ZMA 2004-014 Briarwood



ZMA – Request to rezone 123.612 acres from PRD (Planned Residential District) to PRD (Planned Residential District) with proffers superseding existing proffers, and to amend the Application Plan.  The property, described as Tax Map 32G Parcel 1, Tax Map 32G Section3 Parcel A and Tax Map 32G Section 3 Parcel 83, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Seminole Trail (Route 29) at the intersection of Seminole Trail and Austin Drive (Route 1575).  The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density Residential in the Piney Mountain Community.  (Attachment A is the location map.)



Graham, Cilimberg, Gillespie





February 2, 2005


ACTION:     X                     INFORMATION: 



  ACTION:                          INFORMATION: 











The Planning Commission heard ZMA 2004-14 on December 7, 2004.  The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend denial of the ZMA request, citing the following reasons for their recommendation of denial:


1.       The proposed application plan was not submitted until after the normal review period had ended.  Comments from reviewers have just been received and the applicant has not had a chance yet to respond to those comments and revise his submittal appropriately. 

2.       An interconnection between Briarwood and Camelot seems to be lost with the proposed changes to Phase 4 on the application plan. 

3.       It is unclear what the proposed orientation of buildings along Camelot Drive in Phase 8 will be.

4.       The proposed application plan does not show the existing resource protection area.

5.       The proposed application plan does not provide access to the open spaces on the plan.

6.       At this time, no commitment has been made to the streetscape of the remaining phases, including a commitment to curb and gutter and sidewalks.


The Board of Supervisors heard this item on January 12, 2005. At that meeting, the Board voted to defer the item to allow resolution of outstanding issues on the plan and in the proffers. 



Goal 3.3:  Develop and implement policies that address the County’s growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance the factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County.



In order to address the outstanding issues identified by the Planning Commission and staff, the applicants provided a revised Application Plan, dated 1/19/2005 and received 1/20/2005.  That plan is attached to this document.  Planning, Zoning and Engineering staff have reviewed the plan.  The previous comments and concerns of Planning Commission and the staff have been addressed as follows:


Regarding the orientation of buildings in Phase 8 and the impact to Camelot Drive, a note has been added to the plan that "Vegetative screening shall be provided adjacent to Camelot subdivision along Camelot Drive in accord with section and"  Staff believes that, from a design standpoint, orienting the buildings to face towards Camelot Drive is the preferable alternative to screening from Camelot Drive.  However, given the applicant's desire to orient the rear of the buildings towards Camelot Drive, staff believes that this note will ensure adequate screening of the

buildings from Camelot Drive. 


The resource protection area has been appropriately labeled on both sheets of the Application Plan.  Further, inconsistencies between the "old" and the "new" Application Plans have been reconciled by attaching the two plans together and clearly labeling the "new" plan as sheet 1 of 2 and the "old" plan as sheet 2 of 2. 


In previous comments, concern was expressed about access to the open spaces on the plan.  Particularly, there was concern about the ability of pedestrians to access the area labeled "Passive recreation area- to consist of walking and jogging trails" on the existing Application Plan.  A note has been added to the plan stating: "Access to the recreation areas shall be provided in general accordance with the original Briarwood Application Plan, now designated as sheet 2 of 2".  This comment has been adequately addressed.


With the previous submittals, no commitment was made to streetscape or install sidewalks in the remaining phases of Briarwood.  At the public hearing on January 12, 2005, the Board advised the applicant that it recommended providing streetscape improvements, including curb and gutter and sidewalks, in a manner consistent with the existing Briarwood development,.  The existing phases of Briarwood include curb and gutter and sidewalks along one side of the streets.  The existing infrastructure was provided voluntarily and was never required of the previous ZMA approvals.  A note has been added to the plan stating: "curb and gutter, streetscape and sidewalks will be provided throughout the undeveloped sections of Briarwood, in a manner which is consistent with the existing development and ZMA-79-32 and ZMA-91-13".  Zoning staff is concerned that this note, as written, will prove difficult to interpret in the future.  Staff recommends that this note be revised to state:

"Curb and gutter, streetscape and sidewalks will be provided throughout the remaining phases of Briarwood in a manner which is consistent with the existing development and sidewalks will be provided on a minimum of one side of all streets in the remaining phases of development."


The applicant has requested a modification for section 4.11.3, which is based on section 19.8.  This modification would allow the buildings to be separated by less than 30 feet.  The requested modification would allow the setbacks in the remaining phases of development to be consistent with the setbacks in the existing phases of Briarwood.  Specifically, setbacks would be 6' in the side yard, 25' in the front yard and 10' in the rear yard.  Staff supports this modification request.


The applicant’s engineer has satisfied concerns regarding the need for a traffic analysis. Remaining questions on traffic capacity will be addressed with VDOT approval of the entrance onto Route 29.   With regard to the need for interparcel connections, the applicant has provided a note on the plan indicating that a road connection will be made at either Phase 1A or Phase 4.  Staff would prefer the connection be with Phase 1A but finds this alternative acceptable.  If the connection is not shown with the Phase 1A plans, it will then be required with the Phase 4 plans.    


Staff previously noted the applicant has not shown critical slopes or resource protection areas.  While that concern remains unaddressed, staff has examined the site based on provided topography and delineated areas considered sensitive and inappropriate for development.  Staff has offered to review that delineation with the applicant so the applicant has an advance understanding of the areas that staff believes should remain undisturbed.  As the applicant has not sought any critical slope waivers as part of this plan, it is presumed any development in those sections would be required to comply with the County’s critical slope requirements and understands staff’s position on the protection of sensitive resources.  


Since the January 12, 2005 Board meeting, the applicant has worked with the County Attorney's office, Planning, Engineering and Zoning staff to put the proffers into an acceptable format for adoption by the Board.  No substantive changes have been made to the proffers and no new commitments have been made. Proffers that do not offer anything beyond what is required by regulations have been eliminated. The previous proffers of ZMA-91-13 and ZMA 95-05 have been combined with the currently proposed proffers of ZMA 2004-014 into one set of proffers for all of Briarwood.  The language has been refined to ensure clear interpretation in the future. 



Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2004--014, with proffers, with the recommendation that note 2 on Page 1 of the Application Plan be revised to read:

"Curb and gutter, streetscape and sidewalks will be provided throughout the remaining phases of Briarwood in a manner which is consistent with the existing development and sidewalks will be provided on a minimum of one side of all streets in the remaining phases of development."


Staff recommends approval with the understanding that approval of this ZMA and Application Plan does not obligate the board to approve critical slopes waivers in the future. 


Staff further recommends approval of the requested setback modification to allow a building separation of less than 30 feet.



Attachment A – Application Plan, 1/19/05 (not available online)

Attachment B – Proffers, 1/27/05

Go to next attachment

Return to July 12 executive summary