The Albemarle County Planning
Commission held a work session on
Other officials present were
Mr. Rieley called the meeting to order at and established a quorum. He stated that the meeting would begin with the work session on the Crozet Master Plan Facilitated Session.
MEETING ROOM # 235 WORK SESSION
Master Plan Facilitated Session - CPA 2003-04 Crozet Master Plan - The
Planning Commission will begin its consideration of the proposed Crozet Master
Plan by holding a facilitated work session to review and discuss Section I of
the Plan, for adoption as part of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan. Section I, also referred to as the Community
Guide, and includes a broad overview of the planning process, context,
recommendations by geographic sectors and function, and priorities for
Ms. Thomas stated that this work
session was the first of a series of facilitated work sessions in which
potential changes to the Crozet Master Plan would be discussed and
considered. During their previous
informational meetings, the Commission focused on understanding the Plan and
agreed to hold editorial comments until we were ready for a more structured
Mr. Rieley stated that he had a question about staff going back and revising the original report. There are some areas that may be at some risk, which are substantive issues. Many of the changes staff suggested in the language, clarifications or stylistic changes which he applauded. He wondered if those changes need to be taken back and restated in what the consultants said before.
Ms. Thomas stated that the question was whether something would be lost by not retaining the original form. She stated that they could always keep a copy of the original report on the shelve. She asked if there was value in having something that hangs together, which it was intended to do here and then make the change for the Comp Plan. Mr. Benish raised the question previously. For instance, she reordered the priorities for downtown east and west here.
Mr. Rieley stated that was in the substantive category.
Ms. Thomas agreed and asked if they wanted to make that change here so that they did not have things at odds.
Mr. Benish suggested that it was may be something that they need to figure out once they see how substantive the changes are because there is no wrong answer. They could have the document stand on its own with the Commission acting on substantive changes or they could try to keep them stylistically correct.
Mr. Rieley noted that he did not have the answer.
Mr. Edgerton stated that along those lines that he noticed that the chart did not make it into this document at all. He stated that if they come up with a new document that they need to be consistent. He suggested that they make a decision about this to avoid confusion.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that if there are substantive changes that will be part of the discussion, then he did not know how good he felt about altering the content of the original consultant’s report. At some point they want to be able to say that this is the record of what the consultant’s suggested. He stated that he was worried about a distinction here, but he was also worried about those cases where the changes were going to be substantive that he had to back and grapple with that a little bit.
Ms. Thomas stated that staff started to include the chart, but then she decided to find out if the Commission liked the reprioritization first and then she would reorganize the charts. She noted that the chart was very useful.
She stated that there were no changes suggested until they got to Section E. Context for Place-Making Strategy.
The Planning Commission went through the document page by page and made comments and suggestions for changes.
Ms. Catlin stated that they had discussed everything in the Community Guide portion. She summarized the changes proposed by the Planning Commission as follows:
1. In Section D, incorporate some mention of Claudius Crozet in the history.
2. In Section E, the title was changed to Context.
3. The first sentence in Section E was changed to read, “This Master Plan Report is intended to build upon the Crozet community’s identity, which embodies a collection of a unique places that vary in character and intensity of development ranging from small, almost rural hamlets to more urban neighborhoods and downtown.”
4. The chart needs to be reinserted with the reorder of priorities with the suggested change by Ms. Thomas to change the last column from low priority to long term or future.
5. The Anhold study needs to be referenced more in the list on the bottom of page 5 and on several places on page 6 or cite it somehow before hand. The Crozet Parking Study should be referenced in the same way.
Under Crozet West, the introductory paragraph should be
changed to read, “The development in the area west of
On # 5 of the reorder of priority list, include some
language about the capacity and make it clear that this would not apply to
improvements related to safety within the existing capacity. A suggestion as
made to add, “this does not apply to site distance and safety improvements.”
Another suggestion was to discourage improvements intended to increase
capacity. Insert the word Road to
Change # 5 to read of
8. Under Crozet – East’s priority list recognize that item # 1 be left as it was, but depending on Board action it might need some adjustment.
9. Regarding item # 2, take out Lickinghole Creek Bridge and create a new item # 3 that says construct Lickinghole Creek Bridge on a time line appropriate to demand. Then old item # 3 would then become item # 4 and instead of saying explore say construct the crossing. Item # 6 should be changed from “explore” to “construct” crossing.
10. On page 8 regarding the development area boundary decision, it should recognized that this group has taken action on that and should it be deleted from the plan because of that and that the Board still needs to make a decision. Depending on what the Board decides there, the Commission would revisit whether this was still an appropriate to have in this master plan. It was noted that this issue may become moot depending on what the Board does. The condition would be left in knowing that they would take another look at that issue.
11. On page 9 under Water number a) should be taken out and note that there is no cold water fishery in Crozet.
12. On page 10 under Business Community Recommendations the first sentence should be changed to read, “ . . . the developments outlined within the Master Plan as part of the new development in Crozet.”
13. On the top of page 11 there is a missing title for the three paragraphs. They will work on this section.
14. To deal with the location issue related to Eastern and Western Avenue and Main Street that section needs to be reworded a little bit to say that the proposed location to these and other streets in individual development areas may have to adjust based on timing, road engineering requirements, and other constraints and circumstances.
15. On page 13 under Parks and Recreation either under old # 4 or new # 5 you need to pull out and discuss the elements like squares and greens and so forth that we did not want to lump under parks. These elements are articulated in the Neighborhood Model. Some of those elements need to be pulled out to talk about the fact that they are knitted together broadly under the open space area.
16. Under Neighborhood Development at the bottom of page 13 starting the sentence with, “Building on existing centers . . .” and we discussed including acknowledging and complimenting the existing Neighborhood Centers.
17. On page 14 under Historic District Designations when discussing registering the Downtown and Yanceys Mills area we wanted to make area plural and change to Yancey Mill.
On page 15
under Transportation we flipped the primary road recommendations to make
19. On page 16, which is the last page, item # 2 should be titled Bus Transit. At the end of that discussion work in the use of BRT bus transit as a term in that paragraph as it relates to the express bus services that was discussed.
Ms. Catlin asked if she missed anything. She stated that the conversation that they had in the beginning that they don’t really need to resolve right now and will become clearer as they work through this is the issue of congruency. She asked if the Comp Plan language need to mirror the consultant’s report or does the consultant’s report stand as it is and doesn’t necessarily have to match what the Comp Plan might be. .
Mr. Rieley stated that virtue in doing that is that it makes it very clear that this is language that is important and it is drawn from a consultant’s report, but the order has changed and this is the thing that is the meat of it. He stated that the consultant’s report was just something to be used as a background reference like a parking study.
Mr. Edgerton agreed.
Ms. Catlin stated that the feeling at this point is that the consultant’s report should stay as is as a reference document and this stands on its own.
In summary, the Planning Commission
held the first facilitated work session on the Crozet Master Plan.
The next work session will be on December 9th with another work session on December 16th. Staff is hopeful that they can get through the entire document by this date.
The meeting adjourned at for a dinner break.
The meeting reconvened at for the regular meeting in Room # 241.
The Albemarle County Planning
Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on
Other officials present were
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Rieley called the regular meeting to order at and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Rieley invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, he stated that the meeting would move on to the consent agenda.
Approval of 2002 Planning Commission Annual Report:
Mr. Rieley asked if any Commissioner would like to pull this item from the consent agenda for discussion. There being none, he asked for a motion.
Mr. Edgerton moved to approve the consent agenda as presented.
Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0).
Mr. Rieley stated that there were two deferred items that related to North Pointe, which the Commission has seen a couple times before for public hearings and several work sessions before that. He asked Ms. Echols to present the staff report.
Mr. Rieley stated that there were two deferred items that related to North Pointe, which the Commission has seen a couple of times before for public hearings and several work sessions before that. He asked Ms. Echols to present the staff report.
Public Hearing Items:
North Pointe PD-MC (Sign #97, 98, 99)- Request to rezone 269.4 acres in the Entrance Corridor (EC) zone from RA Rural Areas to PD-MC with
special use to allow a mixture of commercial and residential uses with a
maximum of 893 residential units, approximately 664,000 square feet of
commercial and office space, a 250 room hotel, and approximately 177,000 square
feet of public/semi-public uses. The
proposed residential density allowed by this rezoning would be approximately
3.31 dwelling units per acre (gross). The property, described as Tax Map 32,
Parcels 20, 20a, 20a1, 20a2, 20a3, 22h 22k, 23, 23a, 23b, 23c, 23d, 23e, 23 f,
23g, 23h, 23j and 29i is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District north of
Proffit Road, east of Route 29 North, west of Pritchett Lane and south of the
Rivanna River. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Regional
Service, Office Service, Urban Density (6 - 34 dwelling units per acre) and
Neighborhood Density (3 - 6 dwelling units per acre) in the Hollymead
North Pointe Residential Uses Request for special use permit to
allow residential uses in accordance with Section 25A.2.2.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance which allows for residential uses in a PD-MC Planned Development
Mixed Commercial zoning district. (
Ms. Echols stated that she would not go
through the entire staff report, but would just point out some of the key
elements that may be relevant to the Commission’s review and ultimate
decision. She noted that the Commission
has reviewed this proposal several times over the past year. When they last met staff had just received
the revised plan and proffers the week before and had not had sufficient time
to analyze it. Staff has now analyzed
the plan and included a copy in the Commission’s staff report. Staff has concluded that there have been two
substantive changes, and maybe three.
Ms. Echols said that the first change is the added interconnection from
the most southern cul-de-sac down to the library area. Staff believes the added interconnection is a
positive change. Also, the school
proffer has been changed to add a 20-year sunset period as the Commission
requested. Ms. Echols said there is more
information on open space, but there continues to be a lot of outstanding items
related to open space, which needs to be fixed.
In staff’s estimation, the plan and the proffers still need a
substantial amount of work, which are not minor fixes. She pointed out that as late as this afternoon, the applicant was negotiating with VDOT on
ways to deal with
Ms. Echols said that staff recognizes
some members of the Planning Commission believe that the plan and most of the
items in the proffers are generally okay.
In the staff report, staff has identified the items that should be
addressed in order for the Board of Supervisors to approve this rezoning and
special use permit. There are nine items
listed on page 13 of the report and those include all of the items in the
attachments C and D. Staff is also
recommending conditions for the special use permit for the residential uses if
the Planning Commission wants to recommend this full rezoning and special use
permit for approval. She pointed out that the Commission and applicant have
just received copies of revised conditions that were in the staff report, but
have subsequently been wordsmithed. Staff has also
recommended adding a fifth condition that relates to the use of grinder pumps.
This recommendation is a new condition that the applicant just found out about
prior to the meeting. Ms. Echols said
she tried to reach the applicant earlier today, but he has been tied up and has
not seen the new recommended condition. She stated that the applicant and
Commission might need to have some discussion on this proposed condition.
Ms. Echols said that staff believes the rezoning in its current form should not be approved. But, staff recognizes that there are members of the Commission who feel like this plan is appropriate and staff wants to assist the Commission in formulating their recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Therefore, staff is here to answer any questions that the Commission might have.
Ms. Echols noted here that she had
skipped over an explanation of the preservation and conservation area map
posted on the board. She described the
map and explained that the preservation and conservation areas are what staff
is recommending as conditions for the residential uses with the special use
permit. The areas in yellow represent
proposed preservation areas and the areas in orange are proposed conservation
areas. Ms. Echols said that staff has
repeatedly brought this issue up in staff reports and wanted to reiterate for
the applicant that these areas are very important environmentally,
ecologically, hydrologically, as well as being shown
on the County’s Open Space Plan. The applicant is showing storm water
facilities in those areas that are going to cause a substantial amount of
disturbance. Ms. Echols said that
several weeks ago, she and
Mr. Rieley asked if there were any questions for Ms. Echols or Mr. Graham.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that the map posted on the board was not the same one that the Commission received in their packets. He asked if the maps should match.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that the stream on the western side was shown differently.
Ms. Echols stated that the map should include more than the stream buffer that was colored and it should include all of the floodplain.
Mr. Edgerton asked which one was staff recommending.
Ms. Echols stated that it was the map that included the floodplain and the stream buffer.
Mr. Edgerton asked if she could tell him what the colors mean on the map.
Ms. Echols stated that the purple represents the slopes that were 25 percent or steeper. The yellow represents single-family detached lots. The orange represents attached units or duplexes. The brown represents townhouses and multi-family. The red represents commercial uses. The blue represents institutional uses. The gray represents the roads and the parking areas.
Mr. Edgerton stated that on page 12 of the staff report at the beginning of the recommended section that she referenced the State Code and case law saying that zoning decisions are to be based on sound zoning principles and then lists the 9 principles. He asked if those 9 principles were part of the State Code.
Mr. Kamptner stated that they were part of the Virginia State Code Section 15.2-2284 and were the factors to be considered during the review of a zoning map amendment.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the entire package was included in the State Code, and Mr. Kamptner stated that it was.
Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Graham to address recommendation #5 that was handed to the Commission as part of the special use permit conditions about the sanitary sewer and the other issue concerning the VDOT discussion.
Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Graham to elaborate on the discussions with VDOT.
Mr. Graham stated that he would try to
go down the list of transportation items in the staff report bullet by
bullet. The first bullet relates to a
four-lane spine road requested by VDOT, which was the primary item of
discussion today. What the applicant and
VDOT have agreed to is a four-lane road through the commercial area that would
be constructed as two-through lanes with two lanes of parallel parking. In the future if it turned out that four
lanes were truly needed, then the parallel parking could be removed. A two-lane roadway with two adjacent service
drive lanes on each side would be carried through the town center area. The applicant and VDOT also discussed
carrying a four-lane section in the form of two lanes with two lanes of
parallel parking on the rest of
Mr. Edgerton asked if he understood
correctly that one of the issues with
Mr. Graham stated that the applicant was willing to provide that.
Mr. Edgerton stated that the applicant only has the right-of-way for a two-lane road here.
Mr. Graham stated that there was a limited 50-foot easement there.
Mr. Edgerton stated that basically one of the major accesses to the property would go from a two-lane road to a four-lane road.
Mr. Graham stated that the number of
lanes was still an unresolved issue.
Ideally VDOT and the County would like to carry the same road section
all the way down to
Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Graham if he said that the applicant has the rights to that adjacent property.
Mr. Graham stated that he did.
Mr. Finley stated that Mr. Graham
mentioned a roundabout in the westbound lane of
Mr. Graham stated that the roundabout that the staff report spoke of was a different roundabout, which was proposed at the commercial entrance for the development. That roundabout was a point of discussion today, Mr. Graham said, but he did not think that VDOT got to a real point of saying that it was necessary to move the roundabout. The applicant and VDOT went back and forth, he said. The traffic analysis is showing that the distance is adequate right now and VDOT is obviously very concerned that the roundabout function. Since they have not seen many roundabouts on the ground, VDOT is nervous about what factor of safety is built into it. It was obvious to VDOT, Mr. Graham said, that one of the things that could happen is that the traffic could get backed up from Route 29 into that roundabout. If a backup occurred in the roundabout, VDOT would have to increase the green time for this commercial access road and reduce the green time on Route 29 which could affect the traffic moving up and down Route 29. He pointed out that this issue remains VDOT’s primary concern.
Mr. Finley asked about the timing of the traffic study that ultimately determines if the applicant needs to provide more than two-lanes.
Mr. Graham stated he hoped it would be completed next year but that this study was still on the drawing boards. Staff has not gotten authorization from the Board of Supervisors to proceed with the regional traffic study, but Mr. Graham said he hoped to make that request in December. Once the Board gives the approval, then staff could enter into a contract to get this regional transportation study done. He stated that he would admit that it is a very difficult situation for the applicant because we cannot say for sure if they need to provide four lanes or not at this point in time. If a two-lane road were built, it could put VDOT in the position where the regional transportation study was constrained and then our solution would be constrained because they eliminated their opportunity to have that four-lane roadway.
Mr. Rieley thanked Mr. Graham for his presentation. He asked if there were other questions for the staff.
Mr. Finley asked if the handout tonight made any changes.
Ms. Echols stated that the only change made was the restriction on grinder pumps.
Mr. Rieley stated that they have had two public hearings on this item and he did not think there was any legal obligation that they open for another public hearing. He stated that his preference was to open it up as if it were a new application to give the applicant and the public sufficient time as if they were starting from scratch. There being no objections, he opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin stated that he had
some prepared remarks, but asked to digress for a couple of minutes. He stated that what Mr. Graham conveyed to
the Commissioners is what occurred that afternoon, but Mr. Rotgin said he
needed to provide some clarification. Mr. Rotgin said that the
Mr. Rieley stated that he would like for those comments not to be detracted from Mr. Rotgin’s time.
Mr. Rotgin stated that they have reviewed Ms. Echols’ staff report in which she has been fair. He said that she has styled the report in the fashion that it does note the changes needed to the plan and describes the staff’s continuing concerns with it. It principally describes the issues that still need to be addressed. Mr. Rotgin said that while stating that staff cannot recommend approval, Ms. Echols’ report does suggest that if the Commission should desire to recommend approval, a list of conditions should be attached to the action.
Mr. Rotgin said that he would like to
talk for a minute about the 12 principles.
He said that, on page 9 of the report, Ms. Echols begins to refer to
those principles. He stated that he
wanted to state the operative Comprehensive Plan language as it relates to the
12 principles. He quoted, “It is
recognized that as individual proposals are considered all of the principles of
the Neighborhood Model listed as the general land use standards below may not
be equally applicable to any specific proposal.
All proposals will need to be considered in a more global context,
particularly as they relate to the mix of uses.
It is recognized that there are multiple applications to the
Neighborhood Model and a balanced rational and reasonable application of those
principles is expected.” On page 10 of
the report, staff states that they have complied with only 3 of the 12
principles being the provisions of sidewalks, clear boundaries with the Rural
Areas and a mixture of housing types.
Mr. Rotgin said that he respectfully but vehemently disagrees with the
staff’s opinion and offers the following. With approximately ten and one-half
miles of paths and sidewalks interconnecting the community and the furthest
north community only a 15-minute walk from the town center, North Pointe
certainly has a pedestrian orientation.
Therefore, Mr. Rotgin said that he believes the project adheres to a
fourth principle. Mr. Rotgin said that the following connections have been
With respect to the meeting with VDOT
that afternoon, Mr. Rotgin pointed out that Mr. Graham did a good job in
telling the Commission what they discussed.
Mr. Rotgin read two sentences that he had asked VDOT to affirm and both
Mr. Rotgin asked that the Commission
comment on its position with respect to their two-lane design versus VDOT’s and
perhaps staff’s desire for four-lanes. Rather than spend time talking about
those, he would ask that during the Commission deliberation the Commission ask
some questions. Beginning on page 13 of the staff report, Mr. Rotgin said there
are sections dealing with conditions that staff has recommended being part of
the action by the Planning Commission recommending approval of North Pointe.
With respect to the first eight numbered conditions, Mr. Rotgin said he would
like for number two to be changed such that he would proffer a range of
percentages for each dwelling type as Ms. Echols has suggested in her staff
report. Mr. Rotgin said that now that he
and his team more fully understand the Community Development Authority
financing vehicle, they firmly believe in the way that they have proposed,
which results in perhaps two million dollars or more in additional up front
proffers. This would be far better for
the County than the way they had originally proposed, he said. He added that, as he indicated in the last
meeting, that would not be a deal killer.
Given that this issue is not resolved, Mr. Rotgin said he does not have
a problem with it being a part of any condition attached to a Planning
Commission recommendation. He said he would, however, like to very much revisit
this issue tonight in response to a question from any Commissioner. Mr. Rotgin said he has reviewed all of the
items in Attachment C and is comfortable in saying that he believes that all of
them can be resolved relatively quickly. Therefore, he said, he would be
agreeable to a Planning Commission recommendation that contained the issues in
Attachment C as a condition of approval.
He said he thought that staff has previously indicated that a very large
number of these are issues related to the format, ones needing clarification
for consistency among the various application documents or are technical issues
that are either easily resolvable now or during the site plan or subdivision
approval process. With respect to
staff’s recommended conditions that relate to the special use permit
application, Mr. Rotgin said that he agrees to both paragraphs 1A and 1B. He
said he agreed that paragraph 2 is an issue and prefer that it read that the
timing of the construction of
Mr. Rieley thanked Mr. Rotgin. He stated that they have four people signed up to speak. He stated that they would begin with Susy Pace.
Susy Pace, a
lifetime resident of
Mr. Rieley stated that the next speaker
Mr. Rieley stated that the next speaker was Liz Palmer.
Liz Palmer, an
Mr. Rieley stated that the next speaker was Kay Slaughter.
Kay Slaughter, representing the
Southern Environmental Law Center, stated as she had before that they recommend
denial of this permit. She said that SELC hopes that the Commission will pay
attention to the expertise contained in the staff report not only from the
Planning staff, but also from other parts of the County government. She told
the Commission that the recommendations from the Planners pointing them to the
Comprehensive Plan and the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model should
be guiding new development in the growth areas and that they should be paying
attention to those things. She stated
that she heard the comments of the developer, but she still believed that the
staff report identifies some of the deficiencies of those principles. The County Engineering Department has
recognized that the erosion and sediment control measures are not adequate in
several areas of the plan. The Water Resource Manager is concerned about the
protection of a perennial stream because of its high ecological and hydrologic
value. The County’s Fiscal Planner has
warned about the possibility of over planning for commercial space. Currently, they have over one million square
feet planned in
Mr. Rieley asked if anyone else would like to address this application.
Bob Hauser stated that he was a
resident of the County and lived on
Mr. Rieley asked if there was anyone else who would like to address this application. There being none, he asked if the applicant had a rebuttal.
Mr. Rotgin stated that he could not say
that they have a finished site plan. He
said he didn’t, however, have a plan that shows the overall vision of the
development with significant detail that staff can review it to assure that
what is being proposed can be carried out through site plan and subdivision
approval process. Therefore, he said he believes they do have what the clear
language of the Zoning Ordinance requires at the rezoning stage. If the
Commission recommends approval subject to the conditions that were previously
discussed, there would certainly be sufficient safeguards to assure that the
details and outstanding issues raised by staff will either be addressed prior
to the Board of Supervisor’s action or during the site plan or subdivision
approval process. North Pointe is a
planned development reflective of twenty plus years of land assimilation that
includes the key parcel that provides the important Lewis and
Mr. Rieley stated that with that the Commission would close the public hearing and bring the matter back for discussion and possible action. He stated that this might be the reasonable time to raise the question that came up about the open space earlier. He stated that he was struck by the necessity to grade within what had been proposed to be the preservation area designated buffers. He asked to what extent that was typical within a development proposal.
Mr. Graham stated there are certain improvements for which there is absolutely no choice but to be put in those areas. The sanitary sewer would be one such improvement since it has to be at the low point in the development and the low point of the development was where you have the flood plain and the streams. Mr. Graham said that the applicant has no choice short of pumping the sewage everywhere, which would not be acceptable to either staff or the Service Authority. Additionally, staff has indicated that there will be some disturbance in the protected areas, such as for drainage outfalls, or you would end up with are eroded gullies running down though the area that you were trying to protect. There will be some disturbance of the preservation and conservation areas that are a necessary part of the development. Staff has crafted the conditions that allow us to carefully manage that so that the disturbance is kept at the minimum necessary to actually create this development.
Mr. Rieley stated that he understood that and felt that it was very straightforward and very reasonable. He stated that it appears that this proposal would require grading in order to build the buildings and in some cases some of the buildings would actually be in the area that is designated for a preservation area. He asked Mr. Graham if he was comfortable that the conditions that have been proposed would not allow building sites and grading directly associated with those buildings to encroach on those areas.
Mr. Graham stated that was certainly staff’s intent. He said that by mentioning things such as the sanitary sewer, the pump stations and the storm drainage, staff was trying to make clear what their intent was as far as the allowed disturbances in those areas of the pads. It was not staff’s intent to allow grading for buildings to extend into those areas.
Ms. Echols pointed out that the plan as
shown right now, especially with the apartments near
Mr. Thomas stated that he would prefer
that the townhouses and
Mr. Rieley agreed with Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Thomas stated that the Commission wanted more single-family dwellings to be added and that would be a perfect place for it.
Mr. Graham stated that there was some discussion earlier about the erosion and sediment control measures. He noted that he wanted to make it clear that there was nothing here that is in any way waiving the erosion and sediment control requirements. That is something that staff has no ability to do. Staff can modify the measures that are being used to protect it, but they could not eliminate the protection. The applicant must comply with the Water Protection Ordinance with the site plan and subdivision plats.
Mr. Thomas stated that it was a recommended condition under the special use permit that no critical slopes will be disturbed at all. He suggested that the intensive housing be moved out of that area.
Mr. Finley asked if the pumping station existed already.
Mr. Graham stated that there was some concern about the ability of the existing pumping station to be able to serve this area in the long run. What the Service Authority would like to do rather than adding a pump station here and there, was to really take a look at the area and see if it was possible to create one sewage pump station to deal with the whole region. That was always the Service Authority’s preference.
Mr. Finley asked if that would mean more encroachment on the flood plain area.
Mr. Graham stated that it was
conceivable that there would be more encroachment particularly down in the
Mr. Finley asked if the elimination of the pump station in the long run would justify that.
Mr. Graham stated that he thought that it would be justified provided that adequate care was shown during the construction and that they were not unnecessarily disturbing any valuable natural resources.
Mr. Thomas stated that he had a question for Ms. Echols. He asked to hear some response on the 3 versus the 11 Neighborhood Model principles.
Ms. Echols stated that the Commission and Board of Supervisors have the responsibility of assessing for themselves how closely any development proposal meets the Comprehensive Plan and each of the individual components of the Plan. Staff would say that this proposal is more reflective of conventional development, which would predate the 1996 Land Use Plan. Staff would like to see a higher level of conformity with the Neighborhood Model principles and cannot say that they support the proposal in its present form.
Mr. Finley stated that two of the speakers mentioned that they were running out of land.
Ms. Echols stated that staff concurs with the statements that there is a need in this part of the County for more residential lots inside the development area. Staff said that it had mentioned this situation several months ago which is why staff supports the residential use. She noted that, As staff said at that time, there are ways to design a plan for this area which would both provide commercial land for development as well as a number of residential lots. Staff would agree that strong residential use at this particular location is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. She said that staff believes that the way it is laid out is not in conformity with what we think the Board wanted through the Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Mr. Rieley added a footnote to the comment about the 12 principles and their applicability in the Comprehensive Plan language. A section of the language as adopted into the Comprehensive Plan was previously read about the reasonable and rational application of the standards and that it was not expected that all of the principles would apply equally to a proposal, he said. That wording came out of a DISC II meeting and Mr. Rieley said he actually made the motion that incorporated that language. He pointed out that he would state categorically that this plan is not what he or anybody else on DISC II intended that language to engender. He asked if there were other thoughts.
Mr. Thomas stated that he would like to
ask Mr. Rotgin back up to talk about the CDA a little bit. He stated that in a
previous meeting he was the one who insisted on the CDA participation just like
Mr. Rotgin stated that understanding CDA’s is a difficult concept, but they are a financing
vehicle that was adopted by the legislature in order to encourage public and
private participation in the construction of infrastructure needs. Mr. Rotgin
said that people first proposed Community Development Authorities about a year
and a half ago. It was at a time when
there was a question of whether a CDA could be used to pay for infrastructure
both internal to and external to a development. He pointed out that Kay
Slaughter had mentioned that there was a lawsuit regarding this issue. The
issue was decided in the favor of the developer. In that particular case, that developer was
not just financing public improvements, but he was financing sidewalks, trees
in front of his buildings and so forth.
In our case what they were proposing is that a Community Development
Authority be formed and the tax-exempt bonds be issued to finance only public
improvements and not anything that was private. Mr. Rotgin said that, as he
proposes, some of the money will be used on land that is North Pointe. The interest savings that they would achieve
as a result of issuing tax exempt bonds are sufficient enough that they could
make additional up front proffers to the County of somewhere between two and
three million dollars. Mr. Rotgin said
that he felt that the County would be better served by allowing him to make
those improvements up front rather than the County waiting three, four, five or
ten years for the revenue stream to come in from the CDA. The County would control the CDA by imposing
an additional tax on the commercial properties.
As he said before, that was an issue that they needed to work out with
Mr. Finley asked about the question of providing four lanes. He asked if they concluded today that they were still planning on two lanes and depending on the transportation study they would make them four lanes.
Mr. Rotgin stated that he concluded
that he was in agreement with VDOT and the County up through the point where he
can provide enough right-of-way to accomplish four lanes and he will build it
so that four lanes could go in. The biggest issue Mr. Rotgin said he has is
Mr. Rieley requested that Mr. Rotgin answer a question. He stated that Mr. Rotgin had said that one of the great advantages to this proposal was building a parallel road to Route 29. But then he spoke about not wanting to preserve that connection with the capacity of a four-lane roadway back out to Route 29 because essentially it could not go anywhere any way and it was essentially a dead-end road. Mr. Rieley asked what the advantage was to the public if this four-lane road goes to that T-intersection and stops.
Mr. Rotgin stated that was a good
question. He stated that he indicated earlier that the traffic count on this
section of road was only 1,300 vehicles per day. That two-lane highway will carry 10,000
people per day. The traffic will never
come from North Pointe. It will never
come from Hollymead or
Mr. Rieley asked to clarify Mr. Rotgin’s statement. Mr. Rieley stated that essentially what Mr. Rotgin was saying is not that the spine road is a great attribute of this plan, but in fact the connections have almost no impact on Route 29 traffic because the road was only a safety valve.
Mr. Rotgin stated that he did not say
that. He stated that he said that it was
a local road that would serve not only North Pointe, but also Hollymead,
Mr. Rieley stated that he had made his point very well. He asked Ms. Echols to clarify another issue that was relative to the late breaking negotiations with VDOT of today. He said that there are a number of concerns relative to transportation under the heading of major unresolved issues in the staff report, even if there were no changes to the design. To what degree are those still outstanding and unresolved issues, he asked her? He stated that it sounded like many of those issues still were unresolved.
Ms. Echols stated that due to the
lateness of the negotiations and the fact that that the conversations haven’t
been put down on paper, we can’t be sure of what actually transpired
today. She said that staff needs to see
what the particulars are and what agreements were worked out. She pointed out that by going down the list,
Mr. Edgerton stated that he was having trouble following her.
Ms. Echols stated that the list was located on page 5.
Ms. Echols stated that VDOT requires a right turn lane on Route 29 in addition to the third northbound and southbound lane and the application plan shows a continuous lane without an extra right turn lane. She noted that she was not sure where that issue was in the negotiations or what has been resolved in that regard. She said that VDOT previously said that the roundabout at the center entrance needed to be moved east. She noted that VDOT seems to be satisfied with the location of that roundabout and that one can be checked off the list. With regards to the cross sections of the proposed roads, she thought that the applicant, VDOT, and the County had agreed on how to resolve the issue, but she wanted to see that one on paper. She pointed out that she thought that it had all been worked out before, but it hadn’t. The proffered money for the regional transportation study was still at $25,000. The urban cross section on the eastern side of Route 29 was still shown as a rural cross section, she noted.
Mr. Finley asked if there would be minutes from the VDOT meeting of today.
Ms. Echols stated that she did not think that there would be minutes because it was just a group discussion. She stated that it was important to make sure that VDOT, the County, and the applicant were all on the same page.
Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any flexibility offered by the applicant on the last line on page 5. That was the statement that 4 out of the 9 streets of the cross section show sidewalks adjacent to the street rather than the street trees between the back of the curb and the sidewalk.
Ms. Echols stated that she thought that Mr. Rotgin stated that he was in agreement to drop those cross sections except on the main road. She pointed out that she was confused about the parallel and perpendicular parking. She understood the idea of the sidewalk being adjacent to the curb where there was parallel parking so that when people get out of their car they are walking immediately onto a sidewalk rather than on a grass planted strip. But when he started talking about perpendicular parking she started getting a little bit lost. She felt that staff might be able to work out how the cross sections should be addressed with the applicant.
Mr. Rieley asked to get staff’s perspective again because as he understands it the idea for the four-lane spine road came from VDOT. Mr. Rotgin says that road has value as a relief valve and as a connection to Hollymead and then back out to Route 29, but not as a long-term parallel road relative to Route 29. He stated that he did not have an opinion on this. He asked if staff feels that there is a broader network within which this can fit to give a reasonable basis for requiring a four-lane road throughout. In other words it needs an origin and a destination.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that he was
sure that Mr. Graham could add to this. He stated that in the Route 29 north
area that the Commission has looked at any project of significance to try to
achieve parallel roads that could provide for some of the more local traffic to
have the opportunity to access properties without having to get out onto Route
29. A side benefit has also been that
those roads where they have been built, such as with Berkmar
Drive, serve traffic that would otherwise have gone to Route 29 on a through
movement. He felt that it was pretty
Mr. Rieley stated that the question is
whether or not this road can at two lanes take greatly more than the 1,300
trips Mr. Rotgin says will be generated by his development. Mr. Rieley pointed out that Mr. Rotgin’s number of vehicles that a two-lane road can
support was low. He pointed out that
Mr. Cilimberg stated that VDOT is saying the road really should be shown for the potential of four lanes. He asked Mr. Graham if that was correct.
Mr. Graham stated that was absolutely
correct. It really is a question of what a future regional transportation plan
is going to show is necessary and appropriate on this site, he said. He pointed out that they actually had the
same question come up when they looked at
Mr. Cilimberg asked to add one thing before they closed the conversation. He stated that they were not going to push for lanes beyond what seems necessary.
Mr. Rieley stated that he understood that because VDOT was talking about the provision for four lanes, not requiring four lanes.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the provision was what they were talking about. The reality was that they were not trying to reserve four lanes because they just want to build four. He stated that the idea of being able to build four lanes but really having two of those lanes to become parallel parking is a good idea, and he would like to see that the parallel parking could remain.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that was the
same as was done on
Ms. Echols stated that one thing that
was not on this list and that she did not mention in the section about the
items that needed to be resolved was the
Mr. Thomas asked if Mr. Rotgin said
that they would be able to four-lane
Mr. Edgerton stated that he had a right-of-way, but he did not think that he had the right to buy.
Mr. Thomas stated that he would like to
ask Mr. Rotgin that question because he felt it was important. He asked Mr. Rotgin if he had the right to
purchase the property adjacent to
Mr. Rotgin stated that they do not have
the right to improve the property adjacent to Leake,
but they have been talking with the owners of those properties. He stated that he has made some offers to improve
the roadway for the adjacent owners. However, it is important to recognize that
at the meeting today, and Mr. Graham can confirm this, they could use
Mr. Thomas stated that he would like to get back to the discussion about the 12 principles again.
In the staff report on page 9, he said
the second bullet says that the Neighborhood Model is a guideline. He stated that he thought that was the
interpretation of the majority of the people that are even thinking about
putting an application into
Mr. Finley agreed with Mr. Thomas concerning that issue.
Mr. Craddock asked about the affordability of housing. He stated that part of what Mr. Rotgin talked about was having a range of housing mixes. He asked if that would also fall in line with affordability in the range established by the County and if affordable housing would include single-family and townhouses.
Ms. Echols stated that she did not know because that item had not been discussed.
Mr. Craddock stated that everybody comes up and talks about affordability, but when the rubber hits the road nobody builds affordability. He stated that he just wanted to make that point.
Mr. Finley asked if housing other than the proposed affordable housing, which he believed that the applicant proffered at 4 percent, comes within that price range.
Ms. Echols stated that she did not know because they have not gotten into that level of detail. Currently, the applicant has proffered 4 percent contingent upon the Board of Supervisors approving a Community Development Authority. The Board of Supervisors would also have to authorize the money for the tax-exempt bonds for the Community Development Authority to be used for this particular development in this particular way. The “affordability” is not there without a CDA and the CDA as proffered will not ensure that affordable housing is provided. If affordable housing were proffered as a stand-alone proffer, then we would need more details in the proffers about how a program would be administered, she said. Right now the proffer just says that there will be affordable housing, but we don’t have a program that would administer an affordable housing program for this particular development. Those details would have to be worked out. She stated that she believed that if they had a proffer for affordable housing without a CDA, staff would work very hard with the County’s Housing Director to come up with the program necessary to ensure long-term affordability.
Mr. Edgerton stated for clarification, what he thought she just said was that the 3 percent which was bumped up to 4 percent commitment for affordable housing was proffered, but the proffer was contingent upon the CDA being approved by the Board of Supervisors. If Mr. Rotgin does not get his way with the Board on his structure of the CDA, which is very different from what they have been approving, then there would be no commitment for affordable housing. He asked if that was correct.
Ms. Echols stated that was correct.
Mr. Rieley stated that judging from Mr. Rotgin’s comments, the site and the building pad for the library and the school are in the same category.
Ms. Echols stated that not the school, but the library is proffered with a CDA.
Mr. Rieley stated that what they had in front of them for action was really three actions: one for a ZMA, one for a SP for residential uses and a request for critical slope waivers. He stated that the ZMA was the fundamental one and staff has recommended not approving this application and has documented the reasons quite completely in the staff report. He said that staff has also given the Commission a list of concerns and conditions for items that should be resolved prior to action by the Board of Supervisors should they disagree with the staff’s recommendation. He stated that his preference since he did not think that they all would come down the same on this and since the Commission’s action is advisory to the Board that he would like for the Commission to do both of those things if they could. He stated that he would like for them to vote on whether this should be approved or not. Then whether they approve it or not, he felt that the Commission should give their opinion about the list of items that need to be resolved before this comes before the Board. He felt that was pertinent no matter what their action was tonight.
Mr. Edgerton concurred with his approach.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that he would like to understand exactly what Mr. Rieley meant. He stated that it seemed to him that each Commissioner has declared himself and covered each point he was asking for.
Mr. Rieley suggested that they finalize that conclusion by clarifying the list. He pointed out that Mr. Rotgin has suggested an inclusion of whatever the improvements that VDOT or the County was recommending to be on the list. Mr. Rieley pointed out that he was glad that Mr. Rotgin volunteered that. He stated that he wanted to make it clear that the applicant must come back to this list no matter what the Commission’s action was. He stated that the first action would be on the ZMA application itself.
Mr. Thomas stated that he would like to ask one more question. Under the preservation and conservation areas there are critical slopes and they have been requested to grant a waiver for critical slopes. He pointed out that on page 14 on the SP that it says no critical slopes for building sites shall be disturbed in the preservation area or conservation area described above. He asked if that condition has anything to do with their waiver of the critical slopes that is a part of this application.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that any building sites in the conservation or preservation area would be excluded from the critical slopes waiver and could not be touched.
Mr. Finley stated that the critical slopes waiver is for building sites, but what they got today for sewers, storm water facilities and so forth would still be applicable. He asked if the sewers could go in those areas.
Ms. Echols stated that sewers. Storm water facilities, and so forth might go in preservation or conservation areas, but they would have to constructed in a way as to have the least amount of impact. She said these areas could be used only if they were the only possible place to put the facilities. There are three storm water facilities shown within the preservation area and it is intended that those storm water facilities would be removed from those areas. There might be some protrusion of storm water facilities into the preservation area, but it would not be the entire storm water facility. For the utilities, we all recognize that is not possible to avoid disturbance in some areas, for example for the sewer line, but disturbance would have to be the least amount possible.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were any other questions. He asked if anyone would like to frame a motion.
Mr. Edgerton stated that before he framed a motion he wanted to declare some of the concerns that he continued to have. He recommended that this application be denied. He stated that the staff did a very thorough job for the amount of time they had in the review. He stated that he takes a strong difference of opinion from Mr. Rotgin about meeting 11 of the 12 principles. He stated that he thought that Mr. Rotgin was very creative in his comments about the Neighborhood Model, but he agreed with the Chairman. If anything is about as far from what was intended for the Neighborhood Model to be that he felt it included the interconnectivity issues. Mr. Edgerton said that this has been a problem that he has been concerned about since the beginning of the review in the work sessions. The developer told them that the topography and the watercourses on the property are so severe that interconnectivity is not possible. His response to that is that perhaps they should not approve a plan when the topography and the watercourses prevent them from doing what they know is a good planning vehicle. He stated that he would much prefer to see a plan that would respond to the topography as suggested in the Comprehensive Plan rather than trying to overcome the topography. He felt strongly that staff’s recommendation that the developer pay his fair share is appropriate. He said the developer has been asking to be treated fairly since day one and he felt that the same should apply to him to pay his fair share of the regional transportation study. Mr. Edgerton said that Mr. Rotgin has suggested that he should only contribute $25,000 of that. Mr. Edgerton said it should be the $110,000 that has been required of the other major projects in the area. He stated that he had a great deal of difficulty going against the advice of the County Attorney on how a CDA should be appropriately proffered. He stated that he had a great deal of difficulty with the concept of taxpayers’ money being used to improve and benefit the developers private projects. There is no question in his mind that even if the money was appropriated for the public good that it benefit this project. The impacts of the streams on this project are immense. He stated that he was delighted that the staff had been able to identify more specifically than in the previous presentations some of the areas that would be severely damaged. There seems to be a lack of understanding of how important this is from the developer’s attempts to address these issues, especially as pointed out by staff that he proposes to destroy a stream area and then providing a buffer by replanting it. He noted that he found that whole concept hard to take. Mr. Edgerton said that one item has not come up this evening, but he would continue to bring it up. Mr. Rotgin is proposing several big box commercial developments, Mr. Edgerton said. Members of the Planning Commission consistently argued that these building footprints should be limited to 70,000 square feet or less. Mr. Edgerton said that the Commission is told that this is not acceptable by the developer. Mr. Edgerton pointed out that the Commission made an exception for Hollymead, but that as he understands it, was because of a previous commitment made by the Board of Supervisors prior to the 70,000 square foot standard. Mr. Edgeton stated that he was concerned about the over saturation of the retail market. One of the concerns that he had was that if the market does become over-saturated, as the County Fiscal Planner has suggested, that there could be a chance of this development emptying out existing retail facilities to the new facilities. He felt that action could have a catastrophic effect on the entire community. Mr. Edgerton said he felt strongly that the developer has not made a demonstrative effort to mitigate the off-site impacts of a project of this scale. Specifically, traffic continues to concern Mr. Edgerton. Affordable housing was a concern in addition to the concern about it being tied to a CDA and the Commission has no reason to believe that is going to be acceptable to the Board of Supervisors. He found it unacceptable that he is only offering to proffer 4 percent of the housing to affordability when the County Housing Committee has recommended a minimum of 15 percent. As far as housing types, he was confused because the Commission hears about the need for single-family urban lots and two of the speakers this evening suggested that they should approve this project just to provide more lots in Albemarle County to keep them having to go to Greene or Louisa. Mr. Rotgin himself at one of the other work sessions pointed out rather directly that they were out of single-family lots in Albemarle County. Mr. Edgerton stated that he was intrigued that so much of this development was not for single-family lots. The most critical areas on the northwest portion of the property probably more appropriately support single-family lots, and yet we are seeing the densest development proposed in the most environmentally sensitive area, he said. For all of these reasons and others as enumerated in the staff report, Mr. Edgerton said he moved to deny ZMA-000-009, North Pointe.
Mr. Finley stated that he had listened to every issue that Mr. Edgerton had brought up and he felt that he was opposed to every one of them. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Thomas concerning the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model. He stated that regarding interconnectivity that this was a growth area and some attempts have been made to get interconnectivity, but it was impossible because of the topography that had already been mentioned. Mr. Finley stated that the project was in the growth area and was needed for housing. He pointed out that the growth area was supposed to be where the building was done if it could be done in a feasible way. He pointed out that he would have to look at everything that the developer was proffering before he could determine if they were giving their fair share. He stated that he did not know enough about financial matters to pass any judgement on the CDA, but he thought it was something that the Board of Supervisors and County Attorney would work on. He stated that he thought that the Engineering Department would ensure that the stream impacts were addressed as well as the sediment control storm water control and quality control. He pointed out that the County already has some big boxes approved. Regarding the retail market, he felt that if there were those who were going to invest millions into this that they would know something about the market before doing so. With regards to affordable housing, Mr. Finley said he felt that the applicant has come up with 4 percent, which nobody else has done. He stated that if they have an acceptable CDA, then they would agree to go with that. He stated that 3 million dollars into the County would be a sizeable benefit and hopefully they would be able to follow it with a tax decrease. He stated that he supported the request.
Mr. Rieley asked if there was a second to the motion.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (4:2). (Thomas, Finley – No)
Mr. Rieley suggested that they return to the issues raised by staff. He directed the question primarily to Mr. Thomas and Mr. Finley since each of them voted against the denial. He asked the degree to which they concurred with the items that staff had laid out under issues that need to be resolved prior to the action by the Board of Supervisors on page 13 of the staff report. He stated that he thought he heard concurrence by Mr. Rotgin on these issues because he said a couple of times that he did not object to these. Then Mr. Rotgin added a ninth issue that was the transportation improvements as per the County and VDOT requirements.
Mr. Finley stated that they had already mentioned that these would be edited based on some of the discussions of today because staff mentioned that some of the items had been met.
Mr. Rieley agreed. He asked Mr. Thomas if he was in agreement with Mr. Finley that the items to be resolved before it goes to the Board of Supervisors were listed on page 13 along with a ninth one. The ninth one included the roadways for transportation improvements including the issue of the four-lane road as per VDOT’s and Albemarle County’s requirements.
Mr. Thomas stated that he was in agreement.
Mr. Rieley stated that the Planning Commission had a consensus on those issues.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that within those issues, some of them require some decision by the Planning Commission that includes numbers 2 and 3.
Mr. Rieley stated that his understanding of item 2 was to make that in keeping with the recommendations that they had previously made.
Ms. Echols stated that the applicant said he was going to be proffering a range similar to what staff had put in the staff report for number 2. She pointed out that the Commission had said that there needed to be more single-family detached housing and the Commission really did not talk about how much more was needed. Staff had suggested in the staff report that a range that went from 25 to 40 percent for each category would provide the applicant an opportunity for more flexibility to respond to the market demands.
Mr. Rieley stated that was a good point, but suggested that they modify number 2 to say with recommendations by the staff. He asked Mr. Kamptner about the other item.
Mr. Kamptner stated that was the provision of more affordable housing outside of the CDA. He asked if that was 15 percent.
Mr. Rieley stated that the Commission had talked about the need for a greater percentage of affordable units and he thought that the Commission had arrived at the consensus of 15 percent at previous meetings. He asked if the other Commissioner agreed.
Mr. Finley and Mr. Thomas both pointed out that they had not agreed with that.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that he wrote down 4 percent, but actually liked the 3 percent. He asked staff to explain to him what “outside of the CDA” meant.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff was recommending that the applicant provide affordable housing that did not depend on the CDA for it to be provided.
Mr. Thomas asked if that was staff’s requirement.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that was staff’s recommendation.
Ms. Echols stated that she thought that the Commission had recommended that same item two meetings ago as a Commission.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that was actually in their preliminary notes.
Mr. Rieley stated that he had hoped that they would have unanimity on this list.
Mr. Thomas stated that he would agree to the list.
Mr. Rieley stated that they needed to send as clear a message as they could to the Board should the Board not agree with the Commission’s recommendation for denial.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that his intention for voting for this was for the applicant to meet all of the requirements that staff has recommended.
Mr. Rieley asked if they needed to vote on this issue.
Mr. Kamptner suggested that they either take a vote or a consensus so that the Board knows that the majority of the Commission is recommending these changes.
Mr. Rieley asked if someone would like to make a motion to that effect.
Mr. Kamptner asked for a clarification from staff, before the Commission made a motion. Mr. Kamptner asked Ms. Echols if the issues listed on pages 5 and 6 need to be included or if they had been captured on page 13 of the staff report.
Ms. Echols stated that earlier in the evening, she had added the four lanes and the Leake Road issues as items that needed to be resolved. She pointed out that both of those issues would be covered under the transportation improvements as per County and VDOT requirements.
Mr. Rieley stated that those issues would be covered under the new number 9. He stated that they have nine items with one being modified from the Planning Commission to staff and one being added per Mr. Rotgin’s suggestion.
Ms. Echols asked that the Commission consider staff’s recommendation for a note on the application plan that makes clear that unless it has been expressly waived by the Board of Supervisors that the plan does not depict anything that is being waived.
Mr. Rieley agreed to add this as item 10 and pointed out that the only other modification was to item # 2 to change Planning Commission to staff and adding # 9 regarding the County’s transportation improvements.
Mr. Thomas agreed with Mr. Rieley.
Mr. Loewenstein seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0) to forward the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.
Planning Commissioners stated that the Board might still wish to approve this project despite its recommendation. Prior to any approval of this rezoning, the following issues must be resolved. Therefore, these matters need to be addressed prior to consideration by the Board of Supervisors:
1. Resolution of the issues related to open space including provision of standards for trails, locations for trails, identification of who will construct trails and when; links between amenities on the plan and proffers; resolution of the area shown on the plan with the table (as well as all other items related to the open space/greenway plan and proffers identified in Attachment C).
2. Modification of the housing mix in keeping with recommendations by the Planning staff
3. Provision of more affordable housing outside of a CDA.
4. Resolution of the limits of development/grading/stormwater management issues on the application plan.
5. Participation in a CDA similar to Hollymead Town Center and Albemarle Place.
6. Proffer of proportionate share of money for the regional transportation study
7. Correction/resolution of the 42 items listed in Attachment C.
8. Modification of all noted proffers in accordance with staff comments on Attachment D.
9. Provision of transportation improvements as recommended and required by County and VDOT
10. Addition of the following statement to the application plan: “Nothing in this Application Plan not meeting the minimum requirements of the Albemarle County Code or any state agency shall constitute a waiver of such requirements. The only minimum requirements waived are those expressly waived or modified by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors under Zoning Ordinance §§ 8.2 and 8.5.4."
Regarding Special Use permit - SP-02-072
Mr. Rieley stated that a separate action was needed on SP-02-72, which was to allow residential uses.
Mr. Kamptner stated that any motion for approval of the special use permit would be subject to the ZMA being approved.
Mr. Edgerton moved to recommend denial of the request for SP-02-72, North Pointe for the same reasons that he had previously expressed.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (4:2). (Thomas, Finley – No)
Mr. Cilimberg stated that it would be appropriate to get the Commission’s feelings about the suggested conditions in case the Board wants to approve the special use permit.
Mr. Rieley suggested that they do that and pointed out that on page 13 there was a list of conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the Commission refer to what was handed out tonight by staff because that was the most current version.
Ms. Echols pointed out that she had concluded that the map on the wall was the correct map and not the one contained in the staff report
Mr. Rieley stated that he would give the Commissioners a few minutes to read over the handout that contained the issues since it was slightly different from the ones contained in the staff report.
He asked if anyone wanted to make a motion regarding the recommended revised conditions for the special use permit in the event that the Board does not agree with our action.
Mr. Finley moved that the following revised conditions for the special use permit be applied in the event that the Board of Supervisors does not agree with the Commission’s action and approves the special use permit.
1 The Preservation Area shown on Exhibit C (on display at the Planning Commission meeting on November 18, 2003), entitled, “Stormwater Management and Stream Conservation Plan” with “Preservation Area”, “Conservation Area”, and “Streams/River” identified and illustrated by staff for the Planning Commission meeting on November 18, 2003, shall remain undisturbed and shall be protected from development impacts to the satisfaction of the agent; provided, that:
2 The Conservation Area shown on Exhibit C (on display at the Planning Management and Stream Conservation Plan” with “Preservation Area”, “Conservation Area”, and “Streams/River” identified and illustrated by staff Commission meeting on November 18, 2003), entitled, “Stormwater for the Planning Commission meeting on November 18, 2003, shall remain undisturbed unless the agent finds that disturbance is necessary in order for a use shown on the Application Plan to be established; provided that:
3 No building permit shall be issued for any dwelling unit in Phase 2 or 3 of the residential areas, as shown on Exhibit F, “Development and Road Phasing Plan”, dated 10/21/03, included with the application plan, until Northwest Passage and the Rt. 29 improvements associated with Northwest Passage are completed or bonded and under construction.
4 All streets serving residential phases, shown on Exhibit F, “Development and Road Phasing Plan”, dated 10/21/03, included with the application plan, shall be constructed with an urban cross-section which includes curb, sidewalk, and street trees between the back of the curb and the sidewalk in accordance with County and VDOT standards. Maintenance of the street trees by a Homeowner's Association shall be ensured through a 3-party agreement between the County, VDOT, and a Homeowner’s Association.
5 All houses in the North Pointe development shall connect to the public sanitary sewer without pumping of sewage.
Critical Slopes Waiver:
Mr. Rieley stated that the final action involved a request for a critical slopes waiver.
Mr. Edgerton moved for denial of the critical slopes waivers for the North Pointe development.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (4:2). (Thomas, Finley – No)
Mr. Rieley stated that these requests would go to the Board of Supervisors for a work session on December 3rd.
Mr. Loewenstein left the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
The Commission took a ten-minute break at 8:30 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 8:47 p.m.
Mr. Rieley called the meeting back to order at 8:47 p.m. He Rieley stated that the next public hearing was SP-03-69 University Village (Nextel).
SP-03-69 University Village – Nextel (Sign #56) - Request for special use permit to allow 12
flush-mounted antennas, a radio cabinet and ice bridge to be located on the
roof of an existing University Village building in accordance with Section
126.96.36.199 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for microwave and radio-wave
transmission and relay towers in the R-10 Zoning District. The property, described as Tax Map 60B2,
Parcel 1, is zoned R-10, Residential and is located at 500 Crestwood Road,
within the University Village Development, approximately .5 miles from the
intersection of Crestwood and Rt. 601
(Old Ivy Road), in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property
as Urban Density in Development Area 7. (
Mr. Waller summarized the staff report. The applicant’s proposal is for the installation of a personal wireless service facility, which would include an array of twelve 4-foot long, 6-1/2 inch wide, 8-inch deep antennas, on an existing building at the University Village Retirement Condominiums. The antennas would be installed in three separate (3) sectors containing four antennas each. The first two arrays would be flush-mounted on the building’s elevator penthouse. The third array would be attached with mounting pipes that would allow them to extend approximately 9 feet above a television booster room at the top of the building. Supporting equipment would be contained within a 7-foot tall equipment shelter that would also be located on the building’s roof. Staff has reviewed this request and finds that the applicant’s request indicates that all of the proposal antennas would be flush-mounted. However, there is that one sector that is actually shown on the applicant’s plans that would not be flush-mounted to the facility and would be allowed to extend above the roof line if approved. Staff recognizes also that there are other sectors of antennas within arrays that have been installed by other service providers through the building permitting process that also extend above the roof line on another section of the building. Photographs of those sectors are provided to basically demonstrate what the visibility of the proposed antennas would be if approved. Staff also recognizes that there is one existing sector on this portion of the building that already extends above the building, which is also identified in the applicant’s plans. Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. Those conditions include the ones that were recommended by the Architectural Review Board’s Design Planner, which would help mitigate any adverse visual impacts that may arise as the result of the location of these antennas on the roof. Also, staff has included a condition that would require all future arrays of antennas that would be attached to this building for any of the future phases that have been approved through the rezoning process for this facility to be flush-mounted with future requests. This is the first special use permit request for this facility because the other antennas, which belong to three other personal wireless service facilities, was allowed by right with building permits.
Mr. Rieley asked why this request would be different.
Mr. Waller stated that the ordinance allows up to three arrays on a building by right and when you go to the forth array or beyond it requires a special use permit.
Mr. Rieley stated that this array was the only one on this structure where the antennas stick up above the roof. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Waller stated that this would actually be the second array on this portion of the building where the antennas would stick up above the roof. He pointed out that the existing array was shown in black on the drawing.
Mr. Rieley stated that the existing array does not stick up as much. He pointed out that the array is as tall, but the roof is taller too.
Mr. Waller agreed that the roofline was taller.
Mr. Rieley asked if that array was permitted by right.
Mr. Waller stated that it was actually allowed through a building permit, which he found out from the information that he received from the Assistant Zoning Administrator. He pointed out that only a building permit was required because it was done so many years. He stated that a building permit was issued and they built the facilities, but they never got a certificate of occupancy for the array. Therefore, there has been a certain amount of time that has passed and they have been up there.
Mr. Rieley stated that the ones that were matching were not put in legally.
Mr. Waller stated that he did not think that they were given this level of detail with the building permits when they were installed.
Mr. Cilimberg asked how long ago the antennas were installed that were located on the same tower.
Mr. Waller stated that because the building permits have already been purged, he could not figure out which antennas belonged to which company. There are some antennas on the other portion of the building that were also done with building permits and the building permits are no longer in our building permit files. Therefore, there is no way to tell exactly where each company’s arrays are located. That is why staff added the condition that in the future the tower reports, which are required on July 1st of each year, should identify each array and which company owns it.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that it was very probable that some of these antennas that exist were installed before any of these provisions existed in our ordinance.
Mr. Waller pointed out that some of the antennas date back as far as 1992. He pointed out that there were two arrays on one end of the building.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that they would be addressing this because it was the fourth array.
Mr. Rieley asked if the policy requires in a situation like this to have the antennas flush-mounted against the building.
Mr. Waller stated that if it was by right under the Tier One Wireless Policy requirements that are currently in the ordinance, then the antennas would be required to be flush-mounted. He stated that because some of the antennas date back to the mid- and early-nineties there were requirements for flush-mounting because at that time the antennas were allowed to be attached on the existing structure just with the building permits.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that this request was before the Commission now because it was coming through a special use permit that does not require that it be flush-mounted. If the array was to be by right, which means it would be one of the first three arrays and it was not exceeding the top of the building, then it would have to be flush-mounted to stay by right. If they wanted the array to be installed other than flush-mounted, and then it would require a special use permit.
Mr. Waller pointed out that in this case that it would be considered under Tier Three because it would not fall under Tier One or Two.
Mr. Rieley stated that if the guidelines were by right for flush-mounted, then clearly that was the target and the desirable condition, which was fortified even more by the recommended condition that anything from now on be flush-mounted. The question is why don’t we insist that these be flush-mounted.
Mr. Waller stated that staff’s recommended condition was to give the applicant the option to be flush-mounted or not to be allowed to be any taller than the antennas that are existing.
Mr. Rieley stated that since this was a special use permit, he felt that they could require that they be flush-mounted.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that was correct, but that staff’s recommendation came from the ARB recommendation.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Waller. There being none, he opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were any questions for Ms. Long or the technical staff. Since there were none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion and possible action.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that you could not miss that building because it could be seen from everywhere as far as Ivy.
Mr. Rieley stated that was his concern. He stated that they had to be careful to just take the ARB’s view of this because the ARB’s charge is to look at these things only from the Entrance Corridor. He noted that this building was really visible from lots and lots of places. He noted that you could see the antennas sticking up above the roof now and they were closer in scale to the top of the roof than the ones that are proposed. He asked if the pictures contained photo simulations.
Mr. Waller stated that they were photographs of the existing building.
Mr. Rieley agreed with Ms. Long that this was an ideal location for these antennas. He stated that he did not have any problems with any of them except the ones that are on the lower building sticking up above. Since the guideline was for flush-mounted panels and the condition was that for any in the future to also be flush-mounted panels, he would suggest that they consider approving this with the condition that all the panels be flush-mounted. He stated that they would have to find a spot like the other ones that are flush-mounted.
Mr. Thomas asked if they would work.
Mr. Edgerton asked if he was suggesting taking down the ones that were already there.
Mr. Rieley stated that he was not, but only suggesting this as it relates to this application. He pointed out that looking out the window at the architecture school you look right at this building and it was really visible. He felt that because of the height of this building, he felt that it made them very visible.
Mr. Edgerton asked if he was suggesting that they approve this with the condition that they can go ahead and put up the new antennas, but they have to be flush-mounted.
Mr. Rieley stated that because of the extreme location of this building that they should have to adhere to the same standards that they were suggesting for the future anyway. He stated that it was a fairly explicit plan. He asked if there was a problem with the Commission approving this with that condition. He stated that he did not want the applicants to have to come back.
Mr. Waller stated that from a RF standpoint they would have to have their engineer take a look at it. He noted that from our side, they were mainly looking at it based on the visual impact any ways.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff would have to make sure that the conditions recommended to the Board of Supervisors reflect what if you decide to make them all flush-mounted what you have indicated here. He noted that staff could work on that between now and the Board meeting.
Mr. Waller stated that basically what that would do was just eliminate condition # 2 and then add sector A with Sectors B and C in Section 3 where it talks about how Section B and C would have sectors B and C to be flush-mounted. It would basically eliminate condition # 2 and bring sector A down with sectors A and C.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that since condition # 1 refers to a specific plan that shows these that are not flush-mounted that they might need to address that condition too. He stated that staff could take care of that.
Mr. Rieley stated that he would feel more comfortable with this if all these were the same.
Mr. Finley asked if the main reason he was proposing that was to be consistent.
Mr. Rieley stated that the main reason is that he thought that it was going to be highly visible, but that he also felt that it was important to be consistent. He felt that flush mounting was clearly the preferred way since it was required for by right antennas.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the concern was not only concerned about the flush mounting, but also they were concerned about the height of those four antennas.
Mr. Rieley agreed with Mr. Kamptner and added that the antennas not extend above the height of the building, which he was assuming that it had to be flush and it could not be either out or up. He pointed out that they would be like the others.
Mr. Edgerton asked for some clarification from the applicant in what happens when you make an antenna flush-mounted versus freestanding. He stated that he did not understand the technology about what they were asking. He asked what the difference was in having an antenna freestanding with 360 degrees exposures versus being up against the wall. What happens with those four antennas?
Ms. Long stated that if this was the antenna panel, really only the section that faces the panel that is facing outward is where the signal goes. If the antenna was mounted against the building, the signal would not come from the backside.
Mr. Edgerton stated that the only advantage was the height.
Ms. Long stated that the advantage was the height most certainly. Again, because the portion of the roof structure that this array of antennas would be mounted on is much shorter, the t.v. booster room is much shorter than the elevator penthouse. To flush-mount the panel antennas against the t.v. booster room, they would be at a much lower level. The t.v. booster room does not extend very far above the top of the roofline. So to flush-mount those antennas there is very little separation and it would be difficult for the full span of all four feet of the panel antennas to extend and have visibility for the signal to extend out. They could certainly have their engineers look at that, but certainly the extra few feet in height that was obtained by mounting the antennas as the applicant has proposed makes a tremendous amount of difference in the quality of the signal. The lower you get the more difficult it is and in fact that the t.v. booster room is significantly lower and shorter than the elevator penthouse makes that much more difference. The concept of flush mounting in it or in isolation is not problematic, but the facts specific to the location of where that antenna array would actually be mounted makes it much more challenging.
Mr. Edgerton stated that if you look at drawing D-2 on page 20, it appears that it might be an opportunity to flush-mount these four antenna on the front of the existing elevator.
Ms. Eubanks, with Nextel Partners, stated that there were already antennas on the front of the penthouse that are flush-mounted that belonged to another carrier. They are not shown on the drawings. She pointed out that they would go on the backside of the back view.
Ms. Long pointed out that was a back view.
Mr. Cilimberg asked that they look at page 19 and you can see from the top looking down where the existing antennas are currently existing on the penthouse and where two of the arrays are proposed. There are two existing arrays on two sides of the penthouse and they are proposing two more arrays on the other two sides of the penthouse. Basically the penthouse structure itself will be full of arrays with the two that exist and two of the three that they propose. They would have to find a place to put their third array. He pointed out that on page 28 it showed the existing situation.
Mr. Rieley stated that he did not think they should get too involved on solving where the antennas will go. The main point is that the situation that they will be in relative to finding a location for these flush-mounted antennas is no different than the next applicant, which staff has recommended that all future ones have to be flush-mounted. He stated that from now on all of the antennas have to be flush-mounted. He noted that he was just suggesting that they start with these four as well since they already have two-thirds of them flush-mounted.
Mr. Waller stated that he would like to add condition # 3 that no antenna project out from the pole beyond the minimum and it should be that no antennas that project out from the building.
Mr. Finley moved to recommend approval of SP-03-069, University Village (Nextel) with the proviso that there be twelve flush-mounted antennas with the conditions in the staff report as revised.
Mr. Kamptner restated that the motion was to approve SP-03-069 with the conditions as revised which included that the antennas be flush-mounted and not to allow the antennas to exceed the profile of the existing structure.
Mr. Finley amended his motion as previously stated by Mr. Kamptner.
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1. With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with the conditions listed herein, the facility including the antennas, and equipment shelter, and all antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the concept plan entitled, entitled “Nextel Partners, Inc. (University Village)”, dated August 8, 2003.
2. Only antennas that are flush-mounted to the existing elevator penthouse or existing roof features at a lower elevation, and the building’s parapet wall shall be permitted in Sector A, Sector B and Sector C. No antennas that project out from the building beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted, and, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be more than 12 inches.
3. Antennas with attachments that extend above the existing roofline or any other portion of the building to which they are mounted shall be prohibited.
4. The equipment shelter shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height.
5. The equipment shelter, all antennas, and any exposed portions of their mounting devices shall be painted to match the color of the mounting walls. These requirements shall be provided on the plans.
6. The antennas shall not exceed 48 inches in height, 6-1/2 inches in width, and 8 inches in depth. These size specifications stated herein shall be provided on the plans with schematic drawings.
7. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted in this array.
8. No guy wires shall be permitted.
9. No lighting shall be permitted for this the facility, except as herein provided. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met:
10. With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site plans for construction of the facility. During the application review, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
11. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the building, shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless service provider that use the facilities attached to the building, including a drawing indicating which antennas and equipment are associated with each provider.
All equipment and antennae from any individual personal
wireless service provider shall be disassembled and removed from the site
within ninety (90) days of the date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and
removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal
wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator
determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility
will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning
Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County,
or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for,
and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the
Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion.
The motion was approved with a vote of (5:0) (Loewenstein – Absent)
Mr. Rieley stated that this would go to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval and would be heard on December 3rd.
Mr. Rieley asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
Mr. Rieley asked if there was any new business.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that there would not be a Planning Commission next week. He wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving.
further items, the meeting adjourned at to the