Agenda Item No. 8.  ZMA-2004-0014. Briarwood (Sign #17).  Public hearing on a request to rezone 123.612 acs from PRD to PRD to amend proffers of ZMA-1991-13 & ZMA-1995-5 & to amend the Application Plan.  TM 32G, P 1; TM 32G, Sec 3, P A; & TM 32G, Sec 3, P 83.  Loc on Seminole Trail (Rt 29) at intersec of Seminole Trail & Austin Dr (Rt 1575).  (The Comp Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density Residential in the Piney Mountain Community.)  Rivanna Dist.  (Advertised in Daily Progress on December 28, 2004 and January 3, 2005). 

 

            Mr. Cilimberg reported that this request would rezone 124 acres from PRD to PRD, amend the proffers of ZMA-1991-13 and ZMA-1995-5, and amend the Application Plan.  Staff has provided a lot of information regarding this request, and noted that there are a number of factors favorable to the request that also reflect the history of the project:  it would provide affordable housing within the designated development areas; the proposed change in unit types would create a better mixture of unit types within Briarwood; the proposed changes in Phase I-A of the Application Plan will create one additional internal interconnection; and the applicant has committed a proffer to construct Briarwood Drive to Route 29 prior to commencing certain phases, assuring a second access to Route 29. 

 

            Mr. Cilimberg said that the applicant’s earliest submitted Application Plan amendment had shown where different unit types and existing development are located.  He stated that in early 2004, the dialogue with staff began, and the applicant submitted the rezoning request in August 2004.  Mr. Cilimberg explained that staff had this initial plan and subsequent staff comments.  But then, the plan went to the Planning Commission without staff having an opportunity to have a full review.  He stated that the Commission requested on December 7th that the applicant defer the matter, but the applicant refused to defer, and the Commission unanimously recommended denial.  Since that meeting, the applicant has submitted a new plan for the rezoning.  This plan was just submitted to staff one week ago. 

 

            Mr. Cilimberg said that Zoning staff raised several issues that needed to be addressed, as did Engineering, who indicated that their comments remained the same.  He emphasized that the essence of the review and the issues are still the same, based on the Planning Commission’s meeting in December.  Mr. Cilimberg said that interconnection was provided from Briarwood to St. Ives Road down to Camelot Drive, and there was also provision for a section to connect to Camelot, giving an opportunity for alternative access.  He added that as the plan is proposed now, the interconnection would not occur from a portion of Briarwood to St. Ives, or from Phase 8 to Camelot, making only two access points for the development. 

 

            Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that VDOT and County Engineering both felt some traffic information needed to be provided that would enable them to evaluate the impact of additional cars at the main intersection, which is currently a lighted intersection.  He added that staff was unclear based on the information provided as to the orientation of buildings on Camelot Drive.  Mr. Cilimberg said that the applicant has indicated verbally that there is screening planned, but there is nothing noted on a plan or in a proffer committing to this.  He indicated that there is an area designated as a Resource Protection Area, adding that the proposed Application Plan did not provide access to the open spaces on the plan, and there is no indication of that.  Mr. Cilimberg added that there is also no commitment to the streetscape. 

 

            Mr. Cilimberg reported that staff feels this plan is not ready for action and staff could not recommend approval at this point.  Mr. Cilimberg stated that today they have received the most recent proffers, but they do not address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission in recommending denial; they do address other matters that have been under discussion for some time.  He concluded that staff recommends deferral until this proposal is in more finalized form. 

 

            Mr. Bowerman asked what had changed in the most recent application.  Mr. Cilimberg replied that the applicant was trying to address what the Planning Commission identified, such as an RPA line. 

 

            Mr. Bowerman asked how many changes there had been in between the previous plan and the most recent one presented.  Mr. Cilimberg indicated that the plan has only been superficially evaluated by staff for just the primary points as the application was only very recently received. 

 

            Ms. Thomas asked if the Executive Summary included was based on the most recent staff comments.  Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that it was based on having the plan in hand at the time. 

 

            Mr. Boyd said he recalled an application and response in April 2004.  Mr. Cilimberg stated that the pre-application conference was held in early 2004, but an actual application was not submitted until August 16th.  He indicated that the applicant was trying to get information from staff during that time. 

 

            Mr. Boyd recollected that there would not be a connection between Camelot Drive and Route 29 based on the zoning approval years ago.  Mr. Cilimberg responded that the connection is not directly to Camelot Drive, but comes to St. Ives instead.  He noted that there is not a traffic analysis of what a change means to the existing two intersections, adding that the interconnection opportunity for splitting traffic is a concern also. 

 

            Mr. Boyd said that this proposal holds a potential for a large tract of affordable housing, and it concerns him that the item is being reviewed a year later “dickering over some very minor issues.”  Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that the information needs to be provided either in the Application Plan or through proffers for the item to move forward.  He presented an example that there is a concern about the relationship of units to Camelot Drive, and there is nothing provided in writing on screening, streetscape, curb and gutter, etc. 

 

            Mr. Bowerman asked what the difference in the configuration of townhouses is in the plans that have been submitted.  Mr. Cilimberg replied that in this case, there are units adjacent to Camelot and access provided to them.  He added that it is less certain exactly how that would be provided, and under the current plan, the proposal indicates 52 lots as opposed to specific townhouses.  Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that the townhouses were not a concern of staff; their relationship to Camelot Drive was something staff was trying to get specified.   

 

            Mr. Bowerman asked if there were any policy issues that could be considered at this meeting to move the plan forward.  Mr. Cilimberg replied that there are no proffers presented, and no traffic information available. 

 

            Mr. Rooker asked when the traffic information was requested.  Mr. Cilimberg replied that it was requested after the submission of the original plan.  He noted that staff was writing the staff report for the Commission, and the new plan came in. 

 

            Mr. Rooker asked about the access to open spaces, and commitment to streetscape.  Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that neither of those issues has been put in the Application Plan or the proffers.  He indicated that there have been five proffers submitted, and Mr. Davis will speak on that.  Mr. Cilimberg indicated that the Board would want to deal with whether they expect sidewalks on both sides of the street, etc.  

 

            Ms. Thomas pointed out that a note on the Application Plan could cover the streetscape issue, as long as the plan was proffered.  Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that this is PRD, and is not subject to the Neighborhood Model District. 

 

            Mr. Rooker said that access to open space could also be designated on the plan.  Mr. Bowerman said that staff comment had changed the plan concept quite a bit.  Mr. Cilimberg replied that once the application was in, staff was dealing with what the report indicates – changes in unit type, etc.  Staff was not trying to push for a neighborhood center.  He added that in early conversations with staff, the applicant was aware of Neighborhood Model type approaches, but staff agreed there was already a pattern of development established in this area.

 

            Mr. Boyd asked if staff felt it would be a worse traffic situation to have traffic come onto Camelot Drive than routing it to the signal.  Mr. Cilimberg responded that it depends on the impact that the traffic has on signal delays there.  It is really a traffic information analysis that the Engineering and VDOT folks do to make sure the signal will adequately accommodate that intersection’s traffic movements. 

 

            Mr. Bowerman asked how long it would take to gather that information.  Mr. Rooker said that he believes it would not take much more than a month.  Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that there has not been a request for a traffic study, which can be a more involved and expensive process.  Mr. Rooker explained that all that is needed is a model done based on the number of units expected, the traffic count in the directions of traffic flow, etc.  Mr. Cilimberg added that it would also include numbers going to the intersection as compared to what would happen under the zoning as it is currently proposed.  In response to Mr. Boyd’s question, he said that there would probably be at least 25 percent affordable housing. 

 

            Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to address the Board. 

 

            Mr. Wendell Wood addressed the Board, and said that he believes it would benefit the development as well as the County as a whole to have a different mix of housing in Briarwood, which is what made him move away from the all-townhouse model.  He explained that when he first approached Bill Fritz, of the County staff, they thought it was a simple straightforward request. However, Mr. Wood said, the proffers made that not be the case.  At that time, he could have developed under the original plan, and genuinely believed the change in housing was positive.  He added that everyone he has met with in the County and the neighborhood has agreed that the changes were beneficial, noting that it is important to have affordable housing.  Mr. Wood stated that they have revised the plans and have submitted 16 sets of plans on six occasions.  He added that they have revised the proffers five times, and the only change has been in the mix of housing.  Mr. Wood said the applicants have done everything that has been asked of them, with one exception. 

 

            Mr. Rooker asked about where the access to the open space was addressed.  He said it seems like these things are simple matters that could be cured relatively easily.  He noted that the access issues also needed to be addressed.  Mr. Wood responded that there was a request to do a traffic study, and VDOT would probably prefer that residents have to go to a traffic light.  He said that they only received a request to do a traffic study in December.

 

            Mr. Rooker asked at what point did the applicant actually submit a plan that showed elimination of the connection.  Mr. Cilimberg said, “November 18th.”  Mr. Rooker noted that the idea is to move the plan forward.  Mr. Wood said that he was asked to do a traffic study, and he recalled the cost to be $30,000 over six months, noting that VDOT is going to say take the traffic to a signalized light.

 

            Mr. Rooker stated that PRDs are zoned for that particular design and layout of the development, and virtually any change requires a rezoning. 

 

            Mr. Davis commented that there are minor changes that can be approved administratively, but changes that are substantially different than what was shown on the plan require it to be amended. 

 

            Mr. Rooker commented that that is the nature of the zoning that the applicant got for this property.  He noted that if he had approached staff at any time with information about changing road connections and lot layouts, staff would have told him it would require rezoning. 

 

            Mr. Wood stated that the proffer that was made is the only thing that triggered the rezoning. 

 

            Mr. Rooker recommended deferral because the proffers could not be changed tonight, and what was handed out today has not been reviewed. 

 

            Mr. Davis stated that the proffers amended since the Planning Commission meeting need to be turned into a form that the County could accept.  At this point there is no analysis as to whether they are sufficient to address the substantive issues.  He added that it would be beneficial to everyone that all the proffers would be put in one new document, because it is a challenge to make a determination about which proffers are included. 

 

            Mr. Boyd said he would like to see the proposal come back in a month for a vote. 

 

            Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff has indicated what needs to be addressed:  comments from Zoning in the report, prior comments from Engineering that have not been addressed, and one Application Plan that is cohesive. 

 

            Mr. Dorrier asked about the proposal being built in phases. Mr. Cilimberg said staff wants to try to get this achieved. 

 

            Mr. Rooker commented that Mr. Wood has expressed his willingness to do these things, and the only thing needed to be done that would require more significant work would be the traffic study, which could be a model instead of a full study. 

 

            Ms. Thomas said that a month ago, what came from the Planning Commission was a recommendation that staff and VDOT were to make the traffic assessment.  She reiterated that the items addressed in the proffers – commitment to curb, gutter, and sidewalks; access to the open space; the Resource Protection Area; the buildings along Camelot Drive; and the issue of the interconnection loss between Briarwood Drive and St. Ives. 

            Mr. Rooker said that the interconnection issue is the issue regarding the traffic information.  Mr. Wood said they would like to remove it because there is a grade differential of almost 40 feet at St. Ives that would require a tremendous amount of excavating near the floodplain to achieve that connection.  He added that the plan was not digitized because of the time it was done, stating that there is a note that says “if there is a conflict, the original plan survives.”  Ms. Thomas stated that that would mean the road connection would survive.  Mr. Wood said that he is requesting that not be made. 

 

            Mr. Rooker said he thinks that the applicant needs some time to get this application in shape, so that it is clear to the Board and to the applicant what is being proffered by way of the Application Plan.  Mr. Rooker said it is not clear to him. 

 

            Mr. Boyd suggested including language that says that one item would not be subject to the first plan taking precedence. 

 

            Mr. Wood said that it would cost too much to combine the two plans digitally.  Mr. Rooker stated that if the applicant could combine the two plans with the notes involved, that would be a big step towards completion.  He added that the traffic information would also need to be reviewed, and asked if staff could determine this over the next few weeks. 

 

            Mr. Cilimberg replied that he cannot speak for the others involved, noting that Planning comments can be done without a lot of effort, but he cannot speak to the traffic distribution study.  He added that he would need to confer with Mr. Graham. 

 

            Mr. Rooker suggested that the item come back to the Board in one month. 

 

            Mr. Dorrier said that Mr. Wood is ready to move forward now. 

 

            Mr. Rooker stated that there is a certain base level of information needed, and hopefully all of that would be ready in 30 days.  He added that the item could be brought back in three weeks for the afternoon meeting. 

 

            Ms. Thomas noted that she has been against neighborhoods without connectivity, and she indicated that she could interpret how the traffic would flow.  Mr. Rooker stated that there are no numbers provided to back up the traffic information. 

 

            Mr. Wyant said that this is going to be a tremendous cut that will cause a lot of exposed slope, creating a drainage concern.  He said that VDOT is going to look at Camelot as an entrance onto Route 29, and there is not a lot of site distance for a left turn.  Mr. Wyant stated that he believes that on the Engineering side, usually data is provided to staff and VDOT for their review. 

 

            Mr. Boyd stated that he is not as concerned with interconnectivity.  Mr. Rooker agreed, saying that unless the traffic report showed there were problems with forcing everyone to the signalized intersection. 

 

            Mr. Wyant asked when Mr. Wood needs to have his submittal in to get reviews in.  Mr. Cilimberg responded that it would need to be soon, as there is no way to know when VDOT would comment.  Mr. Wood said that he could get everything to staff soon. 

 

            Ms. Thomas emphasized that the needed information is the six things that the applicant was told on December 10th.” 

 

            Mr. Wood said he could provide everything except VDOT information. 

 

            Mr. Rooker suggested providing everything possible, and noted that the new VDOT Resident Engineer might be able to come to the meeting. 

 

            Mr. Wood stated that there is no opposition to the proposal.  

 

            Mr. Cilimberg informed Mr. Wood that it would be best if he spoke to Mark Graham, and staff could let Mr. Wood know by Tuesday of the following week County Engineering’s position. 

 

            Mr. Rooker then opened the public hearing.   

 

            Mr. Eric Christiansen addressed the Board.  He used to commute in that area, and mentioned that the north entrance to this is adjacent to GE Fanuc.  He emphasized that whatever traffic plan is considered needs to take that the GE traffic into consideration.  He commented that there are too many stoplights on that stretch, and anything done to reduce the number would be appreciated. 

 

            At this time, it was the consensus of the Board to continue the public hearing until their February 2, 2005 meeting. 

 

            Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the expectations for the points raised by the Planning Commission:  (1) get everything on one plan; (2) address any traffic impacts that would change, based on Engineering and VDOT analysis; (3) clarification of orientation of buildings on Camelot Drive, especially those that would rear-face that road; (4) the Resource Protection Area; (5) the open space area access; (6) streetscape – sidewalks would need to meet VDOT standards. 

 

             Mr. Boyd stated that sidewalks should be kept consistent with what is already there.  Board members agreed that they would be consistent with the existing streetscape, providing they meet VDOT requirements. 

 

            Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that Attachment B covers items that need to be addressed by Zoning. 

 

            Ms. Thomas commented that those things have been addressed.

 

            Mr. Wood noted that the sideyard setback of 30 feet was also an issue.  Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff is supportive of it being reduced, and language would need to be included to address that.

 

            Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Wyant, to defer ZMA-2004-0013 to February 2, 2005. 

 

Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: 

 

AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.

NAYS:  None

 

Go to next attachment
Return to July 12 executive summary