2005-01-12N
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January
12, 2005 at 6:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Kenneth 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,
Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Clerk, Ella W. Carey.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker.
NonAgenda. Certify Closed Session from Afternoon Meeting.
Mr. Dorrier moved that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board
member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements
of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were
heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None
_______________
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.
There were no persons present from the public to speak under this item.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that a government class from Western Albemarle High School was in
attendance.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Mr. Boyd moved to approve items 5.1 through 5.4a on the
Consent Agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. (Individual discussions are included
with the agenda items.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None
__________
Item 5.1. Boards and Commission Policy, Adoption of (deferred from January 5, 2005).
Mr. Boyd suggested that in Section B, Item 2, of the policy, the term “vacancies” be changed to
“expired terms.” Board members agreed to the proposed change.
(The following policy was adopted by the above-recorded vote:)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
POLICY FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A. CREATION OF NEW BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1. On an annual basis the list of active boards and commissions will be purged of all bodies
not required by Federal, State, County or other regulations, which have not met at least once during the
prior twelve-month period.
2. Whenever possible and appropriate, the functions and activities of boards and
commissions will be combined, rather than encouraging the creation of new bodies.
3. Any newly created task force or ad hoc committee which is intended to serve for a limited time
period may be comprised of magisterial or at-large members at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors.
The appointment process shall follow that adopted in Section B for other magisterial and/or at-large
positions.
B. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1. All appointments to boards and commissions based upon magisterial district boundaries
will be made by the members of the Board of Supervisors. All magisterial positions will be advertised. At
the discretion of the supervisor of that district, selected applicants may be interviewed for the position.
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
2. Prior to each day Board meeting, the Clerk will provide the Board a list of expired terms
and vacancies that will occur within the next sixty days. The Board will then advise the Clerk which
vacancies to advertise.
3. In an effort to reach as many citizens as possible, notice of boards and commissions with
appointment positions available will be published through available venues, such as, but not limited to, the
County’s website, A-mail, public service announcements and local newspapers. Interested citizens will be
provided a brief description of the duties and functions of each board, length of term of the appointment,
frequency of meetings, and qualifications necessary to fill the position. An explanation of the appointment
process for both magisterial and at-large appointments will also be sent to all applicants.
4. All interested applicants will have a minimum of thirty days from the date of the first notice
to complete and return to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors a detailed application, with the
understanding that such application may be released to the public, if requested. No applications will be
accepted if they are postmarked after the advertised deadline, however, the Board, at its discretion, may
extend the deadline.
5. Once the deadline for accepting applications is reached, the Clerk will distribute all
applications received to the members of the Board of Supervisors prior to the day meeting for their review.
For magisterial appointments, the Clerk will forward applications as they are received to the supervisor of
that district who will then recommend his/her appointment.
6. From the pool of qualified candidates, the Board of Supervisors, at their discretion, may
make an appointment without conducting an interview, or may select applicants to interview for the vacant
positions. The Clerk will then schedule interviews with applicants to be held during the next day meeting.
For magisterial appointments, the decision to interview selected candidates will be determined by the
supervisor of that district.
7. All efforts will be made to interview selected applicants and make appointments within
ninety days after the application deadline. For designated agency appointments to boards and
commissions, the agency will be asked to recommend a person for appointment by the Board of
Supervisors.
8. All vacancies will be filled as they occur.
9. All incumbents will be allowed to serve on a board or commission without his/her position
being readvertised unless, based on attendance and performance, the chairman of the body or a member
of the Board of Supervisors requests the Board of Supervisors to do otherwise.
10. If a member of a board or commission does not participate in at least fifty percent of a
board’s or commission’s meetings, the chairman of the body may request the Board of Supervisors
terminate the appointment and refill it during the next scheduled advertising period.
C. ADOPTION
This policy shall be reviewed and readopted by the Board of Supervisors in January.
(Amended and/or Readopted 01-07-98; 02-12-2005)
__________
Item 5.2. Resolution to accept roads in Dunlora Subdivision, Phaase 3A, into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
(At the request of the Roads Engineer, the following resolution was adopted by the above-
recorded vote:)
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 12th day
of January 2005, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Dunlora Subdivision, Phase 3A, described on the attached Additions
Form SR-5(A) dated January 12, 2005, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded
in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in Dunlora Subdivision, Phase 3A, as
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 12, 2005, to the secondary system of
state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Require-
ments; and
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
1) Shepherds Ridge Circle (State Route 1710) from the intersection of Shepherds Ridge
Road (Route 1709) to the intersection of Shepherds Ridge Road (Route 1709), as shown
on plat recorded 01/05/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 1885, page 158, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.17 mile.
2) Shepherds Ridge Road (State Route 1709) from the intersection of Dunlora Drive (Route
1177) to the intersection of Shepherds Ridge Circle (Route 1710), as shown on plat
recorded 01/05/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 1885, page 158, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.20 mile; and from
the intersection of Shepherds Ridge Circle (Route 1710) to the end of state maintenance at
Shepherds Ridge Circle (Route 1710) as shown on plat recorded 01/05/2000 in the office
the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1885, page 158, with a 50-
foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.11 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.48 mile.
__________
Item 5.3. Resolution to accept roads in Dunlora Subdivision, Phase 4A, into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
(At the request of the Roads Engineer, the following resolution was adopted by the above-
recorded vote:)
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 12th day
of January 2005, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Dunlora Subdivision, Phase 4A, described on the attached Additions
Form SR-5(A) dated January 12, 2005, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded
in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in Dunlora Subdivision, Phase 4A, as
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 12, 2005, to the secondary system of
state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Require-
ments; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
1) Ambrose Way (State Route 1708) from Loring Circle (Route 1706) to the cul-de-sac, as
shown on plat recorded 10/10/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1906, page 207, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05
mile.
2) Loring Circle (State Route 1706) from the intersection of Loring Run (Route 1705) to the
intersection of Ambrose Way (Route 1708), as shown on plat recorded 10/10/2000 in the
office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1906, page 207, with a
50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.08 mile; and from the intersection of Ambrose
Way (Route 1708) to the intersection of Loring Run (Route 1705), as shown on plat
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
recorded 10/10/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 1906, page 207, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.10 mile.
3) Loring Place (State Route 1707) from the intersection of Loring Run (Route 1705) to the
cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 10/10/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1906, page 207, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.05 mile.
4) Loring Run (State Route 1705) from the intersection of Dunlora Drive (Route 1177) to the
intersection of Loring Place (Route 1707), as shown on plat recorded 10/10/2000 in the
office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1906, page 207, with a
50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.10 mile; and from the intersection of Loring
Place (Route 1707) to the end of state maintenance intersection of Loring Circle (Route
1706), as shown on plat recorded 10/10/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1906, page 207, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.05 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.43 mile.
__________
Item 5.4. Set public hearing for February 2, 2005 to receive information on the Community
Development Block Grant Program for 2005.
The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) administers the federal
Community Development Block Grant for non-entitlement jurisdictions in which Albemarle County is
included. Such jurisdictions can apply through a competitive application for eligible community
development activities. Prior to making an application, two public hearings must be conducted. The first
hearing is to provide information on the availability of funding, types of activities that are eligible and past
uses of CDBG funds in the locality. The second hearing would review and approve/disapprove potential
applications proposed for submission.
DHCD recently announced the availability of $10,021,328 in competitive grants for 2005.
Albemarle County could apply for one or more projects totaling approximately $2.5 million. Projects must
meet one of three national objectives which are benefiting low- and moderate-income persons, aiding in
prevention or elimination of slum and blight, and responding to a community need having particular
urgency. Grants may be for community improvement activities and/or planning grants for future community
improvement activities.
The most recent grant received by the County was used to construct a community center at Parks
Edge Apartments, formerly Whitewood Village, in conjunction with the renovation of 96 apartment units.
The center was completed in September 2004 and currently houses after school activities and the
apartment’s management office.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors set a public hearing for February 2, 2005 to
provide information on available funding, eligible activities, and past use of CDBG funds.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board set the public hearing for February 2, 2005.
__________
Item 5.4a. Resolution supporting the renaming of Whitewood Park to the Charlotte Y. Humphris
Park.
(The Chairman read the following resolution for presentation to Mr. Humphris at a future
date:)
RESOLUTION
Whereas,
Charlotte Y. Humphris served as a member of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors from January 1, 1990 until December 31, 2001; and
Whereas,
Charlotte Humphris dedicated much of her life to serving on countless boards,
commissions and committees that focused on the betterment of this community; and
Whereas,
Charlotte Humphris was well known and widely respected as an advocate for rural
preservation and a fierce champion of protected open space and natural areas and resources in Albemarle
County ; and
Whereas
, in January 1990, Charlotte Humphris stated that the investment of maintaining the
Whitewood Road property as a park “would provide for the quality of life for the people in this community
over the years. A city or county is known for its parks, not by its paved areas. It is the Board’s
responsibility to have vision, even if it means spending money now to provide for the future. The
Whitewood Road site should be kept as greenspace;” and
Whereas
, Charlotte Humphris was instrumental in helping to shape the future of the Whitewood
Park, having served as a Board representative on the Whitewood Road Park Committee that developed a
master plan for the usage of the Whitewood Road property, and in March, 1998 supporting the designation
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
of the Whitewood Park property as open-space land under the Open Space Land Act which serves to
preserve land in an urban area for park and recreational purposes; and
Whereas,
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors desires to honor Charlotte Humphris not
only for her dedication to protecting and preserving the heritage and rural character of Albemarle County,
but for her foresight in the preservation and protection of Whitewood Park as a valuable County resource;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved,
that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby
rename Whitewood Park as the Charlotte Y. Humphris Park in recognition and as a tribute to Charlotte
Humphris in appreciation of her long and inspirational career as a dedicated civic leader.
Mr. Bowerman suggested allocating funds for installation of appropriate sign changes, etc. at the
Park. Mr. Tucker said there would be a rededication ceremony of the Park during the spring or early
summer.
__________
Item 5.5. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes of November 30, 2004, was received for
information.
__________
Item 5.6. Copy of letter dated December 30, 2004 from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Susan S. Davey, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels – Tax
Map 112 , Parcel 15 (Lions Watch Farm, property of Susan S. Davey) – Section 10.3.1., was received for
information.
__________
Item 5.7. Copy of letter dated December 30, 2004 from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to David H. Metcalf & P. Gail Smith, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and
Parcels – Tax Map 97, Parcel 24A (property of David H. Metcalf or Gail South) – Section 10.3.1, was
received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Six Year Secondary Road Plan Priority List for FY 2005-2011. (Advertised in
Daily Progress on December 28, 2004 and January 3, 2005).
Mr. Cilimberg referred to the Executive Summary which was provided as information to the Board.
He said the Board held a work session on the draft Six Year Secondary Road Priority List at their December
1, 2004 meeting. The Board reviewed the project priorities and recommended moving forward to a public
hearing on the proposed Priority List. The Board also directed staff to make revisions to the format of the
Priority List, which is summarized below (copies of all attachments are on file in the Clerk’s office).
Attachment A-: Staff has identified the top twenty-one
Draft Priority List for Secondary Road
projects that should be the focus of the Board’s annual review. This section of the Priority List is referred to
as the The intent is for the part of the Priority List to identify the high
Strategic Priorities. Strategic Priorities
priority projects that VDOT and County staff will focus on completing over the next 10 to 20 years. The
Board had requested staff identify the top twenty projects, but staff included the Greenbrier Drive project
(#21) because it is in the Development Area and is an important improvement recommended in the 29H250
Study which would benefit both the secondary road system and Route 29. The remainder of the proposed
Priority List will remain the same in terms of project priorities, but will be listed as a Technical Addendum A,
and titled (pages 2-5).
Other Project Priorities
Staff has also added a column with the most recent traffic count for each road project and year the
count was taken. In addition, please note that the cost estimates have increased for the Gilbert Station
Road and Allen Road rural rustic road projects (Attachment A, page 4). This increase will not impact the
scheduled construction date.
Attachment B- : This attachment contains more specific information on the
Technical Addendum B
projects listed as the . This information is intended to provide more detail on the condition
Strategic Priorities
of the road segment and serve as the basis for the project’s priority. The information in this Technical
Addendum will be completed/updated annually for the
Strategic Priorities.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that nine of the Strategic Priorities are included in VDOT’s funding plan for the
next six years. He added that staff has also attempted to initiate a listing of when the project was placed on
the priority list, and included the most recent traffic counts.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that priorities are emphasized for major road improvements. He added
that there is also a listing of unpaved rural rustic projects as well as regular paving projects. Mr. Cilimberg
said that staff is recommending approval based on that list.
Mr. Rooker commented that Mr. Butch Davies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board stated
at a recent meeting that unless funding at the state level is changed, increased maintenance costs of
projects will mean there will be virtually nothing left by 2016 to do new road projects.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the federal budget is looking at a $500 billion deficit.
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Bowerman asked why it would take until June 2008 to build the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr.
Rooker responded that that is assuming funding levels remain the same, but funding is actually declining
for secondary road funds.
Ms. Thomas said that for rustic roads with a traffic count of over 1,000, the County qualifies for the
expenditure of $678,000; roads improved in the first four of the regular paving programs get $4 million in
paving costs. The rustic roads program is giving the County more passenger miles per dollar by a factor of
seven times at that rate.
Mr. Rooker commented that he was surprised that the traffic count on Dickerson Road was not
higher, noting that if it is paved, the number would increase substantially. Mr. Juandiego Wade,
Transportation Planner, said that the staff just received the 2003 count.
Mr. Rooker then opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, the public hearing
was closed and the matter was placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas moved to adopt the Proposed Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements for FY
2005-0011. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None
(The Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements for FY 2005-0011 is set out in following
pages.)
______________
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-2004-0013. Mountain Valley Farm (Signs #21,33&83). Public hearing
on a request to rezone 14.176 acs of a 29.75 acre P from the RPD Zoning District to RA. TM 89, P 73A.
Loc approx one-half mile N from intersec of Rt 631 (Old Lynchburg Rd) & Rt 706 (Dudley Mountain Rd).
(The Comp Plan designates this property as Rural Area 4. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in Daily Progress
on December 28, 2004 and January 3, 2005).
Mr. Bowerman disclosed that he receives more than $10,000 in compensation from Parkside LLC
located on Berkmar Circle. The applicant for this rezoning is Evergreen Land Company, and the principal
owner of both companies is Suzanne Brooks. Mr. Bowerman then disqualified himself from participating in
the discussion and vote and left the meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this request would allow for the downzoning of 14 acres from the
current planned residential development to rural areas, and would allow that portion to be included in a
residential subdivision over the remaining property not currently zoned PRD. He said it would allow for two
lots in a segment of Ambrose Commons Drive and small portions of two other lots; the remaining parcel is
zoned RA. Mr. Cilimberg said that while the proposed development would facilitate subdivision – which is
not in keeping with the goals of the Rural Area plan – it would result in fewer lots than the current PRD
zoning would allow. He explained that under the current zoning, the property could be developed at .83
dwelling units per acre. Mr. Cilimberg said that there would be a total of five lots under the proposed plan.
He added that the Planning Commission supported staff’s recommendation for approval of the rezoning.
Mr. Dorrier asked how this property was originally rezoned without the owner’s consent.
Mr. Davis replied that his understanding is that the 1977 applicant mistakenly thought he owned the
property. Under today’s laws, the owner has to make the application. In 1977, anyone could make
application to rezone. Mr. Davis said that it was a legally rezoned piece of property.
Mr. Rooker asked the applicant to come forward.
Ms. Valerie Long, representing Evergreen Land Company, addressed the Board. She stated that
this proposal would bring the property in line with the balance of the Mountain Valley Farm property, and
would permit the approval of the proposed subdivision. Mr. Long noted that the Jessup family discovered in
1997 when they had their property rezoned that the 14-acre tract belonged to them, and was zoned
differently from the rest of their farm.
The public hearing was opened. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was
closed and the matter was placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to approve ZMA-2004-0013.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None
______________
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-2004-0014. Briarwood (Sign #17). Public hearing on a request to
rezone 123.612 acs from PRD to PRD to amend proffers of ZMA-1991-13 & ZMA-1995-5 & to amend the
Application Plan. TM 32G, P 1; TM 32G, Sec 3, P A; & TM 32G, Sec 3, P 83. Loc on Seminole Trail (Rt
29) at intersec of Seminole Trail & Austin Dr (Rt 1575). (The Comp Plan designates this property as
Neighborhood Density Residential in the Piney Mountain Community.) Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in Daily
Progress on December 28, 2004 and January 3, 2005).
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this request would rezone 124 acres from PRD to PRD, amend the
proffers of ZMA-1991-13 and ZMA-1995-5, and amend the Application Plan. Staff has provided a lot of
information regarding this request, and noted that there are a number of factors favorable to the request
that also reflect the history of the project: it would provide affordable housing within the designated
development areas; the proposed change in unit types would create a better mixture of unit types within
Briarwood; the proposed changes in Phase I-A of the Application Plan will create one additional internal
interconnection; and the applicant has committed a proffer to construct Briarwood Drive to Route 29 prior to
commencing certain phases, assuring a second access to Route 29.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the applicant’s earliest submitted Application Plan amendment had shown
where different unit types and existing development are located. He stated that in early 2004, the dialogue
with staff began, and the applicant submitted the rezoning request in August 2004. Mr. Cilimberg explained
that staff had this initial plan and subsequent staff comments. But then, the plan went to the Planning
Commission without staff having an opportunity to have a full review. He stated that the Commission
th
requested on December 7 that the applicant defer the matter, but the applicant refused to defer, and the
Commission unanimously recommended denial. Since that meeting, the applicant has submitted a new
plan for the rezoning. This plan was just submitted to staff one week ago.
Mr. Cilimberg said that Zoning staff raised several issues that needed to be addressed, as did
Engineering, who indicated that their comments remained the same. He emphasized that the essence of
the review and the issues are still the same, based on the Planning Commission’s meeting in December.
Mr. Cilimberg said that interconnection was provided from Briarwood to St. Ives Road down to Camelot
Drive, and there was also provision for a section to connect to Camelot, giving an opportunity for alternative
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
access. He added that as the plan is proposed now, the interconnection would not occur from a portion of
Briarwood to St. Ives, or from Phase 8 to Camelot, making only two access points for the development.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that VDOT and County Engineering both felt some traffic information
needed to be provided that would enable them to evaluate the impact of additional cars at the main
intersection, which is currently a lighted intersection. He added that staff was unclear based on the
information provided as to the orientation of buildings on Camelot Drive. Mr. Cilimberg said that the
applicant has indicated verbally that there is screening planned, but there is nothing noted on a plan or in a
proffer committing to this. He indicated that there is an area designated as a Resource Protection Area,
adding that the proposed Application Plan did not provide access to the open spaces on the plan, and there
is no indication of that. Mr. Cilimberg added that there is also no commitment to the streetscape.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that staff feels this plan is not ready for action and staff could not
recommend approval at this point. Mr. Cilimberg stated that today they have received the most recent
proffers, but they do not address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission in recommending denial;
they do address other matters that have been under discussion for some time. He concluded that staff
recommends deferral until this proposal is in more finalized form.
Mr. Bowerman asked what had changed in the most recent application. Mr. Cilimberg replied that
the applicant was trying to address what the Planning Commission identified, such as an RPA line.
Mr. Bowerman asked how many changes there had been in between the previous plan and the
most recent one presented. Mr. Cilimberg indicated that the plan has only been superficially evaluated by
staff for just the primary points as the application was only very recently received.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Executive Summary included was based on the most recent staff
comments. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that it was based on having the plan in hand at the time.
Mr. Boyd said he recalled an application and response in April 2004. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the
pre-application conference was held in early 2004, but an actual application was not submitted until August
th
16. He indicated that the applicant was trying to get information from staff during that time.
Mr. Boyd recollected that there would not be a connection between Camelot Drive and Route 29
based on the zoning approval years ago. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the connection is not directly to
Camelot Drive, but comes to St. Ives instead. He noted that there is not a traffic analysis of what a change
means to the existing two intersections, adding that the interconnection opportunity for splitting traffic is a
concern also.
Mr. Boyd said that this proposal holds a potential for a large tract of affordable housing, and it
concerns him that the item is being reviewed a year later “dickering over some very minor issues.” Mr.
Cilimberg emphasized that the information needs to be provided either in the Application Plan or through
proffers for the item to move forward. He presented an example that there is a concern about the
relationship of units to Camelot Drive, and there is nothing provided in writing on screening, streetscape,
curb and gutter, etc.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the difference in the configuration of townhouses is in the plans that
have been submitted. Mr. Cilimberg replied that in this case, there are units adjacent to Camelot and
access provided to them. He added that it is less certain exactly how that would be provided, and under the
current plan, the proposal indicates 52 lots as opposed to specific townhouses. Mr. Cilimberg emphasized
that the townhouses were not a concern of staff; their relationship to Camelot Drive was something staff
was trying to get specified.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there were any policy issues that could be considered at this meeting to
move the plan forward. Mr. Cilimberg replied that there are no proffers presented, and no traffic
information available.
Mr. Rooker asked when the traffic information was requested. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it was
requested after the submission of the original plan. He noted that staff was writing the staff report for the
Commission, and the new plan came in.
Mr. Rooker asked about the access to open spaces, and commitment to streetscape. Mr.
Cilimberg confirmed that neither of those issues has been put in the Application Plan or the proffers. He
indicated that there have been five proffers submitted, and Mr. Davis will speak on that. Mr. Cilimberg
indicated that the Board would want to deal with whether they expect sidewalks on both sides of the street,
etc.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that a note on the Application Plan could cover the streetscape issue, as
long as the plan was proffered. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that this is PRD, and is not subject to the
Neighborhood Model District.
Mr. Rooker said that access to open space could also be designated on the plan. Mr. Bowerman
said that staff comment had changed the plan concept quite a bit. Mr. Cilimberg replied that once the
application was in, staff was dealing with what the report indicates – changes in unit type, etc. Staff was not
trying to push for a neighborhood center. He added that in early conversations with staff, the applicant was
aware of Neighborhood Model type approaches, but staff agreed there was already a pattern of
development established in this area.
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Boyd asked if staff felt it would be a worse traffic situation to have traffic come onto Camelot
Drive than routing it to the signal. Mr. Cilimberg responded that it depends on the impact that the traffic has
on signal delays there. It is really a traffic information analysis that the Engineering and VDOT folks do to
make sure the signal will adequately accommodate that intersection’s traffic movements.
Mr. Bowerman asked how long it would take to gather that information. Mr. Rooker said that he
believes it would not take much more than a month. Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that there has not been a
request for a traffic study, which can be a more involved and expensive process. Mr. Rooker explained that
all that is needed is a model done based on the number of units expected, the traffic count in the directions
of traffic flow, etc. Mr. Cilimberg added that it would also include numbers going to the intersection as
compared to what would happen under the zoning as it is currently proposed. In response to Mr. Boyd’s
question, he said that there would probably be at least 25 percent affordable housing.
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to address the Board.
Mr. Wendell Wood addressed the Board, and said that he believes it would benefit the
development as well as the County as a whole to have a different mix of housing in Briarwood, which is
what made him move away from the all-townhouse model. He explained that when he first approached Bill
Fritz, of the County staff, they thought it was a simple straightforward request. However, Mr. Wood said, the
proffers made that not be the case. At that time, he could have developed under the original plan, and
genuinely believed the change in housing was positive. He added that everyone he has met with in the
County and the neighborhood has agreed that the changes were beneficial, noting that it is important to
have affordable housing. Mr. Wood stated that they have revised the plans and have submitted 16 sets of
plans on six occasions. He added that they have revised the proffers five times, and the only change has
been in the mix of housing. Mr. Wood said the applicants have done everything that has been asked of
them, with one exception.
Mr. Rooker asked about where the access to the open space was addressed. He said it seems like
these things are simple matters that could be cured relatively easily. He noted that the access issues also
needed to be addressed. Mr. Wood responded that there was a request to do a traffic study, and VDOT
would probably prefer that residents have to go to a traffic light. He said that they only received a request to
do a traffic study in December.
Mr. Rooker asked at what point did the applicant actually submit a plan that showed elimination of
th
the connection. Mr. Cilimberg said, “November 18.” Mr. Rooker noted that the idea is to move the plan
forward. Mr. Wood said that he was asked to do a traffic study, and he recalled the cost to be $30,000 over
six months, noting that VDOT is going to say take the traffic to a signalized light.
Mr. Rooker stated that PRDs are zoned for that particular design and layout of the development,
and virtually any change requires a rezoning.
Mr. Davis commented that there are minor changes that can be approved administratively, but
changes that are substantially different than what was shown on the plan require it to be amended.
Mr. Rooker commented that that is the nature of the zoning that the applicant got for this property.
He noted that if he had approached staff at any time with information about changing road connections and
lot layouts, staff would have told him it would require rezoning.
Mr. Wood stated that the proffer that was made is the only thing that triggered the rezoning.
Mr. Rooker recommended deferral because the proffers could not be changed tonight, and what
was handed out today has not been reviewed.
Mr. Davis stated that the proffers amended since the Planning Commission meeting need to be
turned into a form that the County could accept. At this point there is no analysis as to whether they are
sufficient to address the substantive issues. He added that it would be beneficial to everyone that all the
proffers would be put in one new document, because it is a challenge to make a determination about which
proffers are included.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to see the proposal come back in a month for a vote.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff has indicated what needs to be addressed: comments from Zoning
in the report, prior comments from Engineering that have not been addressed, and one Application Plan
that is cohesive.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the proposal being built in phases. Mr. Cilimberg said staff wants to try to
get this achieved.
Mr. Rooker commented that Mr. Wood has expressed his willingness to do these things, and the
only thing needed to be done that would require more significant work would be the traffic study, which
could be a model instead of a full study.
Ms. Thomas said that a month ago, what came from the Planning Commission was a
recommendation that staff and VDOT were to make the traffic assessment. She reiterated that the items
addressed in the proffers – commitment to curb, gutter, and sidewalks; access to the open space; the
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Resource Protection Area; the buildings along Camelot Drive; and the issue of the interconnection loss
between Briarwood Drive and St. Ives.
Mr. Rooker said that the interconnection issue is the issue regarding the traffic information. Mr.
Wood said they would like to remove it because there is a grade differential of almost 40 feet at St. Ives that
would require a tremendous amount of excavating near the floodplain to achieve that connection. He
added that the plan was not digitized because of the time it was done, stating that there is a note that says
“if there is a conflict, the original plan survives.” Ms. Thomas stated that that would mean the road
connection would survive. Mr. Wood said that he is requesting that not be made.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that the applicant needs some time to get this application in shape, so
that it is clear to the Board and to the applicant what is being proffered by way of the Application Plan. Mr.
Rooker said it is not clear to him.
Mr. Boyd suggested including language that says that one item would not be subject to the first
plan taking precedence.
Mr. Wood said that it would cost too much to combine the two plans digitally. Mr. Rooker stated
that if the applicant could combine the two plans with the notes involved, that would be a big step towards
completion. He added that the traffic information would also need to be reviewed, and asked if staff could
determine this over the next few weeks.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that he cannot speak for the others involved, noting that Planning comments
can be done without a lot of effort, but he cannot speak to the traffic distribution study. He added that he
would need to confer with Mr. Graham.
Mr. Rooker suggested that the item come back to the Board in one month.
Mr. Dorrier said that Mr. Wood is ready to move forward now.
Mr. Rooker stated that there is a certain base level of information needed, and hopefully all of that
would be ready in 30 days. He added that the item could be brought back in three weeks for the afternoon
meeting.
Ms. Thomas noted that she has been against neighborhoods without connectivity, and she
indicated that she could interpret how the traffic would flow. Mr. Rooker stated that there are no numbers
provided to back up the traffic information.
Mr. Wyant said that this is going to be a tremendous cut that will cause a lot of exposed slope,
creating a drainage concern. He said that VDOT is going to look at Camelot as an entrance onto Route 29,
and there is not a lot of site distance for a left turn. Mr. Wyant stated that he believes that on the
Engineering side, usually data is provided to staff and VDOT for their review.
Mr. Boyd stated that he is not as concerned with interconnectivity. Mr. Rooker agreed, saying that
unless the traffic report showed there were problems with forcing everyone to the signalized intersection.
Mr. Wyant asked when Mr. Wood needs to have his submittal in to get reviews in. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that it would need to be soon, as there is no way to know when VDOT would comment. Mr.
Wood said that he could get everything to staff soon.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that the needed information is the six things that the applicant was told on
th
December 10.”
Mr. Wood said he could provide everything except VDOT information.
Mr. Rooker suggested providing everything possible, and noted that the new VDOT Resident
Engineer might be able to come to the meeting.
Mr. Wood stated that there is no opposition to the proposal.
Mr. Cilimberg informed Mr. Wood that it would be best if he spoke to Mark Graham, and staff could
let Mr. Wood know by Tuesday of the following week County Engineering’s position.
Mr. Rooker then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Eric Christiansen addressed the Board. He used to commute in that area, and mentioned that
the north entrance to this is adjacent to GE Fanuc. He emphasized that whatever traffic plan is considered
needs to take that the GE traffic into consideration. He commented that there are too many stoplights on
that stretch, and anything done to reduce the number would be appreciated.
At this time, it was the consensus of the Board to continue the public hearing until their February 2,
2005 meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the expectations for the points raised by the Planning Commission: (1) get
everything on one plan; (2) address any traffic impacts that would change, based on Engineering and
VDOT analysis; (3) clarification of orientation of buildings on Camelot Drive, especially those that would
rear-face that road; (4) the Resource Protection Area; (5) the open space area access; (6) streetscape –
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
sidewalks would need to meet VDOT standards.
Mr. Boyd stated that sidewalks should be kept consistent with what is already there. Board
members agreed that they would be consistent with the existing streetscape, providing they meet VDOT
requirements.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that Attachment B covers items that need to be addressed by Zoning.
Ms. Thomas commented that those things have been addressed.
Mr. Wood noted that the sideyard setback of 30 feet was also an issue. Mr. Cilimberg stated that
staff is supportive of it being reduced, and language would need to be included to address that.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Wyant, to defer ZMA-2004-0013 to
February 2, 2005.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None
______________
Agenda Item No. 9. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Development Departments should be making presentations,
representing Zoning, Planning, and Engineering. Mr. Tucker replied that the references Mr. Cilimberg
made indicate that there are subsets of the Planning Department that perform reviews. Mr. Cilimberg
answered that some of the information needed for reviews in this application was not available, and would
have to be handled by those subsets.
Ms. Thomas asked for comments from the students who attended.
One student expressed her surprise that so many details are covered when considering
development.
______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Adjourn. At 7:38 p.m. with no further business to come before the Board,
motion was made by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adjourn to January 19, 2005, 3:30 p.m. for
an afternoon work session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 04/20/2005
Initials: DBM