April 2, 2007

 

 

Frank D. Cox, Jr

The Cox Company

220 East High Street

Charlottesville, VA 22902

 

 

RE:      ZMA 2001-00008, Rivanna Village at Glenmore (Signs #16,17,19,20,21)

            Tax Map 93A1, Parcel 1 (portion) and Tax Map 93A1-1 (portion); Tax Map 93A1, Parcels 2, 3 & 4; Tax Map 80, Parcel 46, 46A, 46C, 46D, 46E, 50,and 55A; and Tax Map 79 parcel 25A.

 

 

Dear Mr. Cox:

 

The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 13, 2007, conducted a public hearing on the above-noted rezoning application.

 

During the meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the following items and provided advice to the applicant to use in making changes to the plan, the code, and the proffers:

 

1.       The General Development Plan shown at the meeting adequately illustrates the “fixed” and “optional” items.  The plan which has been titled, “ZMA Master Plan” is acceptable as an illustration of the General Development Plan.

2.       Where the boundaries of the development abut single family residential lots, the developer should retain the existing mature trees to the greatest extent possible.  Where existing trees cannot be maintained and accomplish the proposed plan, replanting is necessary to establish a buffer between the surrounding properties and the development.

3.       The “landscape area” along Route 250 East may be diminished to 20 feet if the r.o.w. is ever needed for widening of that road.  Detached single-family residential should not be placed in Block L in the areas that are visible from the Entrance Corridor and under the jurisdiction of the ARB.

4.       The 100’ landscape area along Route 250 actually will be less than 100’ because of the need to measure the landscape area from the edge of the r.o.w. and not from the pavement.

5.       Rather than extend the time period to find a qualified purchaser for an affordable unit, it is acceptable to proffer to pay $16,500 in cash in lieu of an affordable unit if, at the site plan stage, the Housing Director says that the cash is preferred rather than the unit.  This would be in addition to units for which cash-in-lieu of units has already been proffered.

6.       Accessory-type units should be limited to 30% of the maximum units provided.

7.       Structured parking is an acceptable use in the development if restrictions are also provided that will protect residential units across the street.  These restrictions/conditions need to ensure that the structured parking doesn’t have negative impacts on other residential uses also.

8.       The VDOT comments reflect concerns of VDOT.  The Board of Supervisors will need to deal with whether cash proffers are sufficient to mitigate off-site impacts, including traffic impacts.  The Commission did not advise the applicant that the cash proffers were insufficient.

9.       The proffers and the Code relating to the park are sufficient to address earlier concerns of the Commission.

10.   Proffers relating to the need for future easements from the Fire Department and County for stormwater management, street and sidewalk construction are acceptable.

11.   Transit needs to be addressed.

 

 

Regarding the Private Street Waiver request:

 

The Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny the waiver as to the street for Steamer Way and Entrance Corridor from Route 250 and to grant the waiver as to the other streets with the following conditions:

 

  1. That easements be granted to assure public right-of-way;
  2. Provisions for maintenance be made as part of the Code of Development or in reference to another existing portion of the Code that would be enforceable; and
  3. The private streets are permitted only if staff is unable to obtain VDOT approval of the street cross-sections shown on the plans submitted with this application within a reasonable period that allows for the project to proceed in a timely manner. 

 

 

Regarding All Other Waivers and Modifications requests:

 

The Planning Commission unanimously voted to grant all other requested waivers and modifications, subject to the conditions as recommended by staff with these additions/exceptions. 

 

  1. Waiver to sidewalk requirement in Block C – The owner may substitute an asphalt path as shown on General Development Plan rather than provide sidewalk on the southern side of the private street.

 

 

Regarding ZMA-2001-00008, Rivanna Village at Glenmore:

The Planning Commission recommended approval of ZMA-2001-008 Rivanna Village at Glenmore to the Board of Supervisors by a vote of 5:1.

 

View staff report and attachments

View PC minutes of July 18, August 29 and December 12, 2006 and March 13, 2007

Return to exec summary

 

Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on June 13, 2007. It is the Board of Supervisor’s preference that a public hearing not be advertised until all of the final materials for a zoning application have been received by the County and are available for public review.  To achieve this preference, please submit final plans, final codes of development, final proffers, and any other documents deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development, to our office no later than May 21, 2007. Please review the attached submission of materials policy established by the Board of Supervisors on December 7, 2005.

 

If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Elaine K. Echols

Principal Planner for the Development Areas

Planning Division