Albemarle County Planning Commission

July 24, 2007


The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, July 24, 2007, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.


Members attending were Jon Cannon, Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman; Bill Edgerton; Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Eric Strucko; Duane Zobrist and Pete Craddock.  Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent. 


Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; John Shepherd, Chief of Current Development; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Amy Arnold, Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. 


Call to Order and Establish Quorum:


Ms. Joseph called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.


ZMA-2007-00001 Hollymead Town Center Area A2 (Signs # 93 & 94) – DEFERRED FROM MAY 22 PC MEETING

PROPOSAL:  Rezone approximately 45 acres from RA zoning district which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses, residential density (0.5 unit/acre); and to rezone approximately .5 acres from C-1 Commercial which allows retail sales and service uses, and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre); and to rezone approximately .4 acres from NMD Neighborhood Model District zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses; and to rezone approximately 3,000 square feet from PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial which allows large-scale commercial uses, and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre); to NMD Neighborhood Model District zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses. The application proposes up to 1,222 dwelling units, a gross density of 26 units per acre, and up to 368,700 sq. ft. of non-residential, including a hotel.


EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:  Town Center -- Compact, higher density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre).


LOCATION: West and adjacent to the Hollymead Town Center Area B, which contains Target and Harris Teeter, east of the Forest Springs Mobile Home Park and Deerwood Subdivision and north of a tributary of Powell Creek west of Route 29.

TAX MAP/PARCEL Tax Map 32, Parcels 44 (portion), 45 (portion), and 50


(Elaine Echols, AICP)


Ms. Echols summarized the staff report and presented a power point presentation.



The following issues are still outstanding:










The following information describes the status of proffers for this project based on the current Board proffer policy intent:



$14,078,400 - $107,392 = $13,971,000

Cash Proffer Policy Expectation   =           $14,078,400 (1222 units (townhouse, condo, multi family) less 61 (5% affordable units the applicant is committing to provide) = 1161 X cash proffer by unit type:

TH                   136      X $11,900 = $1,618,400

MF                   525      X $12,400 = $6,510,000

CNDO             500      X $11,900 = $5,950,000

                        1161                          $14,078,400

Value of Current Proffers = $107,392

Greenway Land =                   7.6 acres X $12,800 (RA land per acre) = $97,280   

Recycling Center Land =        .79 acres X $12,800 (RA land per acre) = $10,112



The applicant challenged staff about how they had laid out the values.  Staff has done some more work and talked to the assessor’s office.  The property is being assessed right now at $125,000 an acre whether it is in stream buffer or not.  Therefore, the applicant is providing 7.6 acres of area for greenway dedication.  Staff feels that a credit needs to be given for that.  There is 3 acres or whatever it takes for a recycling center that he would like to have credit for. $250,000 is what staff believes the oversized portion of Meeting Street and Town Center Drive is to make it what would not be the requirement of this development alone.  Staff does not know of a value yet for the LEED Green Building Proffer.  The applicant has suggested 5 percent.  Staff has asked for additional information.  The Planning Commission and Board will have to wrestle with this issue.  If they take the 12 million dollars and subtract from that about 1.6 million they get to about 10 million dollars.  Staff divided that out over the 978, which would need to be divided out over the different housing types to make approximately $10,509 a unit.


Staff does not believe that credit can be provided for the sanitary sewer service line extension.  Parts of it were completed with Federal funds, but not all of it.  That is because the oversized portion is something that the Service Authority provides assistance for.  Mr. Fern can talk about that. 


The infrastructure improvements that were proffered with previous rezonings staff does not believe are eligible for credit with this request.  Staff likes the mixed use and that it is a Neighborhood Model design.  But, the Board of Supervisors has said that they expect that in all new developments.  Therefore, they have not provided direction that staff can give credit on that one.


Staff recommends that the Commission decide whether or not they need to review a phasing plan before taking action.  Since that one came from the Board of Supervisors the Commission may want to consider that one.  The Commission may want to send it back to the Board.  But, that is the Commission’s decision.  


The landscaping in #2 has been taken care of.  If the Commission wants to work through the proffer credits before action, then they should do that.  If the Commission believes that items 1 and 3 are things that the Board of Supervisors should be dealing with and all the outstanding issues raised in the staff report that staff has given the details to the applicant can be worked out before the Board of Supervisors, then staff can recommend approval with the changes.


Staff recommends approval of the waiver requests with the conditions in the staff report. 


Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for staff.


Mr. Edgerton asked if the applicant has agreed to the substantial increase in proffers. The staff report said 14 million and somehow it dropped down to 12 million in the recalculation.


Ms. Echols replied that she did not believe so.  The revised figures were given to the applicant today.  There are things that the applicant feels that he should be given credit for.  Therefore, he may be able to reply to the question.


Mr. Edgerton said that he was surprised to the change of tone from the staff report to what they had just been presented with.  Staff had covered a lot of big changes in what is being proposed.  He thought that it would be appropriate for the Commission to review both the phasing plan and the proffer work. 


Mr. Cannon asked what is involved in the phasing plan.


Ms. Joseph suggested that they do that during discussion.


Mr. Craddock noted that there was a previous situation regarding the timing of roads that were not built and occupancy permits for some businesses were being held back. He asked if the developer would be in that same situation with this. 


Ms. Echols replied that the Hollymead Town Center Area B proffers allow for Area A to be able to build the road.  There is an option in there.  If they accept the proffers, if worded properly, that they will do the completion of it, then Area B does not need to come back.


Mr. Kamptner noted that pertains to Town Center Drive.  The Meeting Street proffer recognizes that someone else might end up building it. The Board may need to adopt a resolution that deems that the Hollymead Town Center Area B proffer for Meeting Street has been satisfied.  That was done with Rivanna Village in Glenmore recently with respect to the open space.


Mr. Zobrist asked what if they don’t build it.


Ms. Echols replied that if they don’t build it within one year, then they are in violation of their proffer and the County would take action against them.


Mr. Zobrist asked what action would be taken.


Mr. Kamptner replied that the strongest enforcement mechanism for proffers is that they withhold all permits associated with the development.  In this case they would also need to proceed against Area B, which also has the obligation to construct Meeting Street. 


Mr. Zobrist noted that the County has plenty of teeth in how they operate to make it happen; Mr. Kamptner replied that staff thinks so.


Ms. Joseph asked that they go back to the question on phasing.


Mr. Cannon noted that it was a general question as to what is involved in establishing a substance of a phasing plan.   What is the phasing; what are the elements of it and what would be involved in developing a phasing plan.  Is that something they can conceivable do here.   


Ms. Echols pointed out that the Board was concerned that not all of the commercial development take place without the residential development occurring.  They recognized that the residential development was all in A-2.  So they wanted to make sure that the residential development in A-2 occurred along with the commercial development in A-1.  It has to do with timing of units and square footage between A-1 and A-2 and it will require that both sets of proffers contain similar language.   The Commission recommended A-1 for approval, but the Board wanted to hear both of them together at the same time.


Mr. Cilimberg said that the Board was trying to accomplish in these two rezoning something similar to what they accomplished with the North Pointe rezoning in timing residential and commercial development.  They did not specific any particulars in terms of how many units per how many square feet.  Staff has made some suggestions back to the applicant on it.  The applicant is not agreeable to in terms of what staff thought might be a relationship for phasing.


Mr. Cannon said that staff has begun the discussions, but they are not complete.


Mr. Cilimberg replied that was correct.


Ms. Echols note that information was just provided late last week in terms of what would be our starting point.  Staff used mathematical equations like one-half the commercial and a third of the residential as a relationship.  They were just numbers and really did not relate to anything that they have timing wise in their needs.  But, staff provided it to the applicant as a starting point.  The applicant needs to come back and work on what they want to proffer relative to timing, which is not what staff suggested.  But, it will probably have a logical relationship to their timing of development.  It is something that the Board will need.  Staff does not have that information yet.  To be fair she did not think the applicant came prepared to speak to that issue at tonight’s meeting thinking it was a Board issue.  But, it may well be the Commission’s issue.  So staff wanted to point that one out to the Commission that one is out there.


Mr. Edgerton asked if the recycling center credit had been increased to 3 acres from 30,000 square feet listed in the staff report.  If so, do they have a new set of proffers?


Ms. Echols replied that there was not a new set of proffers.  That is the distinction in tone between the staff report.  Staff took the proffers literally. They did not have an opportunity to go over them with the applicant.  They found out that the applicant did not write the proffers the way they meant them.  So what they meant with regards to the recycling center was 35,000 square feet for the center itself and all the extra land that they need in order to operate the recycling center.   The applicant thinks that it will take 3 acres.  Therefore, the applicant is going to change the proffers to say up to 3 acres for that recycling center.  But, staff does not have that.


Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.


J.P. Williamson, with Octagon Partners representing the applicant, HM Acquisition, LLC, said that he had several clarifications. 


There being no questions for the applicant, Ms. Joseph invited public comment.


Morgan Butler, attorney representing the Southern Environmental Law Center, said that this proposal for Area A-2 has seen improvement over the past six months thanks to the hard work that staff, the applicant and the Planning Commission have put into it.  The layout seems more in line with the Neighborhood Model than many other proposals that have come before the County recently.  They have raised the general concern about the construction of non-residential space in the entire Hollymead Town Center far outpacing the construction of residential units.  They hope the Board of Supervisors will help correct this imbalance as they take up the last two Hollymead rezoning requests.  With respect to this specific request for Area A-2 they would like to highlight a few additional issues tonight that warrant consideration.





Neil Williamson, of Free Enterprise Forum who has not position on this application, said that his concern is the policy with regard to proffers.  When brought forward the proffer policy was to provide some level of servitude to applicants.  They have shifted the negotiation.  The negotiation is no longer about a number.  It is about credits.  It is what a credit is and what it is not a credit in a policy that is not a written policy at this point, but merely direction from the Board.   He asked when they were considering proffers the implications of these credits and where such negotiations belong.


Ms. Joseph closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission.


Mr. Morris invited Gary Fern, Director of the Service Authority to come forward and address the Commission’s questions.  He asked what is the situation currently and what should it be regarding the sewer serving the applicant’ property.


Gary Fern, Director of the Service Authority, said that they have actually had two meetings with the applicant regarding the project.  They have looked over what they call the Airport Collector and actually this area will be served by yet another sewer.  They feel comfortable that they can come to an agreement with the applicant regarding what will be necessary to serve the application.


Ms. Joseph noted that there were some strong points in staff report that says they don’t’ have capacity, but he is saying that it can be worked out.  She questioned what that means.


Mr. Fern replied that currently there is capacity in both sewers that they are going to be considering.  As the project developed they have talked to the applicant and they are pledging that they will pay for 100 percent of the improvements necessary in order for the project to continue.  It would be similar to what the applicant for Biscuit Run did.


Mr. Cannon asked if the undertaking would be codified in a proffer.


Mr. Fern replied no, that it would be an agreement with the Service Authority.  The draft agreement is on his desk as they speak.  The intent is that the agreement will be taken before the Service Authority Board at the August meeting.


Ms. Joseph hoped that it would be before the Board of Supervisors meeting.


Mr. Edgerton asked if the applicant has said that he will pay any price that is required.  He asked if that is what the contract will say.


Mr. Fern replied that it would say 100 percent of the improvements.  The numbers will not be developed.  Similarly as done in Biscuit Run it is sometime in the future.  At that point in time they will make that decision.


Ms. Joseph asked if they would be looking at cumulative effects that when other projects come in, and Mr. Fern replied yes that they do constantly.


Mr. Strucko said that it was a race to who gets built first and who consumes capacity first on whether it is this particular project or another project.


Mr. Fern noted that Service Authority is first come, first serve.  As development occurs they need to put forth what they need in order to have sufficient capacity. 


Mr. Strucko said that those that get their construction done first and stay within the existing capacity are not obligated to pay for improvements.  It is that project that tips the balance from now taking them beyond the capacity of the infrastructure.  He asked if they have to pay 100 percent of the improvement costs.


Mr. Fern replied yes, that is what they have pledged.  From the Service Authority side their feeling is that if there is already a sewer that has capacity and that is being used then it is only those who need the capacity who should have to pay for this.


Mr. Strucko noted that not all developments currently under construction in this area have made such a pledge to the Service Authority meaning again who wins the race.  If a developer that has made the pledge gets there first and utilizes existing capacity they are off the hook.  The developer who has not made such a pledge is the one that tips the capacity then the Service Authority does not recover monies to make an improvement.


Mr. Fern said that there was only one clarification that he would like to make.  When they charge connection fees they are getting monies to put towards future infrastructure.  That is where the difference would be.


Ms. Joseph said that it was troubling to read the staff report and then come in and have staff say that everything is fine.  On page 11, number 6 there is talk about the cash proffer not being acceptable. There is talk about a community park and that the proffer is not acceptable.   She asked if that was something that staff has discussed.


Ms. Echols replied that was not brought up.  This community park is a different one. There was an error in terms of what the applicant was intending in this.  On the proffers they have a one acre park and then on page 11 there is credit for a one acre park in the proffers and a proffer for 10,000 square feet.  On page 4 of the proffers there is a community park of one acre.  That community park and the one in 6 the applicant told us are two different things.  She apologized for not explaining that to the Commission.  The community park of one acre that the applicant wants credit for is the linear park. The linear park, which the applicant is proffering as an acre, is for a potential dedication. Staff has not asked the Parks Director if this is something that he would want to accept.  But, this might not be desirable since Parks does not like to take in acreage in small increments.


Mr. Strucko asked if that feature was an aspect of Neighborhood Model design.


Ms. Echols replied that it is an aspect of Neighborhood Model design.  It was something that was in the Comprehensive Plan amendment as an expectation as part of the form of the development.  Part of the County’s Cash Proffer policy is if there is something in the Comp Plan that they are doing then they should get credit for it. The other half of that is that this development is light on recreation.  The applicant is proffering $500 per unit towards improvements at one of the other County parks.  The applicant wanted to take credit for this particular park.  But, it is likely not to be accepted or viewed as being acceptable as a pubic park by the County.  As a result staff did give the applicant credit for that.  There are two community parks.  The second community park is 10,000 square feet.  It is a possibility that it will have a relationship to a public building.


Mr. Strucko said that parks and open space are an aspect of the Neighborhood Model.  The benefit to the developer is a rezoning with more density and a use that is not currently there.  Therefore, he did not see that a proffer credit was an issue here.


Ms. Echols pointed out that credit was not given to the applicant for either of those. Staff gave the applicant the full credit for the 7.6 acres of other areas of park around the periphery and the green way that is shown on the Comp Plan that relates to Powell Creek.


Mr. Edgerton asked how long it would take to resolve the outstanding issues of proffers to have some commitment in writing.  He sensed that the applicant would rather have that discussion with the Board.  He felt that the Commission should make a recommendation along those lines.  Mr. Butler made a very appropriate statement considering the history of some of the other development that has occurred on this same area that there should be some extra concern about how much grading would occur.  The applicant mentioned something about the size of a building.  But, how much grading would occur and be stabilized before another phase could go on.  He felt that the Commission is being asked to rush through this because of a predetermined schedule having to do with the A-1 section.  He did not think it was appropriate and did not think the community is being served by rushing it through and turning all of these decisions over to the Board without any recommendation from the Commission.  He felt that were being pressured to move ahead because of A-1.  Frankly, he did not think that was responsible planning.


Ms. Echols replied that it was not staff’s intent to make the Commission feel pressured. They have had other projects that they have been able to work through these things on and they think that they could.  But, if the Commission is not comfortable, then staff is not comfortable.  Our standards is four weeks from the time staff receives something until they get it back to the Commission so that they have adequate time to review and write a report. Whatever time it would take for the applicant to redo his proffers and then get it back to staff four weeks before the public hearing of the Planning Commission meeting for the decision is what it would take.


Mr. Strucko said that this was the appropriate forum to consider proffers and credits in order for the Commission to forward a recommendation to the Board.


Mr. Craddock asked if they were bound by the clock on this request.


Mr. Cilimberg replied that the applicant would need to accept deferring or request a deferral.  He clarified that the Board put this on a schedule based on an anticipated schedule for A2 to get to them.  That is why they specified an August work session and a September public hearing for A1 in the deferral of that.  The schedule that staff had for A2 was for that to get to the Board in September.


Mr. Zobrist noted that they have not idea what the final policy will be from the Board of Supervisors.  Staff has done a brilliant jog of what staff thinks the Board will allow.  The applicant has agreed to the full amount of proffers the county required.  Therefore, he felt that they have an obligation to move the request along.  He agreed that the phasing proffer was important and that the proffers need to be in final form, but the applicant is in the process of developing the proffers.  He suggested that they find a way to move this along.  Staff has given them the methodology to do so if they chose to do so.


Mr. Morris suggested that they settle the phasing issue.


Mr. Edgerton questioned how the Commission could move along a project about one-half the size of Biscuit Run without any written proffers in front of them.  He agreed that the Board would agree on the numbers.   But, to push this ahead without having anything in front of them other than a verbal assurance he questioned how they could be comfortable doing that.


Mr. Zobrist noted that it just does not happen that way in reality.  He felt that the Commission has a responsibility on both sides. 


Ms. Joseph said that she would like to see what the proffers look like.


Mr. Edgerton noted that there was a lot of wiggle in what is being proposed.  The numbers given tonight are different than what is in the staff report.  If it was really just between the applicant and Board to make these decisions then he questioned why the Commission meets every Tuesday night.  He felt that the Board was counting on the Commission to make some recommendations.  The phasing is critical in order to try to minimize past mistakes that occurred from grading over a period of time so that the ground would have a chance to stabilize.  Frankly, he was not comfortable in listening to the words and hoping that it would happen.  They need to take about the amount of retail going in at any one time and the scheduling of residential versus commercial as well as other matters.  He did not think it was appropriate to push this request through the process.


Mr. Cilimberg clarified for the record that Attachment C was proffers submitted by the applicant from which the staff report was written.  Since the staff report was written certain items they raised as issues have been addressed verbally, but not in writing or in a resubmittal.  The outstanding issues are not phasing in total because there is actually a phasing proffer.  On the last page of the proffers there is a phasing proffer within A2. But, what is missing is any kind of relationship to A1, which the Board had indicated they wanted to have addressed.  That would probably be the more important of the phasing aspects to get resolved.


Ms. Joseph noted that the phasing also had to do with what is being denuded at any given time, too.  One of the problems with the sink hole is that there was a lot of water going through that pipe that was not anticipated.


Mr. Cilimberg said that is a tie that could be brought into the phasing aspect.  That is something that was done in Biscuit Run.  The cash proffers as listed in the proffers given were just not workable along with some other things that needed to be totally reworked.  That is still to be    addressed, but he was hearing the applicant say they were willing to provide for the cash.  The two other things that he was hearing that the Commission wanted addressed is erosion and sediment control somewhat like A1 addressed that.  He heard reference made to LEED.  It is not proffered per say, but it is mentioned as a credit should they do it.  That is one of the reason that the cash proffer language just does not work.  It seems like there are at least those four things that are basically the outstanding issues to be addressed.  But he wanted to say that there were proffers that they were working from to get to that point basically of knowing what they did or did not have.  The question was asked about timing.  This is on the clock so to speak.  The applicant would have to agree to defer if that is what the Commission was looking for.  It would be good to make sure in asking the applicant if they would be willing to do that to make sure the Commission specifies the things to be addressed. 


Mr. Strucko asked where they were on the cash proffer picture. It is $10,500 per unit. That was based upon the unwritten policy or the approach that the Board is using now at $11,900 for each attached unit, $12,400 for multi-family and then credits for that number of units as well.


Ms. Echols noted that she did not tell the Commission why the proffer numbers had changed.  The applicant originally said they would proffer 5 percent affordable housing and now are offering 20 percent.  The applicant is committing to building 20 percent affordable housing.  There are other changes to the proffers that are needed.  There are wording changes that need to take place.   If the Commission wants to see the written proffers before taking action it would contain all of that wording.  It is more than just the cash.  It is other elements that need to be modified, but not substantially.


Ms. Joseph asked who was willing to move this forward without seeing the proffers and the phasing plan.


Mr. Craddock noted that Mr. Cilimberg had brought up 4 good points.  He suggested that it might be appropriate for the applicant to respond. He invited Mr. Williamson to come forward and address the Commission.


Mr. Williamson said that his comment earlier about forum was exactly this.  It might be helpful to go through each proffer as submitted and what the issue is. 










Mr. Cannon said that there is a phasing plan in Attachment C, which was for A2.


Mr. Williamson replied that was correct. 


Mr. Cannon said that they have a declaration from the Board that it is interested in phasing between A1 and A2. 


Mr. Cilimberg noted that his understanding from the meeting was that the Board wanted to look at the projects together because they wanted to relate A1 to A2 for phasing purposes.


Mr. Williamson noted that it was not a resolution by the Board.


Mr. Cannon said that there was no dialogue or any substance available that allows us to have that discussion here if that was an expectation.


Ms. Joseph asked the applicant if they would be interested in formally requesting a deferral.


Mr. Williamson said that based on the communications from staff about what they need to do he would not be asking for a deferral.


Ms. Joseph noted that the Commission has heard from the applicant verbally concerning the proffers.


Motion:  Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, for denial of ZMA-2007-001, Hollymead Town Center Area A2 based on the fact that they do not have the needed information before the Commission to make a reasoned decision.


Mr. Cannon noted that there could be a motion to approve this based on some analysis with respect to the proffers, in other words to approve it with cash proffers in the amount dictated by the Board’s policy with credit for exactly those things that they have said would be appropriate to provide credit for and not for credit for other things that the applicant has requested.  He would feel comfortable with that as far as the size of the proffers go.  He still remains troubled by this concern about integration, which he did not think they have the ability to talk about.  That issue is not far enough along and he did not understand it enough to know how to talk about it or how to decide it.  The Board wants the Commission to decide it, but he may be mistaken because it is not entirely clear.  That is the outstanding issue.  He felt that the Commission could handle it by way of a motion that the erosion control and green building proffers by putting them in as conditions of approval.  But, the issue that is not ready is this integration or the relation of A-1 and A-2, which he did not know how to handle that.  Absent the ability to handle that he could not recommend approval.


Mr. Craddock said that since A-1 has already gone past the Commission and is at the Board what standing do they have to then tie A2 to it.


Mr. Kamptner replied that it would be a modification of the phasing proffer for A2, which would incorporate phasing the development of both phases, but it would only be contained in the phase 2 proffers.


Mr. Craddock noted that in the proffers for phase 2 the applicant agreed to build 600 dwelling units before construction the 200,000 square feet of commercial. If the phasing can’t be tied into A1 he was not sure what they can do.


The motion failed by a vote of 5:2 for denial of the request.  (Mr. Craddock, Mr. Zobrist, Mr. Strucko, Ms. Joseph, Mr. Morris voted nay.)  (Mr. Cannon and Mr. Edgerton voted aye.)


Ms. Joseph asked for more discussion.  The applicant has tried very hard throughout this entire process. She was concerned that three days ago is when he got information about the proffers themselves.  The staff report being so different from tonight’s report makes it very confusing to everybody.  It is difficult when they hear somebody say that the first proffers were submitted in 2005.  She did not know why there is such confusion. During the work sessions the applicant has offered to do just about everything that the Commission has asked.  There has been a huge amount of cooperation. She was really sorry that it was at this point.  She would like to see the phasing plan, some commitment to erosion and sediment control plans that limit the amount of area that is denuded on this site.  It is extremely important.  The applicant needs to commit to those sorts of things to make this work for the community.  It is a huge development.  There needs to be phasing so as this stuff comes on line it does not overwhelm the community.


Mr. Cilimberg asked to speak to the proffer submittal information.  There have been a series of proffers over the period of this project that have intended to respond to various work sessions the Commission has had and discussions between the applicant and staff.  He felt that they have all been in very good faith.  One of the problems staff runs into is when proffers are received four weeks or less before the meeting there is no way to go back to the applicant and stay on the meeting schedule of a public hearing and have a further discussion about what to do about the proffers.  Staff has to report on what they got.   That was the situation here.  There really is not much staff can do other than the applicant sees the staff report and then they talk about it.  If the public hearing had been in another three weeks staff could have met with the applicant, gone over the proffers and pointed out the things to be change and then the public hearing would have occurred later.  So while there have been a series of proffers over time there have been revisions to proffers.  Over the time the working relationship between staff and the applicant has been very good. But, staff still had to basically analysis and report on what they got to get this before the Commission tonight.  He understands where the applicant is in saying really they only knew about this last week, but the fact was that staff only had so much time to review and get it prepared for the public hearing.  That is one of the down falls of the turn around between submittals and public hearings that get scheduled.


Mr. Strucko agreed with staff’s frustrations.  What he was doing was weighing whether he has enough information and assurances from the applicant through the discussions to make an informed decision.  What made him comfortable with previous vote was something that Mr. Cannon said in that it was potentially possible to craft a motion to meet his level of comfort in moving forward.  That is what he would like to entertain.


Motion:  Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Morris seconded, for approval of ZMA-2007-001, Hollymead Town Center Area A2 subject to the following:


  1. Provide cash proffers in an acceptable form as outlined by staff.  The cost of the impact is expected to be $11,853,200;
  2. Provide credits of $1,575,000, bringing the total proffer for impacts to $10, 278,200; 
  3. Make all other proffer changes identified by staff as having been verbally agreed to by the applicant;
  4. Provide phasing in the proffers, to be approved by staff;
  5. Include all other proffers that exist in Exhibit F to the staff report; 
  6. Provide an erosion and sediment control proffer similar to, but not less than the one approved for Area A1 indicating the amount of area that can be disturbed at any given time;
  7. Commit that all mixed use buildings will be LEED certified.  The Commission does not support the LEED certification as a credit.  
  8. Make the following changes:

·         Take out the cash buyout in the affordable housing proffer;

·         Change the proffer for completing Meeting Street and Town Center so that they are not bonded for completion but will be completed within a year of approval of the rezoning;

·         Clarify the proffers regarding the community park;

·         Clarify the amount of land proffered for the recycling center;

·         Amend the Code to reflect changes identified by staff;

·         Change the application plan to show the required cross sections or design for Meeting Street south of Town Center Drive.


The motion passed by a vote of 4:3.  (Mr. Craddock, Mr. Zobrist, Mr. Strucko and Mr. Morris voted aye.)  (Mr. Cannon, Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton voted nay.)


Ms. Joseph stated that ZMA-2007-001, Hollymead Town Center Area A2 will go before the Board of Supervisors on September 12, 2007 with a recommendation for approval.  A work session will be held on August 8, 2007 by the Board of Supervisors.


Motion on Waiver Requests:


Motion:  Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Morris seconded, to accept staff’s recommendation for approval of the thirteen (13) waiver requests for ZMA-2007-001, Hollymead Town Center Area A2.


The motion passed by a vote of 4:3.  (Mr. Craddock, Mr. Zobrist, Mr. Strucko and Mr. Morris voted aye.)  (Mr. Cannon, Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton voted nay.)



Return to exec summary