HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 05 2007 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
*taw June 5, 2007
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting, work session and a public hearing on
Tuesday, June 5, 2007, at 4:00 p.m., at the County Office Building Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Jon Cannon, Calvin Morris, Vice -Chairman; Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Bill
Edgerton; Duane Zobrist and Pete Craddock. Absent was Eric Strucko. Mr. Craddock arrived at 4:14
p.m. Mr. Zobrist arrived at 5:05 p.m. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of
Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning and
Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Ms. Joseph called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. and established a quorum.
Work Session:
Pantops Master Plan - Work Session for discussion, and potential Commission action on staff
recommendations responding to public and Commission comments from the draft Pantops Master Plan
public hearing held April 3, 2007. (Rebecca Ragsdale)
Ms. Ragsdale and Mr. Benish presented a power point presentation and summarized the staff report.
• The Guidelines include item 6, which was new information that came out of the initial work
sessions.
■ Staff followed up with Ms. Wheeler regarding her property. It resulted in leaving a notation in the
plan acknowledging that they have considered this removal, but ultimately not changing the land
use designation. It would be treated as an applicant driven process in terms of changing the
development areas boundaries. They had looked at it from the beginning of the Pantops Plan as
a way of addressing the public comment they heard about additional open space to be preserved
and preservation of this property. Based on its rural character and location as sort of a peninsula
jutting up in the development area for Pantops had recommended that the property be removed.
It is a 77 acre property that is zoned Rural Areas, but designated for Neighborhood Density in the
Land Use Plan. That has resulted in a revision on the map with an explanation in the text that it is
still a development area removal that staff supports, but it is just how it would be processed and
when. It would not be processed with the Pantops Master Plan under this scenario. The legend
says possible future removal to acknowledge that staff basically supports that. Staff sent Ms.
Wheeler a copy of the staff report.
■ Staff met with representatives of both Peter Jefferson Place and Martha Jefferson Hospital. They
discussed the hospital's master plan and the long term expectations for the property. That has
resulted in some map changes before the Commission as well. Primarily in the area around the
Pantops Farm House and the Worrell Offices that area was shown with Urban Mixed Use and
then Commercial Mixed Use. Essentially staff changed that area to Employment Mixed Use after
further discussion. Both sides were comfortable that really fits better with the intent of both the
office park and staffs intentions regarding it. There is a new road classification, which is
described as possible optional roadway network beyond 2025. This was also applied to the road
behind Westminster Canterbury. Staff is not quite sure it will be feasible or necessary, but want
to consider those interconnections in the long term. There were some additional areas around
the hospital from Urban Mixed Use to Institutional.
• The update regarding the Gazebo Plaza, Glenorchy and Hansen's Mountain corner of Pantops is
that Gazebo Plaza Site Plan is approved by the County. They have met all of those requirements
vftw of the final site plan. They are working with VDOT who has to grant them the entrance permits
and other approvals. But, the plan that was approved would not involve any construction of a
relocation of Hansen Mountain Road. The County is still receiving the plans that VDOT does and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 5, 2007 1
reviewing them to make sure that everything matches up with what was approved. But, it would
involve closing the cross -over. In the plans she has seen there would be way to use the cross-
over, but just as a limited access for emergency vehicles. The entrance to Gazebo Plaza would
be off of Hansen Mountain Road. That is what is consistent with the 1980 plan that governs it.
They will have the potential long term connections over into Glenorchy shown on the map. Staff
has acknowledged in the plan that these would be disruptive to the neighborhood and they will
work with the neighborhoods when and if VDOT and the County relocate Hansen Mountain Road
for traffic calming public input.
■ Regarding the Eastern Connector, staff did not make any changes to the map. Since its own
separate somewhat parallel study staff has been updating the text as it moves along to
acknowledge it and be reflective of that.
• Staff gave the Commission some updated implementation tables that Mr. Benish has been
working on regarding updating the cost estimates and what projects are highlighted as priorities.
That is reflective of some of the Southern Environmental Law Center comments and the need to
do some more work and acknowledge the Rivanna River Corridor and also the Community
Facilities' comments that they have heard. Chapter 8 was updated, which also includes the new
tables.
• The tables try to take the recommendations of the plan and set a program for them. They
establish a short term, which is the first five years of the plan, a mid-term, the second five years of
the plan and then a long term would be remaining ten years of this proposed 20-year plan. These
are general cost factored type estimates. They are not hard consultant estimates unless it
actually is a consultant study that they may have the cost for. It is a unit cost type of concept.
The table can be adjusted, but are reflective of what the public had said was of interest to them.
Based on that concept staff set an implementation in place. In the last column staff tried to
recognize whether the recommendation was in a priority area, which is consistent with the map
on page 31 of the staff report.
Ms. Joseph opened the work session for public comment.
R. G. Dimberg, resident of Glenorchy, asked that as the Commission looks at the Master Plan that they
not lose sight that Glenorchy, the oldest residential neighborhood in the Pantops area, was under threat.
Some maps show the absolute destruction of the neighborhood. The construction of the road shown on
the map would only leave the neighborhood partially intact. The integrity of the neighborhood would be
destroyed by entrance road to a privately developed shopping center on Hansen's Mountain. He asked
that they keep the integrity of Glenorchy at the top of their list of priorities as they consider these plans.
He reminded the Commission that the Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan both make repeated
references to the Neighborhood Model. What they are talking about here is the real possibility that the
oldest residential neighborhood model in Pantops will be compromised, if not destroyed, if this developer
is allowed to proceed as planned. This new road through Glenorcky, whether it takes part of his property
or all of it, is to benefit a private developer. They are not going to bend to the will of this developer easily.
They have not been consulted. They learned about the possibility in an article in the Daily Progress last
fall. He then initiated communication with people at VDOT. Only after he opened those communications
did VDOT offer to meet. He found out that the Culpeper Office had meet with Ashcroft already without
consultation with the people in Glenorchy. No one has explained how this move of Hansen Mountain
Road would have a positive effective on the traffic on Route 250. That is how VDOT justifies this.
Randy Saltzmon, resident of Key West, urged the Commission to think of the green infrastructure in
addition to recreation. There is also transportation. There are two major areas that he would like to
address. First, the green way that is to run along the Rivanna River all the way down from Key West will
increase bicycles commutating into the City. Around the world bicycling is regrouping and becoming a
transportation model that has decreased congestion and pollution in many parts of the world. Currently
along Route 20 there are about 40 cars every 10 minutes coming down that road. If they could decrease
that they would decrease the problems that will begin to arise if the Meadow Creek Parkway is ever built.
By having alternative traffic it will decrease the traffic. Secondly, the Peter Jefferson and Martha
Jefferson Hospital area will cause an increase in traffic. The hospital is in the process of moving and has
1,500 employees. Most of those employees live right around the hospital on the City side. Once the
hospital moves they have to get to work. How will they get to work? They are going to drive and crowd
the Free Bridge off of Route 250. As part of the plan if they add the infrastructure of a foot bridge from
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 5, 2007 2
the State Farm Boulevard area to Riverside Park in the City, they have decreased the need for those
people to get in their cars and drive across the Free Bridge. Therefore, it would solve problems in the
future. In addition, the Route 250 residential neighborhood right there at that location would have another
access into town to go to the downtown mall without having to drive. Due to the incline issue they need to
pursue obtaining an exemption from the Americans for Disability Act. The first step is to get a foot bridge
on that part of the river so people can go from the City to the County without taking a car. He asked that
the foot bridge also be for bicycles.
Steve Taylor, resident of Key West, said that he had attended a lot of the master plan meetings. The one
thing that has come out from a resident's point of view, there are many areas that are already head
locked by approved developments. The one small victory they felt that they had achieved was getting
that piece of land taken out. He understands all of the caveats attached to it with the bits of shading, but
it just seems to be profoundly disappointing that the one little victory that they achieved as a group of
residents is back in. He wanted to express his disappointment that has happened.
John Clem, resident of Key West, pointed out that there was one more land use change on the map from
last time. There seems to be a park added in along the road on the river. He asked if there has been any
public input on what that park would be used for. He felt that it was a good idea that park land was
added.
Ms. Ragsdale replied that the park area along Free Bridge Lane was advertised for the public hearing and
was something that they brought forward in the draft based on their discussions with Park and Rec. Most
of the green area shown as the park is in the flood plain. Staff visited the site with Parks and Rec and
they mentioned that a dog park was needed.
Mr. Benish noted that no final decision has been made. But, it looked like it would be a larger and better
area for a dog park than the current one. Parks saw an opportunity to utilize it as part of the green way
along that road way, which is part of Rivanna Park right now. It would enhance some of the existing
facilities.
Mr. Clem said that he had another question about affordable housing. He was a social worker with the
Arc of the Piedmont. They are going to see a profound need for housing in the next 5 to 6 years for this
population. The Homestead decision by the U.S. Supreme Court of 1999 is requiring all business
institutions to place people in the community if they are not in need of institutional care. Central Virginia
Training Center in Lynchburg is now looking at a population going down from 500 to 300. They have
hundreds of people on the waiting list for services. They are going to be looking for about 100 homes or
apartments in the Charlottesville area in the next couple of years for low income individuals. Hopefully
there will be some affordable housing made available in the Pantops area to help with this situation.
There being no further public comment, Ms. Joseph closed the public hearing to bring the matter before
the Commission.
Mr. Edgerton said that he was concerned about two issues regarding the Wheeler property. First, taking
the property out of the development area could lead to exasperating the bigger problem they are fighting
all the time in not getting as much development in the development area as they want. One of the things
that has been frustrating in some of the developments submitted within the last year in this growth area is
that they have not been able to achieve the density of the existing Comprehensive Plan. If the land is
taken out at a later date there is no question that will indirectly put pressure on the rural areas for more
development with the assumption that a certain amount of growth is coming this way. If they can't
accommodate it in the development area, the growth is going to go in the rural area. He was struggling
with that. The neighborhood would love to have the Wheeler property remain rural forever, but it is an
area for whatever reason was designated back in the 70's as a target for development. The Board's
proposed swapping of property in the development area seems to have been upsetting to Ms. Wheeler.
Leaving it in there one-half way is a concern. He felt that the Commission needs to make a decision,
which staff has reminded us this is the Commission's decision to make. It is not fair to the community to
flip flop back and forth because of someone's personal concerns.
Ms. Joseph agreed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 5, 2007
Mr. Cannon said that he needed to understand the chronology. It is a reason the parcel was put into the
growth area to begin with. It was thought that it was an appropriate parcel to be part of the inventory in
the growth area and an appropriate place to have growth go. Then there was a proposal to take the
parcel out in this planning cycle based primarily on Ms. Wheeler's intentions with respect to the land,
which he was prepared to go along with. Now there has been a reversal of that because some change in
her preferences or expectations with respect to the land. The Commission needs to make a call here
based on the merits for the planning process. There are significant considerations that Ms. Wheeler has
in respect to the future of the property, but the Commission needs to make its own independent decision.
Mr. Benish noted that various issues were identified by the community such as scenic mountain views
and open space. There was also an issue of impact to the roadway and Route 20 in that particular area
given the character of Route 20. This was along with the understanding that there was a property owner
that did not have an interest in this property. Those two pieces of information looked like a win/win.
Mr. Cannon said that if on the merits it looks like the parcel should be taken out, then he was happy to
take it out. But, he felt that they need to get to the merits. Previously, he was not getting to the merits
and was just happy to be accommodating. But, it has gotten more complex with the most recent reversal.
Mr. Morris agreed. Mr. Taylor really summed it up very well. There are a number of persons who were at
those planning sessions at State Farm and so on and it was really their understanding that this was the
understanding of the property owner at the time. So the parcel was taken out, but now it is back in. It
needs to be one way or the other and not a hatched mark. It is either in or it is out.
Mr. Craddock felt that the parcel should stay in. If the property owner wants to take it out, then she needs
to do a separate action such as a comprehensive map amendment.
Mr. Edgerton favored leaving the Wheeler property in and taking out this special consideration. Ms.
err Wheeler needs to figure out what she wants to do with the property.
Ms. Ragsdale reiterated that the Commission's choice is to take the hatching and leave it yellow,
neighborhood density. Since they have the priority areas and the relationship to the neighborhood center
in the plan already, if it comes in development for a rezoning it is obviously not enough priority area for
the rezoning. That will be acknowledged in the plan. Staff is clear on that now.
Regarding Peter Jefferson Place the dashed red lines are preserving some of the interconnectivity, but it
was respecting the approved master plan for Martha Jefferson Hospital. The Planning Commission
questioned why they would not want to show the other roads as a dashed line for the future needs.
Therefore, a request was made to show the grids and the dashed lines the same way it is shown near the
museum.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, that staffs recommendations on the Pantops Master
Plan be moved forward to the Board of Supervisors with the adjustments as discussed and agreed upon,
as follows:
■ Take out Hansen's Mountain Connector Road.
• Leave the Wheeler property in the proposed development area without caveats.
■ Look for more sidewalks and a multi -model access at the eastern part of the County into the City.
■ The implementation study will be placed back in.
Mr. Edgerton noted that it should include anything else the Commission had discussed.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Strucko was absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that the Pantops Master Plan recommendations will be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 5, 2007 4
M
In summary, a work session on Pantops Master Plan was held by the Planning Commission for
discussion and potential Commission action on staff recommendations responding to public and
Commission comments from the draft Pantops Master Plan public hearing held on April 3, 2007. Staff
presented a power point presentation and summarized the changes made to the Master Plan. Public
comment was taken. The Commission reviewed and discussed the public's comments and proposed
changes and took action.
The meeting adjourned at 5:41 p.m. for a dinner break.
The meeting reconvened at 6:05 p.m.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, June 5,
2007 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Jon Cannon, Calvin Morris, Vice -Chairman; Marcia
Joseph, Chairman; Bill Edgerton; Duane Zobrist and Pete Craddock. Absent was Eric Strucko. Julia
Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Megan
Yaniglos, Planner; Gerald Gatobu, Planner; Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator/Chief of Zoning and
Current Development; John Shepherd, Chief of Current Development; Allan Schuck, Senior Engineer;
Sean Dougherty, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County
Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Ms. Joseph called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. and established a quorum.
Committee Reports:
Ms. Joseph invited comments on committee reports.
Mr. Morris reported that the 250 Interchange Committee met yesterday and in May. They will be briefing
the Charlottesville Planning Commission and the City Council. Hopefully, they will have it narrowed down
to 2 to 4 possibilities and then go on to start doing more detailed planning on that. They are moving right
along.
There being no further committee reports, the meeting moved on to the next item.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Ms. Joseph invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being
none, the meeting moved on to the next item.
Consent Agenda
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes — February 6, 2007, March 6, 2007, April 3, 2007, April
20/21, 2007 and May 1, 2007
Ms. Joseph asked if anyone would like to pull an item from the consent agenda.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Mr. Edgerton seconded, for approval of the consent agenda.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Strucko was absent.)
Ms. Joseph noted that the consent agenda was approved.
Regular Items:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 5, 2007
5
SDP2007-00034 Old Lynchburg Road- Tier 2 Tower
**AW Proposal for a Tier II facility to attach three (3) flush mounted panel antennas to an existing Virginia
Power transmission power tower. The proposed facility consists of attaching the antennas at the 105 foot
level on an existing 112.2 foot tall tower and placing equipment cabinets, painted brown, in the existing
ROW near the base of the existing tower. The lease area for the proposed facility is located on property
described as Tax Map 76- Parcel 46C, which is approximately 24.078 acres and is zoned R-15,
Residential. The site is located south of US Route 64 on the east side of Sunset Avenue Ext. [Route 7811
in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density
in Urban Area 5. (Megan Yaniglos)
Ms. Yaniglos summarized the staff report. (See Staff Report)
■ An ARB application was received. The ARB determined that the proposed modification did not
constitute a substantial change in design. Therefore, no further review was required.
• Based upon the design of the present facility and that the antenna will be placed on an existing
tower, staff is able to recommend approval.
There being no questions for staff, Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to
address the Commission.
Larry Bickens, with Sites Unlimited, said that he represented Alltel on this request. Ms. Yaniglos
explained the request very well. If there are any questions, he would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Morris asked if the electrical wires would interfere with the antennas.
Mr. Bickens replied no, that was where Virginia Power was approved to be. They have to be below the
static wire and above the transmission wires.
Ms. Joseph invited other public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the
matter before the Commission.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Mr. Craddock seconded, for approval of SDP-2007-00034, Old Lynchburg
Road — Tier 2 Tower as proposed.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Strucko was absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SDP-2007-00034, Old Lynchburg Road — Tier 2 Tower was approved.
Mr. Shepherd asked the Commission if they would consider allowing staff in the future to present an item
on the consent agenda such as this one for a co -location or a proposal to put antennas on an existing
power pole. Then the request would only be pulled off the consent agenda if there were special concerns
about it. This seems like this is the kind of request that could appropriately be there.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to agree with Mr. Shepherd's proposal to allow staff to
present an item for a co -location or a proposal to put antennas on an existing power pole on the consent
agenda with the following caveat.
■ If it is located in the Entrance Corridor that the ARB has previously reviewed the proposal and
was comfortable with the proposal.
SUB-2007-00132 Access to Lamb's Road from Lot 4 Roslyn Heights — Waiver
This proposal is for a waiver to Subdivision Ordinance Section 14-404, "Lot location to allow access from
lot onto street or shared driveway". The request is for a waiver of the requirement that all lots in the
Roslyn Heights Subdivision shall enter onto Roslyn Heights Road. The property, described as Tax Map
61, Parcel 2C, contains 6.478 acres zoned RA (Rural Areas). This site is located in the Jack Jouett
Magisterial District off Hydraulic Road [State Route 743] at the end of Roslyn Heights Road. The parcel
also has frontage on Lambs Road [State Route 657]. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property
as Rural Areas in Rural Area #1. (Gerald Gatobu)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 5, 2007 6
Mr. Gatobu presented a power point presentation and summarized the staff report.
There was a misunderstanding in terms of the 14-404 waivers. Staff looked at it in terms of
opening one and closing another entrance. In this case the applicant requests to keep both
entrances, which is an unusual circumstance. Therefore, that is a clarification that he wanted to
make. Both entrances can be approved by the Planning Commission by a 14-404a and 14-404c
waiver. If the Commission finds that it is appropriate, depending on the terms and conditions,
they can approve both entrances. It is at the Planning Commission's discretion.
■ The engineer, Allan Schuck, is present and can answer any questions.
■ The applicant has adequate site distance on Lamb's Road. There is a note on the plat that says
all lots shall enter onto Roslyn Heights Drive. The applicants met with VDOT and were told that
VDOT cannot approve the entrance until that condition was addressed by the County. So that is
the reason the applicant is present before the Commission. To address that the applicant has to
receive a 14-404 waiver.
• When the preliminary plat was approved in 1988/89 there was a condition that the property needs
to use Roslyn Heights as agreed by the Planning Commission. The history of the site is in the
packet. There are mitigation factors such a concrete pipe that was to be put in place so that they
could cross the stream and go up towards the building site. That is all within the scope of this
project as well.
■ The applicant proposes a new entrance off of Lamb's Road. They want to keep both entrances.
■ Staff has received several telephone calls and letters from adjacent neighbors. Their main
concern is having people cut through from Lamb's Road to the other side. If there is only one
entrance off of Lamb's Road, the adjacent owners did not have a problem. They wanted only one
or the other of the entrances to be allowed. They opposed the connecting road through the
parcel itself.
■ Engineering recommended that the applicant use one entrance off Roslyn Heights Road.
Mr. Shepherd summarized staff's concerns with granting two entrances as follows:
■ Approval of this application would set an unwanted precedent.
■ The entrance is not necessary for the owners to use the property. They have a way to get to their
building site now. Either entrance would allow them to get to the building site and use the
property.
■ The neighbors and staff have a concern that it would be possible to cut through from Roslyn
Heights Road to Lamb's Road. Clearly there are ways that could be prevented, but it would be
very difficult to enforce. Staff feels that it is an awkward situation and is concerned about that.
■ The intent of 14-404 is to limit the number of entrances on the public highway system. This would
violate that.
Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Tammy Moses, property owner, presented a power point presentation and explained their request.
A waiver usually grants an entrance over another entrance onto a property. They understand that
they are looking for something in between that. Their intent is to be part of the subdivision. They
want to use the existing driveway as their primary entry and exit from the property in keeping with
the subdivision's wishes to enter and exit the property from Roslyn Heights Road. They would
like to create a limited access road or entrance from Lamb's Road onto lot 4 from Lamb's Road.
They did have this intent when they purchased the property as stated that they would like to try to
have an access entrance from Lamb's Road.
There is a creek on the property that is facing Roslyn Heights Road and the cul-de-sac. They are
adjacent to Lamb's Road. The property has a steep front grade entering and exiting the property.
It is more level towards Lamb's Road.
Since their ownership of the property in 2001 there have been several storms and a fire in the
adjacent field. Had they been living there they would have been trapped on the property. The
emergency crew entered from Lamb's Road in order to put out that fire. They did not enter from
Roslyn Heights Road because it was inaccessible.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 5, 2007 7
■ Other reasons they want the limited access road is for building material delivery and construction
equipment. Delivery from Lamb's Road would be less of a disturbance in an established
neighborhood. They are the last people to build in their subdivision of five.
■ In addition, VDOT has met with them three of four times regarding a proposed site for a road.
VDOT indicated that it was within the scope of the VDOT rules and regulations that would actually
be an acceptable site provided that the Commission approves that site. They understand that
there is neighborhood concern and have spoken with their neighbors individually. She has a
home office as a CPA.
■ What they purpose is the following:
o That the limited access entrance from Lamb's Road is gated to limit any kind of access to
only owner access.
o It would be written into the deed or any other document that the Commission deems
appropriate that the entrances would never connect.
o They would create a permanent buffer between the limited access entrance and Roslyn
Heights' main entrance.
o They propose to limit the access entrance so the road actually curves around so it would
not be a straight through cut through on to the property. The traffic from her home
business would be very minimal. The limited access entrance could be used during
inclement weather.
Ms. Joseph invited other public comment.
Daniel Krasnegor, an adjoining property owner, said that staff had already expressed a lot of the
concerns they have. There are a few extra points he would like to bring up. He lived at 25 Roslyn Heights
with his wife, which was right next door to the property in question. They moved here two months ago
from northern Virginia. They decided on this neighborhood because of its nature of being very quiet and
peaceful. It also has easy proximity to the city and all of the amenities. His wife is a singer/song writer
and records from home and she also has a chronic illness that requires her to be in a peaceful stress free
vomw environment. Their concerns are if a waiver is allowed at this point and there are two entrances there is
not anything that is going to prevent a future owner coming in and making a change so that the roads
eventually connect. They also have a concern as far as there being a business there with the possibility
that if there is a through road that at some point that it could increase traffic. Ultimately, they have no
objection to their being a waiver, but they do have concerns about extra traffic coming in from Roslyn
Heights Road. They prefer only one entrance from Lamb's Road and no through road. If it was a limited
entrance, he did not know how it could be enforced. He submitted a copy of his letter.
There being no further public comment, Ms. Joseph closed the public hearing and the matter before the
Commission.
Ms. Joseph invited Mr. Shepherd to talk about home occupations if the applicant has people come to the
site.
Mr. Shepherd said that a home occupation would be limited to seven trips per week as a home
occupation, class A, which would be a business conducted within the main dwelling limited to that number
of people and no employees outside of the family.
Ms. Joseph noted that this would be the first time that the Commission would allow two entrances. The
ordinance is very clear about how many entrances would be allowed form a site. When the subdivision
was approved it required the entrance off of Roslyn Heights Road. Therefore, she could not support the
request. There has already been a lot of environmental degradation. The stream has already been
disturbed to put in the existing entrance. She asked Mr. Schuck if this entrance drains into the reservoir.
Mr. Schuck replied that this property does drain into the reservoir.
Mr. Edgerton said that he was not able to support this request. Staff gave a complete staff report and
convincing arguments why they do no want to approve the request due to the precedence.
Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Schuck what the slope is on the driveway coming in to the site.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 5, 2007 8
Mr. Schuck replied that they do exceed the 10 percent mountainous terrain. So they would be above the
rolling terrain standard of VDOT. There are no restrictions on the grades, but they do exceed 10 percent.
Mr. Zobrist asked what the standard was on the waiver.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the standards that apply are on page 3 of the staff report beginning with (i).
Mr. Zobrist said that it appears that the standards are not met. Therefore, the Commission could not
make the finding even if they wanted to.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, for denial of SUB-2007-0132, Access to Lamb's Road
from Lot 4 Roslyn Heights - Waiver, as proposed based on the reasons stated in the staff report regarding
Section 14.404(B).
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Strucko was absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SUB-2007-00132, Access to Lamb's Road from Lot 4 Roslyn Heights — Waiver
was denied. The applicant has ten (10) days from the date of the decision to appeal the decision to the
Board of Supervisors.
Public Hearing Items
SP-2007-00010 Cutright — Development Right (Sign # 111 & 112)
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to acquire two additional development rights
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre)
SECTION: 10.2.2 (28) Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1.
and Section 10.5.2.1 Where permitted by Special Use Permit
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre); Entrance
Corridor - Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts
of development along routes of tourist access; Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection
from flooding
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 3544 Red Hill School Road; southeast corner of Red Hill School Road (RT. 760) and
Monacan Trail Road (RT 29) - North Garden
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 88-6A1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
STAFF: Joan McDowell
Mr. Benish summarized the staff report.
■ The request is to create 2 additional lots, which requires a special use permit because all of the
development rights have been distinguished on the parent parcel. Under the provisions of the
Rural Areas zoning district additional lots can be granted under a special use permit process.
There are criteria specifically established in the ordinance that defines the perimeters for
reviewing that.
■ As a quick update from the information that was provided in the staff report, staff found out right
before the meeting that there may be some additional information regarding one aspect of the
applicant's proposal. The applicant is proposing to subdivide two lots. One of those lots was
intended to be dedicated to the North Garden Fire Department. The existing staff report has
information from the Department of Fire/Rescue indicating that they do not support that request.
Staff recently found that the North Garden Fire Department actually does support that and would
have some information that they feel would be useful. They are prepared to present that to the
Commission tonight, but the applicant, provided that she can maintain the same Board meeting
date on July 11, is willing to defer the item to allow for better presentation and hopefully
coordination of comments from both the North Garden Fire Department and the County's
Department of Fire/Rescue. There is an option to defer to get the information coordinated.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 5, 2007 9
■ If the Commission feels that information is not as important in their overall decision they can
144rr certainly move forward with it. But, keep in mind that the staff reviewed this proposal based on
the information provided by our Department of Fire/Rescue and not from the North Garden Fire
Department.
Ms. Joseph asked that staff work this out prior to the next meeting. If they have conflicting views, they
need to get them together.
Mr. Benish asked Ms. Cutright if she would agree to defer to June 19, which would allow them to
potentially maintain the Board July 11 date.
Ms. Cutright formally requested a deferral until June 19 so staff could assimilate the information better.
Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
George Stevens, of the North Garden Fire Department, said that they would work out the issues with Ms.
Cutright.
Katherine Russell noted that she would speak at the next meeting.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the
Commission.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Mr. Craddock seconded, for approval of the applicant's request for deferral of
SP-2007-00010, Cutright — Development Right to June 19.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Strucko was absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SP-2007-10, Cutright was deferred to June 19, 2007.
SP2007-00014 The Rocks Sub Lot 1 Amendment (Sign # 107 & 108)
PROPOSED: Amend special use permit for Rural Preservation Development with more than 20
development lots to change condition of approval regarding location of development lots in relation to Ivy
Creek. Proposed change would prevent development between Ivy Creek and Dick Woods Road.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre); EC Entrance Corridor: Overlay to protect properties of historic,
architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access; FH
Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding
SECTION: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Dick Woods Road (Route 637), approximately 500 feet west of intersection with on -ramp to
Route 64 East.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 74 Parcel 18D
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
STAFF: Scott Clark
Mr. Clark presented a power point presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a request for an amendment of a special use permit for a Rural Preservation Development
in the Rural Areas zoning district with more than 20 lots. The property is located at the
intersection of Dick Woods Road near the intersection of 1-64. The parcel in question is 74-18D.
In 2004, the Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the permit that allowed this large
RPD and the stream crossing across the floodplain to access it. Several aspects of the RPD
were amended. The one in question relevant here is that some unused development rights were
allocated to lot 1, the 106 acre parcel. During that review the applicant and staff discussed the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 5, 2007 10
09
possibility of locating lots such as these along Ivy Creek and connecting directly onto Dick Woods
Road rather than the internal road system of the Rural Preservation Development.
■ There are several reasons this design standard according to the zoning ordinance is not an
appropriate design. Development lots in an RPD should be contiguous to all the other
development lots. Those lots would have been separate and have external access. He pointed
out the area of Ivy Creek in question on the application plan. To avoid having lots in that area a
condition was written that said all dwellings and development lots within the boundaries of lot 1
shall be located east of the floodplain of Ivy Creek.
■ Unfortunately, this application plan is not oriented correctly and should be flipped. Ivy Creek is
not flowing east through the majority of the corner of the property. So east of the floodplain is not
an effective way of phrasing the condition. The effect of that in interpreting that condition would
mean that any new development within that large lot would have to occur literally east of that
floodplain area shown in light blue. Staffs research indicates that there was not any intention to
do that during the review of the special use permit. That area was not intended to be specifically
the location of any new development. What they were trying to avoid was having separate lots
accessing directly onto Dick Wood's Road. The direction east was an error.
■ Staff is recommending approval of this amendment request with a replacement condition 5. The
new condition would say that "No dwellings or development lots within the boundaries of Lot 1
shall be located in the floodplain of Ivy Creek or between Ivy Creek and Dick Woods Road." That
would clarify the intention of the original review. Staff believes that is consistent with some of the
other conditions of that approval. Condition 4 and 6 require that any new lots that are created in
lot 1 would need to meet all of the design standards for Rural Preservation Developments,
including mentioning the scale and pattern of the existing lots in the RPD and to be contiguous to
them.
Ms. Joseph noted that it seems that they match in scale and proximity. One of the comments was that
they are all supposed to use the internal road. That is a consideration here, too. She asked if that was
implied within the approvals.
Mr. Clark agreed and that the other conditions that already exist with this permit amendment would
require that. Practically speaking, assuming condition 5 is changed as recommended and the lots can't
go between the creek and the road, the only way they could access from Dick Wood's Road directly
would be to come back for another special use permit for another floodplain crossing.
Ms. Joseph said that they could also put in a small cul-de-sac to serve three lots from an internal road. Is
there anything written in the conditions that would stop them from doing that?
Mr. Clark replied no, he did not think so.
Mr. Edgerton questioned if they should be trying to tie down the final location of the houses on lot 1. He
felt that the applicant needs to identify what they want to do first.
Mr. Clark said that this request is to fix an error. Staff's recommendation is not intended to tie down the
final location of where those houses may go. All this does for the moment is to clarify what the
possibilities are. The applicants will have to come back with a revised application plan and eventually
subdivision plats to show exactly where they are to locate the lots and how they are going to access
them. It would be a mistake to get too far into that at this stage because there is so much detail that
would have to be done at a much finer resolution than this map could show of exactly where the critical
slopes are and where the practicalities are about access. That is expected to come at a later stage. All
they want to do now is clarify the language so that everybody knows and agrees on what is possible. The
applicant would be expected to come back at least twice thereafter to establish where the lots would go.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the applicant would come back to the Commission or staff.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the applicant would have to come back to staff.
Mr. Edgerton said that he was not comfortable with that. Before he could sign off on this he wanted to
see what it is they are proposing to do.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 5, 2007 11
09
Mr. Craddock supported Mr. Edgerton because he had previously brought up the issue that these
development rights would just kind of sit out there and if they are not using them why can't they dissolve
away. They were told that the development rights had to be assigned somewhere. So he would like to
see what is proposed before they move further.
Mr. Cannon asked if the Commission denies this request is the developer able to put the lots in places
that they know they don't want them without further review by the Commission. He asked procedurally
what their further involvement would be.
Mr. Kamptner said that this was a special use permit condition. The condition was established by the
Board of Supervisors for administrative review of the application plan. He assumed that that plan was
reviewed by the Planning Commission. So ultimately it is the Board of Supervisors that has to decide
whether or not it wants the review to come back to the Planning Commission. The other thing to
remember is that Rural Preservation Developments are ministerial in nature. The review is already
limited by State law. The County is trying to stay within its grandfathered cluster ordinance.
Ms. Joseph asked if normally they see where the lots are located. They don't look at a big parcel and say
go ahead and do whatever they want. They expect to see where those lots are.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes, that the Rural Preservation Developments that are today ministerial in nature
do come to the Planning Commission for a ministerial review to confirm that they meet the requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Joseph asked if the preservation track was currently under easement.
Mr. Clark replied that the preservation track is roughly a 300 acre parcel and is under a preservation
easement. The lot in question is not. It is effectively a very large development lot.
Mr. Shepherd pointed out that it was possible that the Commission might see this again depending on the
configuration of the access to the new lots. If they are creating lots and extending the private roads, then
that part of the subdivision would come back to the Commission. The Commission could also look at a
standard of that road. But, he wanted to also back up and emphasize that since a new application plan
would be required before they are establishing the access, location or size of the lot or dwellings it is hard
to make any judgment about any of that absent a full plan.
Ms. Joseph asked where the area is that staff thinks is east of the floodplain.
Mr. Clark pointed out that the entire area as being floodplain. To his knowledge it was not discussed that
area was preferred for future development.
Ms. Joseph recalled that the concept was that they did not want any stream crossings. They wanted to
make sure that there were no driveways going across the streams. That is where the east of the stream
came in.
Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Chris Halstead, representative for the applicant, said that what has been left out here is that the entire
reason this proceeding is taking place is that the Zoning Department issued a letter stating that the area
to the left is not subject to development. In looking into it they spoke with Yadira Amarante who was the
staff member who handled this project. Ms. Amarante said that it was clear to her and everybody that
what she was trying to do was prohibit development between Ivy Creek and Dick Woods Road for
reasons that have already been stated. It would be bad development. That is it. There is no plat in front
of the Commission. They know that any development is subject to the review of staff first. If staff feels
that they can't pass on it, then they come to the Commission. Of course, they would conform to any of
those requirements. When the owner received this letter he said that 17 acres of his land has just been
down zoned. That is why they are here. His understanding is that there was no question among all staff.
It is clear that the cardinal directions were used inappropriately because the floodplain actually runs east
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 5, 2007 12
at that point. If they are trying to describe something that is occurring along the banks of a river one
cannot say the direction of the river, but one has to say one side or the other. Knowing 1-64 to be an
east/west road it is not unusual that she would have made that mistake. The plat had been turned that it
looked like east was actually south. That is it. They are subject to the rules of the road and are happy to
conform to that. But, he did not want with a stroke of a pen by zoning staff to reduce his rights to develop.
In the future he is subject to the rules. There is no plan before them. No plan has been advertised. This
is not a planning session. It is simply the effect of condition 5 on the parcel and they submit that the
language was incorrect the first time. Otherwise, he accepts the wisdom of staff in this.
Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Roger Byrne, a member of the Board of Directors of the Rocks Owner Association (ROA), said that he
was appearing on behalf of the ROA to express its views towards the application of David and Connie
Abdul who are owners of lot 1, The Rocks, for a change in special use permit 2003-79. The effect of that
change would alter the permissible placing of three lots that the Abduls may create within the boundaries
of their lot 1. The members of the ROA do not dispute the right of the Abduls to create the three lots
within their property. Indeed under the terms of the declaration for lot 1, tax map 75, lot 18D, when the
Abduls subdivide lot 1 to create the 3 additional lots those lots will become subject to the terms and
conditions of the declaration that contains the covenants and restrictions for the other 39 lots in The
Rocks. With that event those lots will have to obtain approval of building and site plans from the
Architectural Review Board of the ROA prior to the commencement of any construction. Thus, the ROA
stands together with the County in making sure that any development is consistent with the original intent
of the County when The Rocks was approved. The County first considered the proposed Rocks
development in 1991. The original development request required a special use permit due to the number
of lots as well as the proposed activity within the floodplain. It was at this time that the first concerns were
expressed regarding impacts on Ivy Creek, as well as the effect on the natural landscape vistas from 1-64
and other public roads. The County considered 8 factors in approving the subdivision plan.
• Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities.
• Water supply protection.
■ The conservation of natural scenic historic resources.
• Development lots shall not encroach into prime, important or any unique agricultural or forestal
soils.
■ Development lots shall not encroach into areas of critical slopes or floodplain and shall be
situated as far as possible from public drinking water supplies, tributaries and public drinking
water supply impoundments.
■ Development lots shall be situated and arranged to preserve historic and scenic resources.
Mr. Byrne noted that the ROA understands Mr. Abdul has no current plans to subdivide his property and
create the three lots. It is therefore troubling that this change is being requested at this time. Although
Mr. Abdul has indicated a desire to potentially site the lots on a knoll overlooking the community, which is
visible from Dick Woods Road and within the view shed of a number of existing lots within the subdivision,
he has not explored the technical feasibility of those lots given the restrictions imposed on the subdivision
regarding effects on landscape, vistas, critical slopes and the water quality of Ivy Creek. Indeed, a review
of the file indicates that neither engineering nor planning for natural resources have been looked at for
these potential sites. It is difficult for us as a community to gage the effects of the proposed change
without more concrete ideas of the specific placement of the lots and how access to those lots will be
obtained.
He continued that a visual review of the land involved and the potential access contemplated involves the
crossing of a tributary to Ivy Creek and significantly steep incline to get up to the knoll. An existing
drainage easement stands in that same path. It is unclear whether accommodating the drainage
easement and an accessed driveway to that area is even feasible given the constraint on critical slopes
and the likely erosion and effects on Ivy Creek. The plans for the community as represented to all of the
current owners did not contemplate development in that area. Representations were made to a number
of residents that any development in lot 1 would be off of Rocks Farm Drive. In fact, the building lot on lot
1 left of Rocks Farm Drive on the opposite side from the farm house is being occupied full time as a
residence. It is in that area that the home owners expected the lots to be located.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 5, 2007 13
For all of these reasons The Rocks Owner's Association respectfully requests that action on this request
be deferred until such time as Mr. Abdul has decided where he wants to locate the three lots. It is unclear
why action needs to be taken now. With such plans in hand it will then be possible to ascertain whether
the proposed lots are feasible and can meet the terms under which the original subdivision layout was
approved. At that time the conditions can be clarified if necessary. They stand ready to meet with him to
discuss any such plans in hopes that the interest of all members of the community can be addressed.
They appreciate the Commission's consideration of these comments and request that they be included in
the records of the Planning Commission.
Ms. Joseph noted that the three minute time limit was extended because Mr. Byrne represented a group
of home owners and they were not all going to speak.
Mr. Byrne asked that all members of the community stand noting that they had met ahead of time.
Dr. Lucia S. Scentus, President of the ROA, supported Mr. Byrne's comments. In addition, on February
14, 2007 Albemarle County through their ACE Program purchased a conservation easement for Rock Mill
Farm, which is located just to the left of this area between Rosemont and The Rocks. It was an effort to
preserve the rural character of the community. It seems contradictory if they were to allow this area to be
developed with future development.
Darrell Gress, the newest property owner in The Rocks, said that he bought lot 15 adjacent to the
proposed knoll that they were talking about. He did so in part after looking at the letter from Mr. Shepherd
that said that development would be east of the floodplain of the creek and the tributaries. He
encouraged the County not to reverse that view and preserve the farm that had just been put in
preservation next to The Rocks.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the
ems, Commission.
Ms. Joseph suggested that the area be hatched so that they know which area they are talking about
instead of looking at directions east, west or south. When the Commission reviewed this she just wanted
it to be on the other side of the floodplain that is almost parallel to the road.
Mr. Clark replied that he could not provide hatching, but pointed out the area to the east where new
houses could go. Any areas east of the floodplain area are technically available to be developed subject
to the other conditions.
Mr. Zobrist noted that he thought they were talking about the area east of lot 1, which had development
rights.
Mr. Clark pointed out that lot one was located on both sides of the entrance
Mr. Cannon said that precludes the area west of the floodplain. Staff indicates that area was not to be
precluded. He asked if this was correcting an error or changing a subjective determination.
Ms. Joseph said that the other problem is that the Commission did not make the final decision on this.
The Board of Supervisors made the final decision. They don't know what the Board was thinking.
Mr. Zobrist felt that the Commission is being asked to give an advisory opinion. It appears to be
premature or the issue is not ripe.
Mr. Edgerton noted that the County and the applicant want a resolution or a clarification of what has been
represented to us as an honest mistake of reading the points of the compass. He thinks the neighbors;
Commission and the Board deserve a lot more information before they make a decision about where
these lots should go. The applicant could have offered to request a deferral until he was able to give us
that information. But, he did not make that offer. He would take that to mean that he is not interested in
asking for a deferral. But, perhaps there is a way to solve both problems. He thinks the Commission is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 5, 2007 14
empowered to grant an amendment to the special use permit as recommended by staff and at the same
timer require that any future development come before the Commission and not be handled
administrative. That solves both problems. That will allow for the public and the Commission to have
some input in what really works or does not work.
Mr. Cannon asked Mr. Kamptner if the Commission could do that.
Mr. Kamptner said that they were recommending the amendment of condition 5 as recommended by staff
and also recommending that condition 3 be amended to allow Planning Commission review of the
application plan. He noted that it was in a ministerial capacity, but did not need to be in the condition.
Mr. Craddock agreed that it sounded appropriate.
Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Morris seconded, for approval of SP-2006-00014, The Rocks Subdivision Lot 1
Amendment, with the conditions recommended by staff, as amended, as follows:
1. Except as otherwise provided herein development of The Rocks shall be in accord with the
"Special Use Permit Plan..." prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. dated April 2,
2004. For purposes of these conditions the plan shall heretofore be referred to as "The
Application Plan;"
2. Except for minor boundary adjustments, (as determined by the Agent), the boundaries of Tax
Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3 may be modified only as shown on "The Application
Plan;"
3. Within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1, there shall be allowed a total of four (4) dwelling units or
four (4) lots. Before a building permit is issued for a second dwelling unit, or before a subdivision
plat is approved creating a new lot(s) within the boundaries of Lot 1, a new application plan shall
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission administratively b, the r,,URt
authorizing the dwelling units or lots. Any future development shall come before the Planning
,. Commission and not be handled administratively. For purposes of these conditions the term
"subdivision" shall also mean family divisions;
4. All subdivisions within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1 shall meet the design standards and
special provisions set forth in Section 10.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. This includes the
requirement that it be demonstrated that the additional lots combined with the other approved lots
do not exceed the actual number of lots that could have been achieved by conventional
development of the total property;
5. No dwellings or development lots within the boundaries of Lot 1 shall be located in the floodplain
of Ivy Creek or between Ivy Creek and Dick Woods Road.
6. All future development lots subdivided from Lot 1 shall be no larger than 3.26 acres in area, shall
be located in a manner consistent with, and be integrated into the overall design of the other
development lots in The Rocks;
7. A minimum of ten (10) trees per acre shall be provided on the development lots, including those
permitted by condition three (3), in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for
the purpose of providing screening from Interstate 64 and Route 637. Trees shall be installed
within two (2) planting seasons of the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
dwelling on the lots;
8. Clearing of land shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of access
roads, dwellings, and septic fields;
9. Building siding and trim shall be of colors and materials that blend with the surrounding natural
environment as determined by the Director of Planning. Highly reflective colors or surfaces, or
light colored roofs, as determined by the Director of Planning, are prohibited;
10. Concrete driveways visible from off -site shall be darkened to blend with the surrounding natural
environment as determined by the Director of Planning;
11. The bridge shall not be constructed until the approvals in conditions twelve (12) through fifteen
(15) have been obtained;
12. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion and sediment control permit;
13. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design;
14. Department of Engineering approval of hydro geologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure
compliance with Section 30.3. of the Zoning Ordinance;
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 5, 2007 15
15. Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and drainage calculations. Private
1%W roads shall be designed to Virginia Department of Transportation mountainous terrain standards.
This condition is only applicable to the private roads constructed to access and provide frontage
to all the lots in the Rocks development except the Rural Preservation Tract and revised Tax Map
74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3 as shown on "The Application Plan;"
16. The extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane as a private road is subject to Planning Commission
approval. The Planning Commission shall establish the standard of the private road extension at
the time of review;
17. The existing road, shown entering from Rocks Farm Drive, parallel to Interstate 64 and
meandering through the Preservation Tract shall not be improved or widened except for
agricultural and/or forestry purposes. The need for such improvements shall be reviewed by the
Public Recreational Facilities Authority. If the Public Recreational Facilities Authority deems that
the improvements are warranted, construction shall not commence until a road plan and an
erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and approved by the County Engineer;
18. Prior to the approval of any plat modifying the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract, the
rural preservation easement shall be amended to allow the modification; amendment to the
easement is subject to the review and approval of the County and the Albemarle County Public
Recreational Facilities Authority. Approval of this special use permit in no way implies or
guarantees approval of a modified easement by the County or the Albemarle County Public
Recreational Facilities Authority;
19. Prior to the approval of any plat providing access to Newcomb Mountain Lane an amended road
maintenance agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney. This agreement
shall be recorded with the plat; and
20. Provide evidence to the County that the Rosemont Homeowner's Association consents to the
Newcomb Mountain Lane extension to serve as access to Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2
and 18C3.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Strucko was absent.)
°err►
Ms. Joseph stated that SP-2007-00014, The Rocks Subdivision Lot 1 Amendment was approved and will
go before the Board of Supervisors on July 11, 2007 with a recommendation for approval. The Planning
Commission will be able to see this when it comes back as a subdivision. The plat will not be
administratively approved, but will come before the Planning Commission for review.
The Planning Commission took a ten minute break at 7:24 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 7:34 p.m.
ZMA2006-00015 Livengood (Glenmore Section SQ (Sign # 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 45 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 and summarized the staff report.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 5, 2007 16
M
■ This is a request to rezone 32.24 acres which is outside of the Glenmore PRD to be included in
the Glenmore PRD to develop up to 45 lots in single family residential with pedestrian connection
to other parts of Glenmore and a pedestrian connection to Rivanna Village and a centralized
green as a center piece of the community as a proposed expansion.
■ The Commission has had two work sessions on this request. Essentially this is going to be an
extension of Glenmore. The area proposed for development is mainly flat. It slopes off towards
an intermittent stream. Currently it is being used as a pasture. At the last work session the
applicant came in with 4 different proposals. In keeping with closest to would be what is called
the 51 lot concept. He described the proposal. There is an area reserved for a potential future
second gate, which allows for this proposal not to foreclose on any potential future gates. Storm
water and the critical slopes are mentioned in the staff report. (See Staff Report.)
• Staff recommends approval so long as the applicant increases the per unit proffer to reflect the
Board's expectation for residential development; the open space figures are added to the plans;
engineering concerns addressed regarding storm water and sewer locations and typical street
sections are addressed.
Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for staff. She asked if the typical street section would look
like the existing streets and if there were no sidewalks in this development.
Mr. Dougherty replied that there were some pedestrian paths that go along some of the larger arterial
type roads and also a bridal trail that goes around the majority of the neighborhood including along the
Rivanna River. The bridal trail is mainly dirt. There are no sidewalks in the existing community. In terms
of the connection to Rivanna Village from this proposal staff does not know what the applicant has
proposed other than he has proposed a connection.
Ms. Joseph said on page 16 of the proffers it talks about contributing $1,000 per unit as the building units
come in. It talks about allocating that money to the schools or Stone Robinson School. She asked if that
is still being done.
Mr. Dougherty replied that the proposal is for the existing proffers that still govern a number of houses
that are not yet built which will go the schools. He was not sure if the money goes to Stone Robinson
School specifically. The proposal is to maintain the proffers that are in place for additional lots that are
yet to be developed. They propose to have one set of proffers that accounts for those houses that need
to be built under that standard and also to have proffers that can move forward with this property and the
rest of Glenmore to be built to the standard that has changed quite a bit since that time.
Ms. Joseph noted that she was curious on page 17, proffer 7C where it talks about the applicant
contributing $70,000 to an escrow fund to be established for master planning, road design and
construction in the Village of Rivanna. She asked if that was just the little village part or will it cover
something else.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that it has already been contributed and will be used for the Rivanna Master Plan.
Mr. Dougherty noted that it was for the whole village of Rivanna and not Rivanna Village.
Mr. Zobrist said that in proffer 6 the reversion of land by 2010 seems like it awfully short. That is the
green space around the outside where the riding trails are going to be. If the County does not ask for it
by 2010 then it reverts back to Glenmore Associates and the proffer goes away.
Mr. Dougherty said that they could look at extending that. What staff is hoping will happen is that a deed
for an additional contribution of much more land than this anticipated will be worked out. There was some
detail about that in the staff report, but essentially what has been determined is that in order to cross
several streams and tributaries to the Rivanna River along the border of Glenmore and the river the
extent to which that land and the trail was proffered with this proffer the extent to which it can move back
from the river the disturbances for creating that trail will be less and the crossing may be reduced. To run
the trail close to the river will require a lot more engineering and structures to be in place. Then if it is
moved back they would need that dedication to be larger. Right now they don't have a proffer for that
dedication. But, staff including Parks and Rec and legal has been working with the applicant to try to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 5, 2007 17
secure a deed that addresses their concerns for bringing basically what would be public close to fairways
and things like that. Also, they want to wrap up some of the other details with the deed in terms of
signage and those sorts of things. Staff is currently working on that and does not have anything to report
tonight. Certainly if they maintain the existing proffer, which would not be the preference of Parks and
Rec, they certainly could ask the applicant to extend the date. They hope something better will be
received to replace this. It would have to happen between now and the Board hearing.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the proffers are currently inaccurate including this one.
Mr. Dougherty replied yes, but he would not put this in the same category as the cash proffer being
inadequate. But, certainly in terms of what they are proffering versus what the Board has indicated was
more acceptable for residential development the figure is inadequate. Because they have already
accepted this 100' greenway since the beginning of Glenmore it is hard to call it inadequate at this point.
It is less desirable than the 15 acre dedication.
Mr. Zobrist asked what would happen if staff does not work something else out.
Mr. Dougherty replied that they would go with the existing proffer and based on what was said they would
extend that date.
Mr. Zobrist noted that 3 years was a very short time.
Mr. Dougherty agreed. He suggested that the applicant might be able to give an update on the deed. It
has taken a while for the County to get their comments out. The applicant has indicated that they are
willing so long as they are asking for it to give a larger dedication.
There being no further questions for staff, Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the applicant
to address the Commission.
�rrr
Michael Barnes, of KG Associates, presented a power point presentation and explained the Livengood
request.
• Due some technical issues the Glen Oaks and Leake proposals fell a couple of months behind
schedule. He expected those requests to come back in August. At the Board meeting next
month it will be their 7th meeting. They have worked hard with the staff, the Commission and the
citizens on the proposal.
• Back in early September they met with the citizens and came to the Commission in October. The
two principle questions were what is a suitable use and what should the density be. The second
question was where the access should be. It was pretty clear that the access through Glenmore
and maintaining the look and feel of Glenmore with its streets was acceptable. From the next
work session the idea came out about the potential of developing a second gate at some point in
the future. That was not something that they wanted to see in the plan. They worked on the
plans for the next set of meetings. They explained to the citizens what the County was looking for
and some of the policies of the County in determining what is the density and what form is
appropriate.
• One of the factors that came out of this was that a third of the site was an open space in either
floodplain or stream valleys. When they started using single family lots and trying different
configurations the net density was not a significant increase and the product types that were
changing, especially viewed from the Glenmore residents' side, they voiced a strong preference
for the types of lots that are in section S, which is immediately adjacent to this development.
They were also looking for fewer lots for reasons of traffic and increased security with the idea of
using the natural boundaries as a way to create that edge. Their design tries to balance those
varying demands.
• Out of that meeting came the concerns about traffic and how could the roads in Glenmore handle
what was being proposed. A traffic study was done jointly with Glenmore citizens. They have a
citizen's committee that manages their roads. They were participants on this committee. They
hired an outside consultant. The level of service is A for most of the intersections. Even with the
new development they would still enjoy the highest levels of service. As far as the physical
design to the road they are adequate for the standards set forth for this development to handle
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 5, 2007 18
En
the traffic. What they have come back with is a plan for 43 lots that allows for secondary access
to Rivanna Village at some point in the future The lots shown in white they don't control. But, it
allows for that potential. There is a pocket park. The bridal trail will be continued up and around
this development. They are willing to provide a paved sidewalk. Currently there is pedestrian
network that goes along the edge of the lake and comes out to the dam right next to the road.
They are willing to continue that along the new road and end at the new cul-de-sac proposed.
• Regarding the proffers, the County has requested the greenway trail. The County also requested
an additional 15 acres. They are working with the County on that issue. He was not worried
about the sunset date.
• As the cash proffer policy unfolds with the Board those items are up in the air. They want to get
the Commission's recommendation on the land use in the proposed plan and move forward to
that to the Board and resolve the matters of the fiscal impact proffer as well as the greenway trail
proffer.
Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for Mr. Barnes.
Mr. Edgerton asked for clarification on the path around the lake.
Mr. Barnes replied that the path currently does not follow the roads, but follows around the lake and ties
back in to the road network. They are willing to extend that up along the road and down to the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Edgerton asked if that would be part of the lots or road.
Mr. Barnes replied that it would be part of the road. There are on some of the principal roads separated
from the trail on the other side of the ditch line there is a paved asphalt walking trail. They are willing to
extend that in this development also.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the proposal was only on one side.
Mr. Barnes replied yes, that was a typical scenario that is found out there. Providing the asphalt path
would be in keeping with the other places.
Ms. Joseph asked what the stub out from Livengood would connect to.
Mr. Barnes replied that in part the Commission had asked for that connection coming out of Livengood.
Out of the Rivanna Village aspect of it they provided several interconnections and agreed to them. The
one being referred to in Rivanna Village was left open.
Ms. Joseph noted that she thought it was going to be some sort of logical connection to this.
Mr. Barnes said that the way this thing works either one would go north from the cul-de-sac and hook in
or extend the road out into the series of parcels. There are several options. The interesting thing about
having the policy for interconnections is that they can bring it up next to the property line with the direction
that it ultimately ends up going to whoever ends up controlling the parcels in the area shaped like a
polygon.
Ms. Joseph said that the geometry between the Rivanna Village and the end of this road just does not
look like it is going to work to make a connection through there.
Mr. Barnes said that they have roughly looked at that.
Don Franco, representative for KG Associates, said what they envision happening is that road could turn
and tie in and then the rest of the growth area parcels could develop in a fashion that could be double
loaded and essentially tie into an extension of their internal road going straight. They have made a
provision for that whole end to be open to make the tie in. Worse case scenario if they were looking for
off site parcels to make this connection in the future they could take the funny shaped parcel between
their property and the road that is single loaded by the park it is hard to get through that and leave any
development ability for that last tract of land. So he did not envision some one would come in and rezone
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 5, 2007 19
that to get one lot in order to build a connecting road. So that is one of the reasons they have left that
available, but he would not count on that being the direction that makes the connection. They think that it
is a logical place to in the other direction towards Glenmore Way and Ashton Road as the logical end.
But, they are going to have to wait to see how that other section develops.
Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Mike Stoner, resident of 3636 Victoria Lane in Glenmore, said that he recently moved into the area.
When he learned that this was going to be a construction road he was shocked and disappointed. The
existing roads meet a high level of service. He asked that the Commission substitute the word "safety" for
"service". Ferndown Road has no sidewalks. There are many elementary school children who walk up to
Ferndown to catch the bus. The children ride their bicycles on the road. He was deeply concerned about
the level of safety that will occur when the construction is going on if Ferndown is the only entry point into
a 43 house development. Alternatives are always available. But, it is the cost of the alternative that is at
question. He asked the Commission to look at the costs of a tragic incident. He asked why the
emergency entrance could not be opened up at least for the construction period.
Trevor Joscelyne presented a power point presentation concerning the safety with Darby Road. The road
has the ability to handle the traffic, but not the pedestrian safety. That was the issue he wanted to
address. After studying the situation with the proposal for this area he suggested that the developer be
asked to proffer a sidewalk for Darby Road as a contingency on approving the Livengood application. All
the residents on the road, excluding one, have agreed that a sidewalk would be acceptable. In terms of
giving up their property the areas on each side of the road is owned by the developer for 15'. There is an
easement whereby the developer will have to modify the grading of certain properties in order to allow the
drainage to take place, which will mean the sidewalk could cause some properties to have to regrade
their front lawns to allow the drainage to take place. That depends upon the detailed design of the
sidewalk as it gets implemented.
Dick Levine, resident of Darby Road, spoke in support of the sidewalk. The existing sidewalk only serves
about a half of the residents to get to the park. The other half have to use the 20' wide road to get to the
park. With cars traveling on the road at 40 miles per hour it creates an unsafe situation. There has been
a traffic study in Glenmore that indicates that cars tend to go 10 miles over the speed limit. That creates
a very serious safety issue. He urged the Commission to consider that a sidewalk be installed on Darby
Road as a result of the increased traffic from the proposed developments.
Thomas Grismall, Glenmore resident, agreed with the previous two speakers. The cut through drivers
who live in other sections of Glenmore poses a distinct risk to the lives and limbs of Glenmore residents
especially the young children playing in the park. He has had to jump off the road into the culvert to keep
from being hit by a car. It is expected that the 45 homes to be built in Livengood if the proposal is
approved that these homes could easily be expected to add to the traffic density on Darby Road. It was
originally explained when he purchased his home in 2003 that east Darby Road would be closed at Piper
Way upon the completion of construction now under way. The County has now decided that it will not be
closed. This life endangering hazard to pedestrians on Darby Road has not been solved over the past
year as it was explained earlier. New homes in the Livengood section as proposed will only make
matters worse. The problem they now face with Darby Road, which will be aggravated by additional
construction in Glenmore, has been caused by poor planning. As a former Director of the Glenmore
Community Association and the Chairman of the Committee that wrote the initial Glenmore 5-year
strategic plan he urged the Planning Commission to at least table this Livengood proposal and not allow it
to be considered further until the Darby Road situation has been properly corrected. He suggested that
perhaps a proffer from the developer to install sidewalks on Darby, which would not detract from the rural
setting, might be appropriate. Further since the developer planned and built Darby Road it is his distinct
opinion that the developer be the sole source of funding to correct this planning mistake. During his 20
year as a naval officer he learned the 6 P Concept, Prior Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance.
He questioned how the roads would be tied together. He asked that they work together to enhance the
quality of life in Albemarle County.
Margaret Stickly, resident of Darby Road, voiced concern about Darby Road not being able to handle the
increased traffic and the safety of the public. She opposed putting more traffic on Darby Road.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 5, 2007 20
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the
Commission.
Mr. Cannon said that a sidewalk along Darby Road would be a good proffer if that is a creditable proffer.
The larger issue is whether they can send this along without a list of proffers that the Commission can say
meets the current requirements of the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Craddock said that was one of the questions that he had. This proposal has been in the process
even longer than Biscuit Run. It is up to the Board whether they will hold to what they have discussed or
do they want to modify it.
Ms. Joseph noted that it felt more comfortable with the Biscuit Run because they were giving so many
other things that were hard to put in that list. Proffering a 400 acre park it is hard to quantify it in a list.
Mr. Craddock agreed.
Ms. Joseph said that there nothing to that extent. Therefore, she was having trouble with that aspect,
also, of why this should not be. It certainly will be placing a burden on the community even though it has
been in the process for a while.
Mr. Morris asked staff if during the meetings with the applicant if the question of Darby Road and the
sidewalk ever discussed prior to tonight.
Mr. Dougherty noted that the traffic study said that they are looking at issues about the vehicular capacity.
The applicants were going to work with the home owners to address the concerns of safety. In meeting
with the residents some ideas were expressed, but the applicant has not responded to those ideas. Staff
received the traffic study from the applicant about 6 to 8 weeks ago, but it was not done in a manner that
*Aw the county engineer had wanted to see. So revisions were requested. When the revisions were
submitted it was still not what the county engineer wanted to see. Staff finally received the information
needed after the county engineer performed the work himself. The problem is that focus has been on the
vehicular traffic so much that the discussion on the pedestrian issues was not as center stage as they
could have been. The focus had been on vehicular and not pedestrian. Staffs discussion with the
applicant has not been too extensive with the pedestrian issues. The traffic study says that there are
some ideas that could be done, but they have not had any formal proposal of any of those things from the
applicant in terms of pedestrian safety and traffic calming.
Mr. Edgerton asked if all of the roads are private, and Mr. Dougherty replied that is correct.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the roads were built to the standard rural cross section.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the roads were designed to meet the mountainous terrain standards. It was
more in the vertical curvature. That was the standard that was accepted at the time that Glenmore was
originally approved.
Mr. Edgerton asked for some reassurance from staff on the proffers because he was not at the meeting
when the Board discussed the per unit amounts. In the staff report it says, "It was also the consensus of
the Board that with the exception of affordable housing all new rezonings will pay the equivalent of their
full impact as determined by the cash proffer calculations applied to the accepted per unit rates." If that
was their directive he did not think there was any discussion. But, again he was not at that meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the question was asked of the Board if they intend for new development to pay for
its impact and the Board said yes. The Board further said that there would be credits against that impact
that they would allow for in different elements. They were using a number that was somewhat different
than that recommended by the Fiscal Impact Committee because of the percentage of the total cost that
*%W they assumed was already available as revenue for capital projects through the general property taxes.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 5, 2007 21
Mr. Craddock noted that this proffer has not been itemized because the applicant has not provided
anything.
Mr. Edgerton said that the parks and trails might have some value.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the parks and trails were internal. So they are generally considered to be a
benefit to the project rather than the general public. They are design features. While no number has
been put on design features it is something the Commission felt last week with Biscuit Run was worth
some consideration.
Mr. Dougherty said that they were talking about the park that is in the central open space in the project
and not the larger 15 acre dedication.
Ms. Joseph noted that the 15 acres has to do with the greenway.
Mr. Cannon noted that would be available to the public.
Mr. Dougherty agreed if it went through.
Mr. Zobrist felt that the project had been designed well, but he was a little distressed that the issue of the
safety of the pedestrians is only coming up now. He had not heard anything about it in the other work
sessions. Frankly, he thought that the residents have a real issue with safety. He had an issue with
safety in those neighborhoods. The applicant needs to get back with the residents to resolve this issue.
It goes to the other two developments, too. With Biscuit Run they went to a vote and they decided that
they should not have done it and they came back to the Commission with the right numbers. The
Commission has a right to have an adoption by the applicant of the philosophy of the Board even if not
the exact numbers. At least the Commission could send it to the Board with a commitment by the
developer to do what the Board has publicly stated that they want to do. He requested that the applicant
be invited to address the issues.
Mr. Franco said that they would be happy to follow the philosophy of the Board as outlined. He did not
think that the internal park would count towards anything. The question is what kind of credit they get for
the 15 acres of greenway that is being asked above and beyond. That is a number that the Board has to
put out there which they can negotiate into that. All it would really take is a negotiation of what the proffer
amount is from that issue to what the credit is going to be. They are happy to follow that number, but they
want adequate credit for the 15 extra acres that is being requested at the lower end.
Mr. Zobrist said that he was okay with that. The staff report says that they are not willing to proffer any
more money. The Commission knew what the number was for the Biscuit Run proffer, but then they
talked about the credits. He was okay with that philosophy that if they knew what the numbers were then
they could talk about the credits. He asked if the 15 acres was the only item they needed credit for.
Mr. Franco said that the other questions were about some of the other items discussed as to how the
proffer number was developed. It was based on an average price for the unit and these will be above that.
He asked if there was more room for negotiation or discussion on that. Again, this is very gray. The
policy is evolving for us. They would be happy to start there. If they were going to be paying more in
taxes on these units and should they be getting back more credit. The discussion Mr. Edgerton had was
that when it went to the Board the discussion was whether they were going to use 6 or 8 percent for the
amount of credits one gets back for personal property taxes that went towards these things. They ended
up going against the committee's recommendation of 8 percent and went with the lower credit producing
the higher number. There are still things being discussed that are not iron clad at this point. Since Darby
Road is external to this rezoning at this point and the residents are claiming it is an existing problem, then
is that something that should get credit. Therefore, they are asking to allow the request go forward to the
Board and allow them to resolve it.
Mr. Zobrist said that the issue of credits is irrelevant. He would have a hard time recommending the
Board to approve this with the safety issue hanging out there and not being resolved. He asked that the
applicant work the proffers out with staff.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 5, 2007 22
• Mr. Edgerton disagreed that the things are very gray. There are going to be some details to be worked
out in the coming months. But, it is fairly apparent that the Board meant for this to be applicable
immediately. He did not think the Board was gray about that at all in their statement. The Commission is
bound to follow that direction. He suggested that the applicant come up with some numbers on the
credits and then the Commission could comment on it. Ultimately, the Board can make that decision.
But, that does not change the big number.
Mr. Franco noted the grayness was the amount of credits given. They have been working with the
citizens with respect to the traffic study. When this was first brought to them by Mr. Joscelyne the issue
was cut through traffic. It was the volume and speed of traffic. A traffic study has been done with
different numbers and speeds quoted. The overall study in Glenmore was done on the spine roads,
which was mainly Piper Road. There was a speed study that the Police Department did. That is where
the major speed issues were. Mr. Joscelyne did his own study on the internal roads to Darby. The speed
that he had was right around 30 miles per hour, which was 5 miles per hour over the speed limits. The
focus on their discussions with the citizens over the last 6 months has been how to calm the traffic and
direct it in different directions back onto the spine roads. They reviewed that with the Glenmore
Community Association. They have talked about proffering money for traffic calming in that
neighborhood. So far they have chosen to go a different route. Their route was to educate their residents
first. If it is a cut through issue they say that it is better to first educate, deal with enforcement issues and
then reengineer the roads in that area. They have been in discussion with them for months as part of the
traffic study and everything else. So this is not a new topic.
Mr. Zobrist said that this was the first time that he had heard the pedestrian issue. When a group of
citizens ask for a sidewalk in a rural character community he felt that there was a serious problem. He
asked how many residents lived on the road.
Mr. Franco replied that there were 73 houses in that neighborhood. He said that he would be happy to
*4 r explore this issue with the Commission. They have been talking about some of the other solutions that
exist. He asked to correct one thing that has been said. This has always been designed as an
interconnection between this neighborhood and this area. It has never been designed, submitted or
approved as a cul-de-sac neighborhood. One of the things that exist right now is the horse trail. They
are going to take it around Livengood and continue the path. There is a common area path they have
looked at to put a path behind the houses to provide access to the park area. There are some issues with
the design the residents are looking at. They continue to explore other possibilities with them. But, so far
they have not been able to come to any conclusion with that group.
Mr. Zobrist suggested that the Commission defer the request until they worked out those issues. He had
a problem with the effect on the neighbors. They need to get an agreement with the community
association on how to handle these issues.
Mr. Franco said that the association has not asked for this path.
Ms. Joseph said that the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Morris said that the applicant did a wonderful job of what he brought before the Commission, but
there were safety issues that need to be addressed. The proffers have to meet the standards set by the
Board and be worked out before the meeting.
Mr. Cannon noted that he could not support sending the request forward to the Board with a blank check
on the proffers. They did not do that with Biscuit Run. Then there was a constructive session where they
came back with specifics that the Commission could respond to and bring forward a recommendation to
the Board that in the long run will help the community as well as the developer. He would like to see that
happen here. He could not support it without a specific list that he could at least look at and make his
best judgment on whether it is adequate or not against what he understands to be the Board's policy.
Mr. Craddock asked to see an itemized listing of credits, etc. to offset the cost of the development based
on the Board's recommendations. He liked their approach about educating the residents on the speed
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 5, 2007 23
limits because they are the ones using the roads mostly. If they are not driving 25 miles per hour on
**MW Darby Road, that is a neighborhood problem. He felt that everybody ought to be driving 25 miles per hour
on those roads. He questioned whether 110 percent in traffic volume was significant or not. He asked
that the issue of a sidewalk on Darby Road ought to be looked at and whether it would be a credit.
Getting the request before the Board on July 11 was a little tight.
Mr. Edgerton said that he was not comfortable moving this on to the Board with no commitment from the
applicant on the proffers. With the additional traffic from this project and the two upcoming they need to
resolve the sidewalk and pedestrian safety issues. He was not prepared to recommend approval this
evening with all of the outstanding issues.
Ms. Joseph pointed out if this was to connect to Rivanna Village that there was going to be a lot of traffic
going through there. She asked the applicant if they wanted to request a deferral due to the lack of
support.
Mr. Franco asked for a deferral, but wanted some clarification on a couple of things so they can be clear
when they come back. In response to the three things that he had heard:
1. He was happy to abide by the Board's proffer policy given the appropriate credits for the
improvements being requested. They will deal with that aspect. He heard the request for an
itemized list with respect to that.
2. He would come back better prepared to discuss the traffic situation. They will meet again with the
residents and find out how to address their concerns.
3. He needed some clearer guidance on what road section the Commission was going to be looking
for. What he heard is that the proffer does not have anything to do with the road section. The off
site concern does not have anything to do with the road section. So he would ask for some clear
guidance tonight so that they can make sure their plan reflects what their expectation will be for
the road section. What has been submitted and reviewed by staff and had their support coming
into this tonight was a rural section road. They are happy to provide a path on one side of the
*W road connecting to the existing network of paths that go around the lake and then tie into the
bigger part of the community. If they are looking for an urban section of road, he needs to hear
that.
Mr. Edgerton said that he was looking for an urban section of road.
Ms. Joseph said that she was not so sure. She asked that the roads be able to deal with storm water in
LID fashion instead of through pipes. She suggested that they come up with something that they could
use such as bio swales or something to get rid of the water or some other mechanism other than piping
that was not expensive to put in the pathway. She supported some kind of asphalt pathway or hard
surface. She felt that it should be on both sides. If this is suppose to connect with Rivanna Village there
will be a lot of traffic. She was torn by the sidewalk issue, but felt they could do sidewalks and also do
some LID stuff.
Mr. Zobrist said that he was convinced that the roads are adequate to carry the traffic, but it was the
safety issue. In terms of the section he suggested that he talk with the residents and the community
association on how to deal with the traffic and safety issues. It would be helpful to know what the
residents in that area would like to have.
Mr. Franco asked if he was willing to live with majority or consensus.
Mr. Zobrist felt that if the Glenmore Association came in with a strong recommendation to retain it the way
it was that he would take strong notice of that.
Mr. Cannon agreed that it sounds like a process solution that could yield results. He was not committed
to concrete sidewalks and traditional curb and gutter. He preferred asphalt. He felt that they could
approximate the community's preferences through discussion, which would be helpful to the Commission
to know the results of that.
Mr. Franco said that based on their comments he requested deferral.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 5, 2007 24
, Mr. Kamptner noted that it would be an indefinite deferral and would be readvertised.
Motion: Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Craddock seconded, for approval of the applicant's request for indefinite
deferral of ZMA-2006-00015, Livengood (Glenmore Section S5) to June 19.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Strucko was absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that ZMA-2006-00015, Livengood (Glenmore Section S5) was indefinitely deferred.
Old Business
Ms. Joseph asked if there was any old business.
At a request to discuss the new City Planning Commission's policy regarding meeting with applicants, it
was decided that the Chair would work with staff to schedule this discussion at a future meeting.
There being no further items, the meeting proceeded.
New Business
Ms Joseph asked if there was any new business. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
Adjournment
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m. to the Tuesday, June 12, 2007 meeting at 6:00
p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Auditorium, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
r0j
V. Wayne ilimberg, Secret
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 5, 2007 25