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.

 

 

ZMA 2006-016 Glenmore Section K2 (Leake) – Signs #31, 32, 44, 69

PROPOSAL:  Rezone 110.94 acres from RA - Rural Area zoning district which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) to PRD - Planned Residential District - residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to allow for 110 dwelling units. This proposal is an expansion of the Glenmore PRD and does not include commercial uses.

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: No

LOCATION: 1.25 miles south of the intersection of Route 250 East and Hacktown Road, North of the Rivanna River, west of Carroll Creek, and east of the Development Area boundary.

TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 94, Parcel 16, 74, and 16A (portion thereof) and Tax Map 93A1, Parcel 1

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville

STAFF:  Sean Dougherty

 

AND

 

ZMA 2006-015 Glenmore Section S5 (Livengood) – Signs #26, 30

PROPOSAL:  Rezone 32.24 acres from RA - Rural Area zoning district which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre)to PRD - Planned Residential District - residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to allow for 42 dwelling units. This proposal is an expansion of the Glenmore PRD and does not include commercial uses.

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: No

LOCATION: 2000 feet south of the intersection of Route 250 East and Hacktown Road, North of Pendowner Lane (in Glenmore), and east of Carroll Creek

TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 80, Parcel 48 and Tax Map 94, Parcel 1

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville

STAFF:  Sean Dougherty

 

Mr. Dougherty presented a power point presentation to provide background information on the two rezoning proposals to expand the Glenmore PRD - ZMA-2006-15, Glenmore – Section S5, Livengood Property and ZMA-2006-16, Glenmore – Section K2, Leake Property. 

 

·         On October 17, 2006 the Planning Commission first provided guidance to the applicant.

The Commission is asked to consider the appropriateness of the applicant’s proposal to increase density on each property and provide guidance on transportation constraints and options through responses to questions posed by staff.  (See Staff Reports)

 

Don Franco, of KG Associates, was present to represent Glenmore Associates in this rezoning.

 

Ms. Joseph invited public comment.

 

Tracy Walker, resident of Running Deer, said that she was joined tonight with her neighbors to express concerns about the traffic, roads, groundwater issues, their rural way of life, promises already made and their health and safety.  Running Deer and Route 250 cannot safely and realistically support the traffic that 110 more homes would create throughout their neighborhood.  Included in the further plans for Glenmore is a stop light at Glenmore Way and not at the end of their subdivision.  Therefore, this added traffic should be kept as part of Glenmore.  The increase in traffic will decrease the safety of their children.  She asked that all of the residents of Running Deer stand to express their agreement with her concerns. 

 

Cindy Burton, resident of Running Deer, expressed opposition to a Glenmore back gate at Running Deer Drive.  She supported an emergency vehicle access gate as the existing one already at the end of Running Deer.  Connecting an existing rural development with a gated community is essentially connecting it with an exclusive gate to a private road.  This is not a true interconnection nor does it achieve the goals of the Comp Plan Neighborhood Model.  A connection will not offer Running Deer an alternative route, emergency access or access to facilities.  There will only be negative impacts to Running Deer and it will jeopardize their healthy, health and quality of life.  The bottom line is that a gated connection suggests discrimination by not offering both developments the same benefits of a connection.  It implies that their quality of life is not valued as much as Glenmore’s.  Only Glenmore will benefit from a back gate onto Running Deer Drive. The main concern she heard from Glenmore residents was that they did not want the construction traffic coming through.  An unbiased traffic study after the development is done might indicate that another gate is warranted.  However, it would be more in accordance with the Comp Plan to situate a back gate to connect with Rivanna Village.  This would alleviate the traffic on the already over crowded Route 250 by allowing access to village shops and a park and also keep traffic out of rural neighborhoods.  The proposal to route undesirable traffic through the heart of their established neighborhood is unacceptable. 

 

Paul Accad, an 11 year Glenmore resident, agreed with staff on the Leake rezoning.  It is time for a traffic study in Glenmore leaning towards the question of whether Glenmore needs another gate.  In the staff report it says that the Glenmore roads were approved and designed for 750 single family homes.  They are currently at 800 homes.  If the rezonings are approved without another gate or a traffic study they will be close to 1,000.  It is problematic for 1,000 residents to use one gate.  He felt that the support for a second gate is very strong.    It has to do with expectations.  If you moved into Glenmore, which is a growth area subdivision, you would read everything about growth areas, rural areas and subdivision. A reasonable expectation, especially after reading the covenants and restrictions of Glenmore, would be that Glenmore could and would expand in the growth area.  He did think anyone could ever have expected that Glenmore would expand into the rural area.  Tied to that is a precedent that is going to be set if they allow a growth area subdivision to expand into the rural area.  It is not going to have County water and sewer.  He did not think this would be a good precedent for the County.

 

Richard Wagoner, President of the Glenmore Community Association and a Glenmore resident, noted that the two previous ladies that spoke have genuine concerns, which he understands.  But, the Glenmore residents have concerns as well.  Where the road connection crosses Powell Creek it is marshy and flood plain.  It is going to take at least 6’ of good solid soil to make that road passable.  They are interested in how Glenmore residents would maintain the road with the additional traffic without access to Running Deer.  This development area is the last of several development areas to be addressed by the Planning Commission and Board.  These development areas were selected to help limit the growth in the rural areas.  Glenmore residents agree with that.  Their area is very different than the other special development areas in that 70 percent is already developed and contributing significantly to the tax base.  He said that comments he makes tonight will focus on the near term win/win/win situation for the County in terms of increased tax revenues, for the developer in terms of near term return on their investment, and the Glenmore community in terms of stronger healthier community and club.  There could not be a better time to extend Glenmore and develop the Leake and Livengood properties with Glenmore style quality.

 

Robert Goldstein, resident of Devon Pines, voiced concerns about the construction traffic. The volume of construction and residential traffic grows monthly.  The road is not equipped to handle the development on the Leake property.  This is an environmental, safety and economic issue for the residents. The safety of their children is a big concern since it is unsafe to play in their front yard due to the dump trucks, cement trucks and other construction vehicles.  Often these large vehicles cannot pass each other and drive on residents’ yards killing the grass.  Vehicles accelerate down New Bridge leaving the present development area endangering pedestrians, cyclists and the wild life.  It is just a matter of time before a pedestrian, a child on a bike, a parent with a child in a stroller is hit either on the path adjacent to Paddington Circle, which is separated from the road way by 12” of mud, or on the roads in any portion of Glenmore, especially along New Bridge and Devon Pines. The addition of over 100 homes and that traffic being directed and the associated construction traffic and residential traffic coming through Devon Pines would be overwhelming.  It would overwhelm the existing roadway.  It will adversely affect the home values in their area and negatively impact the environment.   But, most importantly it would endanger the lives of the residents of Glenmore and Devon Pines.

 

Jeff Werner, of Piedmont Environmental Council, reiterated the concerns about the Monticello view shed on this issue.  This is a road that runs along a ridge with houses built along it.  It has a potential to be more visually prominent than some of the other things being discussed.  There have been some interesting comments about the traffic on these internal roads.  People tend to fail in present day planning practice to look at the cumulative impact.  They hear people in the rural area say they are only doing 10 houses or 20 houses, etc.  The net result is that everyone living in the rural area screams and yells because the roads are not wide enough.  They wonder why the State of Virginia is in the transportation mess it is in because everybody wants to live where they want to live, but they want their road paved, wide and plowed when it snows.  He suggested that the Commission look at the cumulative traffic impacts from the proposed developments in the special use permit and rezoning on Route 250 East.  The hard edge between the growth area and the rural area is very important and should be preserved. 

 

Sharon Wood, resident of Running Deer for 18 years, spoke in opposition to the requests and asked that their neighborhood not be allowed to be destroyed by other developments.  Since the beginning of development the residents of Running Deer have requested that their neighborhood not be connected to Glenmore in any way.  She asked the Commission to do the right thing.

 

Dennis Odinov, head of the Master Planning Steering Committee in the Village of Rivanna, said that his house was on the other side of Carroll Creek and golf course.  His property faces directly to the Leake property.  When he bought his house he knew there was going to be development in the area.  He understands that the developer is not intending to build on critical slopes.  But, it is very close to being critical slopes where it is being built.  He questioned where the storm water from all of these houses would go.  He felt it would go into Carroll Creek, which has overflowed many times.  By increasing the density it would make the situation worse.  He asked that as many of the existing trees are preserved as possible.

 

Allan Holly, resident of Glenmore, noted that most of the Glenmore residents he knows are not excited about the proposals due to the increased traffic.  He encouraged the Commission to consider strongly how the traffic is routed through Glenmore.  It does not seem to be a logical way to connect the road through.  He opposed this to be connected only through Glenmore.  He did not care if it was developed outside of Glenmore.  But, please look carefully to the route the road would take to 250. 

 

Papas Carla Dusty, a resident of Running Deer, said that she chose to live in the rural area. She spoke against the rezoning requests due to the extra traffic on the roads.  She did not want the road to be widened to add any more commercial or additional houses.  If the extra gate was put in all of the residents of Glenmore would use it.

 

Tammy Hall, resident of Running Deer, asked that the Commission consider the residents of Running Deer and their concerns about not adding any additional construction traffic on their little road or depleting their ground water. 

 

Scott Gardner, resident of Devon Pine in Glenmore, asked that the Commission look at all of the different levels within the community and give it fair consideration. The residents of Glenmore have the same concerns regarding their families as the residents of Running Deer.  He asked that the Commission look at the options and treat everyone fairly and not affect their quality of life.  He suggested that there be two access points.

 

Mary Winn, resident of 1720 Running Deer Drive, said that her family has lived here for 19 years.  She asked the Commission to take their concerns to heart and preserve their community.  She opposed the access from Glenmore into Running Deer to accommodate development.    

 

Shelly Payne, resident of Devon Pines, noted that the roads were not sufficient to handle the increased number of dwellings proposed.  She was greatly dismayed to hear that the Planning Commission actually asked for greater density on the Leake property.  She felt that everyone in the room would be happier with a much less dense development.  The roads would be able to handle it.  It would be a better decision all the way around. She asked the Commission to consider that as well.

 

There being no further public comment, Ms. Joseph noted that the Commission would now go through staff’s questions.  (The following is a summary of the Commission’s comments on the two requests.)

 

In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA-2006-016, Glenmore Section K2 (Leake) to consider the appropriateness of the applicant’s proposals to increase density on each property and provide guidance on transportation constraints and options through response to questions posed by staff. 

 

Leake Property – Questions for the Commission

 

  1. Is the applicant’s approach to density appropriate?

 

The Commission agreed that the applicant’s approach to providing a number of smaller, cottage style lots, mixed with larger lots, was appropriate. This increased the number of residential lots proposed from 86 to 110.

 

  1. Should the applicant’s proposal be acceptable to the Commission, should the development take access through Glenmore, Running Deer Drive, or both?

 

The Commission agreed that access to this property should be provided through Glenmore, but needs to be analyzed with a traffic study.

 

  1. Which of the applicant’s proposals for providing access to Glen Oaks through the Leake Property is acceptable, if any?

 

The Commission agreed that the applicant’s Option 1, which provides access to Leake and Glen Oaks along a road that runs along the ridge delineating the Development Areas from the Rural Areas, was acceptable.

 

 

In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA-06-15, Glenmore Expansion:  Livengood to consider the appropriateness of the applicant’s proposals to increase density on each property and provide guidance on transportation constraints and options through response to questions posed by staff. 

 

Livengood – Questions for the Commission

 

1. Should the applicant attempt to bring a vehicular connection to Rivanna Village across the common boundary line with the Livengood property?

 

The Commission agreed that it would not be appropriate to provide vehicular access to Rivanna Village across the only available common property line because it would involve impacts to critical slopes, an intermittent stream and a long proposed road in a circuitous alignment. The Commission felt that a stub out for future connection to Rivanna Village not abutting the Livengood property could allow for access and potentially a second gate in the future.

 

2. Which scheme or what parts of individual schemes work best to achieve an acceptable density based on the adjacency of Rivanna Village and Glenmore?

 

The Commission agreed that all of Livengood should become part of Glenmore, but there was no consensus on which of the schemes (41, 42, 51, and 57 lots) was most appropriate in terms of density.

 

 

 

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.

 

Ms. Echols presented a power point presentation and summarized the staff report.  (See Staff Report)

 

Ms. Joseph invited the applicant to address the Commission.

 

Steve Runkle, representative for the applicant, noted that the Rivanna growth area was approved in 1989 at 2:00 a.m.  He explained the density issue from the Code of Development.  He requested that the density be calculated for 4 dwelling units per acre overall and they keep track of it on a block by block basis.  He explained the affordable housing proposed in the development.

 

William Rieley presented a power point presentation concerning the proposed park layout.

 

Ms. Joseph invited public comment.

 

Kat Imhoff, Vice President of Monticello, asked that the Commission address the Monticello view shed and consider the type of building design in terms of color, scale, height and massing.  She hoped that would come forward in future sessions.

 

Richard Wagaman, President of the Glenmore Community Association, supported the request, but asked that Glenmore be included in the discussions.

 

Dennis Ordinov supported the request.

 

Scott Hilderbrand, resident of Glenmore, said that the concerns tonight were about their lifestyle, families and too much traffic on the roads.  An article last week in the “Wall Street Journal” said that the second biggest pain that people have in their life is their commute.  Tonight the Commission entertained the idea of bringing on line 700 housing units in a footprint almost the same size as Glenmore.  The infrastructure is not changing.  It was 17 years ago when this whole growth plan, the Rivanna growth district, was birthed.  Here they are 17 years later and they still have the same rural infrastructure, but yet they are trying to shoehorn all of these houses into it.  He asked that the Commission take into consideration all of the concerns expressed tonight and that the infrastructure is dealt with before approving the requests.

 

Ron White, Director of Housing, said that the $16,500 is the amount of money they will provide under a down payment assistance program.  The Board of Supervisors has said that is a reasonable figure to consider in lieu of affordable housing.  That is the maximum that is provided with the County’s program.

 

There was no further public comment. (The following is a summary of the Commission’s comments on the request.)

 

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.

 

Go to next set of minutes

Return to exec summary