The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session, meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, October 30, 2007, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman; Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Duane Zobrist, Bill Edgerton; Jon Cannon, Eric Strucko and Pete Craddock. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were David E. Pennock, Senior Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; John Shepherd, Chief of Current Development; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner and Elaine Echols, Principal Planner.
Ms. Joseph called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA-2006-00016 Glenmore Leake (Sign # 31, 32, 44, 69) - Back on the schedule due to advertising error
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. Proposed density is approx. 1 unit/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.
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 93 Parcels A1-1 and A5-1, Tax Map 94 Parcel 74 and portions of Tax Map 94 Parcels 15, 16, 16A
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
Ms. Echols presented a power point presentation and summarized the staff report.
Staff regrets having to come back to the Commission for another public hearing on ZMA-2006-16 due to an advertising error. There were several things that happened that caused this. One was that the parcel of land was subdivided and had a new tax parcel number from the time that it was originally submitted to the time that it came up for public hearing. One of the parcel numbers was missing from the application. The third number was missing in the legal ad. Staff is here to correct that error and bring back the Leake rezoning that the Commission heard in August. The development would be an addition to the Glenmore PRD. The Glenmore Plan in the Livengood parcel was approved by the Board of Supervisors earlier this month.
The recommendation from August 27 was:
· The applicant shall meet the Board’s cash proffer and affordable housing expectations for 110 residential units.
· The plan shall be amended to show a complete pedestrian connection along Farringdon, Carroll Creek Road and Piper Way. A minimum greenway area dedication is needed.
· Staff asked the Planning Commission if the following recommendation was also intended from that meeting since the Livengood and Leake discussions seemed to be mixed at that meeting. It was very clear that in the Livengood proposal the Commission wanted the path to be on the side of the road with the lots instead of on the side of the road with the park after a recommendation from staff. From the minutes of the meeting, she felt that the Commission wanted the same thing to happen for the Leake parcel; however, that recommendation wasn’t captured in the official action. The plan itself on page 28 shows the road with a path on the rural area side. So the path is being shown on the Glen Oaks side on the plan instead of on the development area side. Staff asked the Commission if the intent was for the path to be on the side of the road with the majority of lots in the Leake project also.
Ms. Echols stated the Favorable Factors as:
· The proposal is in the development areas.
· Roads proposed in the Leake development would complete a vehicular loop in Glenmore.
· There is an extensive series of paths through the open space. The greenway area dedication has been included, which is in the proffer packet.
· The proffers do not fully address impacts.
· The plans fails to complete the pedestrian facility associated the vehicular loop.
· The path is on the rural areas side of Carroll Creek Road rather than on the development area side.
Ms. Echols said that the applicant has declined to change the plan to date to provide a pedestrian connection between the existing Glenmore section and the area to be rezoned. Because a discussion on the location of the path on Carroll Creek Road was just discussed with the applicant today, staff does not know if the applicant intends to make that change. In any case, staff recommends approval if the applicant provides the public improvements/facilities or cash proffers to address the full impacts of the rezoning as the Commission said at the last meeting. Also, the applicant needs to complete the pedestrian facility associated with the vehicular loop and move the path shown on the rural areas side of Carroll Creek Road to the development side where there are more lots. Ms. Echols said that these are essentially the same things that the Commission said was important at the last public hearing. Since no changes have been made, the Commission is still in the same spot as before. Therefore, staff leaves it in the Commission’s hands in terms of making a decision.
Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for Ms. Echols.
Mr. Cannon said that when the Commission approved the request last time they set the same conditions as listed.
Ms. Echols replied that is correct. The conditions set are the unfavorable factors listed in the staff report.
Ms. Joseph asked when the request goes to the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Echols replied that it goes on November 14.
Ms. Joseph said that there were no changes to be made between now and when it goes to the Board.
Ms. Echols replied that there were changes to the proffers, but there were no changes to the plan. But, the proffers were just changed in some ways to make it clear what they were proffering and certainly to provide the greenway information.
Ms. Joseph said that they were not changed to reflect what the Planning Commission had said that they could approve this plan if they were changed.
Ms. Echols replied that was correct.
There being no further questions for staff, Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Don Franco, representative for Glenmore Associates, said that he had not planned on speaking tonight, but wanted to respond to the last question. It was not clear that at the last meeting that moving the path to the opposite side of the street was what the Commission was looking for. On this one particular plan he did not think that there were any other plan changes that were requested. He said that Glenmore Associates dealt with the proffer aspects, which they are going to address that with the Board. The greenway dedication was added to the proffers. He did think that there were any plan changes that needed to be addressed at this point in time. He said that Glenmore Associates feels that it makes more sense to have the pedestrian connection on the rural side of the road. There will be fewer driveway cuts in that area. They found out about this being an issue earlier today. Again, their position would be to put it in a place where there are fewer driveway cuts. The story he goes back to is in Hollymead on Powell Creek Drive where several years ago a little girl was riding her bike on the sidewalk there with no hands and went across a driveway cut on a path and flipped over the front of her bike and lost all of her front teeth. He would rather not encourage that to happen. He would rather put the path where there would not be these kinds of obstacles. If it becomes an issue, they will move it to that side. But, he would prefer to move forward to the Board with the same conditions from the last meeting.
Ms. Joseph invited other public comment.
Paul Accad, of 2025 Pipers Way, a resident of Glenmore for 12 years, asked to talk about the pedestrian connection to compliment the vehicular loop. He thanked the Commission for what they did on August 21. Recommendation 2 says that the plan should be amended to show a complete pedestrian connection along Farringdon, Carroll Creek Road and Piper Way. He would hope when this concludes they included that in the conditions of approval. The paths are very important, as he noted on August 21, because where the 110 units on the Leake property are going to be added to there is no path between that area and the country club. That is where the majority of the foot and bike traffic would go. It is almost complete, but there is a small piece missing. That is why this recommendation 2 was included. His two children are on the swim club at Glenmore and practice from 10 to 11 a.m. He has observed somewhere between 40 and 50 children biking from their homes to the country club area. He would like for the children that move into the Leake section to be able to take their bikes on a path to the country club. He would like the folks from present day Glenmore to be able to take a path to enjoy what is being provided in there. There are basketball courts etc. This is going to make it a lot easier to get to. There was some talk by someone about instead of building a path that they give the money to the Glenmore Homeowner’s Association and let them worry about it. He felt that was a terrible idea for Glenmore. He felt that staff has the training and experience to decide what path should or should not go because staff does not have a horse in the race. Finally, he felt that the Glenmore Association can assess the Glenmore Homeowners to build whatever they want. This money that is being provided by the applicant in his view should be spent either to help these people who are moving in or to help the people who live right around them to provide a spoon full of sugar to help the medicine go down. He asked the Commission to repeat what they did on August 21 in regards to the path and demand that the pedestrian loop is completed as the vehicular loop is being completed. He asked that to be kept as a part of the rezoning.
There being no further public comment, Ms. Joseph closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Craddock said that in August, he made the motion for the rezoning with a recommendation for the pedestrian path and loop. But, he said he was the only one that voted against this whole proposal because of the density.
Mr. Craddock made a proposal for approval of the rezoning request.
Mr. Strucko noted that the circumstance has changed. He said he could not support the request because of the proposed density and the fact that the County doesn’t have rural preservation policies in place. Even if those policies were in place, he could not support the proposal because there are 34 units that are proposed to be exempted from cash proffers. Therefore, he was going to vote no.
Ms. Joseph noted that she was very disappointed that nothing has been changed according to the Commission’s prior recommendation. Therefore, she could not support the request. She felt that the applicant needs to address all of the 110 units within the proffers. She felt that it was important to have the walkway on the side of the street where most of the people are going to be living. The other side is a rural area. It is also important not to place the burden of building that walkway on the people of Glenmore. That is something that staff has recommended and is something that needs to happen there.
Mr. Cannon asked what the normal process is by which an applicant’s proposal goes to the Board when approval is recommended based on conditions.
Ms. Echols said that if the applicant responds positively to the Commission’s recommendations for changes, then staff covers that in an executive summary out of the staff report and says what has been met or has not been met. If the conditions have all been met, then staff generally recommends approval. If the conditions have not been met, then staff indicates that information in the executive summary. Staff would say that the Planning Commission recommended “this” and the applicant did “that”, and therefore staff cannot recommend approval. Usually if changes have not been made by the time the project goes to the Board, then it becomes a Board issue. The applicant has declined to do the things that the Commission has asked them to do at this point.
Mr. Kamptner elaborated that what he has gathered in meetings is that the applicant intends to explain to the Board why they should be entitled to essentially a credit under the cash proffer policy for the lands that are already under the PRD zoning. That is why they have not made the change. They are going to make that presentation to the Board.
Mr. Zobrist seconded Mr. Craddock’s recommendation for approval.
Mr. Kamptner asked if that recommendation includes all 3 of the bullet points. Mr. Craddock said that he was not concerned about which side of the road the path would be on, but he had heard other Commissioners state that they desire to carry through on this previous recommendation.
Mr. Morris and Mr. Zobrist supported that the path be moved to the lot side.
Mr. Craddock amended the motion that the path be moved to the lot side.
Mr. Zobrist amended the second.
AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Craddock moved, Mr. Zobrist seconded for approval of ZMA-2006-00016, Glenmore Leake, for 110 dwelling units subject to the following conditions being met before Board action:
· The applicant shall meet the Board’s cash proffer and affordable housing expectations for 110 residential units.
· The plan shall be amended to show a complete pedestrian connection along Farringdon, Carroll Creek Road and Piper Way.
· The applicant shall coordinate asphalt pathway locations so that they are placed on the same side of the street as a majority of the residences;
The motion failed by a vote of 5:2. (Mr. Morris and Mr. Zobrist voted aye.) (Mr. Craddock, Mr. Strucko, Mr. Cannon, Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton voted nay.)
Ms. Joseph said that ZMA-2006-00016, Glenmore Leake would go to the Board of Supervisors on November 14, 2007 with a recommendation for denial based on the applicant’s failure to address the conditions recommended at the August 21, 2007 meeting.
Go to next set of minutes
Return to PC actions letter