Albemarle County Planning Commission

March 28, 2006

 

The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Eric Strucko, Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman, Pete Craddock, Jo Higgins, Jon Cannon and Marcia Joseph, Chairman.  Bill Edgerton was absent. Julia Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia, representative for David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia, was absent. 

 

Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Development Review Manager; Sean Dougherty, Senior Planner; Jay Schlothauer, Director of Inspections/Building Official; John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration; David Pennock, Principal Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Glenn Brooks, Senior Engineer and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.

 

 

            Work Sessions:

 

ZMA-2002-004 Cascadia (Signs #30, 91)

PROPOSAL:  Rezone 55.71 acres from RA (Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) to NMD (Neighborhood Model District - residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses); and rezone 5.06 acres from R-6 (Residential: 6 units/acre) to NMD to allow for up to 330 dwelling units and 20,000 square feet of non residential in a planned district.

PROFFERS:  Yes

EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:  Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses.

ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes

LOCATION: Tax Map 62, Parcel 25, Tax Map 78, Parcels 59 and 59A, and Tax Map 78E, Parcel H1 located along Route 20 North, across from Darden Towe Park, north of Fontana Drive and south of Broadus Memorial Baptist Church.

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna

STAFF:  Sean Dougherty

 

Mr. Dougherty summarized the staff report. 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Barnes and Don Franco were present to represent the applicant.

 

Michael Barnes stated that last time they took the comments and felt that the Planning Commission needed a little more guidance on how some of the decisions were made to arrive at this point so they could have some context to better understand the project.  Then they could move forward with some of the other more technical issues that they were trying to address last time.  Basically what they are trying to work on a here is context for a policy at the neighborhood level and the discussions will focus on that.  Then they will get into a site design level to talk about the constraints that sort of created the envelope within which they developed.  Finally, they will talk about some of the grading issues and how the twelve principles go.  He felt that they were pretty strong on all twelve principles, but there were some concerns last time on working with the terrain.  That will be the focus of this discussion.  He presented a power point presentation. 

 

 

Ms. Joseph stated that Mr. Dougherty has written down some questions in his memo that the Commission will review and provide guidance on.  (See Attachment Ė Memo dated March 28, 2006 to the Planning Commission from Sean Dougherty.) 

 

In summary, the Planning Commission held a discussion with staff and the applicant and provided feedback on the rezoning proposal and preliminary discussion topics as follows:

 

1.   Does the design adequately reflect the principles of the Neighborhood Model?

 

The Planning Commission generally felt that the design adequately reflects the principles of the Neighborhood Model, but the waivers need to be revised to support it. Discussion was held on providing public streets versus private streets. 

 

2.   Is the density appropriate?

 

The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the density was appropriate.  Also, they felt that the distribution of the density was appropriate.

 

3.   What is the appropriate solution for the proposed interconnection to Fontana?

 

The consensus of the Planning Commission was that they would like to see the road stubbed out to provide some sort of connection for emergency and pedestrian access to Fontana at the back of the site.  Currently, the Commission could not support the actual road connection because of the road conditions in Fontana. 

 

The Commission stated that the road should be built to the extent possible. A complete stub out to the property line will not be possible until the adjacent property is rezoned or necessary grading easements are obtained. The applicant clarified that the adjacent owner is opposed to the connection and is opposed to providing the necessary easements. Therefore, the portion of the connection that is not possible to build without off-site easements will be bonded for future completion.

The Commission discussed how the connection through Cascadia may provide an alternative to Fontana Drive, which may provide access to Lake Ridge, a proposed by-right subdivision to include roughly 100 units. Though the Cascadia connection may serve as an alternate route in the future, the Commission agreed that the current concerns on behalf of Fontana residents relative to the rural cross section of existing roads in the Fontana subdivision outweighed the notion that this connection should be made now.

 

4.   Are connections to Broadus Memorial Church / reengagement of the church in the rezoning critical to the overall quality of this rezoning decision?

 

The applicant indicated that they are working towards an agreement to incorporate the church into the plan.  The Planning Commission generally agreed that this was not critical to the overall rezoning decision, but that it was something that would have to be worked out between the applicant and the church.

 

 

5.  Do the proffers mitigate the impacts of 330 dwelling units on Route 20 and the Route 20 / 250 intersections?

 

The Planning Commission concurred that they donít know what to base their decision on because the County does not have a policy on cash proffers.  There was some discussion on what they need to take into consideration in making this determination for this specific site.  Since there was no consensus, the Planning Commission asked staff to work on this issue and bring it back for further discussion.

 

6.  Is the applicantís program (15 for sale / 28 for-rent accessory units attached to a primary structure) for affordable housing adequate? 

 

The Planning Commission requested the applicant to increase the number of affordable units to meet the 15 percent threshold. The Planning Commission was concerned about the applicantís proposal and asked the applicant to work with Ron White. Greg Kamptner was asked to review and provide comments about rental affordable housing as described on page 25. 

 

7.  What is an appropriate treatment of the edge of the Rural Areas?

 

The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the proposal showed an appropriate treatment of the edge of Rural Areas.  

 

 

            Old Business:

 

Ms. Joseph asked if there was any old business.  There being none, the meeting moved on to the next item.

 

            New Business:

           

Ms. Joseph asked if there was any new business. 

 

The Planning Commission will not meet on Tuesday, April 4, 2006.  The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 11, 2006.

 

There being no further new business, the meeting proceeded.

 

Adjournment:

 

With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m. to the April 11, 2006 meeting.

 

Go to next attachment

Return to staff report