2005-10-12
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October
12, 2005, at 6:00 p.m., County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Senior Deputy Clerk, Debi Moyers, Director of Community Development, Mark Graham, and Director of
Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Lance Fjeseth, a resident on Commonwealth Circle, spoke about the continued disturbances at
the Waffle House and on Premier Circle. He distributed to the Board members a list of 17 calls he has
made to 911 including times and descriptions. Any efforts since he last spoke before the Board (March
16th) have been largely ineffective in dealing with this situation. He said that on one night 51 cars arrived on
Premier Circle. These people leave Wolfie’s Bar & Grill when it closes, and they tend to end up at the
Waffle House. He has spoken with Chief Miller on several occasions and Chief Miller said he had put
together a special task force to deal with the issue. He talked with Chief Miller at the time that Wolfie’s had
to get its liquor license renewed. He talked with the State’s ABC agent to try and get this put to a hearing
because people leave Wolfie’s drunk and then come to the Waffle House and create noise problems for
the surrounding residential neighborhood. Even though these people are creating a lot of problems, Chief
Miller had no problem with them getting their liquor license renewed. Because there are only nine police
officers on the night shift covering the whole County, having six of them come to Premier Circle seems to be
a safety issue for the rest of the County. This has been happening every week.
Mr. Fjeseth said he thinks tonight would be a good night for the Board members to come and
observe, or they can come on a Saturday night. Almost twice a week, every week, these people cuss, fight,
screech tires, and play music loud enough to rattle the windows in his house. He finds it ridiculous to have
to appear before this Board considering all of the meetings he had with Chief Miller, with Waffle House
Corporate, and with many different people including Mr. Brew who now chains off his parking lot in front of
Classic Furniture. He thought this was taken care of when he spoke with the Board back in March. The
only thing that has changed since he presented a year’s worth of documentation in March is that instead of
taking 45+ minutes to disperse a crowd, it now only takes 25+ minutes to disperse the crowd. At 2:00 a.m.,
45 minutes of loud music is a ridiculous thing to deal with. He asked the Board for some help with this
situation.
__________
Mr. Charlie Trachta said this is his birthday, but he decided to give the Board a present. He is going
to give them his observation of the members. He said that when Mr. Boyd spoke to him about running for
this Board, he told him he would represent Albemarle better by staying on the School Board and he has not
changed that opinion. As to Mr. Wyant, he can figure out his vote easily as it will always be against him and
people like him, homeowners who live in the urban ring. He has only three minutes, so for Mr. Bowerman
he would need three hours to make his comments. The last time he appeared before the Board it was to
speak about a young girl being victimized on a school yard during the day. That says it all, and it will be part
of Mr. Bowerman’s legacy as his representative on this Board. He cannot cut down Mr. Dorrier because no
matter what he thinks he may do, Mr. Trachta is always surprised.
Mr. Trachta said that back when Ms. Thomas’ e-mail address was “Write in Sally”, she represented
people. Yet, over the years he has seen her change. He thinks Ms. Thomas still believes she is defending
the people, yet it seems that more often she explains why she cannot defend them. He is sorry to say that
Ms. Thomas is becoming part of the problem. He remembers the first time he met Mr. Rooker. He
attended an A&A meeting because he felt his neighborhood needed help and the Board of Supervisors was
not doing it. Now, Mr. Rooker may be able to defend his own neighborhood, but what will he do about
others who find themselves in the same predicament. What does all of this relate to? Last week the Daily
Progress printed an article concerning the talk with Stonehaus and its neighbors. One line caught his
attention: “Whether an agreement is reached will be discussed next week, but it is not a prerequisite for a
decision.” He said some people believe the government should be fair and impartial. If there are matters
which are left to be talked about, that should be before a decision is made. For several years, Stonehaus
has talked about working with the people around them, but somehow they never got it right. He thinks the
Board will approve their plans and assure the neighborhood that Stonehaus can be trusted to fix the
remaining problems after it votes for approval. He thinks there should have been a meeting in Raintree
where they would have appreciated this joke so much more.
_______________
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Agenda Item No. 5a. Recognition: Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Mr. Rooker read the following proclamation into the record:
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
WHEREAS, violence against women, children and men continues to become more prevalent
as a social problem in our society; and
WHEREAS, in 2004, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, domestic violence programs offered
150,447 safe nights of shelter to women, children and men; 24-hour intervention
and referrals in response to 80,090 hotline calls; and 61,737 hours of counseling
and advocacy to families; and
WHEREAS, in 2004, the Shelter for Help in Emergency offered 4398 safe nights of shelter to
women, children and men; 24-hour intervention and referrals in response to 1037
hotline calls; and 1005 hours of counseling and advocacy to families; and
WHEREAS, the problems of domestic violence are not confined to any group or groups of
people but cross all economic, racial and societal barriers; and are supported by
societal indifference; and
WHEREAS, the crime of domestic violence violates an individual’s privacy, dignity, security and
humanity, due to systematic use of physical, emotional, sexual, psychological and
economic control and/or abuse, with the impact of this crime being wide-ranging;
and
WHEREAS, in our quest to impose sanctions on those who break the law by perpetrating
violence, we must also meet the needs of victims of domestic violence who often
suffer grave physical, psychological and financial losses; and
WHEREAS, it is victims of domestic violence themselves who have been in the forefront of
efforts to bring peace and equality to the home; and
th
WHEREAS, the Shelter for Help in Emergency commemorates its 26 anniversary of providing
unparalleled services to women, children and men who have been victimized by
domestic violence;
NOW THEREFORE, in recognition of the important work being done by the Shelter for Help in
Emergency, I, Dennis S. Rooker, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the month of
October, 2005 as
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and programs
sponsored by the Shelter for Help in Emergency to work toward the elimination of
personal and institutional violence against women, children and men.
Mr. Rooker then presented the proclamation to Ms. Becky Gildersleeve from SHE (Shelter for Help
and Emergency).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5b. Recognition: Board Members.
The Chairman presented a Certificate of Service to Mr. David Bowerman for his twenty-five years of
service to the County. He said it has been a pleasure to serve with Mr. Bowerman who has been a
tremendous assert to the County and who will be greatly missed when his term is over at the end of 2005.
Mr. Bowerman said this is a surprise and he expressed his appreciation for the plaque.
The Chairman then recognized and presented a Certificate of Service to Mr. Lindsay Dorrier for five
years of service to the County. He said Mr. Dorrier was actually a Board member in the past, so is a “repeat
offender.” He thanked Mr. Dorrier for his service and said it is a pleasure to serve with him. Mr. Dorrier said
he would like to say to Mr. Trachta and other citizens that the Board members serve with the finest people
in the world. He is fortunate to be a member of this Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-2004-007. Belvedere (Signs #62, 76 & 84). Public Hearing on a request
to rezone approx 206.682 acs from R-4 to NMD to allow up to 775 du w/overall density of 3.74 du/ac,
ranging from density of 1.6 du/ac in some areas to 9.4 du in others. TM 61, Ps 154, 157, 158, 160 (portion)
& 161, TM 62, Ps 2A (portion), 2B (portion), 2C, 3, 5 & 6A, & TM 62A3, Pl 1. Loc on E side of Rio Rd (Rt
631) immediately E of Southern Railroad. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Neighborhood
Density in northern portion of property (3-6 du/ac), Urban Density in middle & southern portions (6-34 du/ac)
& Community Service adjac to railroad, in Neighborhood 2. Rio Dist. (DEFERRED from October 5, 2005).
Mr. Cilimberg said this petition was on the agenda last week, and the Board expected that several
things would be addressed before this meeting tonight in the way of proffers, the Code of Development,
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
and the Application Plan for the project. He said all of these items have been completed, so that allows the
Board to take action if it chooses to do so tonight. Specifically, the Board asked that a pedestrian
connection between Blocks 1 & 2 be addressed. That is now shown on the plan and listed in the Code with
a standard portrayal and the Boardwalk Bridge. Tree Protection measures to protect the existing
Preservation Areas are now listed in the Code. There are 56 additional trees listed in the Code and a new
exhibit showing where those trees will be planted. The plan posted on the wall shows Area “A” and an Area
“B”, areas which are adjacent to a preservation area behind Rivercrest which is where the trees will be
planted. A sanitary sewer line has been removed from the edge of the Rivercrest neighborhood and moved
to another location to limit its impact on the existing residences. Staff does not think the new alignment will
have an affect on the existing trees in the Rivercrest open space area and the buffer between Belvedere
and Rivercrest.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board expected the applicant to work with the Rivercrest community
regarding additional screening measures, some of which might occur on Rivercrest properties. He said the
Board received a letter from the Rivercrest Homeowners’ Association and they have declined to have any
tree plantings on their properties. Instead, they expressed a desire to have those plantings occur in the
Dunlora development. He said the Board received some information from the developer stating their
position regarding additional screening. That was a matter the Board left to the developer and the
Homeowners. The elements the Board asked staff to work with the applicant on have been addressed. He
said he had copies of the final signed proffers and the Code of Development for the Board members.
Mr. Bowerman asked when these documents were finalized. Mr. Davis said the proffers were
delivered yesterday to the Community Development Department and were delivered to his office today. His
staff reviewed them this afternoon. Mr. Cilimberg said the revised Code of Development and the revised
Application Plan were also submitted yesterday.
Mr. Boyd asked if there were only additional pages submitted, or whole new sets. Mr. Cilimberg
said the applicant submitted new pages for the Plan, and the Code and the proffers.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there were notable differences in this last filing. Mr. Davis said there were a
number of things that were technically incorrect that had to fixed, such as the name of the corporation which
owns the project. The proffers did not require a lot of substantive changes. Most of the substantive change
was in the Code of Development. The proffer changes basically fixed a lot of technical language issues
rather than substantive issues.
Mr. Cilimberg said he had mentioned the areas that would be for the supplemental screening, and
the Plan now shows the location of the trail between Blocks 1 and 2. It shows the new location of the sewer
line; the sewer line that would have gone into Rivercrest has been removed. Those were things the Board
anticipated would be done based on communication with the applicant. The Code now specifies the design
of the Class B trail and the crossing of the stream between Areas 1 and 2. It now speaks specifically to the
plantings that will occur in Areas “A” and “B” and the 56 trees that will be planted there. There was an
addition regarding any alterations of final program elements that would in the sight of the neighborhood
center and adjacent recreational amenities that might be necessary to better serve the neighborhood at the
time of construction. There is a lengthy section on tree preservation that mimics that used in the Old Trail
development.
Mr. Wyant said this development has commercial shops. Mr. Cilimberg said that is true.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff has a recommendation at this time. Mr. Cilimberg said the recommendation
from the Planning Commission was for denial. The Board worked with this plan based on its expectations,
and staff believes the applicant has met the expectations stated last week. The only missing piece, and
staff is not in a position to speak to that in one way or the other, is how arrangements with the Rivercrest
Homeowners have been satisfied. The Board will probably want to talk to the applicant about that.
Mr. Rooker said the Planning Commission recommended denial and set out eight reasons for that
recommendation. He thinks those eight things have now been dealt with adequately. He said the Board
wanted the proffers and the Code of Development to reflect the changes dealing with the bridge issue and
dealing with the buffer/screening of the Rivercrest neighborhood. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board dealt with
the other matters listed by the Commission during several meetings. Those had to do with the provision of
affordable housing and the road provisions with the development. He said those issues were addressed by
the Board in earlier meetings.
Ms. Thomas asked if the sewer line is part of what is in Area “B”. Mr. Cilimberg said “no.” It is not in
that area. At this time it will not approach the Rivercrest area; it drains in a different direction.
Ms. Thomas asked if Area “B” is disturbed because of stormwater detention. Mr. Cilimberg said it is
an area of supplement screening. As one looks to the southwest from Rivercrest, you would look across
the area to be disturbed with the dam and the stormwater facility. Area “B” itself is not being disturbed.
Mr. Sean Dougherty, Senior Planner, said the grading for the multifamily buildings will begin to
impact some of the area behind the buildings and there will be some disturbance from construction and
from the stormwater facility. The conceptual grading plan shows grading behind those buildings for 20 or
30 feet to the edge of the tree line. That grading will require that some trees be eliminated. Between there
and the Rivercrest neighbors there is open space in Rivercrest which was to carry the sewer line, but now
will not carry the sewer line. The area is not as wooded as other areas, but there are some trees that will
be disturbed, and behind that is Area “B” which will retain some trees, and additional screening will be
planted.
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Ms. Thomas said the 56 trees are not those trees mentioned in the Homeowners’ letter the Board
received. Mr. Cilimberg said the letter mentioned additional trees that would be in an area beyond Area “A”
and Area “B”.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Cilimberg was saying the trees will be between Area “A” and Area “B”. Mr.
Cilimberg said staff has identified an area between Area “A” and Area “B” and to the west side of the
preservation area.
Mr. Boyd asked about the final affordable housing proffer. Mr. Davis said unfortunately the copy of
the proffers handed to the Board tonight only contains the odd numbered sheets. He said there is a cash
proffer that provides $1000 per each single-family detached dwelling unit, $750 for each single-family
attached or townhouse unit, and $500 for each multi-family condominium unit. In addition, there are 103
carriage house units that will be provided. That is 115 out of a potential 775 lots.
Mr. Rooker asked if staff would photocopy a full set of the proffers for the Board members. He said
the Board would go ahead with the public hearing while that is being done. He asked the applicant to
address the Board, but to limit comments to things which have been open issues.
Mr. Don Henley said with regard to the Rivercrest community, at a significant cost the sewer line
was moved; it will have an impact on Rivercrest by eliminating the need to create a sight line between the
two properties. He then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Rooker asked if the offer made in the letter the Board had at the last meeting concerning
additional plantings has been eliminated. Mr. Henley said the applicant made that offer but at a meeting
with the Rivercrest Homeowners Association they indicated they had no desire to have plantings placed on
their property. The applicant then sought alternative means to address their concerns. That led to the
decision to relocate the sewer line and to provide the two additional buffer areas at the top of the hill with
the additional 56 trees for screening purposes.
Mr. Bowerman asked if relocating the existing sewer line protects the existing 90-foot buffer so it is
no longer necessary to have additional plantings at the top of that area. Mr. Henley said if small trees are
placed at the top of a hill those trees would only screen the bottom of the buildings. They think their efforts
would be better spent concentrating screening in the area most exposed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if that is in the areas which were eliminated. Mr. Henley said that is correct;
that is Area “A” and Area “B”.
Ms. Thomas said she assumes there would be no extra trees planted in areas other than Area “A”
and Area “B”. Mr. Henley pointed out the areas on the map posted on the wall.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is a tree preservation plan for the trees in the 90+ foot buffer plus the
new trees. Mr. Henley said the new trees will not need to be preserved. They will be planted at the time
construction is completed. The existing trees will be protected. All of the new plantings will go outside of
the drip line of the existing forest and trees, and a temporary chain-link fence will be installed to provide
assurance that those trees are not accidentally damaged during the grading or construction process. They
have also implemented the same tree preservation standards that were used at the Old Trail development
which involve things like not filling in over the roots, not grading around and not parking equipment under
the drip line of the trees.
Ms. Thomas asked if those standards will not apply to Areas “A” and “B” because they will be used
during construction. Mr. Henley said Areas “A” and “B” will be finished when the buildings have been
constructed. They anticipate that there will be a number of street trees and other decorative trees that will
be placed throughout the property. These trees are there specifically for screening the property from the
view of the Rivercrest residents.
Mr. Rooker invited the public to speak.
A lady who refused to identify herself said she lives in the Northfield area. She believes this is a
“done deal.” She is new to the area. She understands the County’s master plan calls for “jamming in a lot
of things” in the urban area. She said if this is done there will be problems similar to the things mentioned
by a speaker earlier about ruckus. There was recently a shooting at Abbingdon Crossing across from
Northfield Subdivision. She asked if the Board has considered the traffic on Rio Road. It is a nightmare
now. She was amazed that over 700 units in this development would have to exit onto Rio Road. She said
this is a beautiful property and asked if it would be razed and then trees replanted.
Mr. Bowerman said this project has been in the works for over two years. The lady said her
neighbors did not know anything about it.
Mr. Rooker said numerous public hearings and work sessions have been held on this proposal. He
said the lady may not be aware that the property has about 800 by-right development rights without a
rezoning the property. The developer could have filed a site plan and built that number of units without
going through these hearings and without having a Code of Development for this development. A lot of
additional features will be provided that would not have had to be provided. In Virginia there is no “adequate
public facilities” legislation. That means the County cannot turn down development on any property which
has proper zoning based on the fact that there are not adequate public facilities to serve that property. As a
matter of state law, he would ask everyone in this room tonight to go to their legislator and say they will vote
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
him out of office unless he works to pass adequate public facilities legislation to authorize localities to turn
down development for which it has been determined there are not adequate public facilities.
The lady said that is why she said it is a done deal.
Mr. Bowerman said thousands of hours have been spent on this petition, so at the last minute it is
not fair to criticize a process that has been going on for two years.
The lady said she thought there should have been more detail in the newspaper about exactly what
has been going on. She did come into the office and talk to a staff person about the proposal. She
understands a little bit. She asked that the Board consider the road for safety.
Mr. John Putalik said he is president of the Rivercrest Homeowners’ Association. He expressed
appreciation to the Board for its patience in recognizing their concerns about Belvedere’s impact on
Rivercrest residents. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dougherty who helped shape
what appears to be the compromise at this point. While there are some remaining details about the
plantings adjacent to the multi-story buildings that will face Rivercrest, they presume that will be taken into
consideration by the Planning Commission when the final site plan is completed. He said the offer to
present some of the lot owners with a cash offer might well be utilized for the purpose of plantings between
the preservation area and those buildings.
Mr. Davis said a minor change was made to the proffers that is not reflected on the copy given to
the Board tonight. In Proffer 4.5 there were words that were inadvertently left in at the end of the first line of
that proffer “, owner of” so the proffer was not understandable with those words left in. Those words have
been struck so that line simply says “They will provide a 50-foot wide access easement to the Fairview
Swim Club.” That change has been initialed on the original proffers.
Mr. Joe Mason said he is a resident of Carrsbrook. Hopefully the reason for the traffic exiting onto
Rio Road is that currently in the quadrant bordered by Carrsbrook/Huntington/Route 29/Rio Road there are
probably 700 homes and this will double that population. They already have a traffic problem (speed, not
volume) going through those neighborhoods. He understands the point made in the Neighborhood Model
that interconnectivity of neighborhoods is desirable He interprets that to mean interconnectivity should
mainly be for pedestrian and bicycle purposes; an increase in traffic through neighborhoods like his is
detrimental to the quality of the neighborhood. Currently there is not a concrete plan to put an access road
between Huntington and Belvedere, and he wants to make it clear that is undesirable to those who live in
the neighborhood. They do not want that to happen in the future.
Mr. Michael Coppola said he is president of the Fairview Swimming & Tennis Club. He said Mr.
Davis mentioned the change in the proffer, and he asked the meaning of the change in the right-of-way
access. Mr. Davis said there is a proffer stating the owner will provide the Fairview Swim Club a 50-foot
wide access easement from Belvedere Drive to the edge of the Swim Club property.
Mr. Rooker said the proffer is to the benefit of the Swim Club. There were words added to that
sentence by mistake, and they have now been deleted. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed. He asked Mr. Davis if there had been adequate time to review the proffers to be
sure that technically they are sufficient. Mr. Davis said they are not model proffers, but technically they are
in correct form and they can be accepted by the Board and can be enforced.
Mr. Rooker said although the Code of Development is not mentioned in the proffers, it becomes
part of the rezoning and is enforceable. Mr. Davis said that is correct.
Mr. Rooker said everything discussed tonight is covered in the Code of Development as now
presented. Mr. Davis said that is correct.
Mr. Boyd asked the estimated build-out time for this development. Mr. Cilimberg said the developer
has not indicated what that is.
Mr. Boyd said people need to understand that there will not be 700 homes on that property in a
year, and the County is looking at road improvements such as the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Cilimberg
said the County average over the last 10 years in residential building permits has been about 900 per year
for the entire County.
Mr. Bowerman said that has been unchanged for a long period of time. Mr. Cilimberg said it varies,
but generally is within a margin of a couple of hundred above or below that 900 number. Last year was a
low year.
Mr. Rooker said normally when that number goes up it is due to apartment complexes being built.
He then asked for a motion.
Mr. Bowerman said he is satisfied that the Board has dealt with all of the issues that were
outstanding. If there are any plantings indicated at the top of that preserved 90-foot existing stand of
deciduous trees, that fact will be noted at the site plan stage and it can be dealt with then.
Mr. Rooker said a number of the green areas will be undisturbed areas. Mr. Cilimberg said the
darker green areas shown on the plan are preservation areas. The lighter green areas are
conservation/open space areas and there could be disturbance in these areas for things like utilities.
Mr. Rooker said one of the speakers asked about the only plantings to be left. Mr. Cilimberg said
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
the applicant is required to do additional landscaping as part of the development in addition to the green
areas shown on the plan.
Ms. Thomas said there is also a requirement for street trees. Mr. Cilimberg said there will be street
trees and trees within parking areas.
Mr. Wyant asked about the proffer concerning a cash contribution for affordable housing. Mr. Davis
said the provision regarding use of the cash is a fairly typical proffer. In proffers where real property is
dedicated, state law requires that there be a provision as to how the property will actually be used, if not
used for the proffered purpose. For cash proffers, it is uncommon for the same type of provision to be
added. This proffer does not concern him because it runs from the date of the last cash contribution which
could be many years from now. The funding will be in a segregated account and undoubtedly will be used
for this purpose within that ten-year period.
Mr. Rooker said in the future applicants might be told the Board does not like to see time limitations
in proffers. Mr. Davis said there are a lot of time limitations in these proffers which he would not include if
he had a choice. However, if the applicant wants them, for whatever reason, that is something they do add
to proffers and none of them concern him although they could cause issues in the future. There are time
limits which must be monitored and the County must be concerned about them to make sure something
that is being proffered is not inadvertently waived.
Ms. Thomas said those time limits have an impact on the County. A staff person has to be added
to make sure things are done timely.
Mr. Boyd said that last week it was mentioned that the proffers for affordable housing will be put
into a pooled fund. He asked if the money can be considered as being spent when it is put into that fund.
Mr. Rooker said there is a Housing Trust Fund. He envisioned that the proffers would go into that
Fund and not in a separate account. Mr. Davis said by state law, proffered cash has to be separately
accounted for. What staff will do is allocate money from that proffer account to a specific funding project.
There will be no question that the money is spent when it is allocated. The issue discussed previously
concerned a special use permit, and that money does not go into a separate account. He said Mr.
Rooker’s point was well taken because if the special use permit money was not specifically accounted for
there might be no way to know when it was spent.
Mr. Wyant said he thinks it creates an administrative nightmare for the County to track these funds.
Mr. Boyd asked why it cannot be considered as spent at the time it is deposited into the Trust Fund.
Mr. Davis said staff may take that position. It will be a source of revenue for a program, and the money will
be expended in a fiscal year. There will be no doubt that it has been expended.
At this point, Mr. Bowerman offered motion to approve ZMA-2004-007, as proffered with those
proffers that have been reviewed by the County Attorney on October 12, 2005, and subject to the Code of
Development as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Ms. Thomas said she is going to be consistent. She voted against the Hollymead Town Center
because the Board received the proffers as they sat down at the table that night. She does not believe that
is the way to run the County’s business. Neither the citizens nor the Board members have had time to
review the proffers or the Code of Development for this petition. She appreciates the work the applicants,
the neighborhood and the staff have done in the last months to make sure the plan all fits together and that
it meets the concerns of the neighborhood. She thinks the Board is doing something which is unwise and
which will be regretted She does not think action should be taken on proffers that were received by the
legal counsel’s office today, and received by the Board members tonight after they sat down at the desk.
For that reason, and not because she has any particular concern with the resulting development plan which
has been worked out skillfully for many tricky configurations of land problems, as well as the concerns of
the Board and the neighborhood. She will vote against this petition strictly on the procedural issue. The
Board does not provide good service to the community when it votes on something it has received at the
last minute, and she feels the more this happens, the more it will happen.
Mr. Rooker asked if Ms. Thomas was suggesting that this matter be deferred.
Ms. Thomas said she would be happy to have it deferred, but there is already a motion on the floor.
Mr. Rooker said it seems that everyone is in agreement that all of the issues that were raised have
been adequately dealt with and the product is ready to go forward. The issue about the proffers coming in
at the last minute is an issue the Board needs to deal with. Does the Board want to set a hard policy and
have that brought back to the Board next week? He knows a policy was adopted by a Board in the past.
He suggested that this Board adopt a policy about the lead time needed when proffers are received so
Board and staff have adequate time to review those final proffers. The Board did ask Mr. Davis if he was
comfortable that every issue raised has been dealt with, and he said “yes.”
Mr. Bowerman said that is why he asked what changes had been made from previous applications.
He is satisfied although he is not at all pleased that the proffers were just received tonight. However, he
thinks the Board has spent enough time on this petition.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has seen a number of drafts of the proffers in the past. What it had not
seen until tonight was the final signed version. He asked if the Board members wanted to take the time to
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
review the proffers. He asked Mr. Davis what changes which had been made in this version of the proffers.
Mr. Davis said he is not sure which draft of the proffers was last seen by the Board members. He said the
changes have not been substantive, but have been technical. He does not know that there would be much
value going through the changes made. He said the substantive changes were in the Code of
Development, rather than in the proffers.
Mr. Rooker said the substantive changes were things the Board asked for at last week’s meeting.
This petition was deferred last week because the Board had issues it wanted dealt with in a certain way.
Tonight staff is saying those issues have all been dealt with in the Code of Development and the proffers
are the same except for some technical changes that Mr. Davis has found to be acceptable.
Mr. Boyd said that philosophically he agrees with Ms. Thomas. He does not like to see last minutes
changes, but these changes were made basically because of input the Board received in meetings with the
public. The Board presented last minute requests to the applicant. If guidelines are set up, what is the
value of last minute input from the public? He does not know what the solution is except to amend lines or
pages that would be easily identified rather than having a whole new proffer statement. He thinks this issue
has been vetted, and it is as good a compromise as the Board will receive. He is not in favor of deferring it,
but would rather have the vote tonight.
Mr. Wyant said he is uncomfortable with the way the process has been working lately. Last week it
was suggested that if a petition contained a set of plans, the Board members should just get copies of the
sheets changed. When the Code of Development and the proffers are changed, it is unfair to the citizens
who would like to respond to have last minute changes. He said this particular plan has been worked over
closely, and he is comfortable with the plan moving ahead.
Mr. Dorrier said it is probably because the Neighborhood Model District is new to the County that
there have been so many changes. Basically, the Board has been having a dialogue with the public and
with the applicant. Changes were made to strengthen the plan. He would object to a delay. What would a
week’s delay do for the petition that cannot be done right now? The Board could go through the revisions
right now.
Mr. Rooker said it is a little different if the Board continually fine tunes the petition. He said there is
a motion on the floor, and asked that the roll be called. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The proffers, as approved, are set out in full below.)
Original Proffer: 10/012/2005
Amended Proffer:
(Amendment #_______)
PROFFER FORM
Date of Proffer Signature 10/10/2005
ZMA # 2004-00007
Tax Map 61, Parcels 154,157,158,160,161
Tax Map 62, Parcels 2A, 2B, 2C, 3, 5, 6A
Tax Map 62A3, Parcel 1
206.682 Acres to be rezoned from R-4 to Neighborhood Model District (NMD)
With respect to the property described in rezoning application #ZMA-2004-00007 (the “ZMA”), Belvedere
Station Land Trust is the fee simple owner of the following parcels:
?
TMP 61-00-00-154
?
TMP 61-00-00-158
?
TMP 61-00-00-160
?
TMP 61-00-00-161
?
TMP 62-00-00-5
?
TMP 62-00-00-2C
?
TMP 62-00-00-6A
?
TMP 62A3-00-00-1
Belvedere Station Land Trust is the fee simple owner of a ½ interest, along with Charlotte G. and Jacob C.
Levenson in a 5.40 acre Belvedere Road ROW associated with TMP 62-00-00-2A, which is wholly owned in
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
fee simple by Charlotte G. and Jacob C. Levenson Dunlora LLC is the fee simple owner of the following parcel:
?
TMP 61-00-00-157
Robert Hauser Homes Inc. is the fee simple owner of the following parcel:
?
TMP 62-00-00-2B
StoneHaus Inc. and Henry Nelson Sprouse are the fee simple owners of the following parcel
?
TMP 62-00-00-3
The foregoing parties are collectively referred to herein as the “Owner,” which term shall include any
successors in interest. All of the parcels listed above are referred to collectively as the “Property.”
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), Owner hereby voluntary
proffers the conditions listed in this Proffer Statement, which shall be applied to the Property if the ZMA is
approved by Albemarle County. These conditions are proffered as part of the ZMA and it is agreed that: (1) the
ZMA itself gives rise to the need for the conditions, and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the
rezoning requested.
1. Plan Exhibits.
1.1 Exhibits not in the Code of Development. The following exhibits which are not part of the General
Development Plans or the Code of Development are proffered as a part of this rezoning:
?
Exhibit 14 Archaeological Survey Summary
?
Exhibit 15 Architectural Reconnaissance Survey
2. Affordable Housing.
2.1 Cash Contribution. Owner shall contribute to Albemarle County a minimum of one thousand dollars
($1,000) per single family detached dwelling unit, $750 per single family attached or townhouse unit, and $500
per multi–family condominium unit. The cash contribution shall be due and payable with each application for
building permit. This cash proffer shall not apply to Carriage House units or multi-family rental housing. The
cash contribution shall be used for the purpose of funding affordable housing programs including those
provided by nonprofit housing agencies within Albemarle County. If this cash contribution has not been
exhausted by the County for the stated purpose within ten (10) years from the date of the last payment of the
contribution, all the unexpended funds shall be refunded to the Owner.
2.2 Carriage House Units. Owner proffers to require through the lot sale contracts on the Property the
construction of a minimum of 103 Carriage House Units on the Property that meet the requirements for a single
family dwelling as defined in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Each Carriage House Unit shall
conform to the Code of Development, Appendix A, Carriage House Units, General Standards. Each Carriage
House Unit shall be on the same parcel as the primary dwelling unit to which it is accessory. Carriage House
Units may not be subdivided from the primary residence. The subdivision restriction shall be described on the
plat creating such parcels and be incorporated into each deed conveying title to such parcels.
3. Open Space and Greenways.
3.1 Open Space: The Owner shall restrict from development all open space areas which are areas not
shown as development parcels on the General Development Plan. In no event shall the total area of open
space areas, which include the preservation areas, conservation areas, greenway (defined in 3.2 below), buffer
and park areas shown on Exhibit 5a, 5b and 5c, be less than twenty-five percent(25%) of the total land within
the Property. These areas shall be for the use and enjoyment of the residents of the Property, subject to the
restrictions that may be imposed by any declaration recorded as part of a conveyance of these areas to a
homeowner’s association.
3.2 Greenway: The Owner shall dedicate and convey to Albemarle County, upon demand by the County, a
strip of land no less than one hundred (100) feet in width and adequate to accommodate the construction,
maintenance and use of a 10 foot wide pedestrian trail along the Rivanna River from the Property’s boundary
with Dunlora Farm (Tax Map 62 Parcel 16-A) to the Property’s boundary with the Southern Railway right-of-way
(as it exists on November 19, 2004) (the “Greenway”). The precise location of the greenway shall be mutually
agreed upon by the Owner and the County, and such agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld. The
Greenway will be conveyed in the form of a general warranty deed and the Owner shall bear the cost of a
survey and preparing the deed. Upon request by the County, the Owner shall also contribute $10,000 cash for
application toward the cost of constructing the Greenway according to the County’s current standards for a
class B trail. Such contribution shall be made by Owner within 30 days of receipt of a written request by the
County. If the request is not made within seven (7) years from the date of submission of the first final site plan
for Phase I, this cash proffer shall become null and void. If such cash contribution is not fully expended for the
stated purpose within two (2) years from the date the funds are contributed to the County, all unexpended funds
shall be refunded to the Owner. If the greenway is not used for the purpose for which it is dedicated within 10
years from the date of dedication, the County shall transfer the land back to and for the use of the Owner to be
used as open space. The Owner will provide a pedestrian connection to the Greenway through the Belvedere
Community’s internal trail system, as illustrated in Exhibits 5a, 5b, and 5c attached to the Code of Development.
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
3.3 Greenway bridge: Within 30 days following request by the County, Owner shall contribute $10,000
cash for application toward the cost of constructing a pedestrian bridge linking the Rivanna River Greenway in
Dunlora (Tax Map Parcel 62F-A3) to RiverRun (Tax Map Parcel 62-D1-1A), thereby allowing neighborhood
residents access to facilities in Pen Park and other portions of the Greenway system. If the request is not made
within seven (7) years from the date of submission of the first final site plan for Phase I, this proffer shall
become null and void. If such cash contribution is not expended for the stated purpose within two (2) years from
the date the funds were contributed to the County, all unexpended funds shall be refunded to the Owner.
4. Road Construction and Reservation of Right-of-way.
4.1 North Free State Connector Road. The Owner or successors in interest shall dedicate upon demand
by the County a one hundred (100) foot wide right-of-way to public use as shown on Exhibit 2b and labeled
“Reserved Road ROW”. Where less than one hundred (100) feet of right-of-way is available on the Owner’s
Property (Approximately the first eight hundred (800) feet from Rio Road), the Owner shall dedicate the
available right-of-way. Fee simple interest shall be dedicated by the Owner within six (6) months following
receipt by the Owner of written notice of demand by the County. The County must accept the dedication within
twelve (12) months following its demand for dedication.
4.2 Future North Free State Connector Extension Road. The Owner shall dedicate a one hundred (100)
foot strip of land along the Property boundary with the Norfolk Southern Railroad as shown on Exhibit 2c and
labeled “100’ Reserved Road ROW” for dedication upon demand by the county for the purpose of constructing
a road that extends the North Free State Connector Road northward across the Rivanna River. The Owner shall
dedicate right-of-way within six (6) months following written notice of demand by the County. Such reservation
shall remain in place through December 31, 2025. The County must accept the dedication within twelve (12)
months following its demand for . Should this road be removed from the Albemarle County Comprehensive
Plan, said reservation shall become null and void, and the Owner or Successors shall retain fee simple
ownership of the parcel.
4.2.1 North Free State Connector Extension Road Design. The Owner or successors in interest shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County Engineer and VDOT that the North Free State Connector
Extension Road can be accommodated by the Block 2 Development Plan. Approval of VDOT and the County
engineer must be secured prior to final platting and road plan approval in Block 2.
4.3 Free State Road Right-of-way. The Owner or successors in interest shall dedicate, upon demand by
the County, a fifty (50) foot wide right-of-way along portions of the existing Free State Road that are on the
Owner’s Property from its proposed intersection with Belvedere Blvd between Road C and Road K to its
intersection with Loring Run Road. Where the road is only partially on the Property, Owner shall dedicate
sufficient right-of-way width to ensure a total right-of-way of not less than fifty (50) feet inclusive of the existing
proscriptive right-of-way. The right-of-way will be conveyed within six (6) months following receipt of written
notice by the County, in the form of a general warranty deed and the Owner shall bear the cost of a survey and
preparation of the deed. If the dedicated land is not used for the purpose for which it was dedicated within two
(2) years from the date of dedication, the County shall transfer the land back to, and for the use of, the Owner
or successors in interest.
4.4 Connection to Dunlora Farm. The Owner or successors in interest shall dedicate upon demand by the
County, a fifty (50) foot wide right-of-way extending from Road D to the property line at the eastern terminus of
Road J, as shown on Exhibit 2c. The right-of-way will be conveyed within six (6) months following receipt of
written notice by the County, fee simple, in the form of a general warranty deed and Owner shall bear the cost
of a survey and preparation of the deed. The County must accept the dedication within twelve (12) months
following its demand for dedication. If the dedicated land is not used for the purpose for which it was dedicated
within ten (10) years from the date of dedication, the County shall transfer the land back to, and for the use of,
the Owner or successors in interest.
4.5 Fairview Access. The Owner agrees to provide to Fairview Swim Club, owner of (initialed RMH) a fifty
(50) foot wide access easement from Belvedere Drive to the edge of the Fairview Swim Club Property, (Tax
Map Parcel 61-160B and 61-160C) to facilitate vehicular access to the existing Fairview entrance or in other
such location that is mutually agreeable to the parties and in conformance with applicable County and VDOT
regulations. The Owner shall grant easement within sixty (60) days following approval of final road plan for
Belvedere Boulevard in phase 1.
5. Overlot Grading Plan
5.1 Subdivision Plans. The Owner shall submit an overlot grading plan meeting the requirement of this
section (hereinafter, the “plan”) with the application for each subdivision of Property into single family detached
lots and single family attached dwelling units shown on the General Development Plan. The plan shall show
existing and proposed topographic features to be considered in the development of the proposed subdivision.
The plan shall be approved by the County Engineer prior to final approval of the subdivision plat. The Property
within the subdivision shall be graded as shown on the approved plan. No certificate of occupancy shall be
issued for any dwelling on a lot where the County Engineer has determined the lot grading is not consistent with
the approved grading plan. The plan shall satisfy the following:
(a) The plan shall show all proposed streets, building sites, setbacks, surface drainage,
driveways, trails, and other features the County Engineer determines are needed to verify that
the plan satisfies the requirements of this proffer.
(b) The plan shall be drawn to a scale not greater than one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet.
(c) All proposed grading shall be shown with contour intervals not greater than two (2) feet. All
concentrated surface drainage over lots shall be clearly shown with the proposed grading. All
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
proposed grading shall be designed to assure that surface drainage can provide adequate
relief from the flooding of dwellings in the event a storm sewer fails.
(d) Graded slopes on lots proposed to be planted with turf grasses (lawns) shall not exceed a
gradient of three (3) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (3:1).
Steeper slopes shall be vegetated with low maintenance vegetation as determined to be
appropriate by the County’s program authority in its approval of an erosion and sediment
control plan for the land disturbing activity. These steeper slopes shall not exceed a gradient
of two (2) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (2:1), unless the
County Engineer finds that the grading recommendations for steeper slopes have adequately
addressed the impacts.
(e) Surface drainage may flow across up to three (3) lots before being collected in a storm sewer
or directed to a drainage way outside of the lots.
(f) No surface drainage across a residential lot shall have more than one-half (1/2) acre of land
draining to it.
(g) All drainage from streets shall be carried across lots in a storm sewer to a point beyond the
rear of the building site.
6. Preservation of Historic Structures, Sites and Archaeological Sites.
6.1 Archaeological Survey. A Phase I Archaeological Study for the Property shall be submitted by the
Owner to the Director of Planning for his review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. An
archaeological resource treatment plan shall be submitted by the Owner to, and approved by, the Director of
Planning for all sites in the Phase I study that are recommended for Phase II evaluation, and/or identified as
being eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. If a Phase II study is undertaken, such a
study shall be approved by the Director of Planning and a treatment plan for said sites shall be submitted to,
and approved by, the Director of Planning for sites that are determined to be eligible for inclusion the National
Register of Historic Places and/or those sites that require a Phase III study. If, in a Phase II study, a site is
determined to be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and said site is to be
preserved in place, the treatment plan shall include nomination of the site to the National Register of Historic
Places. If a Phase III study is undertaken for said sites, such studies shall be approved by the Director of
Planning prior to land disturbance within the study area. All Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III studies shall meet
the Virginia Department of Historic Resources’ Guidelines for Preparing Archaeological Resource Management
Reports and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation, as
applicable, and shall be conducted under the supervision of a qualified archaeologist who meets the
qualifications set forth in the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. All approved
treatment plans shall be incorporated into the plan of development for the site and shall be adhered to during
the clearing, grading, and construction activities thereon.
6.2 Potential Artifacts. Should Phases I or II or III studies yield objects or artifacts of archaeological
significance, these objects shall be conveyed to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) for long
term preservation. Should Phase III fieldwork yield subsurface architectural features and artifacts related to
th-th
18 or early 19-century domestic occupations at Free State, and should these sites be deemed
archaeologically significant by archaeologists with the Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery
(DAACS) based at the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, these artifacts will be submitted to the archaeologists at
the Thomas Jefferson Foundation for analysis and entry into DAACS prior to being conveyed to the VDHR.
The Owner will be solely responsible for conveying all artifacts analyzed by DAACS to the VDHR within 30 days
of receipt of such artifacts.
6.3 Roadside Markers. Upon request by the County, the owner shall contribute up to $5,000 cash to fund
the cost of creating and installing two roadside historical markers as described in section 5 of the Code of
Development. If the request is not made within one (1) year from the date of approval of the first final site plan
for Phase I, this proffer shall become null and void. If such cash contribution is not expended for the stated
purpose within two (2) years from the date the funds were contributed to the County, all unexpended funds shall
be refunded to the Owner.
7. Phasing and Mitigation of Impact.
7.1 Phasing. Phases of Belvedere infrastructure will be constructed sequentially beginning with Phase 1,
then 2, etc. This proffer shall not restrict the Owner’s ability to develop multiple phases concurrently nor shall it
require the completion of all buildings and other improvements in one phase before beginning construction on
the next.
7.2 Mitigation of Construction Traffic Impact. The Owner shall neither establish, nor allow to be
established, ingress or egress for any vehicle, heavy equipment, or farm machinery or farm equipment to and
from the Property except at the intersection of the alignment of Belvedere Boulevard and East Rio Road, as
shown on Exhibit 2B, and from the northern segment of Free State Road that crosses Free State Bridge, as
shown on Exhibit 1, of the General Development Plan, dated August 22, 2005, or on any public street shown on
a final subdivision plat that has been constructed and accepted by VDOT or bonded for acceptance by VDOT.
For purposes of this proffer, the term " vehicle" means every device on or by which any person or property is or
may be transported or drawn on a highway, except devices moved by human power or used exclusively on
stationary rails or tracks, that are used in the construction on or below the Property, including all improvements
placed on the property by the Owner or successors in interest, its contractors, subcontractors or agents. The
term "heavy equipment" means self-propelled, self-powered or pull-type equipment and machinery, including
engines, weighing 5000 pounds or more, primarily employed for construction, industrial, maritime, mining and
forestry uses.
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
8. Code Enforcement
8.1 Architectural Standards – The Owner shall prepare and record a declaration of covenants, conditions
and restrictions that, among other things, establishes architectural standards equal to or more stringent than the
architectural standards in the Code of Development, and establishes an Architectural Standards Committee
("ASC"). The declaration shall include among the powers and duties of the ASC the authority and responsibility
to determine that each structure within the Property complies with all applicable architectural standards before
submitting the proposal to the County to conduct its review for compliance with the architectural standards
established in the Code of Development.
Signatures of All Owners: Printed Names of All Owners: Date:
_Robert M. Hauser (signed)________ _Robert M. Hauser___________ _10-10-05________
Belvedere Station Land Trust: Trustee
_Robert M. Hauser (signed)________ _Robert M. Hauser___________ _10-10-05________
Dunlora LLC by RHH Inc. Manager by:
Robert M. Hauser
_Robert M. Hauser (signed)________ _Robert M. Hauser___________ _10-10-05________
Robert Hauser Homes, Inc. by CEO
_Robert M. Hauser (signed)________ _Robert M. Hauser___________ _10-10-05________
StoneHaus, Inc. by CEO
_Henry Nelson Sprouse (signed)____ _Henry Nelson Sprouse_______ _10-10-05________
Henry Nelson Sprouse
_Jacob C. Levenson (signed)_______ _Jacob C. Levenson _________ 10-10-05________
Jacob C. Levenson
_Charlotte G. Levenson (signed)____ _Charlotte G. Levenson _______ 10-10-05________
Charlotte G. Levenson
__________
ZMA Code of Development
Belvedere
The County of Albemarle
Submitted by:
Stonehaus Development- Owners and Developers
Cline Design Associates, PA Planning and Architecture
WW Associates – Civil Engineers
October 10, 2005
Table of Contents
1. Purpose and Intent
2. Planned Land Uses
3. The Built Form of Belvedere
a. Architectural Standards
b. Landscaping Standards
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
4. Street Classifications
5. Preservation of historic structures, sites, and archaeological sites
6. Lot Layout Regulations
Tables :
Table 1: Maximum Residential Densities and Number of Units
Table 2 Minimum Residential Densities and Number of Units
Table 3 Developed Square Footage
Table 4 Green Space Tabulation
Table 5 Amenities Tabulation
Table 6 Permitted /Prohibited Uses by Block
Table 7 Minimum Planting Requirements
Table 8 Road Standards
Table 9 Build-to Lines and other Lot Regulations
Appendix A: Carriage House Unit Regulations
Exhibits:
1. Area of Rezoning
2. General Development Plans
2A General Development Plan
2B Block 1 & 2 General Development Plan
2C Blocks 3-10 General Development Plan
3. Illustrative Development Plan
4. Block 1 & 2 Potential Development Scenario
5. Open Space Master Plan
5A. Block 1 & 2 Open Space Plan
5B. Blocks 3-10 Open Space Plan
6. Concept Grading Plan Blocks 1 and 2
7. Concept Grading Plan Blocks 3-10
8. Urban Streetscape Cross Section
9. Commons Streetscape Perspective
10. Village Green Perspective
11. Streetscape Sections
12. Development Phasing Plan
13. Belvedere Boulevard/Free State Connector Improvements
13A. Belvedere Drive Pinch Point Option 1 drawing.
14. Boundary Survey
15. Traffic Study
16. Visual Buffer Areas Block 2
BELVEDERE CODE OF DEVELOPMENT
1. PURPOSE AND INTENT
Pursuant to Section 20.A.5 of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, this document constitutes
the Code of Development for the Neighborhood Model District (NMD) for Belvedere. The Belvedere
property (“the Property”) encompasses the following parcels totaling 206.682 acres:
TMP 61-00-00-154TMP 62-00-00-2B (partial, please see “Area of Re-
Area:Zoning” exhibit for detail)
15.079 Acres
Owner:Total Area:
Belvedere Station Land Trust 17.248Acres
Existing Zoning:1.730 acres being re-zoned
R-4
Owner:
Robert Hauser Homes, Inc
Land Use Map Designation:
Urban Density
Existing Zoning:
R-4
Proposed Zoning:
NM District
Land Use Map Designation:
Neighborhood Density
Proposed Zoning:
NM District
TMP 61-00-00-157TMP 62-00-00-2C
10.991 Acres Area:
Area: 35.9 Acres
Owner:Owner:
Dunlora LLC Belvedere Station Land Trust
Existing Zoning:Existing Zoning:
R-4 R-4
Land Use Map Designation:Land Use Map Designation:
Urban Density Neighborhood Density
Proposed Zoning:Proposed Zoning: NM District
NM District
TMP 61-00-00-158TM 62-00-00-3
Area:Area:
14.708 Acres 2.980 Acres
Owner:Owner:
Belvedere Station Land Trust Stonehaus Inc. & Henry Nelson Sprouse
Existing Zoning:Existing Zoning:
R-4 R-4
Land Use Map Designation: Land Use Map Designation:
Urban DensityNeighborhood Density
Proposed Zoning:Proposed Zoning:
NM District NM District
TMP 61-00-00-160 partial TMP 62-00-00-5
Total Area:Area:
40.618 Acres 3.243 Acres
34.929 Acres being re-zoned Owner:
Belvedere Station Land Trust
Owner:
Belvedere Station Land Trust
Existing Zoning:
R-4
Existing Zoning:
R-4
Land Use Map Designation:
Neighborhood Density
Land Use Map Designation:
Neighborhood Density
Proposed Zoning:
NM District
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Proposed Zoning:
NM District
TMP 61-00-00-161 TMP 62-00-00-6A
Area:Area:
3.477 Acres 0.657 Acres
Owner:Owner:
Belvedere Station Land Trust Belvedere Station Land Trust
Existing Zoning:Existing Zoning:
R-4 R-4
Land Use Map Designation:Land Use Map Designation:
Neighborhood Density Neighborhood Density
Proposed Zoning:Proposed Zoning:
NM District NM District
TM 62-00-00-2A Partial TMP 62A3-00-00-1 partial
Area:Total Area:
10.760 Acres ( not being re-zoned) 106.15 Acres
½ interest in 5.40 Acres (Belvedere Rd. ROW) 78.76 acres being re-zoned
4.228 Acres being rezoned Belvedere Station Land Trust
Owner:
Owner:
Jacob C. and Charlotte G. Levenson
R-4
Existing Zoning:
Existing Zoning:
R-4
Land Use Map Designation:
Neighborhood Density
Land Use Map Designation:
Neighborhood Density
Proposed Zoning:
NM District
Proposed Zoning:
NM District
The code of development for the Belvedere Property is intended to accomplish the following:
1. To promote flexibility and creativity in establishing the General Development Plan, building locations,
mix of uses, bulk requirements, and densities within the Property
2. Establish the framework and standards for each block in the Property as well as the uses, location,
building types, and street systems contained therein
Towards this end, the following sections of the Code of Development are organized to address the standards
for the key project elements.
Code of Development
The Code of Development establishes the requirements set forth in Section 20.A.5 of the Ordinance.
The Code of Development is comprised of text, tables, and appendices. The Code text contains the
regulatory requirements in descriptive form for development. It also provides certain unifying standards
that the owner recognizes will require interpretation.
Tables and the associated appendices represent the detailed regulatory requirements specified in
Section 20.A.5 of the Ordinance. The regulations are supplemented by the text of the Code and
where indicated, to establish the specific allowable uses, the proposed range and mix of these uses, as
well as provide a description of planned amenities and minimum improvements, typical street cross-
sections, the planned streetscape, and the relationship between planned buildings and adjacent
streets.
Relationship of the Code of Development to the Neighborhood Model Section 20.A.5
Section 20.A.5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance provides the framework for the
Neighborhood Model District. It establishes the regulations by which applicants for NMD zoning
amendments are to construct the governing Code of Development for individual projects. The
ordinance stipulates that the Code of Development “
Shall establish the unifying guidelines, the specific
regulations for the district, and the use characteristics of each block; provide for certainty in the
location of an appearance of central features, and the permitted uses in the district; and provide a
flexible range of a mix of uses and densities.”
General Development Plan
It is the intent of the owner for the General Development Plan (exhibits 2A, 2B, and 2C) to be used by
the County Staff in regulating the development of the Property with the goals and objectives of the
rezoning according to the requirements of the county’s NMD district requirements. All other exhibits
currently submitted, including the traffic study, are intended to meet the requirements for a General
Development Plan as outlined in the Albemarle County zoning ordinance Section 8 (planned districts)
and Section 20 A (Neighborhood Model).
The Property will be developed in accordance with the General Development Plan. Road alignments,
building and sidewalk locations, landscaping, grading, and utilities depicted on the General
Development Plan may be adjusted at the site plan stage as provided in Albemarle County Code 18-
8.5.5.3 so long as they meet the minimum requirements established in the Code. Specific lot
boundaries and building locations shown on the exhibits are for purposes of illustration only and should
not be construed as final. Lot boundaries shall be subject to the restrictions outlined in Table 9.
Exhibits 8-11, included in the Code of Development illustrate how scale, massing, and pedestrian
orientation may be achieved within the Property, but are not intended to describe final building design.
As such, they should be interpreted as a general representation of the type of architecture or built form
planned for the Property. Final zoning interpretation of the project should not use these illustrations as
the standard for review of the project’s architecture.
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
2. PLANNED LAND USES
Mix of Uses
The plan establishes the general mix of uses and the probable amount of those uses to be provided
within the project’s designated block areas. Because of its location, the majority of the uses will be
residential. However within this use category, there will be wide range of product types and densities.
Land uses and amenities have been arranged to maximize pedestrian opportunities. The Development
Plan generally indicates the location of these uses.
The land uses to be permitted will be as indicated on the Development Plan and as described on a
block basis in Appendix B - “Permitted/Prohibited” Uses by Block”
Regulating Block Layout
The block layout as indicated on the Development Plan is based on distinct geographic as well as land
use conditions and serves as the basis for the Code of Development. The development pattern as
identified in the Block Plan relates to transects that transition from a more urban/ dense core near Rio
Road and the community center/ village green area to the more natural edges of the site.
The residential unit count and densities are shown on the following Tables 1 and 2. The residential
units shown below may be adjusted by block and unit type, however the total maximum number of units
shall not exceed 775. The lotting pattern as shown on the Development Plan generally indicates this
total number of residential units. Included in these computations are accessory units or carriage house
units.
BELVEDERE MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
TABLE 1
BLOCK AREA
MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
GROUP(AC)
Carriage
Apartments/
SFDSFA/THHouse TOTALDENSITY
MF
Units
115.0880805.3
226.8314402002549.5
312.482211332.6
416.68302826845.0
56.863124558.0
69.32301127687.3
78.723032627.1
87.927926627.8
99.4125252.7
1093.452520.6
TOTAL206.682261882801467753.7
BELVEDERE MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
TABLE 2
BLOCK AREA
MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
GROUP(AC)
Carriage
Apartments/
SFDSFA/THHouse TOTALDENSITY
MF
Units
115.0825251.7
226.8310301682087.8
312.48228302.4
416.68281520633.8
56.862915446.4
69.322920495.3
78.723020505.7
87.92420445.6
99.4123232.4
1093.450500.5
TOTAL206.682245451931035862.8
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
TABLE 3
BELVEDERE DEVELOPED SQUARE FOOTAGE
AREA Commercial Commercial Residential Central
BLOCK
(Acres)(max)(Min)(approx.)Features (min)
115.08 60,000 8,000 120,000
226.83 30,000 457,200 2,000
312.48 50,400
416.68 20,000 102,4003500 (Club)
56.86 60,000
69.32 79,000
78.72 68,000
87.9 60,200
99.41 70,000
1093.4 159,000
TOTAL206.682110,0008,000 1,226,200 5,500
At the time of final engineering and architectural plan preparation, it is recognized that decisions may need to be
made that would modify the exact geometry of individual blocks. As such, flexibility in the Code of Development
is provided to permit the boundary and acreage of exact blocks to be increased or decreased at the site plan or
subdivision stage by an amount not to exceed 15% of the gross land area of the larger block impacted by each
such change.
The following sections describe the general features of each block:
Block 1- Due to its proximity to Rio Road, this Block will contain a mixture of uses. The buildings will be
oriented toward a central access road and plaza space with diagonal parking and pedestrian oriented
streetscape. Illustrative Sections are included in Exhibit 8 to indicate the standards of this streetscape design.
This block will be surrounded on two sides by Open Space areas. Pedestrian and Bike connections will be
provided via a greenway corridor along Belvedere Boulevard.
Block 2- With close proximity to Rio Road, potential non-residential uses and the Community Center site, Block
2 has been patterned for higher density residential uses oriented toward a commons or central green,
surrounding conservation and preservation areas and pedestrian oriented streetscapes. A neighborhood
community center shall serve as the landmark building on the central green located to orient toward Town Run
central to the community and away from the existing neighborhoods. The greenway corridor along Belvedere
Boulevard would also extend along Block 2.
Block 3- This Block includes an entry boulevard into the main residential area of the project with a parallel
greenway corridor and open space along the west side. Houses with alley loaded garages will front the east
side of the boulevard and the community center and open space will help to establish a strong sense of arrival.
Block 4- From Roundabout #2 to the terminus of Belvedere Boulevard, Belvedere Boulevard and the Village
Green serves as the “main street” of the project. All housing on this spine would be alley loaded and oriented
toward the street. A mix of various lot sizes and multifamily product will be provided throughout the Block. The
primary project Neighborhood Center will be located adjacent to the Village Green.
Blocks 5 through 8- These Blocks radiate off of the Village Green and Belvedere Boulevard and are
characterized by lots or multifamily residential that are primarily alley loaded. Lots would range between 30’
and 60’ in width with town homes and multifamily interspersed in several locations. Along the railroad, a 100’
ROW is being reserved for the future Parkway. In the interim, this area will be used for open recreation fields
and interconnected to the remainder of the community with interconnecting trails. Pocket parks and the
Neighborhood Center site will serve as the primary amenities and identity of these neighborhoods.
Block 9- As a transition to the adjacent Dunlora community and steeper, natural areas, this area consists of
larger width, front loaded (60’ +) lots and stream buffer conservation areas. Open Space and a 25’-30’
preservation easement along Block 9’s Eastern Boundary will serve to protect mature hardwood vegetation
between these lots and the existing Dunlora community.
Block 10- This Block encompasses the outermost transect which is a ridge top overlooking the Rivanna river.
The outer edge of this ridge will have front loaded single family homes sited on predominantly larger lots
(60’width and above). Most clearing, grading and home footprints would occur above the 25 % slopes, and
Open Space and Linear Park J in the form of conservation and preservation areas will allow for the retention of
large stands of forested area below the clustered lot pattern of Block 10. The focal point of this neighborhood is
an oval that contains a small cluster of alley loaded, ridge top lots (40 width or larger) oriented toward the
centralized Park “L”.
Green Space and Amenities
The Property’s open space and amenity system prioritizes the preservation of environmentally sensitive and
significant ecosystems such as steep slopes, streams and stream buffers, mature deciduous forests and
floodplain. The preservation of these areas has been focused toward significant corridor systems that allow for
areas of wildlife and habitat, water quality buffer, and pedestrian connectivity with greenway amenities
throughout the region. The Property open space system is shown in relation to the surrounding open space on
The Open Space Master Plan to illustrate these regional connections.
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
A significant portion of the Property (59.78 acres) has been set aside as Conservation/Preservation Areas to
protect these natural features. Low impact, pervious surface trails will be provided in some of these corridors to
allow for pedestrian interconnections and access to the proposed Rivanna River Greenway. In addition to these
areas, 12.63 acres of Green Space have been delineated on the plan specifically to serve as key landscaped
focal points within the project. Large areas of green space will be provided in addition to these numbers in the
form of landscapes of road row, road medians, green space within the club, building setback areas, etc. These
additional areas have not been included in the tabulations. A number of buffer areas have been designated in
order to diminish the impact of Belvedere on neighboring properties. All areas identified as buffers within the
Code of Development shall be subject to the standards outlined in Albemarle County Code Section 32.7.9.8 in
effect on October 5, 2005.
The other components of the open space system are more active and include neighborhood pocket parks,
greenways, a central village green, Neighborhood Center site as well as an anticipated connection to the
Fairview Swim and Tennis Club. The following outlines the general features of each of these amenities:
The following is a description of the main green space, parks and amenities being provided for both the
Property and adjacent communities.
Hard Surface Greenway: This trail will provide a multi-use paved connection between Rio Road and the the
Property community. The Greenway will be maintained by the Homeowners’ Association and will be a
minimum of 8’ in width to accommodate a combination of bike and pedestrian traffic. Signage along the Hard
Surface Greenway will direct members of the public from Rio Road to the Rivanna River Greenway.
Park ‘A’ 2.3 acres– Features an existing pond, cemetery site, wooded ravine and buffer area between Block 1
and Dunlora to the east. Some grading and utility work may be required in small areas of Park ‘A’ however; the
intent is that this will remain a wooded open space and Conservation Area with supplemental planting as part of
the Belvedere Boulevard corridor development. Park ‘A’ will also be used to provide a woodland section of the
greenway trail that parallels Belvedere Boulevard.
Block 1 green space 0.4 acres- A small area of green space is located between Belvedere Blvd alignment
and the existing Covenant Church site. This area will be retained as landscaped buffer. This landscaped
buffer, will be subject to the County regulations outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 32.7.9.8 in effect on
October 5, 2005.
Block 2 Open Space 6.2 acres- Includes Town Run and adjacent slopes. The Block 2 Neighborhood Center
will be oriented toward Park ‘B. Also a storm water management facility (wet pond) will be located within the
Open Space. Major portions of this wooded area will preserved, however some disturbance will be required for
the pond, some utilities and minor grading. A Class B trail will provide a pedestrian connection between Blocks
1 and 2. A boardwalk with a minimum width of 5’ equipped with handrails shall provide a means of crossing
Town Run. The boardwalk shall be designed in accordance with the standards outlined in Section 4-27 of the
Virginia Greenways and Trails Toolbox.
An Area located to the East of the Multi-family buildings will serve as a wooded buffer between Block 2 and the
adjacent Rivercrest Community and will be a Preservation Area. The existing stand of trees will provide a
wooded barrier between Block 2 and the existing Rivercrest community. If any tree with a diameter of 12’ or
greater dies of any natural cause within the first 3 years following final site plan approval for Block 2 the Owner
will replace the lost tree(s) with new, 2.5 inch or greater caliper tree(s) of the same species, as measured 24
inches above ground.
Within Areas A and B, as identified on Exhibit 16, the Owner will provide and install a planting of multiple native
evergreen species. The planting shall include no fewer than 56 trees and shall be comprised of six (6) foot tall
evergreen trees (50%), and eight (8) foot tall evergreen trees (50%). The trees will be located so as to provide
the maximum buffer value to the Rivercrest Neighborhood. Dispersal of species and sizes shall be random in
appearance. The location of new plantings shall be outside the dripline of trees contained in the Preservation
Areas.
Block 2 Green Space 0.7 acres- Includes the central green and a green space adjacent to Belvedere
Boulevard.
Block 2 Neighborhood Center: This facility will serve the recreational needs of residents of Block 2. This
2
Neighborhood center will feature a clubhouse facility of at least 2,500 ft. The clubhouse will feature a
2
swimming pool (2,000 ft. Min.), restrooms, changing rooms, and meeting facilities.
Block 3 Open Space & SWM #3 4.22 acres: Serves as a buffer between Block 3 and the adjacent
neighborhoods, and contains an existing cemetery and the Free State Road corridor. A low impact trail (‘Class
B Standard’)tracing the alignment of a historic road associated with the Free State Community will provide a
connection between these facilities, the existing Rivercrest community, and the Belvedere Blvd. greenway. A
portion of the parcel has been reserved for the home of Henry Nelson Sprouse and his wife and while included
in the area of rezoning, is not included in the open space calculation for this area. Lifetime residents of the Free
State Community, Mr. Sprouse’s family has resided in the area for 3 generations. It will also serve as a location
for an enhanced extended storm water retention site. Some grading will be required for Alley ‘e’ and adjacent
lot development as well as the construction of the BMP however, the remainder of the site will remain
undisturbed.
Village Green 1.4 acres- Will serve as a community gathering space and will include a central multipurpose
lawn that can be used for active recreation as well as large gatherings and functions. On the edges will be
small, landscaped plazas. Each plaza will include at a minimum, the following amenities:
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
?
4 permanent benches in each plaza
?
Each plaza shall be connected to the overall network of sidewalks in the community
Block 4 Neighborhood Center- This centrally located facility will be a primary recreational amenity for the
project. It will be interconnected to the other portions of the open space system and residential community
through an extensive system of sidewalks and trails. The main feature of this site will be a Neighborhood Center
2
Building (3,500 ft. min.) that will be oriented toward the Village Green and adjacent active recreation facilities.
The building will contain meeting rooms, offices, small-scale retail/ food and beverage facilities and
2
restrooms/changing rooms. A swimming pool (2,000 ft min.) will be adjacent to this building. Other facilities
include tennis and other recreation courts, playground and seating plazas. The Director of Community
Development may approve alterations to final program elements inside the Neighborhood Center and adjacent
recreational amenities if he finds that the alterations better respond to neighborhood interests at the time of
construction.
Block 4 green space- Includes the spaces within the roundabout, edges and focal point areas reserved for
intensive landscape amenity treatment.
Park ‘E’ 0.6 acres- This pocket park will include a fenced off leash area for dogs within an area of existing trees
and supplemental landscaping. Site amenities such as 3 permanent benches and sidewalk connections will
also be provided.
Linear Park ‘F’ 1.7 acres- This park includes one multipurpose grass recreational field with minimum
dimensions of 100’ by 175’. The informal field will not be striped. This park will also include the hard surface trail
adjacent to Belvedere Boulevard. Also found within the boundaries of Linear Park ‘F’ is SWM facility #5. Linear
Park F shall begin at the current entrance to Fairview Swim Club and extend North and then West tracing the
boundary of the Fairview Swim Club. The park’s boundaries shall be defined as the edge of the ROW to the
North and East, and the property line to the West and South. The Park shall then turn North again extending to
the boundary with the Neighborhood Center in Block 4. In this area the park’s boundaries shall be defined by
the individual lot lines and the edge of the ROW for Road L to the East and the property line to the West. It
should be noted that the boundaries are inclusive of the 100’ ROW reserved for dedication upon demand by the
county for the purpose of constructing the North Free State Connector Road Extension. Such reservation shall
remain in place through December 31, 2025. Should this road be removed from the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan, said reservation shall become null and void. At such time as the county should choose to
acquire this ROW or the reservation of the ROW should expire, the boundaries of this park will need to be
adjusted to remove this area from the park’s boundaries. While variable in width, Linear Park F shall at its
narrowest point be a minimum of 15 feet in width.
A ‘Class B Standard’ trails will span the length of Linear Park F and serve to interconnect the adjacent
Community Center, housing, and the multi-purpose fields.`
Park ‘G’ 1.9 acres –this neighborhood park will feature a wet pond and surrounding existing vegetation and re-
landscaped park space. The park will also feature a fenced off leash area for dogs, sidewalks and 5 permanent
benches.
Park H 0.2 acres- This small neighborhood pocket park will provide an informal neighborhood gathering spot
and will feature 1 permanent bench.
Linear Park ‘K’ 0.8 acres– This park shall provide a ‘Class B Standard’ trail which will span the length of
Linear Park K and serve to interconnect the adjacent Neighborhood Center in Blocks 4 and 8. While variable in
width, Linear Park K shall at its narrowest point be a minimum of 15 feet in width. The park shall extend from
the boundary of the Neighborhood Center in Block 4 northwards to the boundary of the re-zoning. The western
boundary shall be marked by the edge of the 100’ ROW reservation. The eastern boundary shall be marked by
the ROW boundaries for alley’s m,q, and o, as well as the lot lines for the individual lots in Block 8.
Linear Park ‘J’ 5.35 Acres- Includes the Conservation area of steep bluffs and existing woodlands on the south
side of the Block 10. An existing clearing from an old roadbed will be used for much of the ‘class B standard
trail that will connect the Property to the Rivanna River bottomlands. As indicated in the Concept Grading
Plan(Exhibit 7 “Blocks 3-10 Concept Grading Plan”) additional habitat preservation will be possible on much of
the adjacent lots.
Open Space Block 10- 8.1 Acres– Includes both conservation and preservation areas to protect the steep
bluffs and existing woodlands on the north side of Block 10. As indicated in the Concept Grading Plan, (exhibit 7
“Blocks 3-10 Concept Grading Plan”) additional habitat preservation will be possible on much of the adjacent
lots.
Open Space Block 9 & SWM #2, 2.45 Acres – Is primarily for the purpose of providing a vegetative buffer for
the adjacent single family development. The buffer is subject to screening regulations in section 32.7.9.8 in the
Zoning Ordinance in effect on October 5, 2005. The area located to the east of Park G provides for storm water
management needs in Block 9 but also serves as a trailhead for a Class B Standard trail that extends through
Dunlora and connects the Rivanna Greenbelt south of Dunlora Farm to the section running through Belvedere.
Block 9 Preservation/Conservation Easement – This area, 25 to 30 feet wide extends along the back of the
lots in Block 9, from the Open Space to Linear Park “J”, interrupted only by SWM facility #2. A small portion of
this easement (.07 acres) is designated for conservation instead of preservation to allow for the extension of
water and/or sewer from Dunlora.
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Parks ‘L’ and ‘M’ 0.5 and 0.2 acres- These pocket parks will provide focal points for adjacent lots and will have
a mix of existing vegetation and landscape areas. Park ‘L’ will have a hard surface courtyard space suitable for
informal seating and gathering. This courtyard will be connected to the community-wide network of sidewalks.
Rivanna River Conservation Area 41.84 acres- The entire 100-year floodplain area along the Rivanna
River will be preserved as open space. This area, as illustrated in Exhibit 2C, shall be dedicated to the
Belvedere Homeowners’ Association upon completion of Phase III. A ‘Class B Standard Trail’ will be
constructed along the River frontage that will be part of the planned Rivanna River Greenway system.
Several trail connections will be made through adjacent stream corridors that will provide access to this
Riverfront amenity area.
Table 4 Green Space Tabulation
Park or Green SpaceBlock Conservation Preservation Other Green
LocationArea (Acres)Area (Acres)Space (Acres)
Park ‘A”12.3*
Block 110.4
Open Space Block 21 and 21.2*5.0*
Block 2, Commons and
Greenway20.7*
Block 3 Open Space
including SWM #334.22
SWM #430.48
Village Green41.4*
Roundabout #2/ Corner
Pocket Parks41.2*
Park ‘E’50.6*
Linear Park ‘F’64.12*
Park ‘G’71.9*
Park H8.2*
Open Space Block 990.731.20.5*
Block 9,
Preservation Easement
90.070.63
Linear Park ‘J’9 & 105.35*
Open Space Block 10103.51*4.59*
Linear Park ‘K’100.8*
Park ‘L’100.5*
Park ‘M’100.2*
Rivanna River Bottomland1041.85*
83.65 Acres
Total Green Space or
40% of Site
Total53.81 acres7.62 Acres22.22 Acres
* Included as Project Amenities
Table 5 Project Amenities
Parks Listed in Above Table75.92
Block 2,Neighborhood Center.7 Acres
Block 4, Neighborhood Center3.2 Acres
79.82 Acres
Total Amenity Area
or 38.5% of Site
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Block 12345678910
RRRRRRRRR
Detached single family
R
e
RRRRRRRR
Duplexes
s
RRRRRRRRR
Townhouses
U
RRR
Multiple-family dwellings
s
RR
Assisted living
e
s
Rest home, nursing homes, or convalescent homes RR
N RRR
Agriculture
o
RRR
Administrative, Professional Offices
n
RRR
Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops
RR
Auction houses
R
RRR
Barber, beauty shops
e
R
Boat Landing and Canoe Livery
s
RRRR
Church
i
RRR
Clothing, apparel and shoe shops
d
RRR
Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patritiotic (reference 5.1.2)
e
Commercial recreation establishments including but not limited to
n
RR
amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls
t
RRRRR
community center
i
RRR
Convenience store
a
RRR
Day care, child care, or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06)
l
RR
Department store
U
SPSP
Drive-Through Windows serving or associated with permitted uses
s
RRR
Drug store, pharmacy
e
RRR
s Eating establishment (not including fast food restaurant)
RRR
Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36)
RRR
Financial institutions
RRR
Florist
R
Furniture and home appliances (sales and service)
RR
Hardware store
RRR
Health club or spa
RR
Hotels, motels and inns
RRR
Indoor athletic facilities
RR
Indoor theaters
RR
Laundries, dry cleaners
RRR
Libraries, museums
R
Medical center
R
Musical intrument sales
RRR
Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops
R
Office and business machines sales and service
R
Optical goods sales
RR
Outdoor amphitheater
RRR
Outdoor eating establishment or café
Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with a by-
right permitted use, if any portion of the use would be visible from a
SPSP
travelway
RRR
Photgraphic goods sales
RRRR
Private Schools
RRR
Professional offices, including medical, dental and optical
RR
Public and private utilities and infrastructure
R
School of special instruction
R
Sporting goods sales
RRR
Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41)
Stormwater Management Facilities shown on an approved final site plan
RRRRRRRRRR
or subdivision plat
RRRRR
Swim, golf, tennis or athletic facility
RRR
Tailor, Seamstress
RR
Tier I personal wireless service facility or Tier I facility:
RRRRRRRRRR
Temporary Construction Uses
R
Veterinary office and hospital
R
Visual and audio appliances sales
RRR
Wayside stands - vegetables and agricultural produce (reference 5.1.19)
3. THE BUILT FORM OF BELVEDERE
PHILOSOPHY
Successful neighborhoods and communities are not random, unplanned events. In the past, relatively
simple planning and controls over time have produced places of such charm and warmth that they
have a place in this nation’s collective subconscious. This memory and those places that survive today
have in many ways set the standard for what our new neighborhoods and communities should be. The
difficulty lies in creating in a few years what in the past took several decades.
ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS
a. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
A broad range of historic and contemporary American architectural styles (listed below) can be used as
“points-of –departure” for designs at the community of Belvedere. These styles are compatible
because they share similar proportions, details, massing, materials and roof form. The buildings
approved for the Community of Belvedere must exhibit compatibility with these elements however
unique interpretations of the historic style are allowed and encouraged. This could mean that the
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
design expression becomes simpler without looking cheap, the details may become simpler but not
smaller, or the arrangement of elements may vary slightly from traditional norms. There should not be
so much variation as to be no longer compatible with a more traditional interpretation. The
Architectural Standards Committee (“ASC”) will provide early input to the applicants as to the
appropriateness of design and enforce the standards of this code and the Declaration. The
Architectural Standards for Belvedere will be approved by the ASC prior to submission to the County to
ensure compliance with the Code of Development. The ASC will review all individual submissions prior
to review by the county.
ACCEPTED TRADITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL STYLES
?
COLONIAL REVIVAL
?
GREEK REVIVAL
?
SHINGLE
?
GEORGIAN AND ADAM
?
BUNGALOW
?
ARTS AND CRAFTS
?
CONTEMPORARY
Restricted to lots with frontage of 50 feet or greater.
o
GENERAL STYLE, FORM, MASSING AND PROPORTION OF STRUCTURES
?
The main mass of the building shall have all the ground floors on the same level. Split-level
designs are not permitted without ASC approval.
?
A predominately two-story street elevation is encouraged with a minimum of 50% of homes
being two story.
?
Similar building elevations shall be separated to minimize the awareness of repetitive floor
plans and elevations. For single family detached homes an identical house front elevation
may not be repeated more than once in any grouping of 6 or fewer adjacent lots sharing
frontage on a common street. An identical plan may not be constructed on lots that face
each other across a roadway other than an Alley
?
All front facing gables shall have attic windows.
?
Entry porches or stoops must provide cover by having a cantilevered, bracketed or column
supported roof, a recessed entry door, or a combination of both.
?
9’ minimum ceiling heights at the first level are required.
?
50% of the detached homes shall have front porches with a minimum depth of 7 feet and a
minimum width of 15 feet. Lots requiring such porches will be determined by the ASC.
?
Foundations shall be crawl spaces or partial or full basements. Flat or elevated slabs will be
considered if grading can be accommodated with a minimal impact to existing vegetation.
MATERIALS, COLOR AND TEXTURE
?
All exterior paint colors shall be selected from the Belvedere Paint Schedule.
?
Walls shall be no more than one color per material used.
?
Brick color, range and texture shall be based on the brick choices provided in the Belvedere
Materials Schedule
?
Stone (cultured or natural) color and style shall be based on the stone choices provided in the
Belvedere Materials Schedule
?
Board and Batten accents using cementious panels need a batten spacing of no greater than
18” using 5/4”x 3” minimum batten strips.
?
Roof Shingles style and color shall be selected from the Belvedere Materials Schedule. Other
shingle styles and colors will be considered by the ASC.
?
Accent color brick may be used if approved by the ASC.
?
Accent wall patterns of vertical board and batten, trimmed panels and/or shingles will be
limited to gables, window bays or other secondary elements or surfaces at the side or alley
elevations. The materials for these patterns may be wood or cementious fiber material.
?
Precast or cast stone elements may be used if approved by the ASC.
?
Building wall at the streets shall be finished in modular brick, cultured stone, horizontal lap
siding (4” or 6” to show), stucco or shingle siding
?
Siding may be wood, cementious fiber material, or vinyl. Accent wall patterns of vertical board
and batten, trimmed panels and/or shingles will be limited to gables, window bays or other
secondary elements or surfaces at the side or alley elevations. The materials for these
patterns may be wood or cementious fiber material. Other materials may be considered.
?
No more than 30% of the homes on any street may incorporate vinyl siding. All vinyl siding
shall be selected from the Belvedere Materials Schedule. Each builder within the community
shall be allocated a 30% allowance for vinyl sided units. These allotments are non-
transferable and may NOT be used on adjacent lots.
Vinyl will not be allowed on any corner lot.
?
Vinyl will not be allowed on any lot fronting the Village Green
?
?
Exposed foundations shall be brick, painted concrete, brick embossed or parged.
?
The building walls veneered in brick should be simple in form and massing. Avoid brick
extending over portions of roof.
?
Foundations shall be exposed a minimum of 24” at the street sides for homes with a 10 foot
setback or less. A flush slab on grade condition can occur at the alley and side yards or on lots
with front yard setbacks of 25 feet or more.
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
?
Siding shall be at 4”, 6” or 8” to weather.
?
Brick shall be modular in size with brown sand mortar.
?
A water table detail is required at the street elevation.
?
Brick selections will be approved by the ASC.
?
Wood and cementious siding will be painted in accordance with an approved color scheme
prepared by the applicant. Refer to the appendix for general standards on color. No adjacent
homes may use the same color scheme
ROOF PITCH AND FORM
?
Roof forms should be simple and based on the Architectural style selected.
?
Principal roofs will range from 4:12 to 12:12 based on the selected Architectural style
?
Secondary roofs can be a lower pitch, with a minimum of a 2:12 slope seems too flat.
?
Main roof sections shall have the same pitch.
?
Dormer design shall be consistent with the selected Architectural style.
?
Fascia, soffit and frieze make up the roof to wall design with a full pediment or a cornice return
at the gable ends.
?
Gable attic windows of various shapes often enhance the design along with a full pediment
gable
?
Rake overhangs are between 6” and 12” on all elevations.
?
Front Roof overhangs should be a minimum of 12”
?
The design of the soffit and frieze detail should be given special attention. The Frieze design
should be consistent with the architectural style of the building.
?
The frieze detail at the street shall continue uninterrupted around the building unless otherwise
determined by the ASC.
?
Main roofs shall be a 25 year or better “Architectural” dimensional asphalt shingle, a natural
slate, standing seam metal or a simulated slate or flat tile wood shingle or shake.
?
Ridge vents shall be a rigid plastic designed to receive shingles. Additional roof venting
required shall be achieved with gable vents or square through roof vents painted to match roof
color and located away from the street view.
?
Gutters and down spouts where needed shall be typical ogee profile or half round in metal or
vinyl.
?
Gutters/downspouts should be connected to storm drainage where possible.
?
Flat roofs shall have a parapet or railing.
?
Roof penetrations shall be placed away from view from the street and placed low on the roof.
Paint to match the roof color.
?
Skylights shall be flat panel and placed out of primary view from the street
?
Solar panels located on a roof shall be placed within 10 deg. of flush with the roof and outside
of primary view of the street.
ARCHITECTURAL ORNAMENTATION
?
Columns shall be round or square and a minimum of 8” in diameter and made of either wood
or fiberglass unless otherwise approved by the ASC
?
Railings shall be painted or pre-finished metal or wood. Wood railing visible from the street
and under cover shall be finish grade primed and painted with a turned top rail and based rail.
?
Foundation vents shall be set into the masonry wall and made of plastic or metal.
?
Home address numbers shall be selected from the styles shown in the Belvedere color and
material palette and located in a prominent and well-designed location.
?
No wood front steps will be allowed. Brick steps are encouraged to use shaped brick tread
brick
FAÇADE TREATMENT
?
The Belvedere ASC will provide a list of acceptable window manufacturers.
?
Windows may be a Wood, Vinyl, or Clad Wood product. They may be pre-finished or field
painted.
?
Window operating styles may be Double or Single Hung or Casement
?
Double hung operable windows with true or simulated divided panes are preferred.
?
Windows with between the glass or interior applied grills are only permitted with ASC approval.
?
Full light windows will be reviewed by the ASC on a case-by-case basis.
?
For all Residential Structures: Large fixed windows can occur only in combination with
operable windows. Small fixed accent windows are accepted.
?
Main doors may be made of Wood or Fiberglass. Fiberglass doors should have a wood-like
texture.
?
Garage doors may be made of Wood, Fiberglass, or Metal.
?
For all Residential Structures: Double hung windows shall have the proportions of a vertical
rectangle in the range of 3:1 to 1.5:1 height to width.
?
Windows may be configured in the building wall singularly or in horizontal groups.
?
In two story building walls, windows should be stacked or otherwise arranged in a regular and
symmetrical pattern.
?
Doors should be arranged with windows in the building wall, usually by stacking a window
above the door.
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
?
Garage doors occur at the alley side, or to the side street at an end unit. When the garage is
facing a street it should be recessed 18” from the face of the building wall.
?
Entry doors should have sidelights and/or transoms.
?
Arched and curved transoms could be considered at the entry door.
?
The style of the garage door should be consistent with the Architectural character.
?
Glazing in the garage door is encouraged.
?
Window trim is critical to the success of the elevation. A minimum of a 5/4” x 4” trim is required.
Window sills shall be required except where authentic architectural interpretation requires
something less
?
The windows and doors in a brick wall condition shall be trimmed with a brick mold or 5/4”x
material at the jamb and head.
?
Brick, cast stone, or stone lintels are required unless the frieze covers this condition.
?
Brick, cast stone, or stone sills are required in stone or brick walls.
?
Door trim can be flat or ribbed with a base block.
?
Doorbells are to be mounted centered in jamb trim.
?
A water table detail is required at the street elevation.
?
Corner trim shall be 5/4” x 6”minimum wood grade B or cementious fiber material.
?
Nails and screws, if exposed, shall be stainless steel or equivalent.
?
Careful attention should be paid to the flashing to allow it to blend with the surrounding
materials.
?
Exterior doors shall be hinged.
?
Shutter size shall be proportional to the window opening, either full size or one half size.
Shutter style can be louvered or solid.
?
Shutters must be operable or appear to be by using shutter dogs and blocking behind the
inside edge to create separation between the wall and the back of the shutter.
?
Shutters must be solid material equal in design and dimension to a wood product.
?
Gable vents may be wood or fiberglass, and in an appropriate size and style for the
Architectural Style.
?
Entry Stoops and their steps must be of brick construction and tie into the exposed brick
foundation. Where foundations are stucco finish, stoops and steps may be finished to match.
?
Front porches shall be of wood concrete or brick construction. Concrete infill is permitted.
?
Side porches may be of wood or brick construction with wood or brick steps
?
Screen porches shall have supports that divide screening into vertical rectangles.
?
In brick porch construction the skirt and steps are an extension of the foundation wall. A lightly
textured concrete surface is acceptable. Colored concrete or paint is recommended for
surface treatment. Stone, tile or brick pavers are also encouraged.
?
Porch ceilings shall be plasterboard, beaded planks, or beaded plywood.
?
Chimneys that occur on the exterior wall at the street side must be veneered in brick or stone.
Chimneys that occur in the roof facing the street must be well detailed and will be considered
by the ASC on a case-by-case basis.
?
Exposed concrete block foundation walls are not allowed. Parged or painted concrete is
allowed. Concrete foundation walls on side or rear should have brick embossed pattern if the
front foundation wall is brick.
COLONIAL REVIVAL- Based on the Houses of the Colonial Period, this style is predominately a two-story side
gable or gambrel rectangular volume. First and second level windows and doors are typically stacked, but there
is more flexibility in the pattern than with the Georgian and Adam style. Windows are often doubled and change
patterns between the first and second level. Roof dormers are a common element. Symmetry is important but
not a rule.
EXTERIOR FAÇADE
Configuration
?
Colonial Revival houses are simple rectangular side gabled or hipped two story facades.
?
Massing can be symmetrical or asymmetrical.
?
The entrance should be centered on the front facade if all other elements are symmetrical.
?
Windows are stacked and typically symmetrical around a central entry door.
?
Roof dormers and gable dormers are often an added element.
?
Chimneys are typically located at the ridge and when at the gable, break the pediment and
project from the wall.
?
The cornice and entry door surround are elaborately detailed. Simpler details of similar size
are acceptable.
?
A water table course and a second floor level detail band are common with brick veneer.
ROOFS
Configuration
?
There are many derivations of the Colonial Revival style; many roof forms may be applied.
?
A simple gabled main roof is the most common with a pitch between 7:12 and 12:12.
?
Hipped roofs are also common and are generally of a lower pitch.
?
Dormers in this style may vary greatly in size and detail.
?
Dormers are common. They should be small gabled, hipped, or bowed.
?
Dormers may be used across the roof centered above or between windows.
ENTRIES AND PORCHES
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
Configuration
?
Small entry porches and full width front porches are common.
?
Supports are substantial and are spaced a distance apart equal to or just less than their
height.
?
Porches have highly detailed entry surrounds.
?
Commonly pilasters are topped with entablatures, pediments, or broken pediments.
?
Sidelights and transoms typically accompany the paneled entry door.
?
Small entry porticos typically have lower pitched or flat roofs that may have a railing and act as
a deck to the second floor.
?
The entry door is typically flush; however recessing the door provides a sheltered area.
WINDOWS AND DOORS
Configuration
?
The windows that exemplify these styles are single or paired double-hung with equal spaces
between one another.
?
For all Residential Structures: windows should be proportioned at least 1:2 (width to height).
?
Placement from the corner of the house should be at least the width of one window.
?
First and second floor windows shall be stacked
?
Accent windows may appear centered on the peak of a pediment over a balcony, portico, or
entry.
?
For all Residential Structures: large fixed (“picture”) windows are allowed in combination with
tall narrow operable windows to either side.
?
Bay and bow windows are popular accents.
?
Shutters are common in this style.
?
The front door may be off balanced if it is centered below a second story window.
MISCELLANEOUS
?
Cornice trim to be exaggerated by use of a frieze board to make the transition from the roof to
the wall plane, may be decorated with dental or other type of molding.
?
Other decorative elaborations are dealt with in other sections of the text.
?
Wood pilasters may be located at corners vs. Corner board.
?
Wood trim at window and door heads to be a wider dimension than the sill and jamb trim.
?
Two piece trim or more elaborate trim at the head jamb is encouraged at elevations that are
prominent from the street.
GREEK REVIVAL - This style is characterized by a simple two-story rectangle with a gabled or hipped low pitch
roof with a heavy cornice line. Typically the entries are symmetrically located and have covered porches. The
entry doors have sidelights and transoms. Windows are usually single elements stacked above each other.
EXTERIOR FACADES
Configuration
?
The basic form is a two story rectangular box with either a smaller one and two story boxes
may be added at the rear or sides. The garage can be one of these added boxes to the side or
rear.
?
This style is characterized by a simple two-story rectangle with a gabled or hipped low pitch
roof with a heavy cornice line.
?
The front gable with a cross gable is also common.
?
Entries are typically symmetrically located and have covered porches.
?
Chimneys can be located on the exterior or interior to the house but are not a dominant
element.
?
Corner trim can be enlarged to appear as a pilaster.
ROOFS
Configuration
?
Shallow gable or a hipped roof ranging between a 5:12 and 7:12 pitch.
?
Dormers in these styles are very common.
?
Dormer roofs can be gabled, hipped, or bowed.
?
Dormers can include fixed or double hung windows, and in the case of a broken pediment the
window may be arched.
ENTRIES AND PORCHES
Configuration
?
Entrance doors have sidelights on both sides and the full transom or a broken transom above.
?
Full width front porches are possible on one-story side gables.
?
On two story facades, a one story flat or low-pitched roof covers the porch.
?
Supports are substantial and are spaced a distance apart equal to or just less than their
height.
?
The entry doors have sidelights and transoms.
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
?
Small entry porticos typically have flat roofs that may have a railing and can act as a deck to
the second floor.
?
The foundations at the entrance porches will be solid masonry walls or solid piers below
columns with lattice in-fill of masonry or wood trim.
?
Door assembly can be incorporated into an elaborate trim surround.
?
Use square or round columns at entry porches proportioned with the building.
WINDOWS AND DOORS
Configuration
?
The windows that exemplify these styles are double hung and singularly placed at equal
intervals between one another.
?
They should be proportioned at least 1:2 (width to height).
?
Placement from the corner of the house should be at least the width of one window.
?
For visual clarity second story windows should be centered on the windows below and should
share the same width as the windows below.
?
Small round or square windows may appear centered on the peak of a pediment over a
balcony, portico, or entry.
?
A fairly strict pattern of “five windows over four and a door” is followed.
?
Windows may appear more irregularly placed on secondary volumes and side elevations.
?
Shutters are common in this style.
GEORGIAN AND ADAM - Popular styles in this part of the country both past and present. One story versions
and gambrel subtype, but the most common example is a two story rectangular mass with a side facing gable.
The entries have elaborate crowns and pilasters, and typically a single row of transom glass. In the Georgian
style the transom is flat while the Adams style is characterized by a bow or arch. Windows occur singularly,
they are double hung, and have nine to twelve panes per sash. Decorative moldings typically emphasize the
cornice. The Adams style allows a more elaborate entry, which includes a special window design above the
entry door at the second floor.
EXTERIOR FACADE
Configuration
Georgian and Adams houses are simple rectangular side gabled or hipped two story facades.
Windows are stacked and typically symmetrical around a central entry door.
Roof dormers are often an added element.
Chimneys are typically located at the ridge and when at the gable, do not break the pediment.
The cornice and entry door surround are elaborately detailed. Simpler details of similar size are
acceptable
A water table course and a second floor level detail band are common with brick veneer.
ENTRIES AND PORCHES
Configuration
Small entry porches are common.
Both these styles have highly detailed entry surrounds.
Commonly pilasters are topped with entablatures, pediments, or broken pediments.
Sidelights and transoms typically accompany the paneled entry door.
Arched or elliptical transoms are a distinctive feature of the Adam style.
The entry door is typically flush, however recessing the door provides a sheltered area.
Porticos are common in the Adam style.
WINDOWS AND DOORS
Configuration
The windows that exemplify these styles are double hung and singularly placed at equal intervals
between one another.
They should be proportioned at least 1:2 (width to height).
Placement from the corner of the house should be at least the width of one window.
First and second floor windows shall be stacked
Accent windows may appear centered on the peak of a pediment over a balcony, portico, or entry.
The Adam style differentiates itself by its’ arched entry transom and a unique window above the entry.
Shutters are common in this style.
Fences and Walls:
The Master Plan for Belvedere works to develop a strong sense of community. Accordingly fencing
must be planned and constructed in a manner that enhances this sense of community.
General Regulations:
?
The finished side of fences must always face out from the lot
?
Both sides of all fences must be painted or stained
?
Chain link fencing is not allowed
?
The preferred material for free-standing walls is brick with a minimum width of 8” and capped
with a minimum overhang of 1” For Brick walls the brick used in freestanding walls shall match
the brick used in the primary residence.
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
?
Retaining walls visible from the street shall be fronted with brick or stacked field stone.
Retaining walls not visible from the street may be constructed of smooth finished concrete,
architectural block or pressure treated wood.
?
Privacy fences are restricted to side and rear yards and may not exceed 8’ in height.
Fences are required:
?
On a side yard adjoining a neighborhood park or public right of way a fence is required along
the lot property line to provide definition of public spaces (lots separated from the park by a
street or alley shall be exempt from this requirement)
?
To screen trash receptacles and air conditioner compressors from public view one of the
following must be constructed
an approved fence of adequate height,
o
suitable wall enclosure
o
landscape screening
o
?
Along the Right hand (As viewed from the primary street frontage) of the lot from the rear
corner of the primary residence to a point 5’ from the rear property line a solid privacy fence of
at least 6’ must be constructed. Lots with frontage greater than 60’ may be exempted from
this requirement on a case by case basis.
Fences are permitted:
?
In front yards a lot a 3’ picket fence is permitted along the entire length of the lot line.
Whenever possible the fence should tie back into the front corner of the primary residence.
Gates or other openings are permitted for the front walk. The post at the end of the fence
shall be decorative and not less 6” x 6” with a decorative cap. Walls of the same height,
compatible with the masonry material of the house, or an evergreen hedge are also
acceptable for this use.
Pools and Fountains:
The ASC will review all proposed pools on an individual basis. Pool and equipment enclosures must
relate architecturally to the primary residence and other structures in their placement, materials and
architectural detailing. NO above ground pools or inflatable bubble covers will be permitted.
Site Lighting:
All proposed site and landscape lighting shall be detailed on the Site and Landscape Plans. Lighting
shall be subtle in nature. No exterior lighting shall be permitted when in the opinion of the ASC, it
would create a nuisance to the adjoining property owners or the community at large.
Gutters and downspouts:
Gutters and downspouts shall be designed to be compatible with the roof, fascia and architectural
design of the house.
b. LANDSCAPE AND STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
The general theme and focus of the landscape treatment throughout the project will be to encourage
the use of plant materials that are less reliant on the use of irrigation, fertilizers and pesticides.
Street trees will be installed for all streets, boulevards and roundabouts as listed on the Road
Standards (Table 8) subject to utility placement, easements, buildings and sight distance requirements.
Plantings for the parkway and shoulder boulevard classifications may be more informal and arranged
in more natural shade and ornamental tree plantings.
Streetscape development for non-residential areas will be more urban in nature and the guiding
principles will be indicated in the following section.
The purpose of the Landscaping Standards is to:
1. Promote compatible and continuous landscape treatment throughout the Belvedere
community. The intent is to integrate the lots into the larger community and bridge the gap
between public and private spaces.
2. Promote the quality image of the community. Successful landscaping design provides
screening, enhances the architecture of the community, and sets a standard for high quality
development.
3. Ensure that the plant material proposed is compatible with the environmental conditions in
Albemarle County and is suitable for creating an aesthetically pleasing year-round
environment.
4. The Belvedere Architectural Standards Committee shall be solely responsible for enforcement
of all landscaping standards contained herein.
The Belvedere Landscape Palette:
Only plant material from the proposed Belvedere Landscape Palette may be used in rights-of-ways,
front setback zones, open spaces, and back or side yards of lots adjoining public open spaces. Plants
of similar characteristics may be added to the list upon approval by the ASC. The Landscape
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Pallette shall be developed by the Owner working in conjunction with a landscape architect and the
ASC prior to approval of the Final Site plan for Phase I.
The Natural Planting Approach:
Plant materials should complement the native vegetation and be compatible with the ecological and
climatic conditions in Albemarle County. Views can be improved without extensive clearing of the
native flora. The cutting of the forest understory to open up views is permissible but should be kept to a
minimum and must be done within the constraints of all established conservation buffers noted on the
plat.
Landscaping efforts should concentrate planting efforts adjacent to the house, especially near the
entry. Ornamental plants, if used correctly, provide a transition from the natural character of the site to
more finished areas closer to the house. For maximum appeal, mix textures and colors but keep the
plan simple. A better effect can be achieved from using quantities of a few species rather than a few
plants each of many species.
The planting plan itself shall sufficiently screen utility areas, break up the foundation of the building,
buffer driveway and parking areas adjacent to property lines, and provide cover for areas disturbed
during construction. Foundation plantings shall screen foundations or spaces under decks.
Lawns:
Sod is required in the front yard of all houses and between the curb and the sidewalk, and is to be
wrapped around the side yards for a minimum of 10 ft. Sod should meet the side property lines as
closely as possible to ensure a smooth transition from one lot to another. Beds for existing trees can
break the sod along the property line. Any beds for hedges buffers, or shrub masses meeting the
property line must be approved by the ASC which will take into account the consideration the
landscaping on the adjoining lot. Corner lots are considered to have two front yards. Sod is required
along the side street from the curb to sidewalk and from the sidewalk to the build-to line.
The area between the curb and the back of sidewalks and between the alley pavement and the rear
property line are considered part of the owner’s lot for purposes of maintenance of lawn areas.
Street Trees:
Street trees with a minimum caliper of 2 ½” 1 foot above the ground are to be planted on both sides of
all streets and lanes in the right-of-way, with a spacing no greater than 50 feet on center throughout the
neighborhoods. Generally these trees will be planted by the applicant once street and house
construction is completed on a given block. The timing of tree planting will be coordinated to coincide
with the growing season.
Tree Planting On Private Residential Lots:
On any lot with more than 40’ of frontage, there shall be at least one tree, selected from the Belvedere
Landscape Palette, of at least 2 ½” planted in the front yard of each lot. An additional tree of at least 1
½” will required in the front yard for each 25 feet of lot frontage (or fraction thereof) after the initial 50
feet of lot frontage. Tree planted to satisfy this requirement should be located to complement the street
tree plantings. If a significant number of quality trees are retained in the front of the lot then this
requirement may be reduced or waived.
Minimum Planting Requirements:
A minimum plant quantity chart is provided below to assist the owner/builder in developing landscape
plans. These quantities are minimums for the front of houses, additional plants beyond these numbers
are encouraged.
TABLE 7
MINIMUM PLANTING REQUIREMENTS
Lot WidthDeciduous Evergreen Shrubs
TreesTree
60-100’3330
50’-60’2120
40’-49’1115
30’39’110
< 30’15
All disturbed areas must be re-vegetated with sod, grass, groundcover, or shrub masses. Homes with
plant strips between the houses and the driveway are required to plant groundcover selected from the
Belvedere Landscape Palette.
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
Minimum Plant Sizes at Time of Installation:
Tree Size
Deciduous 2 ½” caliper (well branched)
Evergreen 6’ height (full)
Shrubs 3 gallon container
Landscape Specifications:
The following specifications are the minimum standards that are acceptable for the installation of plant
material in the residential neighborhoods:
1. The contractor shall be responsible for site inspection prior to landscape construction and
installation in order to acquaint himself with the existing conditions. The Contractor shall be
responsible for locating all existing underground utilities prior to beginning construction. Any
planting conflict arising from existing utility locations shall be brought to the attention of the
Owner.
2. The Contractor shall be responsible for providing positive drainage at 2% minimum in all
planted areas.
3. The Contractor shall verify plant count from the plan, and shall provide and install all plant
materials shown on the approved plan. The plant schedule provided is for the Contractor’s
reference only; quantities shall be verified from the approved plan.
4. The Contractor shall guarantee all plant materials for 1 year from the date of planting.
5. The Owner or his designated agent shall approve any changes in plant material.
6. All plant material shall be balled and burlapped or container grown and shall be well formed,
vigorous, growing specimens with growth typical of the variety specified and free from injurious
insects and diseases.
7. All trees and shrubs shall be installed as indicated on the approved landscape plan.
8. All plants and beds shall be mulched with a 3 inch layer of mulch
c. Guidelines for Tree Preservation
Preservation measures shall be administered to trees within wooded areas to be maintained within the
conservation/preservation areas delineated in the General Development Plan, with particular preservation effort
directed toward trees with trunk diameters greater than 18 inches at breast height. All wooded preservation
areas adjacent to existing residential development shall be fenced off from construction activity with portable
chain link fencing no closer than the dripline of any tree growing inside the preservation areas. All other
wooded areas to remain shall be fenced off from construction activity with 40 inch high “international orange”
plastic web fencing no closer than the dripline of any tree growing within the designated
conservation/preservation area. Silt fencing shall be utilized at stream buffers. During the course of final
grading, if it becomes necessary to fill within the canopy limits of existing trees, such fills shall not exceed depths
greater than six (6) inches to ensure continued saturation of the existing root mat. Prior to grading around the
trees, all vegetation shall be stripped from the fill areas and fertilizer shall be applied. Should it become
necessary to cut within the canopy limits, all disturbed roots shall be protected from exposure to the air. The
crown leaf surface shall be proportionately reduced to balance the reduced root system. The trees shall be
fertilized upon completion of grading activities in the area. Any damaged portions of trees within wooded areas
to be maintained shall be immediately addressed to promote expedient recovery.
Further measures for tree protection are outlined in Chapter 3.38 “Tree Preservation & Protection” of the
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.
4. STREET CLASSIFICATIONS
The transportation network of Belvedere will be through a system of Traditional neighborhood Design (TND)
styled streets that are based on the following principles.*
TND Streets Defined
-A Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) is a human scale, walkable community with
moderate to high residential densities and a mixed-use core. Compared with conventional suburban
developments, TND’s have a higher potential to increase modal split by encouraging and
accommodating alternate transportation modes. TND’s also have a higher potential for capturing
internal trips, thus reducing vehicle miles traveled.
-A dense network of narrow streets with reduced curb radii is fundamental to TND design. This
network serves to both slow and disperse vehicular traffic and provide a pedestrian friendly
atmosphere. The overall design should ensure that non-vehicular travel is afforded every practical
accommodation that does not adversely affect safety considerations. The overall function, comfort and
safety of a multi-purpose or “shared” street are more important than its vehicular efficiency alone.
TND’s have a higher proportion of interconnected streets, sidewalks and paths. Streets and rights-of
ways are shared between vehicles (moving and parked), bicycles and pedestrians. The dense network
of TND streets functions in an interdependent manner, providing continuous routes that enhance non-
vehicular travel. Most TND streets are designed to minimize through traffic by the design of the street
and the location of land uses. Streets are designed to only be as wide as needed to accommodate the
usual vehicular mix for that street while providing adequate access for moving vans, garbage trucks,
fire engines and school buses.
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
-Intent: That the development encourages walking and biking, enhanced transit service opportunities,
and improved traffic safety by promoting low speed, cautious driving while fully accommodating the
needs of pedestrians and bicyclists. The development should reduce the number of external vehicle
trips, and thus vehicle miles traveled through provision of recreational and other resident-oriented
destinations within a walkable community. The traffic impacts, both on-site and off-site, should be
minimized.
Incorporated into the Code of Development are transportation classification standards for the principle
streets, alleys and travel ways within Belvedere as summarized in the following Table 8. These
standards were crafted using the VDOT “Road Design Manual” guidelines issued January 1, 2005.
NOTE: All streets and sidewalks shall be designed and constructed to satisfy the minimum applicable
design and construction standards required by the Subdivision Ordinance at the time such designs are
approved for construction.
TABLE 8 ROAD STANDARDS
Design
Public or Speed Travel Lanes Bike On-Street Paved Width, Min Planting Min Sidewalk Row Width Exhibit 11
Street NameStreet TypePrivate(MPH)Traffic Flow(Tot. #)LanesParkingMedianMin Fc-FCStripWidth(3)Cross Section
Belvedere Blvd. Rio
Road to Roundabout Parkway Curb 2 (5')
#1NO gutter panPublic352 way2stripedN-34'6'N/A*100’Exhibit 11 (1)
Boulevard
w/Splitter
Belvedere Blvd. - Island at
Between Roundabout Roundabout 6' East Side 5' East Side
#1 and Road d#1Public252 way2YN8’ min35'OnlyOnly76'Exhibit 13A
Belvedere Blvd Road
d to Road e OPTION Varies 6' to 5' East Side
1BoulevardPublic252 way2YNN34'2.5'Only44.55'Exhibit 13A
Belvedere Blvd Road
d to Road e OPTION
2BoulevardPublic252 way2YNN34'6'558'Exhibit 13
Belvedere Blvd Road Y Inbound 22' inbound
e to Road K Divided Blvd. Public252 way2YOnly8' minimum18' outbound6'5'76'Exhibit 11 (2)
Belvedere Blvd Road 22' inbound
K to Village GreenBoulevardPublic252 way2YYYand outbound6'5'76'Exhibit 11 (3)
Belvedere Blvd @
Village Green Street (One Y w/bumpouts
Eastside (inbound)Way)Public201 way1Nexterior onlyN22'6'5'42'
Belvedere Blvd @
Village Green Street (One
Westside (outbound)Way)Public201 way1NNN16'6'N/A*40'
I,H (East of Bel. Y (Rt Side
Blvd.), K,PStreetPublic201 way 1NOnly) **N22'6'5'46'Exhibit 11 (7)
D East (Betweeen
Streets N and J)StreetPublic252 way2NYN30'6'5'54'Exhibit 11 (5)
Y(Outbound
D East (Betweeen only w/bump
Streets J and F)StreetPublic302 way2Nouts)N32' 6'5'56'Exhibit 11 (6)
D East (Betweeen
Street F and Round
About #2)StreetPublic302 way2NNN30'6'5'54'Exhibit 11 (5)
AStreetPublic201 way1NY20' min22'6'5'48’Exhibit 11 (7)
B,CStreetPublic202 way2NYN30'54'Exhibit 11 (5)
E,F,G,H,I, K,
L,M,N,O,Q,SStreetPublic202 way2NYN28'6'5’52'Exhibit 11 (4)
30' Radius
I,O,Q,SCul-De-SacPublic201 way1NNMin.22'6'5'128'
Roundabout #1 Street Public201 wayNN22'6'5'T.B.D.
Roundabout #2 Street Public201 wayNN22'6'5'T.B.D.
a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,Alley
m,n,p,s,t,u,v,w(Residential)PrivateN/A2 way2NNN/A14'N/AN/A20’Exhibit 11 (8)
Alley
o,q,r,(Residential)PrivateN/A1 way1NNN/A12'N/AN/A20’Exhibit 11 (8)
* Pedestrian Access to be provided by means of a paved 8' multi-purpose trail
** On-Street Parking will be permitted only along portions of these streets that are adjacent to parks and/or open space
General Table Notes
When the street section includes bike lanes and/or planting strips or sidewalks they will be provided on both sides of the street unless otherwise indicated
Urban street sections will provide curb & gutter unless otherwise indicated
ROW extends a minimum of 12' from back edge of sidewalk
Parking Areas
Off street parking and loading within the Belvedere Development will be provided in accordance with Section
4.12 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Further, all parking/loading requirements will be met within
the land mass encompassing Belvedere. Parking for the development will be in either surface spaces or
structured. In addition, the layout of the site allows for appropriate passenger collection points as well as
vehicular circulation patterns which could accommodate future mass transit access to Belvedere.
5. PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES, SITES, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
The Belvedere project encompasses an area of the county with a long history of human habitation.
There is evidence of habitation by early Native Americans along the extensive floodplain. A section of
the property lying on either side of Free State Road encompasses lands traditionally occupied by the
Free State Community one of the Commonwealth’s earliest recorded free African-American
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
th
communities. The roots of the Free State Community extend back to the latter half of the 18 Century
and the community’s residents included members of the Hemmings family.
The Applicant commissioned a Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey which was prepared by
the William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research. This report dated November 20, 2003 has
been submitted to the county. On the basis of this study the Applicant has commissioned two
additional studies of the Belvedere property.
The first is an architectural Reconnaissance Survey of Existing Resources, prepared by Arcadia
Preservation , LLC of Keswick dated December 7, 2004. Documenting all previously identified historic
structures within the property boundaries. Each site was photographed, mapped, had a VDHR DSS
entry created, and when feasible site sketches and floor plans were created. This study found none of
the structures to be capable of preservation either individually or as a district due to their “deteriorated
condition and loss of integrity.” A copy of this report including archival photos, brief architectural
descriptions, and sketch site and floor plans (When accessible) was filed with the county and the
Virginia Department of Historical Resources in December 2004.
The second is a Phase I archaeological study by Rivanna Archaeological Associates. The Phase I
study was completed on February 22, 2005 and identified 2 sites which merit additional archaeological
investigation to “further evaluate the extent, nature, and integrity of Early National (1789-1830) and
Antebellum (1830-1860) Period deposits.” The study also identified a “likely location of an historical
cemetery.” The Applicant is currently reviewing proposals for Phase II archaeological investigations of
the two sites identified in the study (VDHR 44AB518 and VDHR 44AB374) as well as a field study to
conclusively verify the existence of a historical cemetery and delineate the boundaries of said cemetery
should its existence be verified by the archaeological investigation.
The contractor hired to perform any Phase II or Phase III work shall, at a minimum, provide a Principal
Investigator who meets or exceeds the professional standards set by the Secretary of the Interior.
Should Phase II investigation indicate that either of these sites may be eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places, the Applicant shall initiate a Phase III investigation of the affected site(s).
The decision as to whether a Phase III investigation is merited shall be made on the basis of the Final
Report in consultation with the County of Albemarle Director of Planning.
All Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III studies shall meet the Virginia Department of Historic Resources’
Guidelines for Preparing Archaeological Resource Management Reports and the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standard and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation, as applicable, and shall be
conducted under the supervision of a qualified archaeologist who meets the qualifications set forth in
the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. All approved treatment plans shall
be incorporated into the plan of development for the site and shall be adhered to during the clearing,
grading, and construction activities thereon.
The Applicant commits to initiate the Phase II investigation by October 1, 2005 and to initiate a Phase III
investigation, if warranted, within 60 days of receipt of the Final Report from the Phase II investigation.
Curation of Historical Artifacts: Should Phases I or II or III studies yield objects or artifacts of archaeological
significance, these objects shall be conveyed to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources for long term
th-
preservation. Should Phase III fieldwork yield subsurface architectural features and artifacts related to 18 or
th
early 19-century domestic occupations at Free State, and should these sites be deemed archaeologically
significant by archaeologists with the Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) , based
at the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, these artifacts will be submitted to the archaeologists at the Thomas
Jefferson Foundation for analysis and entry into DAACS prior to being conveyed to the Department of Historic
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
Resources. The Belvedere Station Land Trust will be solely responsible for conveying all artifacts analyzed by
DAACS to the VDHR.
Roadside Markers The Owner shall fund $5,000 toward the construction and installation of two roadside
historical marker (as provided in Proffer 6.3) providing information on:
?
the Free State Community and prehistoric communities that once inhabited the site.
?
Prominent historical figures who resided in the community such as Critta Hemmings and Amy
Farrow.
?
Prehistoric Native American Community
The sign language and location shall be approved by the Director of Planning and be completed by Albemarle
County no later than 12 months following the approval of the site plan of the phase in which the markers will be
located.
6. Lot Layout Standards:
In keeping with the tenets of New Urbanism, the lot layout standards for Belvedere are intended to
create a streetscape that creates a sense of community and allows the street to function as a public
space that draws a neighborhood together, fostering a sense of inclusiveness and community.
Table 9: Block 2-10 Residential Lot Regulations
Carriage Houses &
1, 4
Primary Structures
Accessory Structures
TownhouseSF 30'40'SF 41'-50'SF 51'-60' SF >60'All Lots
2,5
Front Build-to from Street 8'10'10'14'16'(same as Primary Structure)
3,4
Side Setback0'3'3'3'5'(same as Primary Structure)
16
Rear 10'10'10'10'10'4'
1. The following shall be permitted beyond the build-to line, Porches (1&2 story), porch stairs, balconies, bay windows,
raised dooryards, planters, chimneys, and entrance stoops
2. A 6' maintenance access easement shall be recorded on all properties adjacent to dwellings constructed within 4'11" of
the property line. Such access easement shall extend from the front property line to rear property line of the subject
property
3. Any dwelling closer than 10 feet, 8 inches(measured from the drip lines) to a neighboring dwelling unit will be subject to
additional fire code regulations.
4. For corner lots, the build-to line shall apply to both segments of the lot fronting the street.
5. On corner lots that also have alley adjoining one side, the remaining side may reduce the setback to 3'
Restrictions Governing Stuctures Extending Beyond the Front Build-to Line
1 2
Min Depth Max Depth
Min Width
Covered Porches Townhomes4'10'8'
Covered Porches Single Family Homes5'10'8'
Open Porches Single Family & Townhome3'5'4'
1. The dimensions of a porch shall be measured from the edge of the house to edge of the floor area and shall not include any steps.
2. No structure, to include, bay windows Porches (1&2 story), porch stairs, balconies, raised dooryards, planters, chimneys, and entrance
stoops may extend to within 4 feet of the sidewalk
Table 10: Commercial, Multifamily or Civic Use Lot Regulations
Multi-Family, Commercial, or Civic Buildings
Block 1Block 2Block 4
1
Front Build-to from Street 15' -22'15' -22'5' - 10'
Side Setback10'10'10'
Rear25'25'10'
1. For structures with frontage on more than 1 right of way, the build-to lines shall apply only to the primary elevation
For Blocks 3 and 5-10
All Commercial and Civic Buildings shall be subject to the applicable residential setbacks and build-to lines
1
Maximum Building Heights Max
Blocks 1&250'
Blocks 3-1038'
1. To be measured in accordance with applicable regulations of the Albemarle County Zoning Code
Minimum and Maximum Lot Size:
Residential: Blocks 2-10
2
The minimum residential lot size shall be 825 Ft with a minimum frontage of 15’ and a minimum
side lot line of 55’
2
The maximum lot size for a residential lot in Belvedere shall be 35,000 Ft with a maximum
frontage of 200’ and a maximum side lot line of 175’.
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
Commercial
2
The minimum commercial lot size in blocks 1 through 10 shall be 450 Ft with a minimum frontage
of 15’ and a minimum side lot line of 30’
2
The maximum lot size for a commercial lot in Blocks 1 shall be 300,000Ft with a maximum
frontage of 1,000’ and a maximum side lot line of 1,000’. The maximum lot size for a commercial
2
lot in Blocks 2 and 4 shall be 18,000 Ft with a maximum frontage of 120’ and a maximum side lot
line of 150’.
Appendix A– Carriage House Units
General Standards:
All Carriage House Units must be constructed in the same architectural style as the primary residence
and must employ the same exterior color selections as the primary residence. Setback regulations for
Carriage House Units shall be the same as those for garages
Carriage House Units are separate, detached independent living units which are included with a single
family detached unit and clearly subordinate to the primary residence. These units are typically located
2
above a garage and are restricted to a maximum finished area of 800 ft. While these units may have
a distinct street address and may be provided with separate utility meters if utilized as a rental unit, they
may not be subdivided from the primary residence. Carriage house units must be located to the rear of
the primary residence and must meet all architectural standards applicable to the primary residence.
Setbacks shall be the same as those applicable to a traditional detached garage.
Carriage house units play an important role in providing for affordable housing. As an inexpensive
rental unit, they help provide affordable rental housing that is integrated into the larger community. An
additional benefit is that the units are “Cash flow positive” helping to make the primary residence more
affordable by providing the owner with additional cash flow to pay the mortgage. These units have
been widely utilized in other TND neighborhoods with tremendous success.
Some examples of typical carriage house units
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-2004-017. Wickham Pond (Sign #64). Public Hearing on a request to
rezone 20.52 acs from RA to NMD to allow combination of 107 single-family detached &
condominium/townhouse residential units. TM 56, P 92. Loc on 5023 Three Notch'd Rd (Rt 240) approx
1000 ft from intersec of Rt 240 & Highlands Dr, also known as entrance to The Highlands Subdivision. The
Crozet Master Plan of the Comp Plan designates this property as Development Area Preserve [CT-1],
Urban General [CT-4] & Urban Edge [CT-3]. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised
in the Daily Progress on September 26 and October 3, 2005.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a request for another Neighborhood Model District (NMD). The Board
was provided with a copy of the proffers signed September 28, 2005, and a copy of the Code of
Development. This is a request to rezone 20.52 acres from RA to NMD for 107 residential units both
single-family detached and townhouses. The property currently contains a main house with several
dependent buildings consisting of barns, a small house and a smokehouse. The proposal meets the intent
of the NMD. The density is slightly in excess of that recommended in the Crozet Master Plan in certain
areas, but over the larger area it is a little less than what the Plan calls for. Fourteen affordable units will be
provided by way of a certain type of unit. Stormwater management is generally acceptable although
ultimately it does require use of adjacent property.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff had recommended approval of the rezoning and the proffers, but noted a
couple of things that needed to be finalized in the process. Proffers were provided to help mitigate the
effect of the development on County facilities and services. The applicant proffered $1000 per unit for the
non-affordable units to address capital facility needs, in addition to providing 14 units of a type that are for
affordable housing.
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission recommended approval, but stipulated in that
recommendation that there be a written agreement between the applicant/developer and the adjacent
property owner regarding the stormwater management use of the pond; that was to be submitted prior to
the Board of Supervisors’ public hearing. The Commission granted a critical slopes waiver, and they
wanted the proffers regarding affordability and the long-term application of the affordable units to be
worked out before this public hearing. They also wanted the proffer stipulating substantial compliance with
the location of the houses and the configuration of the units to be worked out before the Board’s meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg said since the Commission’s meeting the proffers have been finalized and
stipulations have been provided in the proffers to address those matters mentioned by the Commission. He
said there is intent to provide for the necessary easement on the adjacent property for stormwater
management. The staff’s report calls it “an agreement”, but it actually is “a letter of intent” not an absolute
agreement. The plan shows the stormwater facility so, if for some reason no easement is achieved, the
developer will have to change the plan and that change would mean this whole petition would go back
through the rezoning process. He said neither the Board nor the Commission would be losing an
opportunity to readdress that issue should it become necessary.
Mr. Cilimberg said the affordable housing proffer is covered in No. 2. This came about by
establishing a second unit within several townhouse types that can be used as affordable rental units (14
units). This was discussed with the County’s Housing Director.
Mr. Rooker asked how the County can assure that the initial rent of these units will be in the
affordable range. Mr. Cilimberg said the Housing Director felt this type of unit would be rented at a rate
affordable by moderate income persons. He did not want to establish a rental requirement as part of the
proffer. Affordability will rely on a smaller, second unit within a townhouse to provide the buyer an
opportunity to rent part of his townhouse to offset some costs.
Mr. Wyant asked if the affordability is for the owner or for the renter. Mr. Cilimberg said it was the
Housing Director’s opinion that it could be for both.
Mr. Wyant asked how the Board can assure that the unit will be rented to someone who qualifies
for affordable housing. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know that any assurance can be obtained. He
thinks it is a product of the market, the size of the unit and the amount of rent that would be charged by that
owner. That was the way the Housing Director felt affordability could be best addressed.
Mr. Boyd asked the difference between this and the carriage houses in the previous application.
The Board was not willing to accept the carriage houses in the proffer in and of themselves. Mr. Cilimberg
said he did not think there is a great difference.
Ms. Thomas said she sees a difference in the language of the covenants where it states they shall
be maintained as two-family dwellings. She said the carriage houses are not guaranteed to be two-family
dwellings. She was interested in this being pinned down to remain as two-family dwellings. Mr. Cilimberg
said it was specifically requested that this language be included in these proffers.
Mr. Boyd asked if that stipulation can legally be enforced. Mr. Davis said that language speaks to
dwelling type and not to separate families actually living in the units. A two-family dwelling is actually a
dwelling that has separate entrances, separate kitchens and a firewall between. It does not speak to who
actually lives in the unit.
Mr. Cilimberg said it is basically set up for the opportunity to provide that second unit as a rental
unit. These will be over and under units, not side-by-side units. It is comparable to the basement
apartment concept.
Mr. Davis said he sat through staff meetings where they struggled to get through this issue, and he
thinks it all boils down to the market. In this type of development providing a mix of housing types is the
product that staff feels will create a rent that is affordable. It may not work in a Belvedere type of
neighborhood where there are houses which cost $700,000, but it may work in this neighborhood. Staff has
struggled with this because there is no “one size fits all” answer to affordable housing.
Ms. Thomas said she has realized there is no one target for the County’s definition of affordable.
She said the part which fits the Neighborhood Model is the mixture of housing types in the neighborhood.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff was made aware late today of a section of the ordinance which requires a
mixture of uses, and it indicates that there should be two different uses in Neighborhood Model Districts.
There is essentially only one use in this proposed development. There is a community center but it is for
the benefit of the residents in the development. After consulting with the Zoning Office he was advised that
if the Board approved this request tonight, it would be better to approve it under the waiver allowance of
Section 20A.8.D. The Board can waive the requirement for two different general use classifications. This
can be done because within one-quarter of a mile there is a daycare center in front of Western Ridge
subdivision that qualifies this project to have that waiver granted.
Mr. Wyant asked if the ordinance says that something within that distance qualifies for a waiver. Mr.
Cilimberg said “yes.”
Mr. Boyd said he is having trouble relating the proffer to the fiscal impact data furnished the Board.
He said the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) costs were not identified; it is actually just debt
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
service of $151,000 per year. Netting that against taxes, that leaves $88,000 per year in deficit
infrastructure costs to the County. He does not understand the language which says this will offset the CIP
cost; it will not do that. He said $151,000 in debt service is a lot of debt.
Mr. Rooker said the reality is that whenever there is residential development, unless it is a very high
priced development, it will show a negative fiscal impact.
Mr. Boyd said that is why the Board was trying to mix commercial into the development. He asked
if there was a fiscal impact statement for Belvedere. That development might have been worse.
Mr. Rooker said all of the primary residential developments will show a negative fiscal impact. If a
decision were made based on that, the Board would never approve another house unless it was a $750,000
house. That would be at odds with affordability because units that sell in an affordable range will be the
most negative fiscal impact units.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees, but the proffer says the $93,000 is to offset the CIP expenditures and it
does not come close to doing that.
Mr. Rooker said that is not the case.
Mr. Wyant asked how that money is administered. This proffer does not say the money is for
affordable housing. Mr. Cilimberg said the money is not just for affordable housing.
Mr. Wyant asked if the Schools will get a portion of the money. Mr. Davis said this money goes into
capital funding which must be related to the Crozet area. That will not be hard to spend considering the
capital program which relates to that area. It will be easy to allocate that funding toward those projects.
Ms. Thomas mentioned the four items the Planning Commission asked be brought to the Board’s
attention. She asked if those four items have been taken care of by the things in front of the Board tonight.
She understands what Mr. Cilimberg said earlier about there being a letter of intent for Item No. 1 instead of
a written agreement. Mr. Cilimberg said a critical slopes waiver (No. 2) was granted by the Commission.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has been discussing the proffers concerning affordability (No. 3). Mr.
Cilimberg said No. 4 concerns location of the houses, particularly as it relates to The Highlands Subdivision
and the lots that would back up to The Highlands.
Mr. Wyant said he is concerned about the stormwater facility because there are long-term
maintenance costs involved. He asked if the maintenance agreement and who pays the cost will be
worked out at the site plan stage. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct.
Mr. Wyant said there was a question about sidewalks, but they are mainly within this development.
With regard to walkability, it stops at the boundaries and there is nothing to connect to The Highlands in
order to increase the walking route. Mr. Cilimberg said there is no facility along Route 240.
Mr. Wyant said he did not think there will ever be a connection to The Highlands in the future. Mr.
Cilimberg said it would ultimately depend on the Board funding a capital project connecting the downtown
area to both East Highlands and West Highlands.
Mr. Wyant said what he sees in the Neighborhood Model is that further out from the center of
development, no commercial, such as a convenience store, will be requested. He said The Highlands and
Western Ridge have no commercial. This development is far from the center of the town.
Ms. Thomas said the Crozet Master Plan actually dealt with that idea. It showed some clusters for
that on the theory that people would walk a certain distance only.
Mr. Wyant said it did not show any commercial on this land. Mr. Cilimberg said the Neighborhood
Model District assumes that may be a provision the County will want to have consistently. That is why it
calls for two uses. In this case, the applicant is offering only the one use, but with different residential types.
Mr. Wyant asked if the Master Plan and the Neighborhood Model are in sync with each other. Mr.
Cilimberg said the Neighborhood Model District is a zoning district that tries to anticipate needs that should
be implemented at the time of zoning of the property. The Master Plan provides guidance for how the land
uses should be arrayed.
Mr. Boyd said the density in this development is more than would have been allowed by-right. He
asked if it is in line with what the Neighborhood Model recommends. Mr. Cilimberg said there are some
areas within this development where there is a net density which is more than what the Master Plan calls
for.
Mr. Boyd asked how much more density is in this development. Mr. Cilimberg said the overall
density is actually less. The overall number of units recommended was about 120, so the density of this
request is actually less than that number. Some of the justification for a higher net density had to do with
the provision of additional housing in those areas for affordability.
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
Ms. Thomas asked about the term “transit ready.” She asked how this development will be
designed so in the future there can be bus service. She said on some of the sketches it showed trucks
indicating they could negotiate the radial turns. She asked how staff would judge this community to be
transit ready. Mr. Cilimberg said there is no transit service in the community now so staff has no way of
knowing if it would go into the development or stay on Route 240. He said there is an opportunity for an
interconnection to the west, so theoretically a transit system might end up utilizing that at some point. He
said staff proposed that question to CTS because they use the big buses, and their response was that if the
road can accommodate a fire engine, it can accommodate a bus. He said the roads are designed for fire
accessibility even with on-street parking.
Mr. Rooker said if there were no further questions for staff, he would open the public hearing and
ask the applicant to speak.
Mr. Frank Pool, Weather Hill Development, spoke. He said they have worked with staff for about
14 months developing the plan before the Board tonight. He thanked the Planning Commission for
unanimously recommending approval of this request. He addressed the transit issue first. The roads are
designed to VDOT standards for busses, fire vehicles, and other large type vehicles. There is on-street
parking which is restricted in certain areas. There are crosswalks and stop signs at every intersection. The
maximum speed limit is expected to be 25 miles per hour. The road was designed to promote slow driving
because of visibility. An interconnection has been provided to the west, but is limited because of an
intermittent stream. They were not able to provide a second interconnection because of sight constraints.
They feel there is room to provide a bus stop on the project, if needed. On the southern portion of the
property there is a pocket park which can be used for active play. There is room in the pocket park where a
bus stop could be provided. This project has a lot of open space for the residents.
Mr. Pool said regarding the money for capital improvements, they did not expect it to offset the
long-term costs of the project. As stated in the proffers, it is intended to mitigate the costs. They are
providing $1000 per unit including single-family detached and townhomes. He said the agreement with
their neighbor has been a big issue. The neighbor is very concerned about what the agreement says and
what it includes. One of the neighbor’s main concerns has to do with comments by the County’s
Engineering Department. Engineering wants to be sure they agree with everything the developer is asking
the neighbor to agree to. It is kind of the “cart before the horse” when asking them to sign an agreement to
give them something they are not sure the County will ultimately approve. That is why the neighbor has
signed a letter of intent.
Mr. Pool said as to the affordable housing issue, the applicant thought that a unit of its size would
regulate itself. He said these are one-bedroom units, and are only on the lower level of the buildings.
Market-wise those units can only demand a certain rent. That is why they think this will work. He said this
application meets the 12 criteria of the Neighborhood Model District. He then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Wyant said that in Proffer No. 3 it refers to “the Director.” He asked to whom this refers. Mr.
Davis said it refers to Mr. Mark Graham, the Director of Community Development. Mr. Wyant asked if that
should be clarified. Mr. Davis said within the content of the proffers, it is okay as it stands.
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tom Loach said he wishes to reiterate the position of the Crozet Community Association. As
long as there is no agreement between the County and the community of Crozet for long-range funding of
the Crozet Master Plan, the community will not support this rezoning. He said it was interesting to hear
from other growth area residents tonight that Crozet is not the only area where residents feel “put upon.” It
was said that this project is a loser, but if it were built at its by-right level, it would not be a loser. If the
reason for this is that there are no adequate public facilities, and there is nothing the Board can do but
accept these rezonings with disregard to the qualify of life for the current residents, it is his position that at
the next Community Association meeting he will make a motion that the community ask that Crozet be
removed as a growth area based on the lack of infrastructure support.
Mr. Loach said they just found out that Old Trail will not contain just 2200 homes, but that a request
for another 96 is coming before the Planning Commission next week, and that the 2200 homes approved
did not include the by-right development that is taking place now. There will actually be 2600 homes in the
Old Trail development. Originally, they were told by the developer that there would be 800. In the Master
Plan the community agreed on with the County and the consultants, it was shown with 1200 homes. That
paper seems to have disappeared from the County’s master plan, so now the community will get 2600
homes. If this is the quality of master planning in the community, and if this is what growth area residents
can expect from master planning, he recommends that “they run far and fun fast.”
Mrs. Mary Rice reminded the Board that every time they approve a dense development of this type,
there is a price to pay at budget time. She said the Board should look hard at the fiscal impact analysis
because growth does not pay for itself. One of the most expensive impacts is roads. The most costly road
associated with Wickham Pond is the proposed Eastern Avenue which would cost the County and VDOT
several millions of dollars. She said developments in the location of Wickham Pond are just those to be
served by Eastern Avenue. People living in Wickham Pond who will be commuting to Charlottesville are
not going to use I-64 without an Eastern Avenue. She thinks they would use Route 250 instead. The idea
of an Eastern Avenue was to take traffic from Route 240 directly south to Route 250 through Western Ridge
so people would end up farther west on Route 250 so they would be inclined to use I-64 to get into
Charlottesville. She does not think an Eastern Avenue will be built in the next 15 years or longer. She
thinks Crozet will be totally built out by then. She said the Master Plan only makes sense if the County
follows through on the commitments outlined in the plan. Wickham Pond only makes sense if an Eastern
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
Avenue is built. She asked the cost of all the projects listed in the master plan because they will have to be
paid for in the next ten years in order to retain the present quality of life in Crozet, which was a promise
made to Crozet citizens. She has asked the Planning staff how the population of Crozet will be under
14,500 after all of the build-out. She asked the Board how it will pay for all of the growth presently being
approved. Until the funds are identified to make these improvements, she asked that the Board either
reject future rezonings, or at least always seek the lowest density possible on all issues of rezonings and
bonus densities.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Wyant asked the by-right density for this property.
Mr. Rooker said it was five units per acre. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff report shows that there could
be 120 units.
Mr. Wyant asked if this rezoning is at a density which is less than that called for in the master plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said the gross density is less, but there are a couple of areas where the density is higher than
that called for in the master plan.
Mr. Wyant asked if construction of this project will be phased. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant did
not propose any phasing in the zoning application.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to defer this petition in order to get a report on the traffic situation on
Route 240. He said the projected vehicle trips per day are 630, but he would like to see the level of service
just on Route 240. He thinks the Board should discuss the plans for Eastern Avenue. The traffic numbers
on Jarmans Gap Road are lower than he had anticipated. He is not prepared to act on this petition until he
has a better understanding of how it will impact current infrastructure.
Mr. Boyd agreed and said he would like more information also. He would like more thought given
to interaction between the master plan and the need for dealing with transportation issues.
Ms. Thomas said in order to be fair, the Board needs to be very specific about the information being
requested and not just say it has a feeling of discomfort with the plan.
Mr. Rooker said he wants to know the current levels of service on the roads around this
development. He does not see a level of public amenity with this project and he does not see any public
infrastructure being built. How does it fit in with the overall master plan in terms of its impact on existing
infrastructure.
Mr. Boyd said he would like information on how far ahead of infrastructure the County wants to get
in approving housing, considering all of the by-right development which is taking place.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Boyd was saying that because the Board approved the Old Trail
development, it should not approve anything else in Crozet.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks there should be some plan for how many houses are approved in Crozet,
and how fast that will occur.
Mr. Rooker said in Old Trail they are building out the infrastructure anticipated by the master plan
for that entire area. That same thing is not happening in this proposed development. The question is how
much the existing infrastructure is burdened. He would also like to understand the levels of service on
Route 240 and what else is being approved that might impact Route 240. He said there is an opening for a
connection so how realistic is it that the connection might be made to make it part of the overall
infrastructure of Crozet. Without a connection, it is a cul-de-sac development.
Mr. Wyant said Old Trail has a connector from Jarmans Gap allowing access to Route 250. He
said between the hours of seven and eight in the morning there is a backup of traffic at the intersections of
Route 240 and Route 250. There is nothing in this proposal about the traffic effects.
Mr. Boyd said he believes Old Trail showed a positive annual impact because of the retail included
in the development.
Ms. Thomas said that is a dicey situation since the Board wants downtown Crozet to prosper.
Mr. Rooker said the original proposal showed commercial on Route 250. That proposal was
significantly shaped by the master planning process to match the expectations for that quadrant of the
Crozet area. He wants to understand how the traffic impacts the existing level of service on Route 240 and
how this plugs into the overall master plan. There is a provision for a connection, but how realistic is that
connection and what would opening that connection do to traffic?
Mr. Cilimberg said the connection they have allowed for is for future development of the area to the west.
There is no possibility of connecting to The Highlands because of the design of that development. He
believes there were some additional roads shown in the master plan that were wanted for interconnections
ultimately as new development occurs.
Mr. Rooker said the Board just got the materials for this meeting last Friday. That did not allow for
a lot of time to contemplate some of the larger impacts of this development.
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
Mr. Bowerman said a point was made that the by-right development of this property would be less
dense than what is being requested. He thinks it is legitimate to look at the effect the density would have on
infrastructure. None of what is being questioned is internal to the development.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the applicant has done a good job with the plan internally. There is good
use of open space, and the historic buildings have been preserved. There are some good aspects to the
plan.
Ms. Thomas said if the Board is suddenly “getting religion” that says growth does not pay for itself, it
might be useful to know how much less would be put into the infrastructure of Crozet if the Board turned
down this petition. She agrees the Board should have more information, but she thinks Crozet’s
infrastructure has already been impacted to a great extent with the number of houses approved in Old Trail.
By saying this addition is “the final straw”, she hopes the Board is not suggesting to itself that it will be freed
of its obligations to provide a lot of infrastructure in Crozet. This is just a small piece of what is causing
those obligations the County took on with the master plan.
Mr. Rooker agreed. He does not think the impact of these houses will require a significant capital
investment in and of itself. He does think the Board should have an understanding before it votes of what
those impacts are and how they fit in the master plan. He sees a difference between a plan that is building
out the infrastructure and providing the public facilities for a quadrant of the master plan, and a
development that is not providing those things.
Mr. Dorrier said these developments seem to be climbing incrementally in the number of units.
Those houses are not going to be built immediately but he believes they are envisioned as a 20-year build-
out.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the developer will expect to have a four or five-year build-out, not 20
years.
Mr. Dorrier said all of these houses are not coming on line right away. It is incumbent on the County
to work on the infrastructure while the project is being developed. To him this development appears to be
one that has respect for the land, and proffers are being made for affordable housing that is in line with
what the Board wants. Also, they are using the Neighborhood Model which is what the Board wants. If the
Board is changing its philosophy of not accepting neighborhood plans, it needs to be forthright with the
public and say so.
Mr. Bowerman said he understands this proposal only has one element of the Neighborhood
Model.
Mr. Rooker said it does not contain a mixed use.
Ms. Thomas said there are a number of aspects of this proposal which are attractive. One is
preservation in some form of the historic farmhouse and the smokehouse, as well as a mixed type of
housing. She will not object to getting more information, but just wants the Board to be precise in its
request.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board should review the master plan for Crozet. If the Board is concerned
about infrastructure, it needs to look at and address those concerns.
Mr. Wyant said it is more about the timeline for infrastructure. There are a couple of things he
would like to see flushed out, one concerns stormwater management. If there is no agreement with the
adjacent property owner, they could not handle the stormwater.
Mr. Rooker said if they do not get that agreement approved, the development cannot go forward.
Mr. Wyant said he also questions the two-family dwellings as affordable housing. He would like to
hear that discussed further.
Mr. Rooker said he is not comfortable with that aspect. He asked that Mr. Ron White appear and
say why that is a good idea.
Mr. Rooker asked what the Board needed to do to defer this petition. Mr. Davis said the Board only
needs to defer it to a date certain.
After a short discussion with staff as to what that date should be, motion was offered by Mr. Wyant,
seconded by Mr. Boyd, to defer ZMA-2004-017, Wickham Pond, until December 7, 2005. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Board recessed at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened at 8:10 p.m. without Mr. Bowerman being
present at this time.)
_______________
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
(Note: Agenda Item Nos. 8, 9 and 10 will be heard concurrently, with votes being taken
separately.)
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-2004-012. Luxor Commercial (Sign #86). Public Hearing on request to
rezone 3.523 ac (portion of TM 78, P 55A4) from R-6 & R-15 to PD-MC & to rezone 1.377 ac (TM 78, P
55D) from C-1 to PD-MC to allow 1500 sq ft bank & 80,000 sq ft of mixed commercial in a planned
development. TM 78, P 55A4 (portion thereof) & TM 78, P 55D are located in the EC Overlay Dist on N
side of Rt 250 E between Montessori School & Aunt Sarah's Restaurant. The general usage allowed in the
PD-MC zoning district is large-scale commercial w/broad range of commercial uses under a unified
planned approach; the PD-MC zoning district does not have a density range. (The Comp Plan designates
this property as Urban Density & the general usage recommended under this designation is residential.
The recommended density range is 6-34 du/ac in Neighborhood Three.) Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 26 and October 3, 2005.)
__________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2004-038. Luxor Commercial Drive-in Window for Bank (Sign #86).
Public Hearing on request to allow for drive-in window for bank in accord w/Sec 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ord
which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated w/permitted uses within PD-MC. TM 78, P 55A4
(portion thereof), contains 23.168 ac & is pending a rezoning to PD-MC (ZMA-04-12). (Same property
description as above.) Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on
September 26 and October 3, 2005.)
__________
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2005-002. Luxor Commercial Veterinary Office (Sign #27). Public
Hearing on request to allow for veterinary office in accord w/Sec 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ord which allows for
veterinary offices & hospitals w/in PD-MC zoning. TM 78, P 55D contains 1.377 ac & is pending a rezoning
to PD-MC (ZMA-04-12). (Same property description as above.) Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing
was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 26 and October 3, 2005.)
__________
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this request is to rezone 3.523 acres from R-6 and R-15 to a
Planned District-Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) and to rezone 1.377 acres from C-1 Commercial to PD-MC to
allow a 1500 square foot bank and 80,000 square feet of mixed commercial. The request also includes
two special use permits to allow for a drive-in window at the bank and a stand-alone veterinary office. He
said the Planning Commission raised issues about the appropriateness of this request as it relates to the
recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan that there be no strip development along this side of Route
250 East, the adequacy of pedestrian access from the front of the site to the rear, and the need for a clear
prescription for preserving two mature pine trees along Route 250 given the proposed sidewalk location.
Mr. Cilimberg said at the Commission’s last meeting on this request staff noted that this
recommendation was included in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. It was included in order to avoid the
creep of highway-oriented commercial style development eastward from the existing commercially-
developed area just west of the Montessori School site which is designated Regional Service in the
Comprehensive Plan. However, since adoption of the Plan in 1995, a number of approvals and
developments have occurred which change the character of this area and have in some ways changed that
whole concept about development on Route 250. These include a veterinary clinic on the site of this
proposal (which has been approved but not yet developed); office buildings along the frontage of Route 250
below Westminster-Canterbury just east of the long-standing restaurant (Aunt Sarah’s) which is adjacent to
this site; the continued expansion of the Montessori school use; and, approval and construction of the
Eckerd Drug Store adjacent to this proposal.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff noted that there is a large remaining portion of the “Luxor” property to the
north of this site which will consist primarily of residential uses. The Luxor, Fontana, Westminster-
Canterbury and Ashcroft developments combine to create a large residential area that could be served by
this commercial area. That would be consistent with some of the preliminary findings of the Pantops Master
Plan public input process which called for pedestrian/bicycle accessible commercial areas and which also
raised concern about the emerging residential development north of Route 250 while most commercial
services are located south of Route 250. Strip development is characterized generally by zoning and land
uses that stretch along highway frontages and include only one conventional zoning category and use. The
mixture of uses in this development, the architectural treatment along Route 250 with parking oriented
internally and with ample pedestrian facilities provides a framework for considering the project not as a strip
development but as one that is appropriate for this area.
Mr. Cilimberg said pedestrian circulation from the front to the rear of the site was a concern and the
applicant has now shown a connection that allows for safer and more convenient access from the front of
the site to the rear. The connection is coordinated with the landscaping to provide a partially-shaded
connection. He said the applicant has made changes to Proffer #5 concerning preservation of the two
mature pine trees including bonding the trees and hiring an arborist to implement a plan for preservation.
He said the proffers are in final form and have been signed (copies were provided to the Board members
tonight).
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of ZMA-2004-012 to the Planning Commission and
the Commission in turn recommended approval subject to the proffers. Regarding the drive-through
window for the bank (SP-2004-38), staff and the Commission recommend approval subject to three
conditions. The veterinary clinic which would be in the building on the southeast section of the development
(SP-2005-002) is recommended for approval subject to two conditions staff originally recommended plus
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
three conditions added by the Commission. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said staff’s recommendation is counter to that in the Comprehensive Plan because of
comments made by the public during the Pantops Master Plan process regarding access. She asked what
kind of access there is to areas behind this development. Just having development on the same side of the
road does not assure that people will have the kind of access talked about in that master planning process.
Mr. Cilimberg said the roads seen in this plan provide for a system that connects with the roads in
the residential development behind this development. Sidewalks have been provided along all of those
roads so people coming from the area north could use a sidewalk along those roads to come to this
location.
Ms. Thomas asked if those roads connect to what people call the proposed Eastern Connector.
Mr. Cilimberg said that is a nebulous term concerning its location at this time. These roads provide for part
of an integrated or interconnected road system for local traffic. There is no proposed route for that eastern
connector at this time. There is a system of roads anticipated by one primary developer in this area who
has shown those interconnections. This is part of the ultimate road system for the traffic that would be
moving within the residential areas and out to Route 250.
Mr. Boyd asked if those interconnecting roads could be used to get out to Franklin without having to
use Route 250. Mr. Cilimberg said that is the ultimate idea, certainly residents could get as far as Fontana.
Mr. Rooker said considering the topography in that area, the grid would provide one of the better
connected systems in the County. Mr. Cilimberg said there is one primary developer in that area which has
the opportunity to plan their road system and actually make those connections.
Mr. Rooker asked the number of residential units that will be built within a quarter of a mile of this
development. Mr. Cilimberg said the zoning across from this location is R-6 and R-15. There is the
possibility on the north side of Route 250 to have six to 15 dwelling units per acre over a very large area.
That was approved back in the early 1990’s. Beyond that there is other development taking place right now
(Fontana and Avamor).
Mr. Wyant asked about the possibility of a connection to State Farm Boulevard. Mr. Cilimberg said
building a sidewalk along State Farm Boulevard is a capital project. The idea is to continue across Route
250 and connect, but Aunt Sarah’s Pancake House would probably have to be eliminated in order to do so.
Ms. Thomas said she is trying to talk herself into voting for this project. She almost cries every time
she sees Eckerd Drug Store because she thinks the original Comprehensive Plan idea of having
commercial development only on one side of Route 250 was visually preferable.
At this time, Mr. Rooker asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Katurah Roell was present to represent the applicant. He said they are fortunate to be able to
master plan enough of the road network to show connections. He said this system will connect to Verona
Drive which is on the northeast corner of Fontana, as well as off of Olympia Drive in the heart of Fontana. It
will also head west and go behind the future Carmax (White House Motel) area down to the Town &
Country Motel site. At that point it will meet a road which will stub out to the northwest; that road could
possibly connect with an eastern connector if someone can come up with the funds to build such a road.
He feels that some of the local neighborhood services will be a benefit to professionals.
Mr. Roell said their total acreage is four acres; they have 2.4 acres and the veterinarian has 1.6
acres. The vet clinic is currently zoned C-1. The 2.4 acres will consist of additional professional space
such as doctor’s offices, a small grocery store (not a convenience store). They have proffered out the
majority of distasteful uses to be more of neighborhood support uses. There will be one branch bank with a
drive-through window. They will preserve the two trees on the front of the lot; the remaining trees have
either been cleared or are scrub pines on the vet’s piece of land. They have nice architecture that follows
the commitment to the area which is similar to that at the old Guarantee Bank site. They have provided a
pedestrian path all the way to Westminster-Canterbury.
Mr. Roell said as to the residential use behind this property, they have 60 acres which are zoned R-
6. This is the last piece of the R-15 land, so once it is zoned to this use, that will leave the possibility for
about 360 maximum units which he does not think can be achieved. There are a series of regional
stormwater basins behind this property which will serve not only this small commercial area, but the area all
the way to the Town & Country Motel site back to the White House Motel site into a regional basin picking
up parts of Fontana for major service.
Mr. Roell said most of the hurdles concerning technical issues have cleared. They are still trying to
address some of the internal road connections with staff. The Commission will address some of those road
locations. It is their desire to build those roads and interconnections with limited access to Route 250. The
other parallel road will also provide access to all of the properties which front on Route 250 and the
properties they will adjoin. This is part of an overall mixed-use area which he has been working on for over
12 years. He thinks it is a worthy addition and it does not overwhelm the area with additional commercial
activity. They are getting more requests from doctors who want to move into this area because of the future
relocation of the Martha Jefferson Hospital to this area. He said they have allowed for a connection to State
Farm Boulevard. It would be nice to have that realignment, but although there have been extensive efforts
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
made with the landowner (Aunt Sarah’s) and the tenant in that building who has a remaining 15-year lease,
neither is interested in doing much without a buy-out. He then offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas asked if the applicant will be building the walkway all the way to Westminster-
Canterbury. Mr. Roell said “yes”, it will go all the way to their property boundary. Ms. Thomas said that is a
really steep area. Mr. Roell said they have worked out a rather gentle path. It has less than an eight-
percent grade.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is a proposed road connection to Westminster-Canterbury. Mr. Roell
said Westminster wanted pedestrian access only.
Ms. Thomas asked about a road which is used to access Ashcroft. Mr. Roell said they have tried a
couple of different ways to make a connection to that road, as well as to the top of the mountain running it
down behind Fontana in another residential development called Lake Ridge. That connection was deemed
undesirable by Ashcroft and they were asked to remove it from this plan. There is an easement which will
connect to a gate out of the back portion of the R-6 land.
Mr. Boyd said the old road was just stopped by a gate. He has met with the Ashcroft Homeowners’
Association a couple of times and they are adamantly opposed to any connection.
Ms. Thomas said she believes they will want access at some point in the future.
Mr. Rooker said their only access now is down to Hansen Road and if that gets closed off for the
left-turn onto or off of Route 250, it will be a different story. Mr. Roell said it is windy, hillside, circuitous
route. It would not be inviting for cut-through traffic to use to get to Route 250 from Route 20, but the
Homeowners still felt it was an intrusion.
Ms. Thomas asked if the applicant still has the right-of-way, and if it is still a possibility. Mr. Roell
said “yes.” He said the right-of-way will be maintained. There will be an access off of the end of one of the
cul-de-sacs and it will be graveled to a gate.
At this time, Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Boyd immediately offered motion to approve ZMA-2004-012 subject to the proffers dated
October 12, 2005. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The proffers are set out in full below.)
Original Proffer __X___
Amended Proffer ____
(Amendment # _____)
PROFFER FORM
Date: 10/12/05
ZMA # 2004-0012
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) TMP 78-55A4 and TMP 78-55D
4.9 Acres to be rezoned from R-15, R-6, & C-1 to PD-MC
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized
agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if
rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the
rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation
to the rezoning request.
1. The location of the structures relative to the exterior public streets, ingress and egress points, and
sidewalks to the exterior public streets, ingress and egress points, and sidewalks shown on the
application plan may not be varied under Albemarle County Code § 18-8.5.5.3, in effect on October
12, 2005, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (on file in Clerk’s office), from that as
shown on the plan produced by Rivanna Engineering, dated October 13, 2004, last revised July 27,
2005, entitled “Application Plan for Luxor Commercial Center”, herein referred to as the
“Application Plan”.
2. Permitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only
those uses allowed in Albemarle County Code § 18-22 in effect on October 12, 2005, a copy of the
section being attached hereto as Exhibit B (on file in Clerk’s office), except the following:
a. The following retail sales and service establishments:
3. Department store.
15. Retail nurseries and greenhouses.
b. The following services and public establishments:
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
3. Cemeteries.
9. Indoor theaters.
11. Laundromat (provided that an attendant shall be on duty at all hours during operation).
16. Automobile service stations (reference 5.1.20).
22. Automobile, truck repair shop excluding body shop. (Added 6-3-81; Amended 9-9-92)
3. No building permit shall be issued unless and until the Director of Planning, or his assigns,
determines that those building facades that are not governed by a certificate of appropriateness
issued by the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board are in general accord with the
“Perspective View from Route 250 Looking NW,” prepared by Bob Anderson and dated January
19, 2005, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C (on file in Clerk’s office). The facades shall be
determined to be in general accord if the form, massing, character and detailing conform in all
material respects to the building elevations. The exterior colors of the buildings shall be earth tone.
4. A plaza shall be provided between the two larger buildings fronting Route 250. This space shall be
no smaller than shown on the Application Plan and shall include outdoor amenities (e.g.,
landscaping, sidewalks, benches, tables). There will be a pedestrian passage that connects the
plaza and the parking lot behind the buildings. This passage shall be a minimum of 20-feet wide
and may have a roof and support structures (e.g. columns), but shall remain open on two sides
(i.e., shall not have walls, windows or doors). A certificate of occupancy for buildings four and five
will not be issued until the plaza between these buildings is constructed. The plaza will be
constructed of concrete. The plaza material may be altered if approved by the Director of Planning.
5. Prior to the first final site plan approval, the owner shall submit a tree conservation plan (the “plan”)
prepared by a state certified arborist for the two large existing evergreen trees in the southeastern
corner of the site, as shown on the plan. The plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for
review and approval to assure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The plan shall
specify tree protection methods and procedures, including fertilizing, tree protection fencing and
mulching. The approved plan shall be complied with during and after development of the property.
When the plan is submitted, the owner also shall submit a bond or other form of surety in an
amount of $2,000 to guarantee the replacement of one or both trees in the event that either or both
die or are damaged for a period of 2 years after approval of the final site plan for the land on which
the two trees are located. The bond or other surety shall be in a form acceptable to the County
Engineer and the County Attorney. The location of any sidewalk or any other improvements within
15 feet of either of the trees shall be subject to design review during review of the first preliminary
site plan for the land on which those sidewalks, other improvements, or the two trees are located t
by the Director of Planning.
6. The Owner of TMP 78-55A4 shall construct a two lane road between the Rolkin Road Roundabout
and the eastern boundary line of the site, as generally depicted on the Application Plan and labeled
“Aunt Sarah’s Lane.” This road shall be constructed in conjunction with the first final site plan
approved for the area under this rezoning and shall meet VDOT design and construction
standards. The purpose of this road shall be to provide for the ultimate interconnection to the
Route 250/ State Farm Boulevard (Route 1117) intersection. In conjunction with the approval of
the first final site plan approved for the property, the Owner of TMP 78-55A4 shall reserve the
necessary right of way of the two lane road, including all necessary drainage easements, for future
dedication to the County and will dedicate this right of way upon demand by the County. A plat
showing future dedication to be accepted by the Board will be prepared at the Owner’s expense.
7. The Owner of TMP 78-55A4 shall construct a five (5) foot wide pedestrian asphalt path from Aunt
Sarah’s Lane to the property’s common line with Westminster Canterbury in the general location
shown on the Application Plan. The purpose of this path shall be to facilitate an ultimate pedestrian
connection to Westminster Canterbury. This path shall be constructed in conjunction with the first
final site plan approved for the property.
8. The Owner of TMP 78-55A4 shall provide a bicycle rack to hold at least 5 bicycles at a location on
TMP 78-55A4 to be determined with the first site plan approved for the property. The bicycle rack
shall be installed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy on the property.
9. At such time as a public road interconnection is made between the Route 250/ State Farm
Boulevard (Route 1117) intersection and the two lane road referenced in Proffer No.6 the Owners
of TMP 78-55A4 and TMP 78-55D, and any parcel(s) of record which may be created therefrom in
the future shall close the ingress into their parcels at the current Aunt Sarah’s entrance on Route
250.
__Nigel C. Bray (signed) _ __Nigel C. Bray________________ __10-8-05________
Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date
__Daryl E.. Bray (signed) _ __Daryl E. Bray________________ __10-8-05________
Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date
_Charles W. Hurt (signed) _ __Charles W. Hurt_____________ __10-10-05________
Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date
Dr. Charles William Hurt is Manager of North Pantops Townhouses, LLC and is therefore authorized to sign
on its behalf.
Charles W. Hurt October 12, 2005
Initial Date
__________
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
Motion was then offered by Mr. Boyd to approve SP-2004-038 subject to the three conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Drive-through windows will be limited to three (3), including one to be used for an ATM;
2. Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness; and
3. Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as signage,
and pavement markings as indicated on the application plan. The crosswalk just beyond the
drive-up window bays for the bank shall be identified with crosswalk signage on either side of
the drive aisle.
__________
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to approve SP-2005-002 subject to the five conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. A separate entrance and exit shall be provided for the clinic in accordance with Section
5.1.11d;
2. No outdoor exercise area shall be permitted;
3. A note shall be added to the plan to identify the two (2) trees that are to be bonded;
4. The veterinary clinic be identified as located in building 4; and
5. Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she had a question which is probably one for the site plan process. She asked if
Monticello had been involved in the color treatment of this development.
Mr. Dougherty said people at Monticello have seen the renderings and they requested that the
development be earth-toned. They realize there are different development forms which could go on the
property, especially in the way of housing. It is an improvement over a by-right situation. They like that the
two mature trees will be preserved. He has been to Monticello and looked at the impact of this
development on the viewshed. The request that everything be earth-toned is part of the proffers. He said
the development must be reviewed by the ARB.
Mr. Rooker said this plan has completely relegated parking and that helps. Plantings will be
required by the ARB along Route 250 so he does not think the parking will be seen.
Ms. Thomas said she appreciates that the pedestrianway through the parking lot has been made
safer.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Tucker said that at its meeting on October 5, 2005, the Board approved new fire inspection
fees. When the Board took that action, it made those fees effective immediately and staff should have
requested a different effective date. He asked that the Board tonight entertain a motion to set an effective
date for those fire inspection fees for January 1, 2006.
Motion to this effect was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Wyant asked how the ARB applies its guidelines in Crozet along Route 240. He said people
have said to him that the County is using urban guidelines in a rural community. With Crozet being the first
master planned area, he thinks these questions will arise more often. He has had a number of people
approach him with questions about signs, especially people in the shopping center. He asked that the
Board receive some guidance as to how it can deal with the ARB in that community since he thinks that
community is different. Mr. Cilimberg said Route 240 is a designed Entrance Corridor; at this time the ARB
uses a general set of guidelines which applies to all entrance corridors.
Ms. Thomas asked if Route 240 is being analyzed now. Mr. Cilimberg said Route 250 is in the
plan, but at this time there is not sufficient staff to do that analysis. There is a plan to do specific guidelines
for Route 250, but Route 240 has not been mentioned. There has been some discussion regarding
entrance corridors as to the possibility of having different guidelines for the different corridors due. When
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
the entrance corridors were originally adopted, it was decided that the guidelines be general in nature. Now
it is coming down to having more specific guidelines, particularly as master planned areas are completed.
Drafting specific guidelines for Route 240 to reflect more of what is in the master plan is not something that
is in the staff’s work plan at this time.
Mr. Wyant said he feels there are things which have been done for a number of years that could be
used, with things being approved administratively, and it would take less time.
Ms. Thomas asked if there are different standards for areas where most people are walking. Mr.
Cilimberg said “no.”
Mr. Rooker said he agrees that it would be good to have different guidelines depending on the
nature of the road, but having different standards apply to different corridors would be a significant
undertaking.
Mr. Wyant suggested that staff look at what had actually been used over the past few years, things
which have become common practices. He said it might take some burden off of staff by having
administrative approval. Mr. Cilimberg said that is possible, and then everything would not have to go to the
ARB.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that last night she attended a meeting of people who live in the neighborhood
around the Ivy Landfill. She said the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority gave a report. Since this Board had
heard the report that led to a newspaper headline about the landfill leaking, the Board might be happy to
know that the landfill has never leaked and that it is actually not as dire a situation as first thought. RSWA is
not happy with it and will have to do something with all of the leachate. There are probably millions of
gallons of leachate there. But, the part that is not as bad as they had feared is that even with all of the
recent rain, the leachate has not increased. They are thinking the leachate may have been there for a very
long time. It might have been there before the landfill was capped as opposed to it being a leak in the cap.
The neighbors had long been critical of how the landfill was covered at night. This news does not limit the
County’s financial obligation but it is a problem which is not a growing problem. She said the RSWA staff
answered every question posed by members of the public.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she and Mr. Cilimberg were present at the last MPO meeting when fireworks
exploded. She mentions it only because there is a meeting in Culpeper on October 18 and this Board will
be making a statement to VDOT and the Board has already decided what that statement will contain. At the
end of the MPO meeting it was mentioned that VDOT has a new project selection process. VDOT has
decided that Route 250 East from Interstate 64 to Shadwell should be widened and that Route 29 from
Airport Road to the Greene County line should be widened. Those projects would possibly take priority over
all other County projects. This idea came from the planners in VDOT who apparently looked only at
segments of the roads and not at the intersections. Of course, it is the intersections that cause the “level of
service” problems. She does not think the Board can come up with a response tonight, but thinks the Board
should ask staff to express concern about this process for whoever is going to make the statement on
October 18. She said neither of these projects is on the long-range plan. This would turn the long-range
planning that has been going on in the community topsy-turvy. Also, there is not enough money to do the
projects which are already on the list. She said VDOT did not single out Albemarle County. This is going
on all over the state.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Rooker had learned about this casually. He has asked Mr. Jim Utterback,
VDOT’s Resident Engineer, to address this issue at the November 2 Board meeting.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Tucker to alert Mr. Butch Davies about this issue and to send him a copy of
the statement to be made on October 18 in advance of that meeting.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is a legal issue involved about who makes the decisions about local
priorities.
Ms. Thomas said the MPO has the ability to veto projects that are not on the long-range plan.
Mr. Rooker said that technically the MPO is supposed to have the authority to veto projects. There
is a legal issue as to whether or not that is the case. It has not been decided legally as to who has the final
say. In the past the MPO has not had that much control over the allocations for primary road projects as
one might think it should have. It seems that certain projects jump ahead of projects that are rated higher
at the local level and funded at the state level. To have them suddenly pluck out projects which are not
even in the long-range plan takes this a step further than has ever occurred before. It seems ridiculous to
talk about widening Route 29 North from Airport Road when the widening south of Airport Road has not
been done, and it is probably a $10.0+ million project.
Ms. Thomas said MPOs were involved in a lot of meetings with VDOT, but these projects were
never mentioned in those meetings.
__________
Mr. Bowerman suggested the Board ask Chief Miller to come up with some action plan regarding
the continued disturbances at the Waffle House. He said this problem has been around a long time,
occurring at both Katie’s and Max Trax. It always occurs at one place, but this is a particularly serious
situation since it is a residential neighborhood right next to this site.
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Rooker said the speaker earlier said if there is a police car at that location people do not stop
but continue on to some other place. According to him there have been a number of police officers going
to that location to stop the disturbances, so maybe if they did what he suggested for a month or so, it might
help.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees that one police car there as a preventive measure is better than having six
cars there later in the night. He said it sounds like a terrible situation.
Ms. Thomas said that 13 or more years ago the University corner had the same kind of situation. It
was a popular place to gather at about 2:15 a.m. All the parking lot owners agreed to place a chain across
their parking lots. The one attractive nuisance restaurant did not cooperate, but there was no place for
anyone to park so it defused the situation.
__________
Mr. Boyd said he wanted to know the status of the cash proffer policy. He said it was discussed
several months ago and he would like to see the County move forward with putting together a plan. He
went to Chesterfield County to talk about their plan. They indicated that a number of other counties have
used their plan as a model. That plan has some legal history behind it because it has been challenged a
number of times. He thinks it would help the situation which occurred earlier tonight when the Board got a
proffer at the last minute.
Mr. Rooker said the information furnished by Mr. Boyd to the Board at an earlier meeting seemed to
relate principally to a cash proffer system, and the question is, does the Board want to go to a cash proffer
system? If so, the Board should ask staff to bring forward a policy to be discussed. He agrees with Mr.
Boyd that if Chesterfield has a system which seems to be working, why reinvent the wheel?
Mr. Davis said there is a controversy in Chesterfield right now. They have proposed to raise their
cash proffer to about $15,000. He said Mr. Rooker is right in that the Board needs to decide if it really wants
to have a cash proffer policy. Then, Albemarle County would need to make an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to study and address the impact of a residential rezoning on the particular services
the Board would want a cash proffer to address. He said it needs to be an adequate study that reasonably
relates those things. That is what Chesterfield did; it was the primary reason they were successful in
litigating at least twice the validity of their proffer system. He does not want to say it is not possible to draft a
policy quickly, but he thinks there needs to be some analysis first.
Mr. Boyd said the advantage is to take a hard look at development and set some value for that.
Going through that process and defining that is probably as important as the policy statement itself.
Ms. Thomas asked if Albemarle is one step ahead of other places because of its Fiscal Impact
Model. Does that give a basis for doing anything? Mr. Davis said it may in some respects. However, it
depends on what impacts the Board wants the proffers to address. If it is just roads and schools and fire
stations and libraries and parks and recreation, that is one thing. If you throw in affordable housing, which is
one thing that other localities have not done, that is a further complication. If there are other impacts the
Board wants addressed by a proffer, staff would have to look at those things. One thing that is unique to
Albemarle is its growth areas concept. The Board will need a philosophical discussion as to whether cash
proffers are helpful or harmful to the growth area concept being promoted.
Ms. Thomas said she would rather have impacts paid for by everybody who develops in the rural
areas. That tends not to be what happens.
Mr. Rooker said that cannot be required. That can only be done when there is a rezoning.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to see the Board look into this, and if it runs into stumbling blocks, then
the Board would just not move forward with it. He thinks it is a concept worth pursuing.
Mr. Davis said if the Board tried to fully offset the impact of a development, the cash proffer would
need to be as much as $25,000. That is what other localities have found is needed. The Board would
need to make a policy decision as to whether or not to fully address the impacts or have some lesser
percentage of that impact addressed. In those analyses staff would have to deal with a situation where an
applicant proffered property or other ways to address those impacts.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the way land is valued in a proffer should be addressed in the policy. Mr.
Davis said finding a reasonable way to determine those values would need to be done. There is probably a
learning curve that Planning staff would have to go through in order to properly administer that policy.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks all of those things should be addressed.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there are restrictions on how the money can be spent. Mr. Davis said state law
says it has to be spent on things which are shown in the Comprehensive Plan and which are reasonably
related to the development.
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 44)
Ms. Thomas asked that staff report to the Board what is happening at the General Assembly level.
She said cash proffers are “just sitting out there” waiting to be attacked at the state level. In almost every
Session, the state legislators bring up proposals that limit the local government’s control and which put
restrictions on cash proffers. It might be something the County gets into just as it is being ruled out of order
by the state. She suggested the County’s legislative liaison help the Board with this one.
Mr. Cilimberg said he will be serving on the Virginia Chapter of the APA’s Legislative Committee.
They start meeting this Friday so he can keep abreast of what is happening with that.
Mr. Rooker said some of this gets into the issue mentioned earlier about the unfairness of imposing
cash proffers on land that the Board wants to be zoned a certain way versus a development that is
occurring in places where it is not wanted. That comes back to impact fees. The Legislature does not have
the guts to even approach that issue. The people do not understand it, but when it is explained to someone
in the public they become outraged that there is no impact fee system allowed in Virginia. Yet, because of
the contributions made by developers in the real estate industry to legislators, they continue to shun even
dealing with the question. It never even gets out of committee. To him, it is ridiculous.
Ms. Thomas said it got further last Session than ever before because the Farm Bureau and the
Virginia Education Association both supported the idea of impact fees. Mr. Davis said those legislative
proposals were structured in a way where there could be impact fees for schools and/or roads and if that
was done, then cash proffers could not be accepted.
Mr. Rooker said he would give up cash proffers in a minute.
Mr. Boyd said he would go back to his original question. Working within the system the Board has
to work with, is there any interest besides his of pursuing more information on this question?
Mr. Rooker said he would like to have more information in order to demonstrate the impact of the
units being built. Part of that goes to the present fiscal impact analysis which does not take into account
transportation expense.
Mr. Cilimberg said there has been discussion as to how a cash proffer program might be
structured. He said there is a basic level of analysis that the various localities did when they put cash
proffers in place. In many cases they used consultants. It is generally a fiscal impact analysis of the
particular kinds of facilities and the impact of development on those facilities in a dollar form. It is probably
something that Mr. Steve Allshouse, the County’s Fiscal Impact Planner, would need to do as the basis for
such a policy.
Mr. Rooker said he felt it would be helpful if the Board could get a report on how to structurally
approach a cash proffer system and given Chesterfield’s experience, how long it might take if their
guidelines were followed. If there are any other policy issues, staff should identify those also. It makes
sense for the Board to make a decision without putting staff through a huge amount of work.
__________
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board should ask staff to include the “Ruckersville Parkway” in the Places 29
Transportation Study that is ongoing. Mr. Cilimberg said it has already been decided that that will be done.
__________
Mr. Boyd said there is a proposal which has gone before the Planning Commission having to do
with Berkmar Drive Extended. It is not a new idea, but there has been a request for a rezoning. This
request is being held up by the Places 29 master planning process. The Planning Commission asked the
applicant to wait until that process was further along. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission asked staff to
review it concurrently with Places 29.
Mr. Boyd said when the Places 29 study began he asked a question several times and was told that
it would not interrupt anything that was flowing through the system at the time. This appears to be a case
which has been affected by that study.
Mr. Rooker said the request is not “flowing through the system.” The request requires that a
change be made to the Comprehensive Plan; the applicant filed the application after the Places 29 study
started. Mr. Cilimberg said the application was just filed last month. Mr. Rooker said the Places 29 study
has been underway for five months.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like this request viewed as a major participant in the study. Mr.
Cilimberg said the plan was to make sure it was done concurrently.
Mr. Rooker said this is a Comprehensive Plan change for an entire area. It would be different if it
were in keeping with the existing Comprehensive Plan. This is the kind of thing Places 29 is supposed to
deal with.
Mr. Boyd said the requested rezoning is going to be included in the transportation study. Mr.
Cilimberg said the transportation component of Places 29 will evaluate the primary road that would go
through this particular area with connections over to Route 29, but that is already being worked on.
Mr. Rooker said it is already in the CHART long-range plan. The issue is whether to change the
Comprehensive Plan and rezone a lot of land in order to get the developer to build some piece of that road.
He talked to Mr. Wood a few years ago about it. First Mr. Wood talked about building a bridge, and then
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 45)
later he said he would not do that because it was too expensive. He said Mr. Wood then offered to build a
piece of the road, but for doing that he wanted highway commercial zoning; it was a moving target. There is
a fundamental decision to be made as to whether or not the Board makes the growth area of Route 29 a
continuous growth area. Right now, Hollymead is like Crozet and like Glenmore. It is more of a village
concept and there is the space in between those two areas. The question is whether to make it a
continuous growth area.
Mr. Bowerman said the County will have to buy the land if it does not do that.
Mr. Rooker said at some point the County might have to buy the land.
Mr. Boyd said the lack of development shows now.
Mr. Rooker said some of it does.
Mr. Boyd said he is alright with it being included in the plan, but he would not like to see this
decision put off for a year which is when the Board is expecting to get the Places 29 study.
Mr. Tucker said the Board would have to direct the Commission to move forward with this if that is
what it wants rather than it going concurrently with the Places 29 Study.
Mr. Rooker said speaking only for himself, this is the very kind of thing that should be looked at in
the master planning process. He does not want to make a Comprehensive Plan change ahead of that.
Mr. Bowerman said the County might pick up one-half a mile of highway which would be a
significant cost benefit; knowing that was in the background along with public dollars, it would be a way to
make the thing happen.
Mr. Rooker said it is not entirely clear if the land were rezoned for high intensity retail use, whether
or not the traffic generated from that site would actually make the road not an improvement to Route 29.
The question is how much a parallel road actually improves the traffic on Route 29. Traffic modeling would
have to be done, but he does not know if that modeling will include the traffic generated by significantly
upzoning that property.
Mr. Bowerman said whatever is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for the other end should be
included in the study.
Mr. Rooker said that is the existing Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Boyd said he favors that approach over intertwining a parallel road on the other side of Route
29 through all existing neighborhoods through interconnectability.
Mr. Rooker said the proposed road already shows in the Comprehensive Plan. The question is
what the Board is willing to give up in order to get some piece of that road built. A bridge still has to be built,
and that is a multi-million dollar project.
Mr. Wyant said Mr. Rooker’s point is that if the Comprehensive Plan is changed to allow upzoning,
it could generate much more than its present zoning. When they look at it they have to know what potential
it might have.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks it probably should be done as part of Places 29, he just does not want it
shelved until Places 29 is completed.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Cilimberg has said they are trying to do the two things concurrently.
Mr. Cilimberg said that is the way staff had approached it. He thinks there was interest on the
landowner’s part to not wait until the Places 29 was completed to go through the rezoning process. That is
a little different than getting a Comprehensive Plan consideration and change in place. The Places 29
study also requires a Comprehensive Plan level of analysis.
Mr. Boyd said he wants to get to a place where he knows whether the Board is interested in that
road or not.
Mr. Cilimberg said modeling traffic land uses in the Comprehensive Plan has to be considered.
The question is whether to assume some traffic based on the CPA application which has been filed or if
some different level of land use should be assumed in the rural area. Basically the area in the request is
now in the rural area.
Mr. Boyd said he does not know the portions of the land that are rural as opposed to light industrial.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is no light industrial land involved in the rezoning request of the applicant. There is
some light industrial land further north.
_______________
October 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 46)
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn to October 19, 2005, 4:00 p.m., for a Joint Meeting with the School
Board.
At 9:20 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr.
Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn this meeting to October 19, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date:
03/01/2006
Initials: DJM