COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND:

The applicant submitted a rezoning application in May 2005 which went to the Planning Commission for a work session January 17, 2006 and for a public hearing February 21, 2006. (Exhibit F) The proposal has been revised several times since May to address concerns and comments raised by staff, the Planning Commission, and public comment.  At the January public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning based on staff recommendations. The Commission also reviewed and took action on waivers requested by the applicant for critical slope disturbance, on-street parking, and sidewalk and planting strip requirements. The Planning Commission approved the on-street parking request and a waiver of sidewalk and planting strip requirements for certain portions of the street along Radford Lane. The Planning Commission did not approve the critical slopes waiver and a waiver of sidewalk and planting strip requirements for the south side of Road B behind Clover Lawn. The revised plan submitted by the applicant since the Planning Commission public hearing eliminates critical slope disturbance and now includes a sidewalk and planting strip for Road B.

DISCUSSION/FINDINGS:

Staff did not recommend approval to the Planning Commission on February 21, 2006 because the plan before the Commission had not adequately resolved the issue of critical slope disturbance and adequate erosion and sediment control measures to stabilize disturbed slopes. These critical slopes are identified as important resources on the Open Space Plan and Crozet Master Plan Green Infrastructure map. The Planning Commission concurred with staff’s recommendation based on the same findings. The applicant has addressed this through revisions to the plan that eliminate critical slope disturbance by removing a road connection and reducing the residential units adjacent to the slopes.

Other areas of concern noted by some Commissioners and members of the public were the proposed residential densities of the project, mixture of uses and conformity with the Crozet Master Plan. Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant revised the general development plan, proffers, and code of development (Exhibits A, B, C) to respond to some of these comments made from the Commission and the public. Major changes include reducing the amount of office space from 13,500 square feet to 8,500 square feet; proposing 5 additional residential units over the office building; reducing the number of residential units in the CT 3 areas of the site and proposing fewer town house units; correcting parking lot and street section dimensions; adding architectural elevations to the Code of Development for the town house units and the office building; and proffering to dedicate a portion of trails proposed within the project for Greenway connections. Regarding the architectural elevations, the Architectural Review Board will need to review and provide final approval of the architecture for the mixed use building as it is visible from the Entrance Corridor. This review will be done at the site plan stage.  The elevations provided should not be construed as final approval.

The table below compares the revised number of residential units by Crozet Transect (CT) type to the recommended densities of the Crozet Master Plan. The applicant did not reduce the total number of units proposed for the project but revised the total units for each CT type.

Staff notes that density is not the only criteria for approval of rezonings in Crozet. As was the case before the adoption of the Crozet Master Plan, form is as important as density in determining the appropriateness of approving a rezoning. The Crozet Master Plan includes a “Master Matrix” table that offers guidelines to consider when evaluating the form of developments, including spatial enclosure, lot coverage, and building height. (Exhibit D) The Master Plan also includes a second table with suggested land uses by CT type in Crozet. (Exhibit E) In response to concerns, the applicant’s revisions provide for lot coverage, building height, and mixture of uses that are consistent with the guidelines of the Master Plan.

Some members of the public who spoke have raised concerns about the rate at which Crozet is growing. Staff provided the table below to the Commission and public after their request for a “status report” on approved developments and developments under review in Crozet. From this table, if Old Trail is built out to its maximum approved units, and all rezonings under review are approved and built out to their maximum approved units, in addition to the by-right development, the number of dwelling units would result in a population that would likely exceed 12,000 (2.4 persons per unit x number of dwelling units). However, the table does not attempt to project the rate at which growth will occur, nor can it predict whether the approved developments will build out to their maximum allowed development potential.

RECOMMENDATION:

All revisions have been reviewed and appear to address the majority of concerns with the proposal that resulted in a recommendation for denial from staff and the Planning Commission. Therefore, staff recommends approval of ZMA 05-05 of 8.01 acres from R1 Residential to NMD Neighborhood Model District with the revised proffers, code of development, and plan.

EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A: Liberty Hall signed Proffers

Exhibit B: Liberty Hall Code of Development, February 22, 2006 (on file in the Clerk's office)

Exhibit C: Liberty Hall General Development Plan, February 22, 2006

    Exhibit D: Crozet Master Plan Table 1: “Master Matrix” Crozet Place Type and Design Guidelines

Exhibit E: Crozet Master Plan Table 2: Crozet Land Use and Place Types

    Exhibit F: Planning Commission Action Letter of March 3, 2006
                    Planning Commission minutes of February 21, 2006
                    Planning Commission Liberty Hall Executive Summary and Public Hearing report, dated February 21, 2006
                    Planning Commission Liberty Hall Work Session report, January 17, 2006
                    Work Session minutes of January 17, 2006