PRIVATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE

PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY

 

 

 

STAFF PERSON:                                                                   SEAN DOUGHERTY
PLANNING COMMISSION:                                                AUGUST 21, 2007

 

ZMA 06-15: Glenmore Expansion: Livengood

ZMA 06 -16 Glenmore Expansion: Leake

 

Forward: The Leake and Livengood Expansions at Glenmore are reviewed in one report. Although each property has its own character and externalities, they are both expansions of the same PRD. When initially rezoned, Glenmore came with numerous proffers, some of which have been fulfilled, and some of which are still being managed and will be furthered through these proposed rezonings. This report reviews the details of each project individually and concludes with a combined analysis of waivers and proffers.

 

Attachment A is the Location Map; Attachment B is the Livengood Application Plan; Attachment C is the Leake Application Plan; Attachment C is Proffers (covering both rezonings); Attachment D is an analysis of requested waivers, Attachment E is the Glenmore Masterplan; Attachment F is the October 2006 Action Memo; Attachment G is the December Action Memo.

 

 

PROPOSALS

 

Livengood: Add 32.24 acres to the existing Glenmore PRD

The applicant has proposed a layout and density, similar to what exists in Glenmore close to Rivanna Village. At the edge of the subject property (along Pendowner Lane), the applicant has proposed lot sizes similar to that which exist on Pendower. Beyond Pendower, the applicant proposes smaller lots and a large central green. The applicant has also reserved an area that may be used for a future entrance to Glenmore through the Rivanna Village area. The applicant is extending the trail system that exists in Glenmore around this new addition and providing atleast one connection to the bridle trail from the subject property. The applicant is proposing to provide an asphalt path on one side of the roads proposed on the subject property. In order to not provide the required street section (including sidewalks, curb and gutter and planting strips), the applicant has requested a waiver of those portions of the subdivision ordinance. A critical slopes waiver request has been recommended for approval for a .53 acre area of the parcel.

 

Leake: Add 110.94 acres to existing Glenmore PRD.

Initially, the applicant proposed that the Leake property would be developed similar to the large lot sections of Glenmore with 86 houses on 110 acres. The Commission asked the applicant to work to increase the density. The applicant has responded by proposing that a portion of the property be developed with smaller, cottage-style lots (as in portions of Glenmore) to achieve a higher density. The applicant is proposing to provide walking paths on one side of the through-roads within the subject property only. In conjunction, the applicant has submitted a waiver request to waive the portions of the subdivision ordinance that would require an urban section. A critical slopes waiver request showing disturbance of 4.6 acres or 4% of the Leake property, has been recommended for approval.

 

BACKGROUND

Glenmore’s existing PRD allows for 813 units. The additions of Leake and Livengood would increase that total to no more than 916. The applicant is proposing the addition of no more than 103 units with updated proffers.  

 

PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY

Glenmore was approved in 1990 to contain a maximum of 750 single family homes on 1141.38 acres. In 1994, 8.028 acres and eight dwelling units were added to the existing PRD. In 1997, 6.6 acres were added and 11.04 acres were added in 1998, increasing the maximum units allowed to 775. The most recent rezoning in Glenmore was approved in May of 2000. This rezoning added 38 acres and brought the total number of units allowed in Glenmore to 813. Currently 763 lots are platted in Glenmore. Work sessions were held on both requests on October 17, and December 12, 2006.

 

A public hearing on the Livengood request was held on June 5, 2007 and ended in deferral. At that point, the applicant had not adequately responded to the Board of Supervisor’s desired per unit proffer amount needed to address the project’s impacts. Also, a few issues, such as stormwater management, additional greenway dedication, and street section standards, remained unaddressed at that time.

 

One detail discussed with the Planning Commission at the prior work sessions that staff neglected to identify at the June 5 hearing was the lack of a pedestrian connection between Livengood and Rivanna Village. This was a staff oversight that still needs to be addressed The Commission indicated that a connection between Rivanna Village and Glenmore was critical.

 

LIVENGOOD

 

Work Session One: The Commission concurred that it was the applicant’s choice to either move forward with the current Comprehensive Plan or to wait for the Village of Rivanna Master Plan. The Commission was asked if the proposed density of 1.3 units per acre was appropriate and if the subject property should relate more to Glenmore or Rivanna Village or be an extension of the Glenmore pattern. The majority opinion of the Planning Commission was that Pendower Lane should keep the same form and be an extension or a continuation of Glenmore. The Commission concurred that it would be appropriate for rest of the property to achieve a higher density. Finally, the Commission indicated that they needed to see the applicant’s response to direction given regarding the form and layout of the applicant’s proposal to determine if the existing street standards for Glenmore (rural with ditches) or the current Subdivision Ordinance standard (curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street trees) should be used.

 

 

Work Session Two: Based on the variety of guidance and feedback from the first work session, the applicant proposed four different approaches to developing this property for the second work session. The Commission discussed positive aspects of the various proposals. The Commission agreed that it would not be appropriate to provide direct vehicular access to the proposed Rivanna Village project (in a location available to the applicant) because it would involve impacts to critical slopes, an intermittent stream, and a long and circuitous road alignment. The Commission felt that a stub out for future connection to Rivanna Village through another property not under the developer’s control could allow for additional access and potentially a second gate in the future. For the interim, the Commission indicated that a pedestrian connection needed to be made.

 

 

Summary – Applicant’s Response to Work Session Guidance

 

The applicant proposes lots and density similar to Glenmore across the entire property. The applicant proposes a common green measuring approximately 175x375’ (1.5 acres). The applicant proposes to use the existing Glenmore street standards, including paved walking paths on one side of the road, throughout this proposed expansion. In keeping with the Commission’s direction, the applicant has proposed an area where future connection for emergency access or a secondary entrance to Glenmore could be provided. However, the applicant has not provided a pedestrian connection to Rivanna Village. The applicant has justified the lack of connection based on changes to the Rivanna Village Plan, security concerns, and has commented that he feels the potential for a future connection (that would include pedestrian facilities) suffices to address the Commission’s direction on the matter. Though an absolute consensus was not determined through a vote or formal summary from the Commission regarding the matter, staff believes the Commission indicated that the applicant should make a pedestrian connection to Rivanna Village in conjunction with the rezoning.

 

CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The Land Use Plan shows that the subject property is located in the Village of Rivanna and is designated as Neighborhood Density Residential, which supports residential uses (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses.

 

Specific Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the Village or Rivanna that apply to this area are as follows:

 

Transportation

 

• Provide interconnections between existing development and areas to be developed in

the Village of Rivanna.

 

The applicant proposes an addition to the Glenmore PRD and with no additional vehicular connections. After reviewing the traffic study and performing some trip generation calculations, the County Engineer has determined that the additional trips generated within Glenmore from  the Leake as well as Livengood, development on the adjacent Glen Oaks property, do not necessitate the need for an additional entrance to Glenmore. Further, potential interconnections are constrained by challenging topography and other existing conditions, such as the Running Deer subdivision and Rivanna River. The applicant has reserved an area for a future connection to Rivanna Village. The applicant has not proposed any alternative pedestrian connection to Rivanna Village. Currently an intervening parcel prohibits the applicant from making a vehicular connection, however, at the second work session, the Commission concluded that in lieu of a vehicular connection, a pedestrian connection to Rivanna Village would increase the functionality and walkability of both neighborhoods. Staff believes the applicant has not fully responded to this Comprehensive Plan goal.

 

• Provide for pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the Village.

 

The applicant would prefer to extend the existing approach for pedestrian and bicycle access within Glenmore to this proposal. That is, these facilities would be provided in the form of paved paths, bridal trails, and golf course paths, rather than sidewalks. Given the existing context and extensive system of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, staff finds that an extension of this system appears appropriate. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the subdivision ordinance requirement for curb, gutter, sidewalks, and planting strips. As a substitution, the applicant proposes to provide an asphalt path on one side of the new roads planned on the Livengood parcel.

 

Staff notes that the lack of sidewalks and walking paths in some existing portions of Glenmore has generated considerable concern among the existing residents there. Commission members urged the applicant to work with the Glenmore residents and homeowners association to determine how the existing roads - some of which serve a greater number of vehicles and pedestrians -  may be improved, given the additional vehicle trips the proposed expansion to Glenmore would create. To that end, the applicant has said he has worked with the homeowners association and has offered to contribute money to the association that can be used to improve or connect existing or proposed pedestrian facilities or calm traffic, but has not proffered to do so. As the roads in Glenmore are privately controlled and maintained, staff believes a private agreement would allow the Glenmore residents construct facilities that work to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety. A proffer would provide the County with the assurance this would happened.

 

• 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.

 

A final plan and budget for the improvement of Route 250 has not been considered or approved by the County. However, the additional vehicles from this development will contribute additional trips to Route 250. The share of this development’s impact to Route 250 is minimal. Staff believes that a portion of the applicant’s cash proffer contribution could be used to address the impact of this new development on Route 250 once a plan is in place for its improvement.

 

Internal Transportation Network

The traffic study indicates the connection of Carroll Creek Road between Piper Way and Farringdon Road works to split vehicle trips generated from Leake and Glen Oaks. This connection also facilitates additional and alternative routes to existing residential areas.

 

A traffic signal proffered to be installed at the intersection of Route 250 and Glenmore Way has not met warrants. Once the warrants are met, the signal will be installed by the applicant.

 

Monticello Viewshed

The Comprehensive Plan indicates that improvements in the Village should be designed to:

 

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

 

Visual impact of the new development on the Monticello Viewshed will be minimal. The property lies on the opposite side of Glenmore from Monticello near a section of Glenmore not visible from Monticello. Due to the distance, topography, and existing tree cover, this Comprehensive Plan goal applies less to this property. Staff believes this goal is addressed.

 

Land Use

Areas shown as Neighborhood Density:

• Should continue to be developed at a density of 3 – 6 dwellings per acre.

 

The applicant is proposing a density of 1.3 units per acre. This is significantly less than the density range prescribed by this designation. All developed portions of Glenmore, which contain the Neighborhood Density designation, fall short of the density goal. The Commission has previously indicated that Glenmore is an area where this Comprehensive Plan goal is somewhat less critical given its location, concerns from existing residents, and the nature of the existing context of the Glenmore community.

 

Open Space Plan

 

In the Open Space Plan, this area is primarily shown as wooded. A small portion of Carroll Creek  contains sensitive soils.  The Open Space Plan identifies sensitive soils that are restricted by flooding and wetness as they are not buildable. The applicant’s proposal respects a 100’ foot buffer along Carroll Creek. The applicant’s has relocated proposed sewer alignments to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. The applicant’s proposal does not negatively impact the Open Space Plan.

 

Conformity with the Neighborhood Model

 

Pedestrian Orientation

The applicant is proposing a rural cross section with a walking trail on one side of the roads proposed in the Livengood addition. The applicant also proposes to extend the bridle trail, which runs along the perimeter if Glenmore to be extended around the proposed addition. The applicant has not proposed any type of connection into Rivanna Village. At the last work session, the Commission determined that no vehicular interconnection needs to be made between the two neighborhoods with this rezoning, but it was the consensus that a pedestrian connection should be provided and an area reserved for a future connection. An area has been reserved for future secondary access. No alternative connection to Rivanna Village has been made by the applicant. Given the applicant’s association with the Rivanna Village project, this detail should not be difficult to remedy prior to the Board hearing this request.

Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths

The applicant proposes to use the existing road standards found in Glenmore which include rural road cross sections, ditches, multipurpose trails along some roadways, and bridle trails and walking paths through open spaces. The applicant proposes this path on only one side of the street in the Livengood Parcel. This may be appropriate for the Commission, however, the applicant has lined the open space common green side of the street with the walking path and not the side of the street that contains residences. This walking path would require school children, elderly, and the like, to cross the street from residences to access the sidewalk, only to be adjacent to an open common area. In this area, it seems some treatment along the edge of the common area is appropriate. However, it is more important to place the sidewalk adjacent to homes. Staff believes the applicant should move the sidewalk to the other side of the street, at a minimum. Outside of the proposed rezoning, the Glenmore pedestrian system walking path is located on the north side of Ferndown Lane. Inside the Livengood Parcel, the applicant shows the path switching to the southern side of the street. For a number of reasons, including a needless crossing over an intersection, where a single street crossing can be made, the path should be moved to the same side of the street as the existing path.

Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks

An opportunity for a future connection has been provided. In lieu of a vehicular  connection being made with the rezoning, the Commission has expressed a desire for a very usable connection between Glenmore and Rivanna Village to be made. No connection to Rivanna Village is proposed by the applicant.

Parks and Open Space

The applicant’s provision of a large and usable common green addresses this aspect of the neighborhood Model. Including the green, the applicant is providing a total of 12.69 acres or 39% of land in open space including a very usable green.

Neighborhood Centers

The applicant is not providing a pedestrian connection to Rivanna Village, which will serve as the center of the entire Village of Rivanna development area. The Glenmore Club is not within convenient walking distance, but will serve as a neighborhood center for those who utilize the facility. The common green will serve as a center to the residential housing proposed to surround it.

Building and Spaces of Human Scale

The proposal is for single-family-detached residential in an expansion of Glenmore. This principle of the Neighborhood Model is less applicable in this proposal.

Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability Uses

 

The applicant is providing one housing type. The applicant would like to address the Board’s affordable housing goal by contributing to the County’s affordable housing fund at the appropriate amount for the number of units proposed.

Site Planning that Respects Terrain

The applicant has worked with the terrain and applied for a critical slopes waiver covering .53 acres contained in several lots are likely to be partially disturbed. Staff  recommends approving the waiver.

Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas

This parcel lies atleast a half mile from the edge of the Village of Rivanna development area.

The following principles do not apply: mix of uses, redevelopment, and relegated parking.

Staff Comment:

Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district

Planned Residential Development (PRD) zoning was established to permit a variety of densities and layout with shared open space. The applicant’s proposal conforms to the proposed zoning district. The applicant’s provision of a common green and other open space equals 12.69 acres or 39% of the PRD. PRD’s require at least 25% shared common area.

Anticipated impact on public facilities and services

Water and sewer service is adequate to serve the development. The sewage treatment plant associated with the Glenmore development is adequately sized to accommodate additional dwelling units. The East Rivanna Fire Station provides emergency service. Additional capacity at Stone Robinson elementary exists. The Board cash proffer expectation, once met by the applicant, is designed to address the capital impacts of new development.

 

Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources

The most significant resource on the property is Carroll Creek, the only perennial stream adjacent to the parcel. The applicant is respecting a 100-foot buffer adjacent to Carroll Creek. The property contains no other known and / or identified resources.

 

Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties

The proposal expands an existing PRD toward the proposed Rivanna Village and Route 250 generally. A collection of seven relatively small existing lots is bounded by this development. The expansion of the Glenmore trail system around these proposed new lots will be routed adjacent to two parcels lying directly beside the proposed PRD. The impacts from the proposed expansion does not appear to significantly impact adjacent parcels.

 

Public need and justification for the change

The initial rezoning to PRD at Glenmore provided a greenway dedication to Albemarle County that included a strip of land 100’ wide along the Rivanna River (See also Proffer 6 discussion below). The Parks and Recreation Department has indicated that a larger dedication of land would work to reduce the size and impact of stream crossings by constructing those fixtures further back from the river’s edge. Staff has worked with Parks and Recreation, the County Attorney’s office and the applicant to finalize a larger dedication, consisting of approximately 15 acres along the river. The applicant has formed a proffer to provide that larger dedication, but has not provided a minimum acreage. An exhibit showing the additional dedication has been received by staff, but the proffer clarifies that the dedication will be only in general accord with the exhibit. Staff believes the applicant should commit to providing a minimum acreage with the proffer.  The additional land would provide a better trail alignment and public land in excess of that initially proffered with the Glenmore PRD.

 

 

LEAKE

 

Work Session One: For the initial work session, the applicant proposed 86 residential units. The Commission recommended that the applicant increase the number of units proposed.  Due to the existence of swales and challenging terrain, it was recognized that the development potential of this parcel was significantly impacted.

 

Work Session Two: The applicant proposed a plan for up to 110 lots, increasing density from .78 to 1 dwelling unit per acre. At the second work session, the Commission indicated that access to Glen Oaks should be provided through Glenmore. Because Glenmore does not support interconnectivity from adjacent land, the Commission did not feel it was appropriate to subject the existing residents of Running Deer Drive to traffic associated with Glenmore. Further, it was determined that that access to Leake and Glen Oaks may be shared by a single road in order to decrease impacts from additional impervious area that a second road would create.

 

Summary – Applicant’s Response to Work Session Guidance:

 

The applicant proposes a density increase from the initial work session and has proposed that Leake and Glen Oaks take access from Glenmore and not Running Deer Drive. The applicant has proposed a road that is aligned on the development area boundary to serve both Leake (DA) and Glen Oaks (RA).

 

CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The Land Use Plan shows that the subject property is located in Village of Rivanna and is designated as Neighborhood Density Residential, which supports residential uses (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses.

 

Specific Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the Village or Rivanna that apply to this area are as follows:

 

Transportation

 

• Provide interconnections between existing development and areas to be developed in

the Village of Rivanna.

 

The applicant proposes an addition to the Glenmore PRD and with no additional vehicular connections. After reviewing the traffic study and performing some trip generation calculations, the County Engineer has determined that the additional trips generated within Glenmore from  the Leake as well as Livengood proposals, and from the adjacent Glen Oaks property, do not necessitate the need for an additional entrance to Glenmore. Because the property lies adjacent to the Rural Areas and due to challenging topographic conditions, no connections from this property to the Rural Areas is guided by the Comprehensive Plan. A connection to Glen Oaks is made from this property.

 

• Provide for pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the Village.

 

The applicant is showing an asphalt path along through roads on the Leake property and is providing trails that tie the proposal into the existing trail system at Glenmore. Given the existing context and extensive system of pedestrian and bridle facilities, staff finds that an extension of this system appears appropriate.

 

In one area, between the existing developed portion of Glenmore closest to the Leake property, the applicant has not proposed the connection of existing and proposed paths. The applicant has indicated that his proposed cash contribution to the Glenmore Homeowners Association would cover this break in the system. Given the importance of a complete pedestrian system on the larger loop within the Glenmore PRD, staff believes this connection should be provided with the rezoning.

 

• 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.

 

A final plan and budget for the improvement of Route 250 has not been considered or approved by the County. As discussed in the Livengood review, a portion of the applicant’s cash proffer contribution could be used to address the impact of this new development on Route 250 once a plan is in place for its improvement.

 

Transportation – Internal Network

The Leake addition proposes a complete loop connecting Piper Way with Carroll Creek Road and Farringdon Road. This provides the potential for future residents of the Leake parcel and Glen Oaks with two routes to the exit, working to split impacts on existing roads. This also improves the overall circulation network within Glenmore.

 

A traffic signal proffered to be installed at the intersection of Route 250 and Glenmore Way has not met warrants. Once the warrants are met, the signal will be installed by the applicant.

 

Monticello Viewshed

The Comprehensive Plan indicates that improvements in the Village should be designed to:

 

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

 

Visual impact of the new development on the Monticello Viewshed will be minimal. Like Livengood, the Leake property lies on the opposite side of Glenmore from Monticello near a section of Glenmore not visible from Monticello. Due to the distance, topography, and existing tree cover, this Comprehensive Plan goal applies less to this property. Staff believes this goal is addressed.

 

Land Use

Areas shown as Neighborhood Density

• Should continue to be developed at a density of 3 – 6 dwellings per acre.

 

The applicant is proposing a density of 1 unit per acre. This is significantly less than the density range prescribed by this designation. All developed portions of Glenmore, which contain the Neighborhood Density designation, fall short of the density goal. The Commission has previously indicated that the Leake property is less developable given the topography. Glenmore is an area where this Comprehensive Plan goal is somewhat less critical given its location, concerns from existing residents, and the nature of the existing context of the Glenmore community.

 

Conformity with the Neighborhood Model

 

Pedestrian Orientation

The applicant proposes an asphalt path on one side of the through roads. Cul-de-sacs do not have a dedicated pedestrian facility, but each lot has excellent access to walking paths that connect through swales to the existing Glenmore trail system. Staff believes this approach is acceptable. However, the application plan does not show the complete connection of new and proposed pedestrian facilities associated with the new loop connection.

Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths

The applicant proposes to use the existing road standards found in Glenmore which include rural road cross sections, ditches, multipurpose trails along some roadways, and bridle trails and walking paths through open spaces. The applicant proposes this path on only one side of the street on through roads. Staff believes this is appropriate so long as some the applicant provides a complete pedestrian connection between existing and proposed portions of Glenmore.

Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks

The applicant is proposing to complete a large vehicular loop that will serve large portions of the Glenmore neighborhood and provide more residences with alternative travel routes. The pedestrian path associated with this loop road needs to be completed between existing Glenmore and the Leake expansion.

Parks and Open Space

The applicant proposes 46 of 111 acres be provided in open space. The Glenmore  playing fields, pathways, club and size of lots provides sufficient open space and recreation amenities.

Neighborhood Centers

The Glenmore club is the closest neighborhood center.

Building and Spaces of Human Scale

The proposal is for single-family-detached residential in an expansion of Glenmore. This principle of the Neighborhood Model is less applicable in this proposal.

Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability Uses

 

The applicant is providing one housing type. The applicant would like to address the Board’s affordable housing goal by contributing to the County’s affordable housing fund at the appropriate amount for the number of units proposed.

Site Planning that Respects Terrain

The applicant has worked with the terrain and applied for a critical slopes waiver for of 4.6 acres or 4% of the Leake property an area contained in several lots are likely to be partially disturbed. Staff recommends approving the waiver.

Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas

The Rural Areas bound the subject property on one side. The applicant proposes that a road define the edge of the Rural Areas. This road will serve the Development Areas on one side that Glen Oaks, in the Rural Areas, on the other side. At the December work session, the Commission indicated that to minimize impacts impervious cover, and provide access to these pending developments, only one road should be constructed.

Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas

This parcel lies at least a half mile from the edge of the Village of Rivanna development area.

The following principles do not apply: mix of uses, redevelopment, and relegated parking.

Staff Comment:

Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district

Planned Residential Development (PRD) zoning was established to permit a variety of densities and layout with shared open space. The applicant’s proposal conforms to the proposed zoning district. The applicant’s provision of open space equals 46 acres or 41% of the PRD. PRD’s require at least 25% shared common area.

Anticipated impact on public facilities and services

Water and sewer service is adequate to serve the development. The sewage treatment plant associated with the Glenmore development is adequately sized to accommodate additional dwelling units. The East Rivanna Fire Station provides emergency service. Capacity for additional capacity at Stone Robinson elementary exists. The Board cash proffer expectation, once met by the applicant, is designed to address the capital impacts of new development.

 

Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources

The applicant is providing a 100 foot buffer along Carroll Creek and avoiding a majority of the critical slopes that exist on the subject property.

 

Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties

The proposal expands an existing PRD toward the edge of the Development Area. The adjacent Rural Areas is proposed as the Glenmore Subdivision. The impact of the Leake expansion will be similar to those from existing Glenmore residents. The traffic study indicated that these impacts are adequately addressed with the existing roads.

 

Public need and justification for the change

Additional greenway dedication, once finalized, would increase overall public recreation area and provide a better trail alignment.

 

PROFFERS – LEAKE AND LIVENGOOD

 

The applicant was asked to update the existing Glenmore proffers, given that the initial Glenmore proffers were accepted in 1992. Because each request is to expand the existing PRD, the updated proffers address both rezoning requests. The existing proffers are included to illustrate what has been satisfied. The applicant will update the proffers (eliminate those that are satisfied) prior to the Board acting on them. Between the Livengood and Leake proposal, 103 units will be added to the Glenmore PRD, taking the total units permitted from 813 to 916. 50 lots are permitted within the existing PRD and not yet constructed. The applicant proposes that development within Glenmore be subject to the existing proffers until 813 are constructed. The remaining 103 lots will be subject to the proffers as they are amended through this rezoning.

 

Proffer 1 establishes what uses are permitted in the PRD and a total number of units permitted. 

 

Proffer 2 is a proffer for a school site. The Board resolved that this proffer was satisfied when the Rivanna Village rezoning provided a public park instead of a school site. This proffer has been satisfied.

 

Proffer 3 is a proffer for six acres for construction of a fire station. This proffer has been satisfied.

 

Proffer 4 reflects the existing per unit cash contribution for proffers covering the existing units permitted in Glenmore with the existing zoning. Proffer 14, reflecting the Board’s desire for cash to address the impacts of development, shall apply to all units above the existing permitted cap (813), up to the new permitted total of 916.

 

Proffer 5 is a proffer for water and sewer facilities to serve Glenmore. Capacity exists in the system that has been constructed to support Glenmore. This proffer has been satisfied.

 

Proffer 6 is an updated greenway proffer. The initial proffer committed to a 100 – foot wide strip of land along the Rivanna River. The new proffer provides a larger land area so that impacts from and scale of stream crossings can be minimized. The proffer identifies a deed, which staff has reviewed and is in order. However, the proffer does not list a minimum acreage to be dedicated only and exhibit with which the proffer commits to be in general accord. Staff believes a minimum acreage commitment is needed.

 

Proffer 7 maintains access to a number of lots that existed prior to the establishment of Glenmore.

 

Proffer 8 is a commitment to signalize the intersection of Glenmore Way and Route 250 once the warrants are met. The warrants for that signal have not been met and the signal is not yet required.

 

Proffer 9 is a clause that sought to obtain money to offset impacts of the development had the applicant not followed through on several of the larger proffers, such as donation of land for a fire station or construction of the sewage treatment plant at Glenmore. As these projects are finalized, the proffer has been satisfied.

 

Proffer 10 is a statement that the development shall be in general accord with the application plan. 

 

Proffer 11 regards the maintenance of private roads and private drives serving two lots. The subdivision ordinance has been updated and now covers shared driveways and similar facilities. This proffer has been satisfied.

 

Proffer 12 regards the employment of a security officer for security purposes. This proffer is satisfied.

 

Proffer 13 clarified that Section 41 of Glenmore would be provided access from the Glenmore private road system (and not an outside facility). This proffer has been satisfied.

 

Proffer 14 clarifies that all approved units (813) are subject to the previous cash proffer and that all new units ( up to 103) are subject to proffer 14. This is a combined cash proffer to address the impact of development and the Board’s affordable housing goal. The applicant is proffering to provide a cash contribution toward affordable housing instead of building it in Livengood and Leake. The Chief of Housing has accepted this as reasonable given the location of the rezoning and the private nature of Glenmore and homeowners fees associated with roads, landscaping, and maintenance. However, the Board has indicated that when using this option, all proposed dwelling units shall be subject to the cash proffer expectation to address the impacts of development. While this has not been clear to the applicant based on prior discussions with staff, this proffer needs to be adjusted to include all the units.

 

Proffer 15 is a proffer indicating the cash proffer amount shall be adjusted annually, in keeping with BOS direction.

 

Glenmore – Combined Livengood and Leake Cash Impact Summary

 

As noted above, the applicant is proffering to contribute cash in lieu of providing actual affordable housing. Therefore, all 103 units above the current unit cap (813) are subject to the Board’s expectation for cash proffers to address impacts. The applicant has combined his cash proffer to address affordable housing and impacts into one figure that would be applied to each unit.

 

The applicant’s combined affordable housing and capital impact cash proffer is $16,762 and is proposed for all 103 units. This totals $1,726,486.

 

 

By comparison, the County’s proffer expectation would be as follows:

103 X 15 % (affordable)  =  15 units

15 units X $19,100                                             = $286,500 (affordable housing)

 

103 X $17,5000 (cash impact)                          = $1,802,500 (impact proffer)

TOTAL                                                             $2,089,000

 

The applicant has fallen short of the cash proffer expectation. Because the plat for the greenway dedication is not complete, Staff does not know the final acreage of that potential dedication, but that land, though in floodplain, would qualify for a credit to the $2.089,000 expectation for capital impacts cash proffer.

 

WAIVERS – LEAKE AND LIVENGOOD

 

The applicant has submitted requests for a number of waivers. (See Attachment E for a complete review of the requested waivers.) First, the applicant has requested a critical slopes waiver covering .53 acres for Livengood and 4.6 acres for Leake. Staff recommends approving both critical slopes waivers.

 

The applicant has also requested to continue the private streets that exist in Glenmore on the proposed additions to the PRD. Given the existing system is private and well maintained, staff recommends approving private streets for both rezonings.

 

The applicant has requested to waive four sections of the subdivision ordinance in order to extend the existing street sections and character of Glenmore into these proposed expansions. They are as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

LIVENGOOD SUMMARY

 

Factors Favorable to this request

- The applicant has reserved area for a future vehicular connectivity option

- The applicant has provided roughly 1.5 acres of shared and usable open space in the form of a common green and an additional 11 acres in common area.

- The applicant proposes a larger dedication of greenway than the existing Glenmore proffers (more detail needs to be supplied by the applicant regarding the greenway acreage amount).

 

Factors Unfavorable to this request

- The plan provides no alternative connection to Rivanna Village.

- The applicant’s proffer to address this development’s capital impact is lower than the amount expected by the Board for this type of development.

- Coordination of pathway orientation and alignment should be made .

- The proposed private agreement for sidewalk and road improvements in Glenmore does not provide the same assurances as a proffer.

 

LIVENGOOD RECOMMENDATION:

Staff does not recommend approval unless the applicant makes commitments as follows:

 

·         provides, at a minimum, a pedestrian connection to Rivanna Village

·         meets the Board’s cash proffer expectation for residential development

·         coordinates asphalt pathway locations so that they are placed on same side of the street as residences and do not switch to the opposite side of the road between existing and proposed portions of Glenmore.

·         provides guarantee of the provision of cash to the Glenmore Homeowners Association to address pedestrian safety concerns.

·         provides a minimum greenway area dedication in a proffer.

 

 

LEAKE SUMMARY

 

Factors Favorable to this request

- The addition completes a vehicular loop (Carroll Creek Rd. to Piper Way) within Glenmore

- The applicant proposed an extensive series of paths through the open space.

 

Factors Unfavorable to this request

- The applicant’s proffer to address this development’s capital impacts is lower than the amount expected by the Board for this type of development.

- The plan fails to complete the pedestrian facility associated with a vehicular loop

 

LEAKE RECOMMENDATION:

Staff does not recommend approval unless the applicant makes commitments as follows:

 

·         meets the Board’s cash proffer expectation for residential development

·         amends the plan to show a complete pedestrian connection along Farringdon, Carroll Creek Road and Piper Way.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

A.     Location Map

B.     Livengood Application Plan

C.     Leake Application Plan

D.     Poffers

E.      Waivers

F.      Glenmore Masterplan

G.     October Action Memo

H.     December Action Memo

 

Go to next attachment

Return to exec summary