Albemarle County Planning Commission

December 12, 2006

 

The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, December 12, 2006, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Eric Strucko, Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman; Jon Cannon, Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Bill Edgerton; Duane Zobrist and Pete Craddock.  Julia Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia, representative for David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia was present.  (She left the meeting at 8:16 p.m.)

 

Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; Gerald Gatobu, Senior Planner; David E. Pennock, Principal Planner; Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Sean Dougherty, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning & Current Development/Zoning Administrator; Glenn Brooks, Senior Engineer; Jack Kelsey, Transportation Planner and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.

 

Call to Order and Establish Quorum:

 

Ms. Joseph called the regular meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. and established a quorum.

 

Work Sessions:

 

ZMA 2001-08 Rivanna Village at Glenmore (Signs #16, 17, 19, 20, 21)

PROPOSAL:  Rezone approx. 94.5 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 500 dwellings is proposed with an overall gross density of 5.29 units/acre.

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 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.

ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes

LOCATION: (address/intersection/route number and street name) and Rural Area or specific Development Area

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, 51,and 55A all zoned RA Rural Areas; and Tax Map parcel 25A also zoned PRD.

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville

STAFF:  Elaine Echols

 

Mr. Craddock recused himself and left the meeting.

 

In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA-01-08, Rivanna Village at Glemore to discuss new design, overall density, affordable housing and its relationship to Livengood property.  The Commission is requested to affirm these elements or suggest changes to make these elements acceptable.  The Commission discussed staff’s recommendations regarding the rezoning request, took applicant and public comment and provided comments and suggestions to the questions posed in the staff report as follows:

 

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

 

Staff noted that the Commission had just finished this discussion when reviewing questions about the Livengood property. 

 

The conclusion of the Commission was that the Rivanna Village design did not need to be modified for any future connections.   Connections shown on the Rivanna Village Plan provide the 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?

 

The Commission answered affirmatively.

 

Is a minimum density essential? If so, are 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 are acceptable; how that density is tracked was not important to them.

 

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.

 

            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.   There being none, the meeting proceeded.

 

Adjournment:

 

With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 12:35 a.m. to the joint Board of Supervisors meeting on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 meeting at 4:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Auditorium.

 

 

Go to March 13 PC minutes
Return to exec summary