to staff that the road should not be loaded up as the main road
through the site because it is delicate, lying adjacent to Moore’s Creek, and the amount of improvements
needed for that road should be minimized. That would be the road for through traffic, but there would be
equal capacity or greater capacity on the commercial road. The applicant deleted the words “primary
connector” because that sounded like more of a regional road than was being suggested, but staff had
already made that change. The applicant was working from an older draft.
Mr. Davis said the next change which he thinks has some meaning is under the second
Paragraph “O” in the applicant’s proposal. It reads: “Development on the site should may balance retail
with employment-based uses and other land uses.” He suggested the Board give some directions on that
issue.
Ms. Sally Thomas said she thinks that if the word “may” is used, the sentence might as well be
left out. She does think it is an important concept. When this first started, it was assumed that there was
a major employment center there because Dominion Power was going to move onto this site. That was
dropped some time ago. Now, there is no assurance that there will be major employment on the site
other than the sort that big boxes furnish. If the Board members believe in this Paragraph “O”, there
should be assurances given. “May” does not say anything at all.
Mr. Boyd wondered why the Board is arguing over this type of detail in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Sally Thomas said she thinks the sentence should be left out if it does not say “should.”
Mr. Boyd said he does not think it is significant to the importance of this project. He thinks this is
an important project, and he thinks the County should find some way to move it forward in a way that it
can be successful.
Mr. Rooker said the Commission had a number of meetings about this project. The Board has
been talking about it for over an hour. It is a major project, but he does not think the Board is holding it up
by not making a decision in less time.
Mr. Dorrier said he finds no major problem with either the word “may” or “should.”
Mr. Wyant said he could go along with the suggestion that the sentence be dropped.
Ms. Sally Thomas said that is not actually her recommendation.
Mr. Rooker said he would suggest leaving the word “may” in the sentence.
Mr. Dorrier suggested going on to discussion of the next change.
Ms. Sally Thomas said the wording added in Paragraph “P” at the bottom of the page
(Attachment B) should be discussed. It reads: “It may be appropriate for such uses to occur as infill
opportunities, after the commercial and retail uses have been established.” She does not think staff and
the Commission were sure residential uses were going to be appropriate in this area, so they quite rightly
left it as “may” happen. To suggest that it will happen after the commercial and retail uses have been
established is suggesting something that is not going to happen. If it is important to say anything about
residential and live/work, or offices, or small professional office uses, particularly along the northern edge
of the town center area, she would suggest that the Board remove the new words added by the applicant.
She does not think it adds anything and is misleading to suggest it will happen after the commercial and
retail uses have been established.
Mr. Rooker said there is nothing in the language which requires phasing. He does not think the
language adds anything.
Mr. Blaine said that is an important distinction. If that is the case, they are not concerned about
adding the language. There was an impression given that the applicant had an interest in developing
residences on the bluff, or that residential would be part of the initial rezoning. The applicant has
hundreds of apartments and lofts under construction in the urban area now. This will be designed initially
as a commercial site. If it is understood that residential will not be an expectation in the rezoning, initially,
then they are fine with it. They did not want to preclude residential if later on there was an infill
opportunity. That is all the added language was designed to do.
Mr. Dorrier asked what was wrong with the language as recommended.
Mr. Boyd said it doesn’t add anything, or take anything away, so just leave it in.
Mr. Dorrier said to just leave the language in.
Mr. Rooker said he has no opinion one way or the other about the phasing requirement. There is
no requirement in this language requiring that residential be included at any given point. What he has
observed in the area where he lives is that residential infill has occurred around shopping centers. What
has been seen through experience is that residential will often come in after the commercial is
established and people see it would not be a bad place to live.
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Bowerman suggested that both the second Paragraph “O” and Paragraph “P” be dropped.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees with the applicant’s language there.
Mr. Dorrier suggested discussing the applicant’s Paragraph “Q”.
Mr. Rooker said he has a question about Paragraph “Q”. He asked if the applicant does not think
this development can be given a town center feel.
Mr. Dorrier asked the definition of “town center feel.”
Mr. Rooker said that in the Neighborhood Model there is talk about commercial being built around
some public feature, thus making that public feature more of a gathering place. A town center is
described in that Model.
Mr. Dorrier said this proposal includes a walkway along the creek. He asked if that fits into the
concept of a public area.
Mr. Blaine said if the interpretation of town center in the Neighborhood Model is used, the answer
is “no.” If it is a central, commercial center intended to be a complex high density area which mixes retail
businesses, services, public facilities and civic space, the answer is “yes.” He wants to make it clear that
is not going to replicate the southern portion of Albemarle Place or the Charlottesville Downtown Mall.
True to Ms. Thomas’ desire that this amendment be an accurate prediction, they want to eliminate “town
center” unless they understand it just means a high density area that mixes retail businesses, services,
public facilities and civic spaces. That is what they intend to do.
Mr. Rooker said he is comfortable with that.
Mr. Dorrier suggested moving to Paragraph “R”.
Mr. Rooker asked if the 150,000 square feet proposed by the applicant in the language in this
paragraph includes a garden center. He would prefer to say “150,000 square feet (including any outdoor
garden or storage area).
Mr. Blaine said they could do it either way, but would need to raise that number. As an example,
using a Lowe’s prototype of a 138,000 square foot building going in the 150,000 square foot limit they
propose would exclude outdoor display, awnings, etc., so would not include a garden center. They want
to be clear about that.
Mr. Rooker asked how the garden center at Lowe’s is considered under the County’s existing
ordinance. Is it considered part of the box footprint?
Ms. Susan Thomas said she thinks that on the site plan it counts toward total square footage.
Mr. Rooker said he is comfortable with the language proposed by the applicant in Paragraph “R”.
Mr. Dorrier suggested discussing Paragraph “T” in Attachment B.
Mr. Wyant suggested deleting that paragraph.
Mr. Dorrier asked if that is agreeable to the Board members.
Mr. Rooker said he does not agree. From his review of the plan, it was his understanding the
applicant was talking about a box of 150,000 square feet and one of about 100,000 square feet. He
asked if that thought has changed. He said the change suggested to 350,000 square feet appears to be
adding a box which he understood would not be on the site. He understood there would be one box of
about 150,000 square feet and one of about 100,000 square feet that might be a grocery store, with
everything else being less than 100,000 square feet. When talking about big boxes, they are talking
about something of about 100,000 square feet in size. He asked if that is correct.
Ms. Susan Thomas said that is correct.
Mr. Rooker said this paves the way for three large boxes.
Ms. Susan Thomas said there could be many 90,000 square foot uses which are not regulated at
all by this language. She suggested one change to the Planning’s Commission language for Paragraph
“U” (Attachment A). That paragraph reads: “The largest single big box footprint should not exceed
130,000 square feet including outdoor display, sales and storage areas (approximately the size of the
existing Wal-Mart on Route 29 North), and development on the site should be limited to one use whose
square footage exceeds 100,000 square feet. There is no limit on uses of less than 100,000 square feet.”
She suggested striking the words “and development on the site should be limited to one use whose
square footage exceeds 100,000 square feet.” That whole paragraph was eliminated in the applicant’s
recommendations, but if the Board decides to strike some compromise between the Commission’s
recommendation and the applicant’s recommendation, that phrase does not clarify anything, so she
suggests taking it out. Further on in the recommendations, there is a limit to the total big box square
footage, and that is the important thing, rather than the number.
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Boyd said he is confused about why it was said there could be any number of 90,000 square
foot big boxes.
Ms. Susan Thomas said the language says “There is no limit on uses of less than 100,000 square
feet.” So, those do not count as a big box although staff and the Board know that various big box retailers
may have models that fall within that square footage. They felt that the impacts come from the largest
stores, not from those that are mid-range. It was the Commission’s decision not to get into regulating
every use on the site, just the ones considered to have a major impact, visual and otherwise.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant took that language out. Then you go to Paragraph “T” and it says
“Maximum total square footage of big-box structures, including outside display, sales and storage areas,
is 350,000 square feet. If the big-box structures are developed in a two-story or greater configuration, this
limitation may be adjusted upward.” The applicant had embodied that number in the 350,000, so
technically, there could be big boxes of 150,000, 100,000 and 100,000 square feet,
Mr. Boyd suggested that the Board stick with the applicant’s language.
Mr. Dorrier suggested discussing the applicant’s proposed Paragraph “T” which gives a 350,000
square foot maximum.
Mr. Davis said this sets out 350,000 square feet as the maximum including the outside storage
excluded in the prior paragraph. It does not put any limit on the number of big boxes. Within that
350,000, there could be three big boxes of 100,000 square feet. The Board needs to give some direction
on that paragraph and whether that is an appropriate parameter for the rezoning so there could be three
big boxes or numerous big boxes, or will there be some limit?
Mr. Blaine said they are speculating because the offers, or solicitations, have evolved over time.
They can take any number of approaches. They can define what they mean by big box, which would
probably be a good idea if it is being used as a term. They can set an outer limit. The advantage in
setting an outer limit is that they can mix and match any number of combinations. They will be
emphasizing a home improvement store of approximately 170,000 square feet if a garden enter is
included. This language would literally allow them a second store of up to 180,000 square feet. They will
not need that.
Mr. Rooker said both of those examples exceed the 150,000 square feet limit in Paragraph “R”,
so that cannot be done. Mr. Blaine agreed.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board wants to provide some flexibility, but not give away the store key. Mr.
Blaine said they are claiming that their proposal is the perfect language, which is the objective.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is really a problem with the 350,000 square feet. He thinks that is limiting
it to two big boxes.
Mr. Rooker said he would suggest saying “Maximum square footage of big box structures (in
excess of 75,000 square feet).” He thinks big box structures need to be defined in the language.
Mr. Wyant asked if this has ever been done before.
Mr. Bowerman said it has not been done in this particular way.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has put limitations on big boxes. It has been done in different ways.
The question here is on the total combination of uses. He thinks the Board should define what it means
by “big box” and would suggest it is anything in excess of 75,000 square feet.
Mr. Wyant said he has no problem with that suggestion.
Mr. Boyd asked if that classifies a grocery store as a big box.
Mr. Dorrier asked how a big box is defined now.
Ms. Susan Thomas said staff defines it in a working sense as 100,000 square feet or greater.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Zoning Department sticks with that figure.
Ms. Susan Thomas said “no.” She does not think there is really a definition of “big box.” A lot
has to do with how it is operated.
Mr. Dorrier said he does not think it should be defined on square feet because it is an amorphous
concept. “Big box” means different things to different people.
Mr. Rooker said the problem is that most buildings are boxes. Some people might think that
50,000 square feet is a big box. He thinks it is up to the applicant to say what he thinks a box is. From
what Mr. Blaine just said, he assumes there would be no problem if the Board stayed with the 350,000
square foot limit, and defined a box as anything in excess of 75,000 square feet.
Mr. Blaine said they would have a problem with that because they have large grocery stores
which are interested in 80,000 square feet. If that were added plus the 130,000 for a Target and 170,000
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
for the Lowe’s, it would go over the limit. They were comfortable with the staff’s definition of a big box
being 100,000 square feet. They understand that as a drafting technique, but it needs to be defined
someway.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant would accept a 100,000 square foot limitation.
Mr. Blaine said “no”, only as a definition of a big box. The 350,000 square foot limitation on big
boxes would only apply to those buildings in excess of 100,000 square feet.
Mr. Benish said the Board could also just except grocery stores as a use. It boils down to a use
issue and how that use fits on the site, with parking, lighting, storage, etc.
Mr. Dorrier said if the applicant can live with the 100,000 square foot definition why not just leave
it there?
Mr. Blaine said they would welcome the suggestion from Mr. Benish to exclude grocery stores.
He thinks they are coming together on a vision, this is a drafting exercise.
Mr. Rooker asked the total square footage envisioned for the whole site.
Mr. Blaine said they don’t have any total limitation. It is not hard to image in phasing
development of the project the commercial center with future employment issues. Because of site
constraints, which include underground limitations in certain sections of the site, it would likely be a future
phased development.
Mr. Rooker said he asked because he thinks the Board is trying to preserve some mix of uses on
the site. Personally he is not in favor of establishing a limitation that ends up completing smaller uses on
the site. That is why he is interested in the total amount of square footage envisioned for the site.
Mr. Blaine said the developer actually makes the largest profit on the smaller uses. This center
will not have out-parcels as such, but the developer profits from the smaller tenants who pay higher rents
to be next to the anchor stores.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Cox, who has been working with this site, the potential amount of retail
square footage on the site.
Mr. Frank Cox, the Cox Company, said they have worked on this site for about 40 years so have
had an ample opportunity to test a lot of uses. The land holding capacity, after eliminating some difficult
slopes which should be preserved in open space and stream valley parks, is roughly 50 acres of
developable land. Applying a nominal floor area ratio of 2.5 gives about 500,000 square feet of total
combined employment plus retail use opportunities. They have worked through 10 to 15 different concept
plans. They developed plans that had two large scale boxes that exceeded 130,000 square feet, plus a
grocery store. They worked with some plans that showed one very large big box use with any number of
smaller more boutique type uses. Looking across the entire property, there is about one-half a million
square feet of building opportunity. The retail portion of that, including restaurants, branch banks, and
both the large and small retail component, would be between 400,000 and 425,000 square feet.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it is expected that there would be a combination of retail (not just three big
boxes) uses. Mr. Cox said he thinks that would be to everyone’s advantage. This is not a town center
location. Also, he thinks it would be inappropriate to think of this as a pure application of the
neighborhood model. In a community the size of Charlottesville, and given the history of neighborhood
models, one true town center is about all a community can support. Since this is not a site to which
people can walk, the idea is to create the best organization of retail uses.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant’s original proposal booklet showed retail commercial at 360,000 to
380,000 square feet. He asked if that is still the plan.
Mr. Cox said that is still the plan. Added to that were free-standing restaurants and financial
institutions. Those were only planning figures. This is an in-fill site at a regional interchange location, and
they are representing the total floor area ratio at only .25 to .3 which is roughly one-half of what is
espoused in the Neighborhood Model for a very intense infill property. In a sense, the County is getting
community level density at a regional location, and at a very significant in-fill location. At .7 to .9, the FAR
would push this site to more than 1.0 million square feet. They are not looking for that level of density in
the areas suitable for development. Depending on the ultimate site plan, there are also roughly 20 to 30
acres in areas that can be preserved and used as important, natural features.
Ms. Sally Thomas asked what percentage of square footage will be put into big boxes as
opposed to other uses the Board is not talking about putting a limitation on.
Mr. Cox said there have been 50 different retailers who have expressed an interest in this
development. He thinks the site would accommodate two substantial big boxes, a food store, a major
drug store, and a range of 20,000 to 40,000 square feet of smaller 2,000 to 3,000 square foot specialty
stores or restaurants. They have a bunch of options to sort through before getting to the zoning stage,
but they are not at that point yet. They need to lasso those that have the primary interest, that have the
most money, who have the desire to be at this location, and who are also willing to work within the strong
architectural and urban design guidelines County staff incorporated in the CPA language.
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Rooker said when this gets to the rezoning stage, there are other sections in this proposal
which need to be met. As to the big box limitation, considering what they are talking about in terms of
total commercial, he would be more comfortable if the limit was set at 300,000 square feet. He thinks the
Board wants to see a mix of uses on the site.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks 300,000 square feet will cut it pretty thin and restrict the uses that could
come in. He said a home improvement store would certainly be an asset, also a soft goods store. He is
not in favor of limiting it to 300,000 square feet because the applicant requested 350,000 square feet for a
reason. He does not think the additional 50,000 square feet would make that much of a difference.
Mr. Wyant said the 350,000 square feet includes the outdoor storage.
Mr. Rooker agreed.
Mr. Wyant said there is also a limit on the footprint of the building.
Mr. Davis proposed that in Paragraph “T”, the Board exclude outside display, sales and storage
areas, and grocery stores and limit the square footage to 300,000 square feet.
Mr. Boyd asked why the Board would do that.
Mr. Davis said there will most likely be only one store that will have outside storage. The other
big box will probably not have a garden center. This would give a little on the garden center and the
grocery store knowing that there could basically be only two other big boxes.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees with Mr. Dorrier. He thinks the request for 350,000 square feet has
been thought through by the applicant, and there is a reason for the request.
Mr. Davis said they had contemplated that the grocery store would be counted as a big box.
Mr. Dorrier said that several years ago the big box issue defeated the request. He does not think
there should be a repeat of that situation. He thinks it is important to define what is going on so all are on
the same wavelength.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Davis has suggested some language which he thinks addresses Mr. Blaine’s
concerns.
Mr. Blaine said that language addresses their concerns.
Mr. Rooker said it also addresses his concerns. He would like to define a box as anything in
excess of 75,000 square feet.
Ms. Thomas asked if that is excluding grocery stores.
Mr. Rooker said that would exclude grocery stores.
Mr. Dorrier said the County’s planners have said they have an open definition on a box. He does
not think the Board should upset the works with the Planning Department by imposing a limitation on
them.
Mr. Benish said one reason for the recommendation of 100,000 square feet was to allow grocery
stores which are getting bigger and bigger. They are coming in at 75,000 to 80,000 square feet. He said
these are guidelines so staff can work with an applicant for a rezoning to put it in the best possible light.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees with Mr. Davis’ recommended language. When this comes back for
rezoning, he will expect to see some mix of uses on the site.
Mr. Blaine asked that Mr. Davis repeat his recommended language.
Mr. Davis said Paragraph “T” on Attachment B would read: “Maximum total square footage of
big–box structures defined as greater than 75,000 square foot footprint, mixed use retail (excluding
outside display, sales and storage areas, and grocery stores) is 300,000 square feet.”
Mr. Dorrier asked if there were any changes to Paragraph “U” on Attachment B.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the paragraph is meaningless if the word “may” is used. She thinks
the Board is giving the applicant everything he has asked for which wasted a lot of effort by the
Commission.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks this whole thing was shaped significantly by the Commission. Looking
at the Commission’s minutes and the original property, this proposal is different today than the way it was
originally proposed. He would like to see the word “will” in that paragraph as proposed by the
Commission.
Mr. Blaine said that is acceptable to the applicant. It is stated as a preference and it shows there
will be a preference given to plans that show a range of mixes. They understand the spirit of the
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
recommendation. They would elect to go back to Paragraph “T” in consideration of that, and would like to
include in the exclusions, garden centers, outside sales and display, awnings and storage areas.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board accepts that language.
Mr. Boyd said it is traditional language.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there were further recommendations for changes.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board had decided on “Regional” or “Community” in the first paragraph of
the recommendations.
Mr. Davis said there are two issues which the Board did not decide definitely. One was whether it
is to be “Regional Service” and then in the second Paragraph “O” there is the question of the word “may”.
Mr. Wyant said he thought the Board left Paragraph “O” as requested by the applicant.
It was the consensus that Paragraph “O” would be left with the word “may” as requested by the
applicant.
Mr. Davis said there is only the question of “Community Service/Mixed Use” versus “Regional
Service” in the first paragraph.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it has already been defined as what it will be, so he does not care
which name it has.
Mr. Rooker said it would be his preference to accept the Commission’s recommendation. He said
the Board has defined the upper limits on buildings, etc.
Mr. Blaine said they have addressed through these amendments the limitations and it really
would not matter to the applicant. They can sell this project whether it is mixed use or regional service.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier asked for a motion.
Motion
was offered by Mr. Rooker to adopt the Comprehensive Plan language as submitted by
the applicant (Attachment B) with the changes made by the Board during this meeting, as set out below:
First paragraph: The first sentence would read: “The area located south of the Willoughby
residential development and north of Interstate 64 between Fifth Street Extended and Avon Street
Extended, accessed via Bent Creek Road, is designated for Community Service/Mixed Use
development.” The fifth sentence would read: “Compatibility with the scale and character of....”
Environmental Protection: Paragraph “A” - Last sentence should read: “The natural features
described in this paragraph should be preserved as a visual buffer from Fifth Street Extended and be
emphasized in site design.”
Land Use: Paragraph “O” would read: “Development on the site may balance retail with
employment-based uses and other land uses.”
Paragraph “R” on Attachment B would read: “As a base guideline for maximum building
footprints (excluding garden centers, outside sales and display, awnings, storage areas, and grocery
stores), the largest single big box footprint should not exceed 150,000 square feet.
Paragraph “T” on Attachment B would read: “Maximum total square footage of big-box structures
defined as those having a greater than 75,000 square foot footprint (excluding garden centers, outside
sales and display, awnings, storage areas, and grocery stores) is 300,000 square feet. For the purpose
of this definition, a grocery store is not considered to be a big box.
Paragraph “U” on Attachment B would read: “Preference will be given to rezoning proposals that
maximize the range and mixture of uses, along with a phasing plan that assures a mixture of uses and
addresses all parts of the site during the development of the project.”
seconded
The motion was by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
Note
(: The following language is to the added to the Neighborhood Four Profile, page 59, Land
Use Plan, in the Comprehensive Plan.)
Neighborhood Four Profile, page 59, Land Use Plan:
The area located south of the Willoughby residential development and north of Interstate 64 between
Fifth Street Extended and Avon Street Extended, accessed via Bent Creek Road, is designated for
Community Service/Mixed Use development. It is intended to fulfill a “town center” role by providing a
commercial and employment focal point within Neighborhoods 4 and 5. Neighborhood Model
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
principles recognize that this area, on a macro-level, is located in the center of existing residential
neighborhoods as well as planned future residential development areas. Neighborhoods 4 and 5
comprise many of the characteristics of the Neighborhood Model, with the exception that this area
currently does not have a “commercial center”. When developed, it should provide primarily retail and
employment opportunities without precluding a range of uses that may include but is not limited to
commercial, professional office/industrial/light industrial, residential, live/work, open space and
parkland, public amenities and spaces appropriate for such a commercial center. Compatibility with
the scale and character of adjacent and nearby City and County neighborhoods should be
maintained. Because of its location between three entrance corridors, at the confluence of Biscuit
Run and Moore’s Creek, this site is of high aesthetic and environmental sensitivity and importance.
Environmental Protection
A. Several acres of elevated land located at the western edge of Tax Map 76M1, Parcel 2B, fronting
the former Grand Piano and the former University Corporate Research Park access roads and
extending north and south from the Bent Creek bridge along these roads contain woodland
features considered to be natural features with significance to both the site and area. Existing
vegetation, especially exemplary specimen or old growth trees, should be preserved on this tract
to the extent feasible. Rock formations sloping down to the existing roads should be preserved to
the extent feasible. The natural features described in this paragraph should be preserved as a
visual buffer from Fifth Street Extended and be emphasized in site design.
B. Bluffs and riparian forest along the existing Grand Piano access road/Moore’s Creek corridor
should be protected to minimize adverse impacts to the creek from major grading activity. Low-
intensity design should be used to help accomplish this protection.
C. To the greatest extent possible, streams and stream buffers should be retained and enhanced in
conjunction with the development of the property. Emphasis should be placed on natural stream
channel improvements, such as landscape stabilization and bioengineering enhancements, to the
degraded portions of the existing Moore’s Creek tributary. Where streams are to be disturbed,
site development must assure that downstream properties and habitat are protected through
implementation of measures for water quality and quantity. If crossing and/or filling of the small
tributary to the east of the existing warehouse is essential to development of the parcel,
innovative water protection management measures should be incorporated into the development.
D. A greenway along Biscuit Run and Moore’s Creek as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan
Greenway Plan should be established. Greenway trails should be constructed and dedicated at
the time of site development.
E. The existing vegetated buffer adjacent to the I-64 corridor should be preserved and enhanced
where feasible. In addition to its screening function, this green buffer is an important aesthetic
and natural resource that contributes to the appearance of the corridor.
F. The floodplain area northeast of the confluence of Biscuit Run and Moore’s Creek should become
public open space for a natural area or multi-purpose field or other low-impact outdoor use.
G. Development of the property should incorporate principles of low impact development and
sustainable design to support and enhance water protection efforts. Impervious area should be
minimized through a site concept that emphasizes complementary uses, shared parking, and
protection of critical resources. In particular, green roof technology should be considered as an
appropriate and effective technology for managing stormwater on this site.
Transportation
H. The City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, Virginia Department of Transportation, affected
property owners, and interested stakeholders should work together to develop an integrated
transportation system to serve the site. As a part of the integrated system, traffic signal timing
and coordination should be improved and alternative transportation solutions such as
Transportation Demand Management may be necessary. Phasing of development should take
place so that transportation improvements are concurrent with transportation needs generated by
the development.
I. The integrated transportation system should include the necessary improvements, including
roadway improvements, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and site design, to accommodate mass
transportation in an area encompassing the following streets and intersections: (a) Fifth Street
Extended and the Bent Creek Road (linked by a connector road); (b) Avon Street Extended and
the connector road; (c) intersections with the connector road within the subject property; and (d)
the connector road.
J. Concurrent with development of the site, a connection from Fifth Street Extended to Avon Street
Extended via the Bent Creek Bridge should be constructed (the Alternative ‘D’ recommended by
the Southern Cities report). This connection may incorporate one or more new roads as well as
the existing bridge and former Grand Piano warehouse access road. This connector road should
not be regarded as a replacement or substitute for the Southern Connector and, as such, should
be viewed as one element of the City/County/VDOT regional transportation network. The road
should be designed for speeds of 35 miles per hour and provide improved inter-neighborhood
access within the Southern Urban Development Areas.
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
K. The former warehouse access road should become a parkway along Moore’s Creek, but should
not be designed as a major thoroughfare. The road need not be improved with curbing, but
should, to the extent feasible, be confined mainly to the existing travelway and disturbed area. To
avoid additional disturbance to this stream buffer, sidewalks should not be required on this road.
The greenway along Moore’s Creek is recommended as a pedestrian alternative.
L. One of the new roads on the site should be designed as a main commercial street traversing the
town center into this portion of the site. The road should have curbing, sidewalks, street trees,
and other Neighborhood Model elements. To accommodate service traffic primarily, a second
new road segment should be considered at the southern portion of the site.
M. The intersection of existing and new roads with the Bent Creek Bridge should be designed to
avoid or minimize disturbance to the one hundred year flood plain, stream buffer, and the
preserved area located above and to the east of it.
N. Where considered important to the Willoughby residents, construction of a pedestrian bridge
should be considered between the south side of Moore’s Creek and the Willoughby residential
property.
Land Use
O. Development within this area should achieve moderate to high levels of density inasmuch as (a)
the existing and planned transportation network, utility, and other public infrastructure as the
capacity to support such development and (b) there is no remaining undeveloped land of
significant area within Neighborhoods 4 and 5 that can meet the Comprehensive Plan’s Regional
Service development criteria. The continuation of employment opportunities is significant and
valuable in this location, particularly in the eastern portion of the site but also throughout the town
center area. The existing Light Industrial use opportunities available under the current zoning
may be used to support and encourage development of flex space and/or other employment-
oriented uses along Avon Street Extended.
P. Development on the site may balance retail with employment-based uses and other land uses.
Q. Residential, live/work and/or small professional office uses are recommended along the bluff at
the northern edge of the town center area. These uses should be sited to minimize disturbance
to the natural features described under Environmental Protection (above). It may be appropriate
for such uses to occur as infill opportunities, after the commercial and retail uses have been
established.
R. The western commercial area is intended to be a compact, high density area which mixes retail
businesses, services, public facilities and civic spaces. Large footprint retail of a regional nature
may be appropriate in the western portion of the area. Specifically, the buildings should be
oriented to major roads; designed, sized and massed with consideration for adjacent and nearby
smaller uses in the Center and on the larger site; and parking should be relegated to the greatest
extent possible.
S. The architecture, urban design and landscape treatment of the property should be carefully
integrated to ensure that the visual interest, massing, scale and organization of the development
contributes to the role of the site as a town center and commercial focal point for the Southern
Urban Area. The town center area should provide a functional, attractive and distinct destination
for shoppers, visitors, employees, and residents of the larger neighborhood with particular
emphasis on pedestrian convenience. Architectural and landscape design guidelines should be
prepared to address:
a. The integration of building facades and rooflines;
b. Architectural massing and form of individual buildings;
c. Architectural materials and color;
d. Design of parking areas;
e. Design/landscape treatment of streets and interior travelways, pedestrian, bicycle and
vehicular, including traffic calming;
f. Buffers and screening in areas impacted by critical sight lines;
g. Enhancements to preservation areas and open spaces and improvements to planned
public civic and greenway areas;
h. Street lighting, signage and hardscape features;
i. Recreational and civic improvements.
In acknowledgment of the size of the developable area, as well as environmental and aesthetic
considerations, a mid-sized big box model is recommended for this site. Development of “super-
sized” big boxes is not appropriate due to the site’s relatively high exposure to three Entrance
Corridors, immersed location within older neighborhoods with established character and scale,
and the desire to mix and balance uses on the site and create a bona fide town center. As a
base guideline for maximum building footprints (excluding garden centers, outside sales and
display, awnings, storage areas and grocery stores), the largest single big box footprint should
not exceed 150,000 square feet. For the purpose of this definition, a grocery store is not
considered to be a big box. Buildings of increased footprint may be considered, subject to
demonstration by the applicant that the environmental impact of such increased footprint can be
offset by (a) design that is sensitive to architectural massing and quality, (b) building that
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
complements the setting of the larger project, (c) parking and traffic accommodation that
complements building form, pedestrian access, and building siting, (d) environmental design that
enhances existing natural conditions within areas to be conserved, and (e) a commitment to a
project phasing plan that ensures that a mix of retail uses of varying size and scale will be
developed concomitantly with the expanded big box use.
T. Maximum total square footage of big-box structures defined as those having a greater than
75,000 square foot footprint (excluding garden centers, outside sales and display, awnings,
storage areas, and grocery stores) is 300,000 square feet. For the purpose of this definition, a
grocery store is not considered to be a big box. If the big-box structures are developed in a two-
story or greater configuration, this limitation may be adjusted upward.
U. Preference will be given to rezoning proposals that maximize the range and mixture of uses,
along with a phasing plan that assures a mixture of uses and addresses all parts of the site during
the development of the project.
Public Space and Public Facilities/Amenities
V. Provision should be made on the site for transit service and a park and ride facility.
W. At least ten percent of the gross site acreage should be devoted to amenities and 15 percent
should be preserved or created as green space. Public amenities can be paved areas, such as
plazas, courtyards or patios, landscaped areas such as parks or water features and/or natural
areas left largely in their undisturbed state. Preserved areas should count toward both amenity
and green space percentages.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said the Board started to discuss earlier in the meeting proposals for additions to the
County’s emergency communication facilities. She was unhappy when she received the letter mentioned
by Mr. Jeff Werner because she assumed the County had been working on this and had not informed the
Board. It appears that someone else has been working on it and did not inform the County that they were
doing so.
Mr. Davis said the towers are already constructed at the required height.
Mr. Tucker said it is either a mistake, or someone has made a request the County is not aware of.
He will look into it.
__________
Mr. Rooker said he and Ms. Thomas attended a summit today concerning Route 29 from Danville
to Fauquier County. He said it was heavily attended by people throughout that region, four
Commonwealth Transportation Board members and the Secretary of Transportation. There were
presentations by staff and by planning district commission executives. There will be a report issued
eventually. He thinks all the Board members might like to see a copy of that report.
Ms. Thomas said many of the conclusions from the break-out groups came with the words
“access management”. There was a lot of concern expressed that access points be managed more
carefully all along the corridor. VDoT was requested to help manage the access more than they do
currently. She pointed out that VDoT has done some fairly good things recently re: median cuts.
Mr. Rooker said at this meeting there was some consensus that VDoT have the power to impose
access management on localities in the corridor as opposed to just consulting with localities. Someone
even proposed legislation that would give VDoT the authority to regulate access on Route 29.
Mr. Wyant said there is significant work taking place now at the Highway Research Council on
this subject.
Mr. Rooker said one of the things emphasized by the Secretary of Transportation and the CTB
members is that there is little or no money for new projects. Access management in the 29 corridor is
going to be more and more important to help preserve it as a reasonably good through corridor. Attention
must be paid to access along the corridor. If there are opportunities to actually eliminate some of the stop
lights on 29, he thinks that should be considered. At this time, between north of Forest Lakes South and
Route 66, there are 25 stop lights. There are a number of additional stop light requests already filed.
There are about 500 curb cuts and a bunch of crossovers which are not lit. It appears unlikely that there
will be funds to substantially improve Route 29 for some period of time.
Mr. Tucker said staff has just learned that VDoT is holding a video conference hearing on
September 29 regarding the Six-Year Transportation Plan. There is a deadline of October 29 to submit
written comments. With the Board’s approval, staff will make a comment during this video hearing using
the county’s current Six-Year Plan. Staff will present something to the Board at its meeting on October 6
for the Board to either approve or ratify to send in as part of the written comments.
__________
Mr. Dorrier reminded the Board members that there is a function of the Chamber of Commerce
on September 14 at the Glenmore Country Club to which the members are invited.
September 8, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Tucker said the Board members are invited, as is City Council, to talk about economic
development, and how they are dealing with job needs, etc. The County has a presentation to make, and
the City will also make a presentation.
Mr. Dorrier said there is a similar meeting being held at Piedmont College at the end of
September by the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. At 8:26 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board,
the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 12/01/2004
Initials EWC