2004-11-10A
November 10, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
November 10, 2004, at 4:00 p.m., Room 235, County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from November 3, 2004.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 4:05 p.m.), 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, and Clerk, Ella W. Carey,
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: North Pointe.
Note
(: The staff’s report is set out in full for the purposes of clarity.)
(The purpose of this work session is to determine if the Board supports the applicant’s proposed
Community Development Authority (CDA) that would be used to fund development costs. This CDA is
referred to as the Development CDA in this executive summary. It is important to note that the purpose of
this work session is not to provide direction on the proposed rezoning or special use permit. At this time,
the applicant has received staff comments on the original plan and proffers, but is waiting directions on
the Development CDA before finalizing his plan.
At the Board’s meeting on October 6, staff presented an analysis of the project with two different
plans and proffers. The first plan proposes the project with a proffer to petition and consent to a CDA
formed by the County, similar to other recent rezonings. This plan is referred to as the County CDA plan.
That CDA would allow the County to assess the commercial property in North Pointe for the purpose of
funding needed infrastructure in the area, such as Route 29 improvements. The second plan has a
different CDA and is referred to as the Development CDA plan. That plan would eliminate the above
described County CDA and replace it with a CDA the developer would use to finance development costs.
The applicant’s position is that this CDA allows him to provide additional infrastructure important to the
County.
At the work session on October 6, staff and the applicant presented significant differences in their
evaluations of those plans. At the direction of the Board, staff and the applicant have diligently worked
over the last month to see where those differences could be resolved and “agree to disagree” on the
remaining issues. Staff and the applicant have used the (attached-on file) summary table for
communicating positions on the significant issues on the CDAs and associated plans. At this point, staff
believes those differences have been reduced to the extent possible and resolution of the remaining
differences can only be accomplished by the Board.
Staff is presenting a summary of each plan with issues that staff recommends be addressed prior
to the Board acting on that plan, followed by its analysis of the project with the Development CDA.
County CDA Plan: This is actually the second plan proposed by the applicant and represents the
applicant’s stated position rather than an actual plan and proffers. A completed plan and proffers have
never been submitted for this alternative and the alternative has not been reviewed by the Planning
Commission. The applicant indicates this is the plan that would be brought forward if the Board decided
against supporting his proposed Development CDA. Staff notes this plan removes the Northwest
Passage property (Virginia Land Trust and Edward Jackson estate) and would not complete Northwest
Passage to Route 29. When compared to the original submission reviewed by the Commission, this plan
would add an additional 25,000 square feet of commercial building by changing the library site to a
commercial building and eliminate approximately 200 residential units that were planned along the
Northwest Passage property. All of the remaining use is unchanged. This property change eliminates
the northernmost entrance on Route 29 where Northwest Passage intersects Route 29, which is opposite
the North Fork Research Park. Staff considers Northwest Passage important to completing the street
network in this area. Additionally, this plan replaces the library with a commercial use building and
eliminates some of the proposed northbound Route 29 improvements. In referring to the County CDA
table, staff notes the following as important considerations with this plan:
?
The applicant has now agreed to provide the elementary school site instead of a residential unit
contribution. Staff considers this an important contribution for the development.
?
The applicant has agreed to provide an affordable housing proffer. Staff notes the applicant is
currently reworking the proffer but discussions suggest the proffer will be consistent with the prior
proffer. Both staff and the County Attorney expressed concern with the form and content of the
prior proffer.
?
The applicant has agreed to complete third lane improvements on Route 29, both northbound and
southbound, between Airport Road and Northside Drive. However, the applicant is unwilling to
commit to a completion date for the third lane, both northbound and southbound, from the
southern entrance to Airport Road. Staff considers this a plan deficiency.
?
The applicant has agreed to petition the County and consent to creation of a CDA for the
commercial property that the County could use to address infrastructure impacts. Staff considers
this an important contribution to the County.
November 10, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
?
The applicant has agreed to complete the essential street network in the development as part of
the initial commercial development. This includes North Pointe Boulevard, Northside Drive and
the associated Route 29 improvements listed in the proffers, and the Leake Road/Proffit Road
improvements listed in the proffers. Staff considers this an important step toward addressing the
impacts created by the development.
?
The applicant has agreed to provide $25,000 toward the planned regional transportation study.
Staff continues to believe a $100,000 contribution would be consistent with the recent rezonings
along Route 29.
?
The applicant has agreed to provide stormwater management for the properties draining to the
regional basin/lake in North Pointe. Staff considers this an important contribution for the project.
Despite the efforts at resolving differences between staff and the applicant, staff believes there
are still deficiencies that need to be addressed before the Board considers this plan. Those include:
1. Staff remains concerned that the applicant has not made a time commitment for completing all of
the Route 29 improvements from Airport Road through Northside Drive and recommends this be
completed within five years of the construction of the Northside Drive entrance. The applicant
has offered to limit the commercial development to no more than 290,000 square feet until all of
those improvements are completed and expresses concern that part of those improvements will
require an expensive modification to the southbound lanes. The applicant also notes this same
improvement was proffered as part of the North Fork development, but has never been
completed. Staff appreciates this concern and hopes the applicant and the North Fork developer
can find a cost sharing arrangement, but notes that without this improvement, traffic on Route 29
will have a fluctuating number of lanes. Within two miles, Route 29 will go from two lanes to three
lanes to two lanes to three lanes to two lanes. While VDOT has not expressed safety concerns
with this arrangement, staff considers this a deficiency. Also, staff believes this would accentuate
a public perception of substandard infrastructure and will create a demand for the County to
become responsible for this deficiency.
2. Staff believes Northwest Passage is a needed connection that assures an adequate street
network with this development. Staff appreciates the applicant’s concern that this is an expensive
road to build, but notes residential development along this street would provide an additional 200
residential units and that helps offset this cost. Also, staff notes Northwest Passage appears very
similar in concept to the completion of Ridge Road and the Dickerson Road connector in
Hollymead Town Center (HTC). Area B of the HTC proffered to complete those offsite road
improvements to assure an adequate street network.
3. Staff considers a $100,000 contribution to the regional transportation study appropriate. This is
equivalent to the other recent Route 29 rezonings and this issue has been raised a number of
times.
4. Staff believes the affordable housing proffer should provide content and form that satisfy the
County’s Housing Division and the County Attorney. Staff notes the last affordable housing
proffer has significant concern for staff, and the County Attorney. As noted in earlier work
sessions, the Board will need to consider whether the four-percent affordable housing being
proffered is appropriate. Staff notes this application was submitted prior to the affordable housing
policy becoming part of the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
Development CDA Plan: This plan represents the original submission that was reviewed by the
Commission and recommended for denial, although some design changes have been made since that
time. The applicant indicates this plan would only be brought forward for consideration if the Board
decided to support his Development CDA. Staff notes the applicant proposes this plan with the
Northwest Passage property and proposes to complete Northwest Passage to Route 29. In referring to
the (attached-on file) Development CDA table, staff notes the following as important considerations with
this plan:
?
Applicant is proposing to complete the northbound lanes on Route 29 between Airport Road and
Northwest Passage (Lewis and Clark Drive) with the initial commercial development. This
accelerates the northbound third lane improvements from the County CDA plan and adds a third
lane between Northside Drive and Northwest Passage.
?
The plan provides an additional 200 residential units to help offset that cost. However, it should
be noted this plan does not accelerate the southbound Route 29 improvements and this plan has
the same staff concern with timely completion of southbound lane improvements.
?
Applicant is proposing to provide a library site to the County. Staff considers this a significant
contribution.
?
Applicant is proposing to complete Northwest Passage within five years of initial commercial
certificate of occupancy. Staff considers this street an important transportation link and believes
this addresses impacts with the development.
?
This plan eliminates the proffer to petition and consent to creation of a County CDA that the
County could use to provide infrastructure in this area. Staff believes additional County desired
infrastructure should be substituted to offset the loss of this funding.
?
While the proffers would not mention the Development CDA, the applicant indicates this plan
would not be brought forward without assurance this CDA would be approved. As the applicant
ties this CDA to the plan, staff continues to believe the value of this CDA should provide
additional County-desired infrastructure.
November 10, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
Despite the efforts at resolving differences between staff and the applicant, staff believes there
are still deficiencies that need to be addressed before the Board considers this plan. They include:
1. Staff recommends the applicant address the recommendations in the County CDA plan as part of
this plan. This includes providing a date for completion of Route 29 improvements, the regional
transportation study contribution, and the affordable housing proffer.
2. Staff recommends the elimination of the County CDA be offset by additional proffers. The
applicant is providing a library site, completion of Northwest Passage within five years of first
commercial use, and additional northbound Route 29 improvements with this plan that are not
provided with the other plan. Staff would consider that roughly comparable to what could be
provided with the County CDA.
3. Staff recommends the Development CDA proposed with this plan provide additional County-
needed infrastructure to make this plan superior to other recent rezonings. Staff has previously
provided examples of how this could satisfy staff’s concerns. Those examples included
completion of the ultimate section of Proffit Road between Pritchett Lane and Route 29, and a
contribution toward the County’s completion of the Northern Fire Station. This issue remains
unresolved.
Staff Analysis: As noted, the purpose of this work session is to determine if the Board supports
the applicant’s Development CDA. Staff has already provided the Board a policy recommendation on the
use of a CDA for financing development costs. In applying this policy recommendation to this plan, staff
continues to recommend against the use of the Development CDA for this project. Staff notes that both
plans are considered to have deficiencies that need to be addressed regardless of the Development
CDA. Before staff could recommend that the Board support the Development CDA, staff would expect to
see those deficiencies addressed and additional County infrastructure provided that would make this an
“exceptional project” as proposed in the recommended policy. As noted above, staff has provided
examples of infrastructure that could satisfy the policy recommendation and what is needed to address
staff’s issues.
Other: Staff believes that once the Board provides their preferences with regard to the
Development CDA, the applicant has the direction for finalizing his plan and proffers that he has
requested. Staff can schedule a public hearing once the final plan and proffers have been submitted. In
order to assure a complete review of the final plan and proffers, those documents need to be provided to
staff no less than four weeks before the public hearing date. Finally, while not the purpose of this work
session, it should be noted that the two previously discussed plan issues (ARB recommendations and
library block layout) have still not been addressed. The applicant is preparing a response on those
issues, but staff’s concerns remain at this time.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board advise the applicant the project is not
considered appropriate for the use of a Development CDA tied to the rezoning application. It should be
noted this would not preclude the developer from seeking his Development CDA after the property is
rezoned. Finally, staff would note the plan changes and consideration of the CDA has not altered its
recommendation for denial of the rezoning. Both staff and the Commission have made a
recommendation for denial of the project.)
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said the purpose of this meeting is to
decide whether the applicant should proceed with the CDA he has proposed (the Development CDA) so
he can finalize the plans and proffers which have just been submitted to the County. Over the last month,
staff and the applicant have worked together and have resolved the issues he thinks can be resolved.
There are issues which still remain unresolved. Those are noted in the executive summary. He then
explained the differences in the two plans (see Executive Summary set out in full above).
Mr. Graham said the applicants have now agreed to provide a site (lot) for an elementary school
site, whereas before there was the idea of providing the equivalent residential contribution such as was
done with Albemarle Place and the Hollymead Town Center. They have agreed to provide an affordable
housing proffer; staff is waiting to see if the form and content of that proffer addresses some of its
previous comments. The applicant proposes to complete the third lane improvements on Route 29
northbound and southbound. Staff is concerned about the timing of the completion of some of those
improvements. The applicant has agreed to provide an internal transportation network which staff
believes will assure that the development can adequately manage the traffic. The applicant has agreed
to provide a $25,000 contribution to the planned regional transportation study. The applicant is providing
a stormwater management plan which would provide stormwater management for the offsite properties;
that is the pond “here” which would essentially serve this drainage area.
Mr. Graham said staff has some concerns with the plan, and there are things on which they have
not reached a resolution. The primary concern involves the Route 29 transportation improvements. The
applicant has proposed that with the first commercial development on the project, he would complete the
improvements associated with “this” middle entrance. He would then build up to 290,000 square feet of
commercial use before he would build “these” improvements down here. He is not proposing any time
limit as to when those improvements would be completed. Staff’s concern is that because the last part of
the improvements on the south side will require fixing a vertical curb which will be expensive to repair or
change, there is an incentive for him not to go beyond 290,000 square feet until he can go significantly
beyond that number. The key point is that the development might go to 290,000 square feet and then it
might be 10 or more years beyond that time before the southbound lane improvements are completed.
Mr. Rooker said speaking only for himself, and he has said this several times, he will not vote in
favor of any proposal that does not involve doing all of the improvements on Route 29 within a short,
November 10, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
defined period of time. He has said that a number of times, yet these proposals keep coming back like
this to the Board.
Mr. Graham said the second issue for staff is dropping the Northwest Passage property from the
application. That removes what staff considers a very important transportation link. This is Lewis &
Clarke Drive “here” at the UREF/North Pointe development. If the County has that, it has an important
parallel to Route 29 and a connection to Lewis & Clarke. Staff agrees this will be an expensive road to
build. There are to be 200 residential units on this development and the proffers are not changing with or
without this, except for the Northwest Passage and the associated Route 29 improvements. Staff thinks
that is important and would like to see it submitted with the plan regardless of which way the developer
goes with the Development CDA.
Mr. Graham said the other two concerns of staff are: the contribution to the regional
transportation plan and the affordable housing proffer. With regard to the Development CDA plan, the
applicant is now proposing as part of the initial development to complete all of the northbound Route 29
improvements between Lewis & Clarke and Airport/Proffit Road. There still is the timing of the
southbound improvements. Other important concerns are: it is providing the library site; Northwest
Passage would be completed within five years of the initial commercial certificate of occupancy; the
County CDA which would be similar to the CDA proposed by Albemarle Place and Hollymead Town
Center “comes off the table”; staff is looking to be sure the Development CDA provides a benefit to the
County in the form of additional infrastructure.
Mr. Graham said staff has recommended that all the deficiencies of the plan be addressed,
specifically the date for completion of the Route 29 improvements, the regional transportation study
contribution and the affordable housing proffer. Staff also recommends that deletion of the County CDA
be offset by additional proffers. He said the applicant is providing a library site, is providing for completion
of Northwest Passage and additional Route 29 improvements. It is hard to put these things into numbers,
but “it feels right” when comparing the value of the County CDA. Where there is a gap, it is the additional
value being provided as a result of the Development CDA. Staff had listed some items it feels could fill
that gap such as contributing toward completion of the northern fire station and the Proffit Road
improvements called for in the Six-Year Road Plan.
Mr. Graham said when staff looked at this plan it went back to what it recommended to the Board
in September as a policy for approval of Development CDAs. If that recommended policy is applied to
this situation, staff does not feel it has met that threshold. The property is clearly not in an area that has
been master planned. The second step of the recommended policy is that staff would be looking for an
exceptional project. Staff does not see proffers that provide that. He said that once staff has a
recommendation from the Board with regard to the Development CDA, the applicant can finish up. Staff
needs his final plan and proffers in order to determine a time for a public hearing after it has time to
complete its review and write an executive summary.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the applicant was proposing to complete Northwest Passage within five
years, and staff does not want that done right away. Mr. Graham said staff would prefer to have it done
sooner. He mentioned that the developers of Hollymead Town Center were given three years to
complete Dickenson Road.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the other roads will be finished sooner than five years. Mr. Graham said that
is correct.
Mr. Rooker said unless the Board approves a CDA, the applicant does not propose to do
Northwest Passage. He does not propose any time limit for certain improvements on Route 29. If the
Board approves a Development CDA, which it has not done before, the applicant is proposing to
complete Northwest Passage in five years and to complete the northbound lanes of Route 29, but there is
still no definite period with respect to the southbound improvements. Mr. Graham said that is correct.
Mr. Rooker said if the CDA is eliminated, there are no time limits on either the northbound or
southbound improvements except for some spot improvements. Mr. Graham said these are the
improvements required by VDOT for issuance of entrance permits.
Mr. Dorrier asked the status of the school property. Mr. Graham said it is proposed with both plan
alternatives.
Mr. Rooker said the County is giving up about $2.5 million in proffers for that school site. He
thinks the Board needs to know with some degree of certainty that this is a needed school site in this
community, and that its design works. The last time Mr. Al Reaser was before the Board, he did not
opine that the site works. Mr. Graham said there have been some slight revisions to the site, and Mr.
Reaser has looked at them. It appears that the school site can work. It will be tight, and without having
any kind of plan in mind, he is a little nervous about the site working for the School Division.
Ms. Thomas said it does provide a two-story site. The Board has actually encouraged the School
System to think in terms of compact school sites. She said the building itself does not concern her that
much, but she thought the discussion had been about the stormwater and detention pond, etc. Mr.
Graham said a school on this site would require an offsite facility for stormwater management.
Ms. Thomas said since the applicant is not proposing the Northwest Passage land, does he still
provide the stormwater system. Mr. Graham said “yes.”
November 10, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Dorrier said without Northwest Passage going down to Route 29, you cannot get to the school
site. Mr. Graham said that is correct. There is one way in and one way out for the school site.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the Board was going to talk about the CDA. There has been discussion
about the legalities and appropriateness of CDAs. He asked if the CDA as proposed by the applicant is
legal in Virginia.
Mr. Davis said a CDA is a legal mechanism that has been used in Virginia. The issue of legality
is whether the Board can approve a zoning request dependent on a CDA. He has previously advised the
Board that should it find the CDA acceptable, the Board would need to resolve all of the zoning issues,
hold a public hearing and then defer action on the zoning. It would then advertise a CDA which
accomplishes the things that can be proffered, act on the CDA, and at that same meeting act on the
zoning application. That would protect the developer because up until the time that the zoning application
is before the Board for a decision, he has a unilateral right to withdraw that application. He would not
have to go forward unless the CDA were to his satisfaction. That is a process he (Mr. Davis) has not
found completed in Virginia previously. This would break new ground by approaching the issue that way.
Other CDAs in Virginia have been approved after the zoning was in place, and those were primarily for
commercial developments and not residential development. There is at least one example, in Hanover
County, where a residential/mixed-use development used a CDA. He said the process is a legal process,
but the Board has to be careful not to make a zoning decision dependent upon another legislative act.
Mr. Rooker said if the Board got to a point where the proffers were acceptable, it could approve
the development without a CDA; then the developer could come back and apply for a CDA saying he
would do “x”, “y” and “z” if the Board would approve a CDA. Mr. Davis said there is a downside to that
approach. If the zoning is not dependent on those improvements being made and the CDA failed for
some reason, there would only be a contractual obligation from the developer to complete those
improvements that were conditions of the CDA. It is not a well-protected position for the County.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is any cost or liability to the County for the CDA proposed by the
developer. Mr. Davis said a CDA bond issuance is not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the
County, so the County would have no legal obligation to repay any debt if the CDA defaulted. Practical
problems can occur with special taxes depending on how they are structured because taxpayers often do
not distinguish between who is requiring them to pay the money. Unless there is a clear understanding to
the taxpayers as to who has this obligation, they may think they are being unfairly taxed. That is a
practical problem that some boards of supervisors have faced. The Board has to be careful because a
CDA places an additional tax on all the property owners that are within the CDA. The developer’s CDA
generally is proposed to be a one-time upfront cost so it would be somewhat of an invisible tax, and if it
works that way the political risk is somewhat diminished because it is seen as part of the closing costs.
Mr. Rooker asked if that is just on the residential side. Mr. Davis said “no”, that is on both the
commercial and residential property.
Mr. Rooker asked how you would know when the money would be collected if you do not know
when the sale will be. Mr. Davis said until that time, the developer or whoever owns the property would
do it. The danger is that if the property is sold to a builder who does not want to front that money at one
time, legally he cannot be required to do that. If a landowner chooses to pay the tax over an extended
period of time on an annual basis, he can not be required to do otherwise. From a practical standpoint,
most people closing on the property would want to make that one-time payment, and not have it spread
over 20 years. If there is an interim buyer who does not want to front that money, he may choose to
make a one-time payment and then it is up to how he structures his sale to determine how it had to be
paid. There is some danger in the scheme if it does not work out that someone has an advantage of
making a one-time payment, then the person who has to collect the taxes over the life of the bonds, is the
County on the County tax bills.
Ms. Thomas said the one-time payment depends on the transactions taking place. It could take
many years. She thinks the County has over zoned its commercial possibilities at this point, so it could
take quite some time for each of the properties that are going to be contributing to the CDA to come up
with their portion of the money.
Mr. Davis said that is correct, and until that time, unless the landowner chose to make a one-time
payment, the County would be obligated under the scheme of the CDA to collect the annual increment
from that property owner until such time as the total amount had been paid. If the developer still owned
all the lots he would only have to pay over a twenty-year time period one-twentieth of it each year until he
sold the lot. The plan would be, as he understands it, that whoever bought the lot would fully pay the
twenty-year obligation upfront. There would not necessarily be any incentive for the developer to pay the
total amount upfront until he sold the property.
Mr. Boyd said there is no liability to the County to pay off the bonds. Mr. Davis said the County
would be responsible for collecting the money from the property owners on an annual basis.
Ms. Thomas said it would depend on what had been promised to be done with that money.
Mr. Boyd said he understood that with bond issues, improvements would be made upfront.
Mr. Rooker said that is only if the CDA is successful in issuing bonds. Just approving a CDA and
approving a development does not necessarily mean there are buyers for those bonds. The question is
the degree of uncertainty of payment based upon some of the things just said. Personally, he is more
November 10, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 6)
comfortable approaching this without a CDA, looking at the proffers offered and trying to determine if the
public interest is served by this development. Later the Board could look at a request for a CDA with
whatever additional package the developer might offer in order to have a CDA approved.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the total value of the proffers offered by the developer is about $2.0 million.
Mr. Graham said “no.” The $2.0 million is what he had estimated as the net present value of a County
CDA that would include all the properties within the proposed North Pointe.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the developer disagrees with that estimate. Mr. Graham said the estimates
are not that far apart. The applicant has a lot of issues about interest rates, etc.
Mr. Davis said the value of that CDA is dependent on the assessed value of the property. There
is an assessment of twenty-five cents per hundred on an annual basis against the assessed value of the
property. That is one factor and the other factor is how long that CDA would be in place. It could be 40
years or more. How long the CDA is in existence will also determine the present value.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the end point of the CDA is written into the plan. Does the CDA automatically
terminate? Is service of the members on the CDA automatically terminated? Mr. Davis said that is
determined when the CDA is formed. Traditionally, CDAs have been formed to pay for specific projects
so the CDA is formed for the life of the bonds. The CDA can be used to pay for ongoing operational
costs; it can include projects identified after it is formed. What staff proposed for Hollymead and
Albemarle Place is to take the non-traditional approach. It would simply create a revenue stream that
would be available to the CDA to make improvements within the Route 29 area for transportation needs.
Mr. Rooker said the Board is talking about two different things. There is a CDA proposed by the
developer, and a CDA that would be a County CDA like the kind proffered for Hollymead and Albemarle
Place. This developer is not proposing to do that kind of CDA. What they have done is computed the lost
value to the County by not doing that kind of CDA which staff estimated at $2.0 million. The developer is
proposing to do some other things in lieu of having to participate in a County CDA which would generate
money for offsite improvements of the nature in Hollymead and Albemarle Place.
Ms. Thomas said the applicant agreed to consent to a County CDA. Mr. Davis said that is an
alternative.
Mr. Boyd said the difference has to do with how much infrastructure would be put in place now as
opposed to later. In the case of Albemarle Place and Hollymead, when would that money start coming
in?
Mr. Rooker said the Board can form the CDA any time it wants to. Mr. Boyd asked when the
money starts coming in. Mr. Rooker said as soon as the CDA is formed.
Mr. Bowerman said the County also starts with improvements in the beginning; with the proffers
the improvements are developed with the site.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to change the discussion to the proffers. He understands that the
proffers are to help offset the impact of this development. There has been a lot of discussion about what
was done in Albemarle Place and Hollymead Town Center. He would like to know the impact of this
development on roads, on stormwater management, on schools, etc., and what is not being covered by
this proposal. What impact is not covered in terms of proffers under either one of these alternatives?
Mr. Graham said other urbanized counties have gone through a fairly detailed analysis and
looked at the project on a lot by lot basis. This County has never done that although it has been talked
about. For the communities using that, it is not unusual for them to see the fiscal impact on a per lot
basis in the range of $20,000 and $30,000. He said there was a fiscal impact study done for this project
and it shows a positive cash flow. He thinks there were some assumptions made that the Board needs to
be careful of having to do with how fast the development comes on line and how much of the
development occurring is new growth to this area versus cannibalization of existing development in the
County.
Mr. Rooker said the main thing is that the County’s fiscal impact analysis does not include many
other costs, one being transportation. Mr. Graham said it does not include many outside costs. Mr. Davis
said level of service is also not taken into account.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff was saying the County does not have a good fiscal impact model.
Mr. Rooker said he is saying that the model is somewhat limited.
Mr. Boyd said he is having a hard time trying to determine what is proper in terms of proffers
based on the last project approved by the County.
Mr. Bowerman said the transportation study has been done. Certain things have to be mitigated.
Both plans attempt to do that in different ways, but the applicant had to have a transportation study.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks there is a need to be consistent between projects of a similar nature, of
a similar size, all of which are located in the Route 29 corridor.
November 10, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Boyd said he would agree with that if there were some formula to come up with that
consistency, and not just have it based on what the other person did.
Mr. Rooker said there was consistency between Albemarle Place and Hollymead Town Center.
Mr. Boyd said there is a school with this one project and there was no school involved with the
other two. There is more residential in this project than in Albemarle Place. There are differences.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant is proposing the school site in lieu of making the per residential unit
lot contribution that was made in the other development. He questions whether that school site is worth
the $2.5 million the County is waiving in order to acquire it; he is not certain it is needed. Hopefully it will
accommodate a school, and since there was debate about that, he hopes it has been settled. He said
Mr. Boyd has said several times in the past that the School System is not growing the way it was
predicted to grow. At Glenmore there was a proffer for a school site, and it has never been utilized. It
appears now that it never will be utilized and may be given up in exchange for something else. The
Board asked this question and the report from the Schools was that they wanted this site. He thinks the
Board needs to be certain about it before it starts waiving what might amount to $2.5 million that could be
used for other types of capital improvements if the site is not really needed.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin said the information given to the Board today is information that he and staff
have agreed upon. They agreed to leave all the values out of the comparison. They put in what they
were going to do and left in the lineal footages and the square footages. With the exception of the issue
concerning the regional transportation study where they offered $25,000 and Mr. Graham suggested
$100,000, they are either equal to or exceed the other two comparable rezonings. The cost of their
proffers is far in excess of the cost of the other two.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has seen entirely different presentations on that issue. He
understands that is Mr. Rotgin’s perspective, but it has not been staff’s perspective.
Mr. Rotgin suggested that Mr. Rooker look at the library’s value. At one time County staff had
that valued at $500,000. Now, it is up to $817,000. They are happy with the County’s CDA the way Mr.
Graham presented it, and with the exception of the issue about the amount of money being put into the
regional transportation study, their proffers are equal to or greater in value than the other two. In addition
to their affordable housing, they offered $250,000 in cash to housing agencies. He said the Board asked
them to come back with something on which they and staff agree and they have done that. Early in this
process they said that with respect to the proffers for North Pointe, they wanted to be treated fairly. They
had a vision of what North Pointe should look like, and that goes back almost five years to when they first
met with staff. Included in that vision was the ability to complete all infrastructure upfront. During the
DISC process, one of the main issues discussed was concurrency; if there is going to be development,
there has to be concurrent infrastructure put in along with the development. The issue became, how the
private sector can achieve that infrastructure early on. That is why they introduced the idea of a CDA
three or more years ago.
Mr. Rotgin said they never thought the CDA issue would become the issue it has become. They
thought the CDA offered a unique opportunity where the private sector could join with the public sector
and find ways to get public infrastructure. They thought the County was interested in having
developments on large parcels where there could be interconnected development instead of just
piecemeal development. There are 15 or 20 parcels of land included in the North Pointe development;
they do not own all of those parcels.
Mr. Rotgin said concerning the southbound improvements to Route 29, the University of Virginia
has already proffered to do all of the Route 29 southbound improvements, but timing is the issue. North
Pointe will put in about one-half of those improvements with the first 290,000 square feet. In terms of
cost, they will be doing from a third to one-half of what the University proffered to do. They have had
discussions with representative from the University and they know what he (Mr. Rotgin) is doing. They
would like to have the northbound improvements put in at the same time that the southbound
improvements are put in.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Rotgin to point out the area he is referring to on a map. Mr. Rotgin said
they have proffered to fix Route 29 all the way to Lewis & Clarke. It is about 11,600 lineal feet or over two
miles. They have agreed to do that at the time they develop the first section of North Pointe. The impact
of North Pointe does not require all of that work. The impact of North Pointe requires that work be done
around the intersections. They have said that with the Development CDA they will come all the way to
Proffit Road and complete North Pointe all the way to Lewis & Clarke. Comparing that to the others,
Hollymead is about 6700 feet and Albemarle Place is about 4200 feet. They have also said they will
complete the southbound side from Airport Road to their middle entrance. They have to put a timeframe
on that, and they have said it will be done when there is 290,000 square feet developed. He said they
cannot do more at 295,000, but will have to do it at 350,000 or 400,000 square feet.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a timetable on the build-out of the rest of the project. Mr. Rotgin said the
first 290,000 square feet probably will take two years. As to the residential section, he thinks it would take
five to seven years.
Mr. Rooker said if a CDA were not done, what would the improvements be, and what would be
their timing? Mr. Rotgin said they have agreed to put in the middle entrance first. They would build the
November 10, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
improvements 1000 feet on either side of Northside Drive, then when they go over 290,000 square feet
they would come to Airport Road and bring it back up. He said that according to VDOT, the
improvements are not needed on Route 29 until they go over 290,000 square feet.
M. Rotgin noted some residential structures where the school site was. He said he offered to do
what was suggested and pay the money. He offered to reserve this land for a certain period of time and
give the County the option to buy it at market value. Staff preferred to have the site. The only difference
between the Developer CDA and the County CDA is that “this” parcel is out and this becomes a
commercial building. They had said they would give the County an option for some period of time to buy
that site for a library at market value. He said it would suit them fine to come in with an application like
“this” and find some way to tie all of “this” to a CDA petition. It would be good if the Board could find
some way to tie that in so they could guarantee that if a CDA were approved they would be obligated to
do that. They will take the risk of being able to issue the bonds. Under the Developer CDA as it is
proposed, they did not have conditions, although they did initially. After talking to Mr. Davis and his staff
they took them out. If the County approves the CDA they are “on the hook” to do all of those
improvements within the timeframe that is stated in “this proffer grid” irrespective of whether the bonds
can be issued.
Mr. Dorrier said one piece of land is left out. Mr. Rotgin said they have tried to get in touch with
the owners to add it to North Pointe. The people connected with these two parcels will not return their
calls. This piece has been purchased by a person who is interested in what we are doing, and while it is
not part of North Pointe, he thinks it will be developed in a fashion like North Pointe. There are two little
parcels “in here.” They have talked with the individual owning one of those parcels and he is happy with
what they are doing because he has been allowed access to back “in here.” This tiny piece “here” has a
price tag on it of $3.0 million.
Mr. Rooker asked the acreage. Mr. Rotgin said it has about five acres, but it is not very usable
land.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Rotgin had anything else to add. Mr. Rotgin said he appreciates what Mr.
Graham has done. They came up with a format both could agree to. If there is an issue of the relative
value of the proffers versus the other developments, he could pull out a spreadsheet to review.
Mr. Bowerman said this Board decides what the relative values are. This is a legislative act by
this Board and the Board will look at what is being proposed, and if proffers are offered, it will decide
whether it is appropriate. That is where this stands at the moment. He is looking at this as a rezoning
request with proffers.
Mr. Rotgin said the Board has said it wants a lot of things. They are saying they will do all of that,
but it is terribly costly. He said Mr. Graham brought up the idea of the vertical curb. They thought that
was a $1.0 million challenge, but it is more than that now. The work they are proposing to do with North
Pointe is not necessarily the result of the impact of North Pointe. He hopes the County recognizes that
whatever the proffers look like when they come in, they will be more than what North Pointe’s
responsibility normally would be, particularly with regard to the Highway Department’s concerns. He said
the Board has brought up the issue of relative value because that is the way it said it would judge the
North Pointe proffers. With the grid that he and Mr. Graham put together, there are no values shown.
They are comparable or they are not. The one that is not comparable is the $25,000 versus the $100,000
on the study.
Mr. Bowerman said for Albemarle Place and Hollymead Town Center, everything was proffered.
The CDA was one of the things they could do in conjunction with other people along Route 29.
Everything else was proffered.
Mr. Rotgin said they have proffered everything that they have done. This grid says that the
proffers we have proposed under “that” plan (the alternate plan), are at least equal to what Albemarle
Place and Hollymead did, except for the amount of money they proffered for the transportation study.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks Northwest Passage is a necessary road to make this development
work well. He does not see it as something that is over and above what is needed to make this
development work well. It is very similar to Dickenson Road that was part of a proffer with Hollymead
Town Center, and was thought by most to be necessary to make that flow of traffic for that development
work well. He thinks Northwest Passage needs to be addressed “over here”. He agrees with staff’s
assessment about the proffers either with or without the CDA. He thinks Mr. Rotgin does not propose
doing Northwest Passage at all if there is no CDA.
Mr. Rotgin said it is not a question of whether it will be done or not, but a question of when it will
be done. They propose to build the road and provide the easements to allow it to be extended in the
future when “that” property comes in for development.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Rotgin has not proposed to build it. For Dickenson Road, the road is to be
built to a stub somewhere on the property. Then the road will be extended later, when and if he ever
decides he wants to, but he will provide some easements. He (Mr. Rooker) does not see that as
accomplishing the traffic flow that some think is necessary in this development.
Mr. Rotgin said Northwest Passage would be a very expensive road to build. “This” is terrible
topography. More important is that about 2500 feet of Route 29 also have to be finished. It is not just the
cost of building this road. It is the cost of also improving parts of Route 29 that are not impacted by what
November 10, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 9)
happens with North Pointe. One thing about Dickenson Road is that it is built between Hollymead Town
Center and Hydraulic Road which will give access on the back of the property to those large residential
areas which help the Hollymead Town Center. In addition, the land through which Dickenson Road
passes is easily developable, and there is plenty of it. Their traffic study, which the County has seen and
the Highway Department accepted, shows that at full build-out, Northwest Passage would have 1370 cars
per day, and that is not enough traffic to justify building it. They want to build it but it is terribly costly.
They have offered a school site, a library site, stormwater, Route 29 North improvements, Proffit Road
improvements, conservation areas, preservation areas, a layout which seemed to satisfy the ad-hoc
committee, a pedestrian-oriented community, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, pond, etc.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Rotgin was mixing up “apples and oranges.” Some of the things mentioned
will only be provided if a Developer CDA is approved. Mr. Rotgin said that is right.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the things need to be kept “in the right basket” so everyone
understands. Mr. Rotgin said in return they have asked to be allowed to take advantage of lower cost
financing. He said Mr. Rooker has said in public meetings that he is not against the private sector being
able to avail itself of lower cost financing as long as the County got its fair share. They think the County
has gotten its fair share. He said if there is a way they can bifurcate these applications so they can come
in with “this” plan as the rezoning, and then separately submit their petition for the CDA, and attach
proffers to it, they would be happy to find a way to tie those two together so if they get approved for “this”,
they cannot back out of “that.” It is their desire to do everything that is on the overall plan which they think
is to the County’s interest.
Mr. Rooker said the University’s obligations with respect to the southbound lanes were
mentioned. He asked where that development is in terms of square footage now. Mr. Graham said he
doubts that when the North Fork Research Park was rezoned many people thought that in 2005 there
would be no idea when that southbound land would be improved. He would not want to see the County in
2015 be in the same position.
Mr. Rotgin said the southbound lanes would be nice, but is their need created by the impact of
North Pointe? Mr. Graham said staff thinks they are. He admits that VDOT has said they are not
absolutely necessary. If those improvements are not done, within a two-mile stretch on Route 29 the
southbound lanes would go from two lanes to three lanes to two lanes to three lanes to two lanes. He
thinks that is just asking people to demand something of the County.
Mr. Boyd asked if that makes a case for the CDA so the improvements can be done. Mr. Graham
said Mr. Rotgin has not said that even with a Development CDA for completing all the southbound Route
29 improvements, he would do it. There would still be the gap.
Mr. Rotgin asked where the gap would be. Mr. Graham said it is from the middle entrance to
Airport Road. Mr. Rotgin said that is only until they have the 290,000 square feet built. Mr. Graham said
that could take from five to ten years; there would be some indefinite period of time where there would be
that gap.
Mr. Boyd asked if the applicant’s development will be impacted if nothing is there. It would be
affected by normal growth along Route 29, but that is not his problem.
Mr. Rooker said from the public’s standpoint, there will be a large impact on traffic that will result
from this development. He said Mr. Rotgin said he thought the build-out on 290,000 square feet is two
years, so he does not understand why Mr. Rotgin would hesitate to undertake to do these improvements
within a four-year time period. Mr. Rotgin said they do not know who their tenants will be beyond the
290,000 square feet.
Mr. Rooker said it could be built with 290,000 and the County would have the same problem as it
has with the Research Park right now in that the improvements everybody thought were going to be made
are not even in sight. Mr. Rotgin said they would be happy to do them quicker if they had the tenancy.
Mr. Boyd said he does not see any big traffic jams coming out of that Research Park. The
development is not there yet, and the traffic is not there either.
Mr. Rooker said from new development or otherwise, they are finding that the traffic situation in
the County is becoming worse and worse. If the Board is not astute in making sure improvements are
made when there is the opportunity, then it is making a mistake. Dollars for transportation improvements
have been reduced, and will be reduced further over the next years. He thinks the Board needs to look at
how these things will be accomplished.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Rotgin if he had anything else to present.
Mr. Rotgin he would like to conclude by saying that with the Developer CDA, they are proposing
to do just about what the County wants and pay for it and do it upfront. With the County CDA they are
proposing to do what the Highway Department is requiring, will provide easements for the road
improvements the County would like to see done later, and are committing to do those later to the extent
they affect properties they now own. It is not a question of whether Northwest Passage is going to be
built, but when. It will be built when there is a demand for it and when that northern parcel they do not
own is developed. To conclude he would like to say he was struck by a sentence in the staff report which
says: “Finally staff would note that plan changes and consideration of the CDA has not altered its
recommendation for denial of the rezoning.” He wants to know what the issues are that they have not
November 10, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 10)
accomplished during discussions over the last year or so. They will work on those in the next week or so.
He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Rooker said staff highlighted in the Executive Summary what they think are deficiencies in the
proffers.
Mr. Rotgin said he thinks that comment is not about the proffers, but other things.
Mr. Dorrier said the matter is before the Board now. The Board has to decide what it wants to do
from this point forward.
Mr. Rooker said the Board had a recommendation from staff that was in the Board’s packet on
September 1, 2004, about CDAs. A Developer CDA has to, in effect, be sponsored by the County so he
knows it is going to cost the County money to set it up, implement it, oversee it, and collect taxes for it. In
his mind, there is some risk to the credit rating of the County if these bonds go under, even though the
County has no legal obligation to pay them. He thinks the Board needs to establish a policy for when it
would approve a CDA. He does not think it should just “be by the seat of our pants.” He thinks the Board
should some guidelines. Staff recommended guidelines on September 1, 2004, and they were not to
approve Developer CDAs unless they are: 1) Projects implementing an approved master plan that is part
of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, or 2) Exceptional projects that are only considered after all zoning
is in place and which demonstrate that a CDA is necessary to accomplish the infrastructure improvements
for that area that are consistent and necessary to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Rooker said
move
he is going to that the Board adopt that policy. That will give the Board some guidelines for how to
analyze this project and any other project that may come in and want to do a Developer CDA.
Mr. Dorrier asked that the policy be restated.
Mr. Rooker directed his attention to the September 1 staff report (Attachment A) and the back
page of Attachment A has a recommendation which was discussed at the September 1 meeting about
when it might be appropriate to approve a CDA requested by a developer that might include funding
some of his infrastructure costs. To him it was a good recommendation and it gives the Board some
guidelines. He thinks it should be adopted so the Board can move forward from here.
Mr. Wyant said that means a developer would come in for a rezoning before the Board could
consider a CDA.
Mr. Rooker said the Board could do what Mr. Davis said earlier. It could approve these things
virtually simultaneously, or could approve a rezoning and have a developer bring back a CDA request
with additional proffers attached to the CDA. There are two ways to approach it. To him, this just
provides a good general guideline for when the Board will approve CDAs.
second
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it is a good idea and will the motion.
Mr. Boyd said he disagreed with Mr. Rooker the first time this was brought up. He is concerned
about setting a policy before building anything. He asked Mr. Rooker to explain what impact the policy
would have.
Mr. Rooker said the Board would be looking at them under (2) an exceptional project that is only
considered after the zoning is in place and demonstrates that a CDA is necessary to accomplish the
infrastructure improvements to that area that are consistent and necessary to implement the
Comprehensive Plan. He cannot imagine that the Board should consider a CDA which did not fall into
that category. He does not think the Board should rush to approve a CDA without having a general
guideline against which to judge the request. Without that, how does the Board deal with the next person
who comes in? He said the Board has not adopted the CDA and just heard a long presentation of the
complexities of a CDA and the County’s role in it. There is a cost to the County. For a County CDA the
Board has almost complete control over how it would be operated when and if it ever issues bonds and
the purpose of those bonds. This is a different “animal” that we are looking at. The Board has not
adopted the CDA yet, although he thinks the Board should, but he does not think bonds should be issued
against it.
Mr. Bowerman said they can go forward with the plan on the right, come before the Board with
some proffers, and the Board could approve the plan on the right. They could also make a CDA request
for things they want to add to it that the Board could hear at the same meeting. It allows flexibility and
gets it before the Board so the Board can approve it without a CDA.
Mr. Wyant said by doing this he thinks the Board is setting the process.
Mr. Bowerman said it is the same thing the Board did for Albemarle Place and the Hollymead
Town Center.
Mr. Wyant said until these places are master planned, like when the plan for Crozet is adopted
they could come in for a CDA on that one, then there is No. 2 to fall back on if it has never been master
planned.
Ms. Thomas said on the September 1 agenda, it said “if the Board agrees with this policy it will be
necessary for staff, etc.” She went through that process in her mind and found it to be very useful. She
does not want people years from now to say “how could you let this thing happen?” She thinks staff
November 10, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 11)
made a good argument as to the role that the Northwest Passage plays. She thinks the Board could go
through the process better if there were a policy.
Mr. Wyant said the policy sounds odd because it says the Board would identify what are the
typical improvements expected from all of them.
Mr. Bowerman said all the way from North Pointe down to Hydraulic Road there may be a plan
that the Board wants, and which everybody along Route 29 in the district helps to accomplish.
Mr. Wyant said without something in place, every time the Board looks at a plan it will just keep
arguing about what it expects and what is acceptable.
Mr. Bowerman said that is why it is open-ended for Hollymead; the Board does not know what the
CDA will be.
Mr. Rooker said the developers of Hollymead or Albemarle Place could come back at any time
and ask for a Developer’s CDA to build their infrastructure. One of those developers mentioned to him
that if the Board approves a CDA for North Pointe, they want to look at that. He thinks the Board needs a
policy for allowing people to come in and ask for a CDA.
Mr. Dorrier said he sees this matter a little differently. This is the Board’s first CDA and this is one
of the first not being approved. He thinks that to further restrict it by forcing the zoning on it first, it almost
precludes the Board from considering the non-zoned area, and this is all non-zoned. Mr. Davis said it is
in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Dorrier said it is in the Comprehensive Plan, but it is not zoned for the usage coming up.
Mr. Rooker said that does not restrict the Board’s ability to grant a CDA for this project. The
Board can still do it simultaneously or could do one after the other. He does not think this prohibits the
Board from approving a rezoning. The problem is the process that Mr. Davis set out; coming back later
and entertaining a CDA that includes additional proffers. He does not think it precludes the first
procedure he set out. Procedurally, he does not think it prevents the Board from approving this project’s
CDA.
Mr. Dorrier said he is willing to consider a CDA, but thinks that this particular CDA the Board is
considering now needs to be dealt with before the Board starts developing a policy.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the Board can put the zoning in place with a set of proffers.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Bowerman was saying the zoning had to be in place first.
Mr. Bowerman said that is what was done in Hollymead. The rezoning was approved and one of
the proffers/conditions was to create a CDA for which the Board did not know the use. That possibility
was allowed, and approval of the plan was not dependent on a CDA.
Mr. Boyd said zoning occurs through requests from applicants; the Board does not go out and
zone property.
Mr. Bowerman said it is done when the applicant comes in, and that is what they are doing in this
case. They are making a proposal for a rezoning with proffers.
Mr. Boyd said the zoning process has become so devious that the County has to see exactly how
everything is going to look before it is approved.
Mr. Wyant said the agenda says this is a work session. Can the Board vote on policy motions?
This is a work session on North Pointe.
Mr. Rooker said this policy was recommended back in September, the Board discussed it, but
never acted on it. He cannot imagine moving ahead with a particular project without having some policy
in place for evaluation of that and other projects on a consistent basis. He asked Mr. Davis if he reads
No. 2 to allow either procedure he set out earlier.
Mr. Davis said No. 2 was intended to address situations such as that at Short Pump in Henrico
County. The zoning was in place there and the applicants came forward with a proposal which Henrico
thought had many benefits for them. It allowed a CDA for redevelopment of a piece of property already
zoned for that use. They wanted to redevelop it and use the CDA to pay for infrastructure. It would allow
a piece of property that is already zoned and undeveloped to come forward and propose a CDA to help
implement the infrastructure needed to support it. It could also be used in this case once the zoning for
North Pointe was in place independent of a CDA. Once the zoning was in place, the Board would have to
determine that more than a normal proposal was being offered.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board has not done that before.
Mr. Rooker suggested adding the words “or contemporaneously to rezone.” It would then read
“Exceptional projects that are only considered either after all zoning is in place, or contemporaneously to
rezone. . . .” He does not know why the Board would want to preclude itself from the first process Mr.
Davis outlined if it was determined to be in the public interest. If the Board approves this policy, he wants
November 10, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 12)
to leave open the possibility of using either procedure that Mr. Davis set out earlier. He asked if that
language is added, does it allow the ability to consider the first procedure Mr. Davis explained.
Mr. Boyd said he can support it with that language.
Mr. Davis said this language would make the policy clearer.
amend
Mr. Rooker said he would his motion, after the words “in place” add the words “or
contemporaneously with a rezoning . . . .”
second
Mr. Bowerman said he would that amendment.
Mr. Dorrier asked if that means an application could be made for a rezoning along with a CDA
application.
Mr. Davis said that is correct.
Mr. Bowerman asked if both could be done at the same meeting.
Mr. Davis said the process he would recommend is that the Board would have already held its
public hearing and resolved all the zoning issues, the proffers would be in an acceptable form, and then
the Board would undertake the public process to create a CDA which would probably take a number of
weeks to do. The Board would have a public hearing on a CDA, act on it, then a week or so later have on
the agenda approval of the zoning application.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this policy will force this applicant to take his project out of consideration now.
Will he be able to consider it with the CDA attached?
Mr. Rooker said this is trying to allow it.
Mr. Davis said this adoption is important, but the second thing staff is asking the Board today is
whether or not it wants to go forward with a CDA.
At this point, Mr. Dorrier asked for roll to be called on the motion, which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(Adopted policy which limits the use of developer initiated CDAs to the following
situations:)
1. Projects implementing an approved master plan that is part of the County's Comprehensive Plan.
2. Exceptional projects that are only considered after all zoning is in place or contemporaneous with
a rezoning and which demonstrate that a CDA is necessary to accomplish the infrastructure
improvements for that area that are consistent and necessary to implement the Comprehensive
Plan.
__________
Mr. Boyd then asked the bottom line on the CDA in terms of the staff’s figure and the applicant’s
figure.
Mr. Graham said he does not have a number today.
Mr. Bowerman said this is about more than money. It is what amenities are provided with the
rezoning.
Mr. Boyd asked how he will make up his mind.
Mr. Bowerman said the Comprehensive Plan says certain things, and there is a transportation
plan. It is when staff is satisfied that the conditions or proffers with the rezoning are adequate to deal with
that rezoning that the decision can be made.
Mr. Boyd said VDOT has said they are adequate.
Mr. Bowerman said it is a legislative act.
Mr. Boyd said he understands that, but is just trying to work through the process. There is a
school site, a library site, a certain amount of growth, it has met all the VDOT requirements, the
stormwater requirements, and there was a fiscal impact study on the impact on schools.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks Mr. Boyd is saying that all of that should have been proffered.
Mr. Boyd said there is a big proffer. He is just talking about staff’s assessment.
Mr. Bowerman said this is what staff has always done, and it has worked well.
November 10, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Rooker said there are several things going on. There are the proffers and Board members
can say what they think should be included in the proffers in order for them to believe the request meets
public needs. He thinks what the Board wants to do now is decide whether it will consider this
development with a CDA on it at all. Based on the policy just adopted, he would consider entertaining a
CDA on this project if it meets those criteria. Personally, he thinks that in order to accomplish that, it
would have to do most of what staff had recommended in its report. If he does not come forward with a
CDA, which is Page 2 of this report, Mr. Rotgin would need to do most of what staff recommends he do
without a CDA. Staff has two sets of recommendations. He said the Board is not deciding today whether
or not to accept proffers. It is just deciding if it will allow this project to go forward potentially as a CDA
project. Based upon the criteria the Board just adopted, if the developer can make his case, he would be
willing to entertain a CDA.
Mr. Bowerman said it is quite clear that the zoning can stand by itself if it comes forward with
staff’s recommendation without a CDA.
Mr. Rooker said that is one way for him to approach it.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board should make clear its expectations for a development
without a CDA. Given the uncertainties of a CDA, she does not think it should unpin the bottom line.
There are many things which are either in the Comprehensive Plan or are current concerns. One of them
is the desire not to build extensive cul-de-sacs when a parallel road system can be built. The Northwest
Passage road is a bottom line necessity for her to consider something that otherwise is a very large cul-
de-sac. Likewise, a project of this size should have that library site for a public facility. More commercial
space should not be added to what is already a considerable amount of commercial space both in the
community, and in this location. She realizes that talk about 15 percent of affordable housing is
something that came about after the process for North Pointe started, but it is such a serious issue in the
community that she thinks it needs serious attention. She does not think that giving funds to some
outside housing organization or agency is an adequate response. She thinks the transportation features
being done in a timely fashion are exactly what the public will want and will not understand if the Board is
not firm about this. She thinks all the Board members should go through that process out of fairness to
the applicant, or otherwise the Board is saying to come forward with a proposal, but do not have a CDA
underpinning the portions that are otherwise necessary and would be expected of the developers of one
of the largest, major rezonings ever in the County.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks there is the possibility for a compromise or at least a solution that
works. He thinks it is better to have a unified development that takes care of some infrastructure needs
and some public needs of the County. It makes more sense to have an application for the total property
with a CDA, which is a public/private partnership that goes to address the problems that would be difficult
if it came in as piecemeal development in contiguous tracks that are not joined and disconnected. He
would prefer to deal with one Chuck Rotgin than ten Chuck Rotgins. He thinks the Board can make some
progress. It is a public/private partnership, and public/private partnerships are just like marriages, there
are good days and bad days. If you can get along in the long run, then it can be a happy marriage. He
said this is the first CDA and all need to pull together and take the best parts of it and move ahead.
Mr. Boyd said he is willing to move forward with the CDA. He is struggling with the proffers
because he is just trying to understand the system.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Boyd just has to be satisfied that the proffers are acceptable to him and
are in the public interest.
Mr. Boyd said there has been mention about the amount of commercial property. He is trying to
ascertain the impact of this on the County. He feels strongly that rural area development will continue if
the Board does not open up some property where it wants development to occur. He would like to see
this request move forward.
Mr. Wyant said if the Board goes along with the CDA, there are some public things that have to
be identified.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board needs a motion today.
Mr. Graham said he does not understand where the Board is with regard to the issue of the
Developer CDA.
Mr. Bowerman said he wants staff to review it under the Comprehensive Plan using all the
information it has, and then make a recommendation to the Board, and hopefully it will be positive; that is
without a CDA. The zoning has to work beforehand, and anything over and above that which can be
done with a CDA would make it extraordinary.
Mr. Dorrier said he thought Ms. Thomas’ point was that Northwest Passage was not going to be
buildable with a CDA, and that is what she thinks is necessary for her to vote positively for the
development. He tends to agree with that. He thinks a road running down to Route 29 so it is not just a
so-called cul-de-sac is important. It may not be built next year, but he thinks it is important to include it in
the plan, and not have to force the applicant to come back two years later and amend his plan and put in
the Northwest Passage. He asked Ms. Thomas if that is what she said.
Mr. Davis said he would frame the issue. He said staff needs some direction. Staff would like to
know which one of the plans the Board wants to see come forward. He said Mr. Rotgin has indicated that
November 10, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 14)
“this” is the plan he will bring forward if the Board is unwilling to consider a Developer CDA. If the Board
is willing to consider a Developer CDA then “that” is the plan he will bring forward. Under the policy the
Board just adopted, staff will still have to identify what improvements are typical developer improvements
it thinks should be made for any development whether a CDA is approved or not, what special
improvements are being offered by that plan which staff thinks are appropriate for a CDA to finance, and
then whether or not that is an exceptional development and merits the County supporting it by approving
the Developer CDA. Under the policy, and under what has been presented to the Board, staff needs to
know if you want “that” plan to be developed and brought forward for your consideration, which staff has
indicated at this point they would recommend denial of based on the total evaluation of the plan, or to
bring “that” plan forward which staff has also recommended denial of based on the entire analysis.
Mr. Dorrier said some of what Mr. Davis said was subjective, particularly the decision as to
whether or not it is exceptional. Mr. Davis said that is a decision the Board needs to make after they
bring forward the plan with all the proffers in place so the Board will know exactly what is on the table.
Mr. Bowerman said he and Mr. Rooker have been doing this for over 20 years, and up until this
point, applications are made for rezonings, staff looks at them, looks at the public’s interest and the
Comprehensive Plan, they put together a zoning request they can support or they cannot support and
they bring it forward to the Board, and the Board makes a decision. That is exactly what the Board has
been doing, and will continue to do.
Mr. Boyd asked about the master planning.
Mr. Bowerman said the CDA does not preclude master planning.
Mr. Boyd said it complicates things.
Mr. Bowerman said that is true. You get the issue down to a rezoning you can support. What
more can you do with it if the developer wants to do more?
Mr. Rooker said he is willing to look at this either way. But, either way, he thinks staff’s
recommendations on the additional things that are needed, are good recommendations. He thinks the
development “on the left”, with everything staff has recommended is probably more in the interest of the
County than the one “on the right.” But, the applicant wants to bring the one on the right back, and if he
(Mr. Rotgin) is willing to do everything staff recommends with regard to proffers, he (Mr. Rooker) is willing
to consider it.
Mr. Boyd said this is not the County’s final offer. There is nothing here that would change even
with another five months of negotiation unless the applicant would give in to some of your considerations.
Mr. Rooker said the proffers are not finalized at this point. Staff’s recommendations, for example
with the CDA, recommend a firm date for completion of Route 29 improvements, the regional
transportation contribution, the affordable housing proffer, a library site be provided, and completion of
Northwest Passage within a time increment. He thinks it ought to be done within three years. Also they
recommend additional northbound Route 29 improvements not covered by the other plans. That is
comparable to the $2.0 million they estimated would be lost by not having this development join the
County’s CDA. Third, they recommend several possibilities to make this more exceptional. They include
some improvements on Proffit Road, and a contribution toward the County’s completion of the Northern
Fire Station.
Mr. Boyd said at this point he thinks the applicant needs to know whether the Board will review a
full proposal with a CDA. If the Board decides it will not do that, then the developer needs to decide what
he will bring forward.
Mr. Rooker said the Board adopted the policy, and the policy says it will consider this
development, or other developments, that come forward and make the case that they achieve what is in
the policy.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board’s direction is to say it is up to the applicant to bring forward whatever
proposal he wants to bring forward.
Ms. Thomas said that at some point the Board will have to decide what is ordinarily expected, and
should be funded without a CDA, and what makes this an exceptional project, and that there are
exceptional reasons for going to an exceptional process of having a CDA. It is not, to her mind, to
underpin the things that would ordinarily be expected of a developer.
Mr. Boyd said he does not understand how staff came up with “this”, because they have given
their comments on what they think are exceptional things.
Mr. Bowerman said the applicant was not in agreement with staff’s assessment. If the project
comes to the Board again and staff does not agree with it and they articulate their reasons, then he thinks
it cannot be approved.
Mr. Rotgin said there has been no disagreement with staff recommendations.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board will continue this matter at another day in the future since it has only 15
minutes in which to eat dinner before the regular night meeting begins.
November 10, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Tucker asked if the Board wants this matter to come back to it as a public hearing or as
another work session. The purpose of the work session today was to make that determination. He thinks
it is up to Mr. Rotgin to tell staff which plan he wants to go forward to a public hearing. The Board would
not see many changes unless Mr. Rotgin tweaks some of these things with staff.
Mr. Bowerman said that is fine with him.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks this will go to public hearing unless the Board wants another work
session.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board does not have to decide that tonight because it does not have what is
going to be recommended to the public.
Mr. Davis said the plan has to be finalized, and the proffers have to be finalized. Once that is in
place, a hearing date can be recommended.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Adjourn. At 5:41 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board,
the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 4/06/2005
Initials: DBM