Project Name:  ZMA 01-08 Rivanna Village at Glenmore, with requests for waivers and modifications

Staff:  Elaine K. Echols, AICP

Planning Commission Public Hearing:

March 13, 2007

Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:

April 11, 2007

Owners:  Glenmore Associates Limited Partnership, East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department and County of Albemarle

Applicant: KG Associates with the Cox Company as Consulting Engineer

Acreage: 92.71 acres

Rezone from: Glenmore PRD (Planned Residential Development) and RA (Rural Areas) to NMD Neighborhood Model District

TMP:   4.583 acre portion of Tax Map 93A1, Parcel 1 and a 0.741 acre portion of Tax Map 93A1-1 zoned Glenmore PRD; Tax Map 93A1, Parcels 2, 3 & 4; Tax Map 80, Parcel 46, 46A, 46C, 46D, 46E, 50,and 55A all zoned RA Rural Areas; and Tax Map parcel 25A R-6 with proffers.

Location: Approximately 600 feet east of the end of Park Road (SR 1204) – See Attachments A and B

By-right use:  Theoretically 24 development rights on RA zoned property and 24 units on R-6 property for a total of 48 theoretical units.

Magisterial District:  Rivanna

Proffers:     Yes

Proposal:  Mixed residential and commercial development with fire station, religious institution, and community center with no >125,000 sq. feet of commercial

Requested # of Dwelling Units:  Up to 521 units

DA (Development Area)Village of Rivanna


Comp. Plan Designation:  Community Service and Neighborhood Density Residential

Character of Property:  Undeveloped, rolling pastureland, and wooded.

Use of Surrounding Properties:  Low-density rural residential to north, south, and east, small retail shop and lodge across Rt. 250 East, Glenmore residential development to west and south.

Factors Favorable:

  1. The proposal is in substantial conformity with the Land Use Plan recommendations for the Village of Rivanna and in full conformity with the Neighborhood Model.
  2. Cash proffers to deal with off-site impacts are similar to other recently approved rezonings.
  3. A fully developed public park is offered to the County to deal with park needs.
  4. The proposal provides acceptable affordable housing proffers.

Factors Unfavorable:

  1. Staff cannot support blanket approval for private streets at this time because of the need for public street interconnections to adjoining parcels and public street access to the park and fire station.
  2. There are too many outstanding issues in need of resolution which are related to fixed vs. optional elements on the plan, a buffer on Rt. 250 East and on Glenmore Way, architectural standards and Monticello, landscape standards including the perimeter of the development, use of retaining walls, questions about uses, stormwater management and design, proffers for Rt. 250 East, and details in the Code of Development.

RECOMMENDATION:  Staff cannot recommend approval until the outstanding issues are resolved.


STAFF PERSON:                                                           ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP

PLANNING COMMISSION:                                            MARCH 13, 2007

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:                                          APRIL 11, 2007



Request for approval of various waivers and modifications 



PROJECT: ZMA 01-08 Rivanna Village at Glenmore

PROPOSAL:  Rezone approx. 93 acres from RA -- Rural Areas which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses and PRD Planned Residential District which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to NMD Neighborhood Model District  which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses.  A maximum of 521 dwellings is proposed with an overall gross density of 5.6 units/acre.


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 and Community Service - community-scale retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment services,  and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in the Village of Rivanna Development Area.


LOCATION: Intersection of Glenmore Way and Route 250 East

TAX MAP/PARCEL: a 4.583 acre portion of Tax Map 93A1, Parcel 1 and a 0.741 acre portion of Tax Map 93A1-1 zoned Glenmore PRD; Tax Map 93A1, Parcels 2, 3 & 4; Tax Map 80, Parcel 46, 46A, 46C, 46D, 46E, 50, and 55A all zoned RA Rural Areas; and Tax Map 79 parcel 25A also zoned R-6 with proffered plan.




The surrounding properties consist of rural residential, small rural commercial businesses across Route 250 from the proposed development, pastureland, and the Glenmore development.



KG Associates has requested a rezoning of approximately 93 acres in the Village of Rivanna to create a mixed-use village center.  The request includes 14 parcels.  A portion of one of these parcels (5 acres) is part of the Glenmore Planned Residential Development (PRD).  One of the four parcels is jointly owned by the County and the East Rivanna Fire Department.  Another of the parcels was rezoned in 1997 for 24 units.  The land requested for rezoning is entirely within the Development Area of the Village of Rivanna. 


Attachment A is the ZMA Master Plan that is also the General Development Plan required for a Neighborhood Model District.  Attachment B contains the proffers. Attachment C is the action letter describing the review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB. The Code of Development dated February 5, 2007 accompanies this rezoning but is not attached because of its size.  A copy is provided in the packet for review by the Commission and Board of Supervisors.



The applicant has requested the rezoning to accomplish the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for a mixed-use development in the Village of Rivanna.



In 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved the Glenmore Planned Residential Development (ZMA90-19) Between 1990 and 2000, there were several additions to the Glenmore Development.  ZMA 93-19, ZMA 96-28, ZMA 97-08, and ZMA 99-16 added approximately 64 acres to the development and increased the number of units from 750 to 813.  In 1995, the Board of Supervisors amended the setback requirements in the development with ZMA 94-26.  This zoning history affects only TMP 93A1-1.


TMP’s 93A1-2, 3, and 4 were not part of the Glenmore rezoning; however, proffers for Glenmore affected these three parcels.  TMP 93A1-2 is the parcel jointly owned by the County and the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, which was proffered for a fire station and other public uses.  TMP's 93A1 – 3 and 4 contain area for which a 27-acre school site or other public use was proffered during the Glenmore rezoning and retained throughout all of the subsequent Glenmore zonings.


TMP 79-25A was rezoned in 1997 from RA to R-6 with proffered plan for 24 attached units.

TMP 80-46 was issued a special use permit in 1985 (SP 1985-059); staff is still researching this SP.


This rezoning was initially submitted on April 23, 2001 in combination with a request for a comprehensive plan amendment and a zoning text amendment.  The Planning Commission advised the applicant that the rezoning should be deferred until a comprehensive plan amendment (CPA) was reviewed and acted on by the Board.  The Commission agreed to process the CPA and the zoning text amendment (ZTA) concurrently.  The ZTA ultimately became the Neighborhood Model zoning district which was approved in March of 2003.


The Commission reviewed and discussed the proposed CPA at six meetings between May 2001 and March 2002.  The Commission recommended approval of the CPA on March 26, 2002.  The Board of Supervisors reviewed and discussed the CPA on April 3, 2002 and May 15, 2002 at which time they adopted the amendment.   A copy of the adopted CPA is included as Attachment E.  Attachment F contains the approved plan that was part of the CPA.  Attachment G contains information that is referenced in the CPA.



Five worksessions have been held on this rezoning since July 2005.  They were held on July 12, 2005, September 27, 2005, July 18, 2006, August 29, 2006, and December 12, 2006.  At the August 29, 2006 worksession, the Commission discussed a modified park design, overall density, affordable housing, and the relationship to Livengood property.  The Commission answered these questions:


Should the Rivanna Village at Glenmore development be modified to allow for interconnections and a relationship to the Livengood property?

Rivanna Village design does not need to be modified for any future connections to the Livengood property.   Connections shown on the Rivanna Village Plan provide the interconnection opportunities needed for the future. 


Does the new design sufficiently address the Planning Commission’s request for the park to have natural areas and potentially retain the quarry?



Is a minimum density essential? If so, is 4 dwellings per acre an acceptable density?  While the Commission did not conclude that a minimum density was essential, they did discuss the problems related to keeping track of minimum density.  The Commission said that 4 dwelling units per acre gross is acceptable; how that density is tracked was not important to the Commission.


If the minimum density in a block is exceeded, can the minimum density in a different block be decreased by a like amount?

The Commission agreed that they were concerned about the gross dwellings per acre and that modifications such as these were fine.


Can the minimum density be based on the total area minus the assisted living facility?

The Commission answered affirmatively.


Is the affordable housing proposal appropriate for Rivanna Village at Glenmore?

The Commission said that the proposal for affordable housing in substance is acceptable.



Page 14 of the Code of Development, the ZMA Master Plan shows the proposed layout of the development and Page 17 of the Code of Development shows the Regulating Block Plan.  The Regulating Block Plan identifies the different blocks in the development which are described on pages 18 – 22.  Table 4 on page 27 of the Code of Development gives many of the important details of the development.  A minimum of 348 units and a maximum of 521 units are proposed.  A minimum of 94,501 square feet and maximum of 172,001 square feet of non-residential use, including the fire station of 23,001 square feet, are proposed. 


The specific blocks are described as follows:


Block A – Is expected to have a church (religious facility), community center or “inn”. 

Blocks B, H, and K – Are expected to have only single family detached units and associated uses.  These blocks are adjacent to existing single-family residential areas. 

Block C – Contains the “White Gable” product which is a multi-story multi-family complex of condominiums.

Blocks D & L – Are residential blocks which allows for all residential unit types, but no other types of uses.

Blocks G & J – Are “mixed use” blocks which allow for all residential unit types, assisted living, clubs & lodges, a community center, eating establishments, and swim, golf, tennis and swimming facilities.  The use of these blocks is expected to be primarily residential with a small mixture of the other allowable uses.  If provided, the assisted living facility would go into Block G.

Block E – Block E is the true “mixed use” commercial area.  Up to 125,000 square feet is allowed with a variety of uses.  All residential use types are allowed in Block E as well.

Block F – Contains the existing fire station. 

Block I – Contains the community park. 


The “fixed” elements are proposed as:


  1. The street system and blocks
  2. The location of the park
  3. The location of a religious or civic use in Block A
  4. The “White Gables” product and form in Block C
  5. The fire station location in Block F
  6. The mixed-use commercial center of Block E
  7. The single-family detached product in Block B, Block H, and Block K
  8. The “buffer” area on Glenmore Way and Route 250 East


The elements that may be different than shown on the “ZMA Master Plan” are


  1. The location of townhouses, apartments and attached housing, shown in Blocks D, E, G, J, and L. 
  2. The location of the recreational “club” for residents of the development, currently shown in Block J.  Blocks A, E, G, H, I, or J could have the recreational center. (This issue is discussed later in the report.)
  3. The location of an assisted living facility which is not shown on the plan.  It could be in Blocks G only.
  4. The exact mixture of residential and non-residential uses in Block E.


Staff notes that some of these locations have changed between the last staff report and this report.  Concerns are noted at the end of this report.  Also, a discussion on the distinctions between the ZMA Master Plan and the Code of Development is discussed later in the report.




Comprehensive Plan Recommendation

Rivanna Village at Glenmore Application Plan, Code, and Proffers



Environmental and Historic Protection


  • Preserve as open space the extensive floodplain and critical slopes along the Rivanna River, Carroll Creek and other streams. Provide a greenway along the Rivanna River. Protect the unique scenic and historic characteristics of the river with the development of the Village.


Rivanna Village at Glenmore is located over a mile away, to the north of the Rivanna River.  It is located approximately ¾ miles from Carroll Creek.  Neither of these resources is expected to be visually or physically affected by the development.  Proposed stormwater management is not expected to adversely impact Carroll Creek. 


Within approximately one mile radius of the subject parcel are approximately 22 resources considered to be historic according to the Department of Historic Resources. There is no additional adverse impact expected as a result of this proposed rezoning due to previous development and/or geographic locations of the resources.


To the west of the project area is the Glenmore Manor House, built c. 1795, and identified as potentially eligible for listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places.  The applicant has proposed a 100 foot buffer along Glenmore Way to help to mitigate any adverse visual impacts between the historic structure and proposed development.

  • Areas north of Interstate 64 have historic/ scenic significance to the County and region (including possible designation as a Rural Historic District and have large acreage in an Agricultural/Forestal District). To preserve and protect these resources, do not expand the Village boundaries north of U. S. Route 250 East, west of Route 22, nor south of the Rivanna River.


The rezoning does not seek to expand the Village boundaries.  The proposed development is located entirely within the development area.



  • Maintain capacity for anticipated development, public facilities, and public services.

ACSA indicates that water supply is adequate for Rivanna Village.  The applicant will need to expand the sewage treatment facility which they constructed for Glenmore in order to have sewage capacity.  The applicant knows they are obligated to provide the expansion to the treatment plant.

Public Facilities


  • Locate public facilities such as a school, library, police substation, or playing field, when needed in the Village in the Community Service Area.

Albemarle County Schools Division does not see the need for a new school in the eastern part of the County for the foreseeable future.  At present, there is no library in the CIP proposed specifically for the Village of Rivanna.  A library to serve the eastern part of the County has been suggested for the Pantops area as part of the master planning process for Pantops.


If and when needed, a police substation can be accommodated in the existing fire station or on the remaining 3 acres of land owned by the County and the fire company.  At present a police satellite area for convenience exists at the fire station.  A public park is proposed at the eastern end of the development.  It would contain the features described on page 35 of the Code of Development.



  • Provide interconnections between existing development and areas to be developed in the Village of Rivanna.

Four proposed interconnections to undeveloped parcels will allow the development to be connected with the rest of the Village of Rivanna.

  • Provide several points of access from Route 250 East into the Village that help to create an internal road network for the Village so that properties that front Route 250 may have access to Route 250 through the internal road network.


There is one entrance from Route 250 into the site and the other entrance is from Glenmore Way near Route 250 East.  Four interconnections are proposed to adjoining parcels and three connections to Glenmore Way are proposed. 

  • Provide for pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the Village.


Pedestrian access is proposed through use of sidewalks throughout the development.  Separate bicycle lanes are not proposed within the development.

  • Upgrade Route 250 East to improve traffic safety and circulation in the area.  Many of the necessary improvements are described in the Route 250 East Corridor Study. Improvements should:


  • Provide the minimum level of improvement necessary to support anticipated development along Route 250 East from the eastern city limits to the County line.


The Board of Supervisors has not yet endorsed or approved the Route 250 East Corridor Study and its recommendations for widening Route 250 to four lanes in some areas and six lanes in other areas.  No widening of Route 250 is expected with this rezoning; however, the applicant includes cash proffers to be applied towards County capital improvements, including mitigation of traffic impacts.  Information on impacts to Route 250 East is provided later in this report.

  • Be designed to minimize the visual impact adjacent to historic properties and sites including Monticello and the Southwest Mountain Historic District.


The applicant has provided a detailed Code of Development including architectural and landscape standards.  Architectural standards and the relationship to Monticello are discussed later in this report.

  • Provide a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 250 East and Glenmore Way when warrants are met.

The Glenmore rezoning included proffers for a traffic signal at this location when warrants are met.  VDOT will advise the owner of Glenmore when to install the signal.

  • Be provided by both the public sector and private sector to ensure that existing traffic needs are met as well as future traffic needs generated by proposed developments are met.


If accepted, proffers from the applicant for the rezoning will contain cash to be added to any public monies for future capital improvements. 

  • Be streetscaped in strategic locations to improve the character of the corridor, especially at or near the I-64 interchange and along the commercial strip of development between I-64 and the railroad crossing.

No streetscaping is proposed along Route 250 with this project.  A 100-foot wide landscape area is proffered across the frontage of the property.  The landscape area may be reduced if additional lanes are added to Route 250 East.  The applicant would like to address specific landscape issues during the site plan process.   This issue is discussed later in the report.

  • Have landscaped medians where median strips are necessary.


Until a plan for Route 250 East is approved, it will not be known whether medians in this section of the road are appropriate.

  • Minimize lighting at intersections and be installed to meet the County lighting ordinance for down-shielded lights

This goal is also contingent on adoption of a plan for Route 250 East.

  • Provide bicycle facilities and, where appropriate, walkways in conjunction with these upgrades.

This goal is also contingent on adoption of a plan for Route 250 East.

  • Provide mass transit, where feasible, to the Village of Rivanna.

At present, mass transit is not available to the Village of Rivanna nor is it expected to be needed for the foreseeable future.  The applicant has indicated that the development is “transit ready” because of the grid street system.  This issue is discussed later in the report.

Areas Shown as Community Service


  • Are intended to be developed as a compact, higher density residential area with a mixture of retail businesses, services, public facilities, and civic spaces.

The area shown for commercial use in a “Main Street” has a more eastward orientation than the design referenced in the Land Use Plan.  The change in orientation was a result of community input and represents more of a “shifting” than a significant redesign from the CPA approved plan. 

  • May have residential density of up to 6 dwellings per gross acre in addition to the non-residential uses. This density can be increased if the non-residential square footage decreases.

Minimum density is proposed at a range of 4 units per acre and maximum density is proposed at 6 dwelling units.  If an assisted living facility is provided, it does not count towards the minimum density or against the maximum density.  There are several properties which are shown as neighborhood density residential (3- 6 unit/acre) on the Land Use Plan which may have a higher density on a parcel basis than the Land Use Plan recommends.  When asked if this situation was problematic, the Planning Commission said that it was not because, overall, the development would not exceed 6 dwellings per acre.

Areas designated as Community Service should contain:


  • A grid street system of interconnected roadways which are neo-traditional as characterized by narrow widths, on-street parking, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street trees.

The proposed development contains a grid street system with the characteristics described to the left. 

  • Street connections to both Glenmore Way and Route 250 East.

This goal is met in the development proposal.

  • A variety of housing types

Housing proposed includes single-family detached, single-family attached, townhouses, and apartments. 

  • Housing that provides opportunities for all age groups, including senior housing and housing for all socioeconomic levels to live in the Village of Rivanna.  


Senior housing in the form of assisted living is included as a by-right use in the development.  Proffers are made for affordable housing which meet the County’s policy.  The Code of Development provides the specifics.

  • Non-residential uses, mostly in small commercial, office, retail and restaurant/inn uses.  Total commercial, office, retail, and service square footage should not exceed 240,000 square feet for the Village. Automobile repair and self-storage areas are not considered to be appropriate uses to this Community Service area.


The development proposal shows a minimum of 94,501 square feet on non-residential use excluding the fire station. Maximum square footage of non-residential square footage is 125,000 exclusive of the park and fire station.  This square footage does include a religious facility and community center for residents.  Auto repair and self-storage are not included as uses in the Code of Development. 

  • Commercial uses interior to the Village rather than “highway oriented” uses along Route 250.


The internal orientation of the development, the location of residential uses and the provision of a wide landscape area along Route 250 East, suggest that this goal is met. 

  • Mass, scale, and architectural detailing of buildings that provide for a “human scale” development that supports pedestrians.


Table 8 of the Code of Development indicates a maximum of 4 stories in the commercial core of the development, mostly 2.5 stories where the property abuts existing single-family detached residential development, and up to 3 stories everywhere else.  Build-to lines are provided to help provide the appropriate spatial enclosure that sets up a human-scale.  Details on Architecture in the Code of Development are in need of refinement.  Architecture and setbacks are discussed later in this report.

  • A well-integrated pedestrian system, including sidewalks and paths.


A pedestrian system provided along every street in the development and paths are provided in the park.  Details of the location of paths are provided later in this report.

  • A fire station located either on Route 250 or interior to the Village.


The location of the existing fire station is not proposed to change with this development.

  • Other civic buildings including schools, churches, community centers and public offices located within the Village.


Religious institutions, community centers, public offices, and schools are all permitted uses in the Code of Development.

  • A variety of park and recreational amenities including open space appropriate to the residential needs of the Village.


A park with amenities is provided as part of the development.  Other green space is provided throughout the development.  The specific locations and quantities will be discussed in a later staff report.  Overall, 48.8% of the area is in green space and 26.6% of the site is dedicated to amenities.

  • In addition to density of 6 dwellings per acre and 240,000 square feet of nonresidential space, the area may have nursing homes and assisted living facilities.


Assisted living facilities are listed as a by-right use in several blocks in the Code of Development.

  • Are to be designed and developed in general accord with the design for the Rivanna Village at Glenmore prepared by the Cox Company on March 6, 2001 2/26/02 and pages 4 – 7 and 17 – 19 of the Application for Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map Amendment dated March 6, 2001 with the following exceptions.  No commercial uses are to take place on the property adjacent to the most eastern entrance from Route 250 East.  The large vacant area shown with trees at the corner of Route 250 East and Glenmore Way should be available for development with internal access but no direct access from Route 250 East or Glenmore Way.  No retail use of this area is allowed.


As discussed by the Planning Commission at several worksessions, a lake is no longer a feature of the development.  The “commons” has also been removed as a feature of the plan.  The need for the commons has diminished as a result of the addition of the park which is easily accessible to almost all residences.  The 18 acre public park along with the Main Street area is the focal point of the development.  Residential uses are proposed on the property adjacent to the eastern entrance from Route 250 East.  The large vacant area shown with trees at the corner of Route 250 East and Glenmore Way is not shown for any development.

  • Should be developed in a manner that is sensitive to its location within Monticello’s viewshed in accordance with the Monticello Viewshed Guidelines for Developers.

The applicant has indicated they are working with Monticello and will be amending their Architectural standards in response to comments from Monticello.  Staff is not aware yet of the conclusions. 

  • Should be developed in a way that minimizes adverse impacts on residential properties adjoining the Community Service area by preserving mature vegetation, having residences abut adjoining residential properties, use of buffering, screening and berming and use of wide buffer strips.

On the ZMA Master Plan, the applicant has shown single-family residential uses and trees between the Magruder subdivision (the single family development along Rt. 250 between the entrance to Glenmore and the new entrance to the project) and the development.  These trees are considered illustrative and not essential parts of the plan by the applicant.  Earlier in the review process, the applicant showed parking areas adjacent to the Magruder subdivision.  Concerns by the neighbors prompted the inclusion of the statements to the left.  A long-standing county policy has been to not screen adjoining residential uses from one another.  However, during the Comprehensive Plan process, the Planning Commission indicated that existing mature trees should be retained on the border of the development.  This treatment should be addressed in the Code of Development.

Community Service Areas should have parking that is:


  • Not in excess of that necessary to support individual uses in the Community Service area is discouraged.

Zoning is allowing the development to use a shopping center parking calculation for the non-residential uses.  Use of a shopping-center category reduces the amount of parking for each individual use.  Zoning has been concerned that sufficient parking be provided for the use development and that sharing not short-change residents or businesses of needed spaces.  The applicant has endeavored to satisfy this CPA recommendation as well as satisfy the Zoning Division.  At this juncture, both appear to be satisfied.

  • Shared with other uses whenever possible.


East Rivanna Fire and Rescue Company has said that their parking lot will be available for overflow parking needs at the park; other shared parking opportunities will be explored during the site plan process.

  • Located in ways to minimize visual impacts and heat generated by large areas of pavement

The ZMA Master Plan shows buildings and parking in Block E; however, the exact location of those buildings and parking could change.  To help mitigate the visual impact of parking lots adjacent to the street, the Code of Development says that parking lots of more than 4 spaces will be “buffered” from the street by a 3-foot hedge, a 3’ opaque wall/fence or “other features to reduce the visibility”.  Staff has expressed concern to the applicant that commitments are needed to ensure that Main Street and the main entry-way from Route 250 East will be “lined” with buildings and not parking.  This issue is discussed later in the report.

  • Buffered and screened from neighboring residential properties in areas shown as Neighborhood Density using a combination of techniques such as including landscaping, screening, fencing, or berming.

The ZMA Master Plan shows trees at the exterior of the development adjacent to single-family areas; however, the Code of Development does not provide supplementary information on any standards to be used for retaining trees or additional tree plantings. The landscaping section of the Code needs to be enhanced to discuss perimeter landscaping standards.


A Neighborhood Model Analysis is provided below:


Pedestrian Orientation

With sidewalks, street trees, paths, and a pedestrian scale, the development has an appropriate pedestrian orientation.  This principle is met.

Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths

Neighborhood friendly streets and paths are characterized by street trees, sidewalks, and buildings with shallow setbacks.  This principle is met.


Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks

The project shows four interconnections to adjoining properties and a grid street system is provided internally.  The interconnections were affirmed by the Planning Commission during worksessions.  The principle for interconnections is met.  Staff believes that more work is needed relative to transit to better meet this principle.


Parks and Open Space


An 18 acre public park is provided with amenities for the development and for others outside of the development.  The improvements and design have been approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation.  This principle is met.


Neighborhood Centers

A neighborhood center is provided along Main Street in Block E.  It will have commercial and residential uses.  This principle is met.


Relegated Parking

The General Plan of Development shows parking that is relegated; however, because building layout could change, commitments are needed as to where parking can front the street in and near the Main Street Area.  The applicant proposes to address this situation with changes to the Code of Development and with an additional graphic depiction showing “fixed” elements and places where the relationship of buildings and parking can change.  This image does not exist yet and should be reviewed by the Commission to ensure that it adequately represents the Commission’s expectations.


Mixture of Uses



Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability

As indicated in the Code of Development, single-family detached, single-family attached, multi-family, carriage houses, and garrets are proposed.  The Code indicates that no less than 40% of the units will be for-sale.  The Code does not indicate the percentage of “accessory-type” or “subordinate units” to be built.  Staff believes that a commitment should be made to provide a low percentage of the overall affordable units as “accessory-type”.



The site is currently undeveloped and this principle does not apply.


Site Planning that Respects Terrain

Unlike many development area properties, this property is more rolling than steep and has only two isolated areas of critical slopes that would not be affected by the development.  The grading plan indicates that steep slopes will not created with this development; however, the Code of Development states that, “Given the terrain variations of the subject property, as well as the topographic relationship to contiguous tracts, retaining walls at Rivanna village cannot be avoided.”  Unfortunately, no standards for retaining walls are provided in the Code of Development nor are any commitments to regrade slopes to 3:1 or better.  Staff believes that the Code should address heights of retaining walls as well as regraded slopes.


Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas

The project is located entirely within the Development Areas so this principle is not applicable.





 The Architectural Review Board met on March 5, 2007 to provide preliminary comments on the project as it relates to the Entrance Corridor.  The staff report provided to the ARB is provided as Attachment D.  Before providing comments, the ARB asked if the expectation for Rivanna Village was an internally oriented development or if it was intended to have a face to Route 250 East.  Staff and the applicant responded that the intent was for Rivanna Village at Glenmore to have an internal orientation.  For that reason, the ARB said that the appearance along the EC should be one that screens the development from view.   The ARB said that, if Route 250 East is ever widened, 20 feet would be an insufficient area to create such a buffer and recommended that 75 feet of undeveloped area outside of the area reserved for dedication be available for this buffer.  Additionally, at least one member stressed that the Planning Commission should reconsider its decision to have the park located where it is shown on the plan because a portion of the park placed adjacent to Route 250 could serve as the recommended buffer between the EC and the development.  The ARB voted unanimously that the project should receive a full review by the ARB prior to a rezoning action.


Prior to the vote taken by the ARB, the applicant expressed that the Commission has been requesting that the development provide at least 4 dwellings per acre, and that creating a large buffer area would result in a loss of density for the development.  Additionally, the applicant conveyed their concerns that widening of the Route 250 corridor at this location might never happen.  These comments were not sufficient to sway the ARB that a 75’ buffer was excessive.


Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district:  From the Zoning Ordinance:


The NMD is intended to provide for compact, mixed-use developments with an urban scale, massing, density, and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within close proximity to each other within the development areas identified in the comprehensive plan.


The proposal meets the intent of the Neighborhood Model District.


Public need and justification for the change:  The County’s Comprehensive Plan supports rezoning proposals which are in conformity with recommendations for use, density, and form.  The proposal is in conformity with use, density, and form recommended in the Land Use Plan.


Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources:  No environmental resources shown on the County’s Open Space Plan have been identified on the property.  An old quarry that is on the property is intended to be preserved at the park site and become an amenity at the park.  If the Parks Director finds that safety would be compromised by retaining the quarry, the quarry may be filled with dirt; however, it is the intent of the County Parks and Recreation Department to preserve the quarry.  Filling it in it would only be a last resort.


One significant historic resource exists to the west of the project area.  It is the Glenmore Manor House, built c. 1795, and identified as potentially eligible for listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places.  The applicant has proposed a 100 foot landscape and screening buffer along Glenmore Way to help to mitigate any adverse visual impacts between the historic structure and proposed development.


Anticipated impact on public facilities and services 

Streets:  Staff believes that the single most significant impact on public facilities will be the impact on Route 250 East.  Route 250 East from Charlottesville to the I-64 is a four-lane divided highway with a raised median in places, center turn lanes in other places, and paved shoulders.  From the Shadwell Interchange to Fluvanna County (and beyond) it is predominantly a two-lane highway with varying pavement widths and shoulder widths.  At present, traffic volume estimates on Route 250 East are as follows:


·        Between Route 22 and I-64 – 22,000 v.p.d.

·        Between Route 22 and Route 1054 (Glenmore Way) – 9300 v.p.d.

·        Between Route 1054 (Glenmore Way) and the Albemarle-Fluvanna County Line – 5,500 v.p.d.


These figures have not changed substantially between 2001 and 2006.

In early 1999, Albemarle County began participation in the Route 250 East Corridor Study along with the MPO, Fluvanna and Louisa Counties, the TJPDC, and the City of Charlottesville. All of these entities were involved in the study because of the regional traffic issues relating to this corridor.  The study was intended to establish the long-term recommendations for improvements to this primary road.  Recommendations included widening Route 250 East from 4-lanes to 6-lanes with continuous right-turn lanes from Charlottesville city limits to I-64, widening Route 250 from 2-lanes to 4-lanes from Route 22 to Route 616 (Black Cat Road). 

The Board never adopted or endorsed these recommendations and has no adopted plan yet for improvements to Route 250 East.  Currently, the County is participating in another Route 250 East study that the TJPDC and Renaissance Planning Group are performing for Fluvanna and Louisa County.  It is called the Northwest Fluvanna/Southwest Louisa Corridor Study:  Eastern Albemarle Sub-Area Study.

The study pertains to Zion Crossroads and as an add-on to that project, the County contracted with the TJPDC to study from the County line to the I-64 interchange


The specific objectives of the study were to:


-Undertake a network analysis of the Rt. 250 Corridor (study area I-64 on the west and Rt. 22 on the north and west, the County line on the east and Rt. 53 on the south).


-Evaluate alternative multi-modal transportation impacts that compliment the Comp. Plan.


-Analyze key intersections in the study area given the network analysis.


-Identify short-term and long-term transportation projects to address network needs.


The study will not be completed until May/June of this year (2007).  However, preliminary findings from the study suggest the following improvements will be needed:



The Study did consider traffic impacts on the Rt. 250 west of I-64.  At this time, the consultant believes that a six-lane divided road, from I-64 to Free Bridge, is the most appropriate design for this segment of road, with the possible need for an eight-lane section between the I-64 interchange and the eastern most entrance to Peter Jefferson Place (a future through road).  A six-lane divided road is the improvement recommended in the draft Pantops Plan.

In 2001, the applicant for this rezoning conducted a traffic impact study which was recently updated by the applicant and reviewed by VDOT.  Traffic expected from the proposed development was 11,534 v.p.d.  Over the course of review of the rezoning, no specific improvements on Route 250 East were identified to which the applicant could contribute.  Staff had been recommending that the applicant make cash proffers to be used on any future projects related to the Route 250 East Corridor.  The only guidance staff could provide relative to a cash proffer amount was to direct the applicant to prior rezonings.

In 2006, the County asked the applicant to identify any changes relative to background traffic and the relationship of the development to Route 250 East.  Because the maximum non-residential development in the project was decreased between 2001 and 2006, the projected traffic also decreased.  The development is now expected to generate 10,623 v.p.d.  As noted in 2001, this figure would be twice the amount of traffic traveling on Route 250 East between Rt. 22 and Glenmore Way. 

Until the last few weeks, no change in a recommendation relative to a cash proffer for transportation was anticipated.  However, VDOT has been looking closely at the Biscuit Run traffic impacts and in conjunction with the preliminary recommendations from the Northwest Fluvanna/Southwest Louisa Corridor Study:  Eastern Albemarle Sub-Area Study, believes it important to apply the same methodology to Rivanna Village as to Biscuit Run. 

VDOT provided the attached information concerning impacts to the Route 250 East Corridor the day of completion of this report.  (See Attachment I.)  Staff notes that none of the improvements referenced in Attachment I have been endorsed by the Board of Supervisors or adopted into a plan.  The only difference between 2001 and 2006 is that VDOT can now estimate the percentage impact of this proposal on the network.

VDOT is estimating that approximately 24% of the new daily traffic between Glenmore and Shadwell will be attributable to Rivanna Village at Glenmore.  Using this percentage and estimating proportionate shares of improvement costs, VDOT believes that Rivanna Village at Glenmore’s proportionate share would be $7.5 million. 

Having this information so late in the process makes analysis very difficult, so staff includes it for information to the Commission and the Board as they react to the project’s cash proffers and other benefits.

Without criticizing VDOT’s work, staff notes that, when analyzing traffic studies, VDOT generally looks at uses independent of one another and allows only a 15% capture rate for internal traffic.  Staff believes that the capture rate will be higher because of the ability of Glenmore residents to reduce their trips on Route 250 East by finding convenience items inside the Village.  There will be the ability for some workers in the Village to also live in the Village. 

In addition, a reverse commute will take place for workers living in Charlottesville going to work in Rivanna Village.  The percentage of the reverse commute is not known; however, the opportunity for the reverse commute is fairly high.  Also, the village will provide the ability for persons driving from the eastern part of the County into Pantops for convenience items to stop at Rivanna Village rather than go all the way to Pantops.  The Commission and Board will need to also factor in the advantages of accepting a development which so closely meets the principles of the Neighborhood Model and provides the high quality community park before concluding that cash proffers for transportation are not sufficient.

As stated in early staff reports for the CPA, VDOT believes that the additional traffic will not, in and of itself, create the need for the improvements recommended in both the 250 East Corridor Study and the TJPDC-RPG study.  VDOT believes that it will accelerate the need for the widening improvements.  In addition, VDOT believes that the improvements shown on page 45 of the traffic impact study (attached as Attachment H) are necessary for the development.  These are improvements that are either proffered or that VDOT will require with site plans and plats.  In addition, the applicant is proffering additional right-of-way to accommodate any future widening of Route 250 East.

Schools: Pupils from the new development would attend Stone Robinson Elementary School, Burley Middle School, and Monticello High School.  Information on the numbers of students will be provided with the Fiscal Impact Analysis.


Fire, Rescue, Police:  Fire and Rescue service is provided through the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department which is located within the development.  Police officers use this facility as a satellite office when they are on-patrol.

Utilities:   The Village of Rivanna is served by a package sewage treatment plant at Glenmore that is operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.  The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) retails the service to the County.  Glenmore Associates paid for the construction of the sewage treatment plant and, according to the ACSA, Glenmore will be responsible for the cost of necessary expansions for their development.  Water capacity is sufficient to serve the development.

Stormwater Management – The applicant has proposed underground stormwater management with use of bmp’s for water quality.  A detention pond is shown near the fire station which may be needed for Block C – the White Gables product.  Agreements with the County and Fire Department will be needed in order for the detention pond to be located on the fire station parcel.  Preliminary indications from the Fire Department are that the facility can be located there as long as it doesn’t impeded Fire Department functions and as long as the Fire Department doesn’t have to maintain it.   Staff has asked the applicant to make clear in the Code of Development and/or proffers that if the stormwater facility is not provided on the Fire Department/County Glenmore Associates will have to find an alternate way to provide stormwater and not impact the integrity of the design of the project.


Affordable Housing – The Code of Development contains the applicant’s plan for providing affordable housing.  Housing is proposed as for-sale and for-rent.  In terms of types of housing, there will be townhouses, apartments, and carriage houses (a form of for-rent housing).  At least 40% of the housing will be for-sale.  At his option, the applicant could provide single-family detached housing; however, it is unlikely that this will take place as the homeowners’ dues could place a financial burden on the owner of the affordable units.  In addition to the for-sale and for-rent products, the applicant intends to provide cash-in-lieu of units ($16,500) in the single-family blocks where carriage units are not provided.  In the Code of Development, a commitment is made to provide at least 10% and no more than 30% affordable units or cash.


Minor tweaks are needed to the language in the Code of Development to ensure that all of these conditions can be enforced.  In addition to the minor changes, staff believes that the applicant needs to commit to a percentage of accessory-type units as previously stated.  With this change and the minor wording changes, the Housing Director can recommend approval of the strategy, which was affirmed by the Planning Commission at their last worksession.


Fiscal Impact AnalysisThe Fiscal Impact Analysis was not available at the writing of this report.  It will either be sent electronically or handed out at the Commission meeting. 

Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties:   The proposed rezoning has been the subject of many meetings over the last two years.  At least three public meetings have been held by and for the community.  The Planning Commission has held five worksessions on the project in addition to a worksession on a 2006 proposed comprehensive plan amendment.  The reasons for these meetings have been to answer questions of concerned residents who believe that the project will have a negative impact on their small community.  The applicant has worked steadfastly with many members of the community to try to develop a plan which addresses their concerns.  Many of these residents have attended the worksessions to provide input to the Planning Commission.

At this juncture, staff believes that the only negative impact will be to accelerate the need for improvements to Route 250 East.  The types of improvements, however, are unknown since the Board of Supervisors has not yet endorsed a plan for Route 250 East.  Proffers have been made which can be applied to Route 250 improvements at such date that the County decides what improvements should be made.


Attachment B contains the current proffers which are explained as follows:


1.      Community Development Authority Participation – The applicant has proffered to have non-residential uses participate in a CDA if the Board of Supervisors desires to use a CDA for helping to fund transportation improvements.  Although several rezonings in recent years included a similar proffer, the Board has not been as interested in this kind of proffer lately to fund needed improvements.  Staff sees no problem in accepting this proffer.  The Board will ultimately decide whether it is important to retain.


2.      Cash Proffer for Capital Improvements:  The applicant is making cash proffers for funding traffic improvement projects within or immediately adjacent to the Village of Rivanna as identified in the County’s Capital Improvements Program or school projects at Stone-Robinson Elementary School, Burley Middle School, and Monticello High School as identified in the County School’s Capital Improvement Program.  Contributions are $3,500 for each single family detached unit, $3,000 for each townhouse unit and $2,500 for each multifamily unit. 


The table below compares the recently approved residential rezonings with cash proffers.



# of Units

Cash Proffer

ZMA 03-12 Stillfried Lane Townhouses


$3000/unit for capital improvements or affordable housing programs; no physical improvements or land for future public facilities.

ZMA 05-14 Poplar Glen (currently scheduled for a BOS hearing on July 5, 2006)


$3200/unit for capital; no physical improvements or land for future public facilities.

ZMA 04-24 Old Trail Village


$50,000 Cash proffer for park projects, Cash proffer for schools: $1000/sfd unit; $500/th unit; $250/apt.; Cash proffer for public faculties:  $1000/sfd unit; $500/th unit; $250/mf unit; and physical improvements including completion of Western Avenue and dedication of land for Western Park.

ZMA 05-05  Liberty Hall


$3,200 per unit cash proffer for public facilities; no physical improvements or land for future public facilities.

ZMA  02-04  Cascadia


Cash proffer for schools and other public facilities: $3,000 /sfd, $2500/th, $2000/mf unit.

ZMA  05-07 Haden Place


Cash proffer for schools and other public facilities/services: $3200/sfd; $2700/sfa; off-site road improvements to Haden and Killdeer Lanes (approx $40,000).

ZMA 05-18 Wickham Pond II



Cash proffer for schools and other public facilities: $4500/market-rate unit.

ZMA  06-01Westhall V


Cash proffer for schools and other public facilities: $1000/market-rate unit; $3000/market-rate unit for Eastern Avenue; Spot improvements to Park Road (approx $7500); $3000 for a pedestrian bridge; on-site greenway trails, parking area for trailhead, and off-site temporary easement for greenway

ZMA 01-08 Rivanna Village at Glenmore


Cash proffer for transportation or schools: $3,000 /sfd, $2500/th, $2000/mf unit; dedication of r.o.w. for possible Rt. 250 improvements; parks improvements – value not established.


Note: sfd = single family detached, th = townhouse, mfd = multifamily


Regarding adequacy of the proffers, staff believes that, based on its actions on recent residential rezonings, the Board has set an expectation for offsets to impacts caused by residential developments.  Different types and levels of rezonings will have different impacts.  The location of the proposed development also plays into the amount and type of offsets needed. As such, staff must rely on previous actions of the Board as guidance to applicants on expectations for off-sets to impacts of new development. 


Staff believes that the largest impact from the development will be related to traffic for which the applicant is offering $2500- $3500 per unit.  The total amount the County will receive from this proffer cannot be determined yet because the market will determine the ultimate number and mix of units.  Staff thinks this proffer will generate somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 million.  Staff notes that this cash proffer would be received over time and not all at once.  In addition, the Board of Supervisors would have to determine whether the amount should all go to transportation or be shared with the Schools division for school improvements.


As previously stated in this staff report, off-site transportation improvements are difficult to address because the Board of Supervisors has not adopted any plans regarding Route 250 East, but, it can be assumed that any improvement to Route 250 East will be well in excess of $1 million.  In the absence of a cash proffer policy or plan for improving Route 250 East, staff believes the cash proffer is sufficient based on other rezonings recently approved.


3.      Route 250 and Eastern Entrance Improvements – The applicant has proffered to provide turn lanes at the eastern entrance on Route 250 before requesting a building permit for the first residential unit as well as provide a traffic signal, if and when warranted by VDOT.  Staff believes that the turn lanes will be required by VDOT.  This proffer is intended to allay concerns by the residents of Glenmore that Glenmore Way will be the initial entrance into the development.  Staff believes that an additional proffer to ensure that construction traffic uses the easterly entrance might go further to quell the concerns of existing residents.


4.      Route 250 and Glenmore Way Improvement – The applicant has proffered to install a signal at the entrance to Glenmore prior to approval of the last plat creating the final lots in Rivanna Village at Glenmore.  Staff notes that a similar proffer exists for the Glenmore development.  The difference is that the sunset on the Glenmore proffer is April 12, 2010.


5.      Construction of Steamer Drive Improvements – Steamer Drive is the existing street which provides access to the Fire Station and the street which would be improved to help establish the blocks and street network in Rivanna Village at Glenmore.  Glenmore Associates, which is making the proffers for the development, does not control the fire station parcel which is owned jointly by the County and the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company.  Because ERVFC does not wish to participate in the construction of the street or sidewalks along the jointly-owned property, easements will be needed in order for Glenmore Associates to construct the street lawn, street trees and sidewalk.  If for some reason ERVFC fails to grant the easements, the applicant does not want to be responsible for these improvements.


Under usual circumstances, all owners of properties included in a rezoning would be responsible for signing proffers and making commitments such as these.  The County’s partial ownership of the fire station parcel prohibits this parcel from being covered by proffers.  [The County can’t accept proffers from itself.]  For this reason, the County Attorney’s office has said that the conditioning the improvements on future easements is acceptable.   A much better way to ensure that the improvements can be made would be for the ERVFC to make a written commitment to Glenmore Associates that the easements will be provided when requested.


6.      Construction and Dedication of Parks and Recreation Improvements -- The ZMA Master Plan shows a public community-level park within the development which the applicant has offered to dedicate and construct.  This proffer has been quite complicated because the same property previously was offered to the County for a school or other public facility in the Glenmore proffers.  It was subsequently determined that a school was not desired at this location and that a park was preferred.  The proposed park in this rezoning is approximately 18 acres whereas the original Glenmore proffer was for 27 acres.  Approximately 3 acres is taken up in streets surrounding the park. 


The difference between the currently proposed proffer and the Glenmore proffer is the offer to construct public streets around the park, grade the site, and provide improvements (playgrounds, tennis courts, restrooms, trails, shelters, pavilions, and a gazebo)When asked, the Parks and Recreation Director said that he would rather the County receive a fully developed park of 18 acres with public street access than 27 acres of undeveloped park land that the County would then have to improve.


Accepting the proffer for the park land shown in the Code of Development for this proposal also requires that the Board of Supervisors deal with the Glenmore proffer.  The County Attorney’s office has recommended that, if the Board believes this park proffer for Rivanna Village at Glenmore is acceptable, it adopt a resolution saying that by accepting that proffer, it deems the Glenmore proffer satisfied.


7.      Route 250 Buffer and Right of Way Dedication – The applicant is offering to dedicate 100 feet of right-of-way along Route 250 East in order to accommodate any possible future widening.  There are several problems with this proffer.  First, the applicant has said in the Code of Development that the actual measurement of 100 feet would be from the edge of pavement.  Zoning has indicated that it must have the right-of-way dedication be established from the existing right-of-way line.  This will result in less land for dedication, but no less than 100 feet in appearance.  The applicant has said that he will make the change and provide a reservation for dedication measured from the right-of-way line.   Second, the proffers and Code of Development aren’t clear whether the “buffer” is intended to be undisturbed, disturbed, landscaped, or planted.  The ARB reviewed the request and asked for more “buffer” area.  They indicated that it should not have a formal “landscape” appearance but be augmented with additional plantings.  Whether the applicant wishes to modify the plan and proffers to accommodate the ARB’s recommendations is yet unknown; however, the writer of this staff report is sympathetic to the applicant’s desire to provide for density at a minimum of 4 units per acre.


8.      Buffer Along Glenmore Way – Similar to the proffer above, the applicant is offering to leave undeveloped 100 feet along Glenmore Way as a buffer.  As with #7 above, it isn’t clear whether the intention is to disturb, leave totally undisturbed, landscape the area, or augment with additional vegetation.  This situation will need to be resolved prior to acceptance of the proffers.


9.      Affordable Housing – Like all recently approved residential rezonings, the applicant is proffering to provide 15% affordable housing.  Unlike these other rezonings, the applicant has laid out the conditions for providing affordable housing in the Code of Development.  Staff believes that having the conditions in the Code will be less cumbersome from an enforcement standpoint.  The Housing Director, County Attorney’s office, and Zoning all concur on this point.  Recommended changes to the Code of Development were indicated earlier in the report.




The applicant has requested seventeen waivers and modifications to Zoning Ordinance requirements, six waivers and modifications to the Subdivision Ordinance, and approval of private streets for the whole development.  Attachment J provides the analysis and recommendations for the waivers.  


Staff supports all but the screening waivers to the zoning ordinance, with conditions noted in Attachment I.  Staff does not support a blanket waiver to screening of objectionable features where the lot abuts a rural or residential district.  Staff does not support a screening waiver for double frontage lots.


Of the six subdivision waiver requests, staff supports four of the requests as indicated in Attachment I.  These would allow for a rural section street for Block C, use of an alternate pavement material (asphalt) on one side of the street in Block C, ability to waive the requirement for sidewalk in front of the fire station if an easement is not granted, and ability to use tree grates on the commercial streets.


Staff does not support a blanket approval for private streets; however, it does support private street approval for Block C and the two commercial streets at this time.



Throughout this staff report, staff has pointed out areas that are in further need of resolution prior to being ready for final action to approve the development.  These issues are as follows:


1.      Fixed vs. Optional Elements depicted on a Plan -- There are items that are “fixed” and items that are “optional” which still need to be tied down from a design standpoint.  Staff and the applicant generally agree on these items; however, the applicant would like to provide a graphic depiction showing the design features that are fixed and include it with the Code of Development.  Until staff reviews this graphic depiction, it cannot make a recommendation to the Commission and Board that it be included in the Code.


2.      The Buffer Area on Route 250 and Glenmore Way – The ARB recently provided comments on their vision for a screening buffer along Route 250 East which is very different from the applicant’s proposal.  Planning Commission input is important at this time to direct the applicant as to what is appropriate.  The description of the buffer area in the Code of Development also needs to be clarified as to whether the buffer will be undisturbed, disturbed for improvements and grading, augmented with plantings, etc.


3.      Architectural Standards and Monticello – Staff has noted to the applicant the need for modifications to the architectural standards to be clear on requirements and recommendations.  Additionally, staff would like to affirm with Monticello that proposed architectural standards meet the Monticello design guidelines, once those standards are firm. 


4.      Landscape Standards – Staff has identified areas for which additional commitments are needed for tree preservation at the perimeter of the development and standards for planting.  Although not noted in this report, the landscape standards in the Code of Development need cleaning up.  There are more “suggestions” than requirements and more work is needed on establishing species to be used, parking lot landscape standards, and street tree species. 


5.      Use of Retaining Walls/Grading – Staff believes that additional information is needed relative to the use of retaining walls and final grading.  This information has been provided for other rezonings, mainly in areas where topography has been much steeper.  Staff is uncomfortable not knowing the expectations of the applicant relative to retaining walls.


6.      Uses Between the last Code of Development and the current Code of Development, the location of some uses have changed.  For instance, assisted living was allowed in three different blocks previously; now it is in Block G only.  The swim/tennis club was previously intended for Block E, G or J is now proposed as possible in Blocks A, E, G, H, I, and J.  When located in Blocks E, G, or J, the swim club was located more centrally than it might be in Block H.  Staff is also concerned that a swim club on the perimeter of Block G would not be as desirable as a more central location.  Staff does not know what the perimeter treatment of Block G would be if the assisted living facility is placed at the edge of the development.  Not mentioned in the report are issues staff believes need further resolution, such as whether structured or stand alone parking should have a special use permit and whether Home Occupation Class B should be allowed by-right.


7.      Stormwater Management – Stormwater management is described in the plan as primarily being underground, with possible bmp’s in the park and a possible stormwater facility on the Fire Station site.  Staff would like for the Code of Development to be clear that stormwater management facilities in their final location will not compromise the integrity of the plan.  This issue is important primarily for Block C. 


8.      Transit – The transportation proffers of $3500 per sfd, $3000 per townhouse, and $2500 per apartment/mf unit can also be used for school impacts.  No commitments for transit have been made other than to say that the development is transit ready.  Staff believes that input from the Commission is important prior to a decision being made.


9.      Information from VDOT relative to Route 250 East – Staff asks that the Planning Commission review the information from VDOT to see whether any changes resulting from that information are needed to the proffers.


10.  Other Changes to the Code – During the week of writing of this staff report, staff provided a long list of technical changes needed to the Code and Proffers (approximately seven pages).  Among other things, this list includes having drawings and tables related to setbacks agree and describing that reservations for dedication of right-of-way or buffer areas be set from the right-of-way and not edge of pavement.  The applicant has already agreed to make 75 to 80% of the changes.  The remaining changes require further discussion, some of which has taken place in this report.    



Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:


  1. The proposal is in substantial conformity with the Land Use Plan recommendations for the Village of Rivanna.

  2. The proposal is in full conformity with the Neighborhood Model.

  3. Cash proffers to deal with off-site impacts are similar to other recently approved rezonings.

  4. A fully developed public park is offered to the County to deal with park needs.

  1. The proposal provides acceptable affordable housing proffers.


Staff has found the following factors unfavorable to this rezoning:


  1. Staff cannot support blanket approval for private streets at this time because of the need for public street interconnections to adjoining parcels and public street access to the park and fire station.

  2. In addition to the nine outstanding issues identified in the report, there are too many details which have not been resolved for the staff to feel comfortable recommending approval at this time.


Staff has been working on this project since 2001 and would like to see it completed and approved because it represents the Neighborhood Model so well and has been vetted publicly so many Arial.  Unfortunately, until resolution of the issues stated above occurs, staff cannot recommend approval.


The applicant will likely ask the Planning Commission to approve the rezoning proposal contingent on all of the outstanding items listed in this report and being resolved prior to the Board of Supervisors’ public hearing.  If the Commission believes it can take action on the rezoning pending the changes, staff will work with the applicant to satisfy all concerns prior to the Board hearing.




ATTACHMENT A -- ZMA Master Plan (the General Development Plan)

ATTACHMENT B -- Proffers dated 2/5/07

ATTACHMENT C -- Action letter from ARB dated 3-6-07

ATTACHMENT D -- Staff Report to ARB dated 3-5-07

ATTACHMENT E --  Adopted CPA for Rivanna Village

ATTACHMENT F –   Approved Plan for the CPA for Rivanna Village

ATTACHMENT G -- Information referenced in the CPA for Rivanna Village

ATTACHMENT H -- Excerpt from Traffic Impact Analysis – page 45

ATTACHMENT I --   E-mail from VDOT 3-6-07

ATTACHMENT J --  Waiver Analysis and Recommendations

Return to exec summary