Albemarle County Planning Commission

August 21, 2007

 

The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, August 21, 2007, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.

 

Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Duane Zobrist, Pete Craddock; Jon Cannon, Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman and Eric Strucko. Absent was Bill Edgerton. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent. 

 

Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Allan Schuck, Senior Engineer; David Pennock, Principal Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; John Shepherd, Chief of Current Development and Larry Davis, County Attorney. 

 

Call to Order and Establish Quorum:

 

Ms. Joseph called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. and established a quorum.

 

Deferred Items

 

Work session – ZTA-2007-00003 Critical Slopes, Safe and Convenient Access (Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments and STA-2007-00002 Family Divisions (Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendments)

DEFER TO SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

 

Ms. Joseph pointed out that this item had been deferred to September 11, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.  She invited public comment.  There being none, she noted that there was no action required tonight. She suggested that the public review the Commission’s agendas on the County’s A-Mail web site for additional information.

 

Public Hearing Items:

 

ZMA-2006-00015 Glenmore Livengood

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 43 dwelling units. This proposal is an expansion of the Glenmore PRD and does not include commercial uses.  Proposed density is 1.4 units per 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.

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

(Sean Dougherty)

AND

ZMA-2006-00016 Glenmore Leake

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.

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

(Sean Dougherty)

 

Mr. Dougherty presented a power point presentation and summarized the staff reports for ZMA-2006-00016, Glenmore Leake and ZMA-2006-00015, Glenmore Livengood.

 

Acreage:

Leake: 111.73 acres

Livengood: 32.34 acres

 

Rezone from: RA (Rural Area) to PRD (Planned Residential Development)

 

TMP:  

Leake: 94-16, 93a1-1, 94-74, 94-16A (portion)

Livengood: 80-48 and 94-1

 

By-right use:

Leake: 10 residential lots

Livengood: 6 residential lots

 

Proposal:  Expand Glenmore PRD and continue form and density found in the Glenmore PRD.

 

Requested # of Dwelling Units: 

Leake: up to 110 single-family detached lots

Livengood: up to 43 single-family detached lots

 

Character of Property: 

Livengood: The southwestern side of the property is bordered by Pendower Lane, on the northwestern edge of Section 2S within the Glenmore PRD. The majority of the property slopes gently away from Pendower Lane toward a tributary of Carroll Creek and Carroll Creek itself. Areas along the tributary are wooded with mature trees.

 

Leake: The property lies west of a ridge that defines the Development Area at the eastern boundary of Glenmore. Adjacent to the ridge is a relatively flat and open field. Away from the ridge, the property slopes east toward Carroll Creek with four distinct valleys encroaching into the slope. Each valley drains toward Carroll Creek, but none contain a stream.

 

Use of Surrounding Properties: 

Livengood: The property lies beside the Glenmore PRD. The majority of the surrounding areas are undeveloped. The northwest corner of the property is adjacent to the parcels under review as Rivanna Village. Specifically, this property is adjacent to the regional park uses proposed in Rivanna Village.

 

Leake: This property is adjacent to the Glen Oaks property the Commission reviewed in late May 2006. Glen Oaks is a farm that is not in use in the County’s Rural Area. Bordering the Leake property to the west are the 3rd, 4th, and 5th fairways of the Glenmore golf course, with residences beyond. The northern edge of the property is shared with residential uses served by Running Deer Lane and Farringdon Road (within Glenmore).

 

Comp. Plan Designation:  Neighborhood Density Residential (3-6 units / acre)

 

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.

 

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 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:

 

Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.

 

Don Franco, of KG Associates, presented a power point presentation and explained the rezoning request. 

 

Ms. Joseph invited public comment

 

Jay McClellan, Glenmore Homeowner’s Association member, voiced concerns about the impending construction traffic.  The Homeowner’s Association has examined all of the traffic problems.  It will not reduce the traffic volume or speeds.  The through traffic will use Darby Road from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 9 p.m.    It will only be allowed during these periods. They will have traffic guards during this period.  They have identified the least evasive routes to reach their sites.  The traffic will not exceed the 25 miles per hour posted speed limits.  The developers will provide money to implement paths reviewed with Darby Road residents.  In view of the active support received from the developer, the Glenmore Homeowner’s Association supports the application for Leake and Livengood. 

 

Dennis Odinov, of 2060 Piper Way Keswick, said that this was not a controlled entry point and makes a security risk for Glenmore. It was suggested in the December work session to create a stub road.  A pedestrian and golf cart path would fit well into the plan as controlled access.   The path that will access through will not be a benefit.  He strongly opposed this idea because they already have a problem with Darby Road.

 

Neil Means, of 3815 Richmond Road Keswick, said that he lived in the Village of Rivanna in Glenmore.  The Village of Rivanna residents support the lower density plans.  The Planning Commission is pushing for the higher density.  The master plan for Rivanna has finally started that they have been pushing for.    He questioned why they were pushing for higher density.  He suggested that they support “smart growth.” 

 

Paul Accad, 2025 Pipers Way, resident of Glenmore for 12 years supported the staff report on Leake.  The applicant indicated that the contribution to Glenmore will cover the costs of the connection.  Staff believes the connection should be provided with the rezoning and he agreed.  Given the Carroll Creek path he asked that the Planning Commission follow staff’s recommendation to the letter and make that a part of the rezoning approval.

 

There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission.

 

Mr. Strucko asked Mr. Dougherty to walk through the comments about the cash proffers and their inadequacies.

 

Mr. Dougherty displayed the cut sheet.  He thought that the applicant has it right here.  Essentially what they have is 103 new dwelling units that are subject to the Board’s expectations for cash proffers. 

 

The Planning Commission discussed the requests and took the following actions.

 

MOTION: Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Strucko seconded for approval of ZMA-2006-00015, Glenmore Livengood, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       The applicant provides, at a minimum, a pedestrian connection to Rivanna Village

2.       The applicant meets the Board’s cash proffer expectation for residential development

3.       The applicant coordinates asphalt pathway locations so that they are placed on the 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.

4.       The applicant provides guarantee of the provision of cash to the Glenmore Homeowners Association to address pedestrian safety concerns.

5.       The applicant provides a minimum greenway area dedication in a proffer.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 5:1. (Mr. Craddock voted nay.) (Mr. Edgerton and Mr. Morris were absent.)

 

MOTION: Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Morris seconded for approval of ZMA-2006-00016, Glenmore Leake, for 110 dwelling units subject to the following conditions:

 

  1. Prior to the Board of Supervisors hearing the applicant will enter into an agreement with the Glenmore Homeowner Association on all issues discussed and be reduced into writing by counsel and Livengood.
  2. The applicant shall meet Board’s cash proffer expectation for 110 residential units including affordable housing.
  3. The plan shall be amended to show a complete pedestrian connection along Farringdon, Carroll Creek Road and Piper Way and the applicant shall complete the .3 mile pedestrian path.

 

Mr. Craddock agreed with everything but the number of units due to the increased traffic on the roads.

 

Ms. Joseph noted that when the Commission had that discussion they looked at the fact that it was not getting close to what is being recommended out there.  Comments form engineering and staff at that time said that the roads can handle the traffic.

 

Mr. Craddock noted that it was too intense of development on the critical slopes in that area.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 5:1.  (Mr. Craddock voted nay.)

 

 

The next item was the waiver for both Leake and Livengood, which were covered on pages 14 and 15 of the staff report.

 

Mr. Dougherty pointed out that a critical slope waiver was needed for both requests. On the Leake request there were 4 acres of critical slopes and on the Livengood request .53 acres.  Staff recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver.  The applicant is also requesting a waiver from the curb, gutter, sidewalk and planting strip part of the Subdivision Ordinance.  In order to provide the ditch as discussed and the asphalt path on one side of the road and Glenmore’s paths the waiver would be required.  Staff recommends approval.

 

Mr. Cilimberg noted that there was also a request for private streets.

 

ACTION ON WAIVER REQUESTS FOR ZMA-2006-00015, Glenmore Livengood and ZMA-2006-00016, Glenmore Leake:

 

Motion: Mr. Cannon moved, Mr. Morris seconded, for approval of the waivers for the ZMA-2006-00016, Glenmore Leake and ZMA-2006-00015 Glenmore Livengood requests as recommended by staff for the critical slopes, to continue the private streets that exist in Glenmore on the proposed additions to the PRD, and the waivers of the four sections of the subdivision ordinance in order to extend the existing street sections and character of Glenmore into these proposed expansion, particularly for Curb and gutter (14-410.I), Sidewalk Waiver (14-422E) and Planting Strip Waiver (14-422F) as set forth on pages 14 and 15 of the staff report.

 

The motion carried by a vote of 6:0.  (Mr. Edgerton was absent.)

 

Regarding the waiver requests, Mr. Craddock noted that since it was such a small area of disturbance that he would not object.

 

Ms. Joseph said that ZMA-2006-00015, Glenmore Livengood would go to the Board of Supervisors on October 10 with a recommendation for approval. ZMA-2006-00016, Glenmore Leake would go to the Board of Supervisors on November 14, 2007 with a recommendation for approval.

 

The Planning Commission took a break at 8:06 p.m.

 

The meeting reconvened at 8:20 p.m.

 

Go to next set of minutes

Return to PC actions letter