ZMA 2007- 11 Patterson Subdivision



Rezone 3.521 acres from R1 Residential to R6 Residential for 10 residential units




Cilimberg, Ragsdale


LEGAL REVIEW:   YES (proffers)







March 19, 2008


ACTION:     X          INFORMATION: 



  ACTION:             INFORMATION: 








Emile Bethanne Patterson & J. Daniel Patterson, owners; represented by Clifford H. Fox


A public hearing was held on this rezoning at the Planning Commission on October 16, 2007 and the Commission supported staff’s recommendation to deny the rezoning. This item was scheduled for a Board public hearing on December 12, 2007, but was referred back to the Planning Commission at the request of the applicant. A second Planning Commission public hearing was held January 22, 2008. Staff recommended approval at that time, since it appeared the applicant had addressed outstanding concerns of the Commission in its October 16 recommendation for denial. However, the Commission recommended denial based on the following outstanding uses:


o                 Density-The proposed density was not appropriate, based on the Crozet Master Plan’s recommendations for the edge areas of the Crozet Development Area.

o                 Traffic Impacts- Concern about adding additional traffic to Lanetown Road and Lanetown Way.

o                 Other Commission comments-Some Commissioners believed the applicant should have had the opportunity to defer Commission action to address the items of concern to the Commission. In discussion, some agreed that the proposal should meet the 10,000 square foot average lot size recommendation of the Crozet Master Plan CT3 Hamlet land use designation, thereby reducing the overall density of the project, that the biofilter/greenspace area adjacent to Lanetown Way should be increased, and that new streets to serve the proposed development should include sidewalks.



The applicant submitted a revised concept plan and signed proffers, including reduced residential density and increasing the average size of residential lots, on February 19, 2008. Minor technical changes had been requested by staff and were made to the proffers so they are legally acceptable. (See Attachment I-Proffers and Attachment II-Proffered Concept Plan) The following addresses substantive issues discussed at the Planning Commission’s last public hearing.


Density Concept Plan

The applicant’s property is designated on the Crozet Master Plan (CMP) Place-Type & Built Infrastructure maps as CT 3 within a Hamlet. The CMP recommends a maximum net density of up to 4.5 units per acre in Hamlets and does not recommend the provision of up to 6.5 units per acre if accessory apartments added for 50% of the residential stock.


The property is located on the edge of the Crozet Development Area, but the property is designated CT3 (yellow) with the exception of a very small green strip of CT1 designated along Lanetown Road. (See inset to the right) The CMP also recommends

a 10,000 square foot average lot size for Hamlets. The CMP, on page 32, under Fringe

Areas, indicates that most of the periphery of the Development Areas is recommended

for the lowest density of development, consistent with the Rural Area designation in the

Comprehensive Plan. This text is referring to the CT 1 and CT 2 designations (green and

gray land uses colors) and the Patterson property is predominantly CT3.














Staff’s analysis has determined that the project’s currently proposed density falls within the guidelines of the Crozet Master Plan for the CT3 Edge designation within the Hamlet Place Type:


Patterson Subdivision

Patterson Subdivision



Crozet Master Plan

Patterson Subdivision


Crozet Transect Density


Net Acres




Net Density

CT 3 (Min 3.5, Max 4.5)








Notes: Net acreage is 80% project area.





Minimum, Mid, and Maximum Crozet Master Plan Suggested Units are determined by multiplying the CT 3 suggested

densities for each CT type. For example, CT 3 Max is equal to 2.82 x 4.5, which equals 13 units.

CT 1 and CT 2 areas, show no density. Crozet Master Plan anticipates very low density at 1 unit per 20 acres.



The applicant’s revised proposal limits the number of residential units to 10, with up to two being single family attached and the balance single family detached. The proffered concept plan now provided has been revised from the plan reviewed by the Commission to reduce the number of lots from 12 to 10. (See Attachment II) The applicant’s proposal now specifies that 8 lots shall be a minimum of 10,000 square feet in size and that two lots will be no less than 9,000 square feet. This results in an average lot size of 10,000 square feet for the total area in lots. The Grayrock Homeowners Association continues to express concerns and their comments are provided as Attachment III. All other features of the concept plan have remained unchanged. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that the applicant provide curb, gutter, a planting strip, and sidewalks for all new streets. The applicant is not seeking an alternative design at this time, and any request for variation from these requirements would be subject to Commission approval at the time of subdivision.



Staff had recommended approval of the rezoning since it appeared outstanding concerns of the Commission had been addressed. However, the Planning Commission has recommended denial of this rezoning as noted in the Background section of this Executive Summary. The applicant has addressed outstanding issues cited by the Commission in its recommendation for denial. However, the proposal has not been modified to the extent that it provides an edge area density for the entire property as cited by the Commissioners who voted to recommend denial of this rezoning. Should the Board find that this rezoning is approvable as currently proposed, staff recommends approval be inclusive of the proffers dated February 19, 2008 and signed March 13, 2008, which include the proffered concept plan. (Attachment I-Proffers and Attachment II-Proffered Concept Plan)



I.                        Proffer Statement, dated February 19, 2008 and signed March 13, 2008

II.                        Proffered Concept Plan, dated and received February 19, 2008

III.                        Grayrock Homeowners Association letter dated March 11, 2008

Staff report and attachments

Return to PC actions letter