Albemarle County Planning Commission

July 18, 2006

 

The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, July 18, 2006, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Bill Edgerton, Eric Strucko, Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman; Pete Craddock, Jo Higgins, Jon Cannon and Marcia Joseph, Chairman. Julia Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia, representative for David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect of University of Virginia was absent. 

 

Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Sean Dougherty, Senior Planner; Amy Arnold, Planner and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.

 

Call to Order and Establish Quorum:

 

Ms. Joseph called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.

 

Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:

 

Ms. Joseph invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting moved on to the next item.

 

Work Sessions:

 

ZMA 2001-008 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 from ZMA-2001-008, Rivanna Village at Glenmore and CPA-2006-001, Rivanna Village since he was on the Board of East Rivanna Fire Department.  He left the room.

 

In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA-2001-008, Rivanna Village at Glenmore, to review the comments relative to conformity with the Comprehensive Plan in the staff report and provide any comment deemed appropriate.  Ms. Echols noted several changes to the staff report and plan and discussed the rezoning as it relates to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Steve Runkle, of KG Associates representing Glenmore Associates, explained the proposal and noted changes made to the plan as a result of conversations with local residents and Parks staff. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation addressed the Countyís need for park facilities in this area. The Commission reviewed and discussed the proposal with staff and the applicant, took public comment and then responded to the preliminary questions posed by staff. The Commission provided the following feedback on the issues mentioned in the staff report as follows:

 

  1. Is the redesign appropriate with the orientation of the commercial area towards the eastern entrance to Glenmore rather than to Glenmore Way?

 

The Commission agreed that the redesign was appropriate with the orientation of the commercial area towards the eastern entrance to Glenmore rather than Glenmore Way.   This gives some relief to Glenmore Way and responds to some of the Commissionís and residentsí concerns.

 

  1. Is it appropriate to add the additional properties to the eastern part of the site?

 

The Commission agreed that it is appropriate to add the additional properties to the eastern part of the site to the development. 

 

  1. Should density in the additional properties be considered as part of the overall development or should it be consistent on a parcel basis with the designations in the Comprehensive Plan?

 

It was noted that all of the added parcels that were not part of the original CPA are Neighborhood Density Residential on the Land Use Plan.  The Commission agreed that the density in the additional properties could be higher than Neighborhood Density Residential, but, overall for the whole site, density could not exceed 6 units per acre.  The density can be considered as part of the overall development as long as the form is done well and cohesively.

 

  1. Is the form of the proposal in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan?

 

The Commission agreed that the proposal is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.

 

The Commission invited public comment noting that next on the agenda the Commission would follow up with a community request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.  David Benish suggested that some of the CPA comments will be related to the ZMA.  Some of the major changes being proposed in that CPA stem from the proposal that is part of the rezoning.  Therefore, staff felt that it would be useful for the Commission to allow Dennis Ordinov, representative for the CPA, to speak now.

 

Dennis Ordinov, head of the Master Planning Steering Committee in the Village of Rivanna, noted that they were not opposed to the idea of Rivanna Village and liked most of the ideas.  But, what they are opposed to is the scale that is suggested in the existing Code and the needless destruction of up to 14 acres of woodlands and the unnecessary alteration of the rural character of the area.  He explained their proposal was to change Map H from Community Service to Neighborhood Service. He asked the Commission to consider this CPA prior to master planning the area or along with.

 

 

Go to August 29 PC minutes
Return to exec summary