HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201800012 Staff Report 2023-02-03COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
TRANSMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA201800012 Galaxie Farm
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request for
13.36 acres to be rezoned from R1 Residential
zoning district, which allows residential uses at a
density of 1 unit per acre to Planned Residential
Development (PRD) that allows residential (3 — 34
units/acre) with limited commercial uses. A
maximum of 65 units are proposed for a gross
density of approximately 5 units per acre and a net
density of 6 units per acre.
SCHOOL DISTRICT:
Monticello High School, Walton Middle School, Cale
AGENDA DATE:
December 4, 2019
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Walker, Filardo, Benish, Nedostup
PRESENTER (S):
Megan Nedostup
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on October 15, 2019, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of
ZMA201800012 with a recommendation that the density be reduced to match the Comprehensive Plan
and that additional changes recommended by staff be made to the application plan. The Commission also
recommended approval of the Special Exception request to allow the front and rear setbacks to be
modified. In addition, the Commission approved requests for private streets, sidewalk, planting strip and
curb and gutter modifications. The Commission's staff report, action letter, and minutes are attached
(Attachments A, B, and C).
DISCUSSION:
Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has submitted a revised application plan that
reduced the density from 72 units to 65 units, as recommended by the Commission. The applicant also
made the following modification to the application plan, as recommended by staff and the Commission:
1. Private Road D was revised to be two public streets with a future right of way extension to the
County property line to the north for future dedication upon demand of the County.
2. Note B on Sheet 7 was revised to match the recommendation of the Commission for setbacks.
3. Street sections were revised to match the recommendation of the Commission.
Staff has reviewed the revised application plan and found that it meets the recommendations by the
Commission.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Ordinance to approve ZMA201800012 (Attachment
E), and the Resolution to approve the Special Exception (Attachment F).
ATTACHMENTS:
A — Planning Commission staff report- October 15, 2019
A1: Vicinity Maps
A2: Applicant Narrative and Modification requests
A3: Modification Request Exhibits A and B
A4: Application Plan dated September 4, 2019
A& December 18, 2018 Work Session Staff Report
A6: December 18, 2018 Work Session Minutes
A7: Applicant Photographs of Historic Resource Structures
A8: Neighborhood Model Principles Staff Analysis
A9: Modification Requests Staff Analysis
B — Planning Commission action letter
C — Planning Commission minutes
D — Revised Application Plan dated November 13, 2019
E — Ordinance to approve ZMA201800012
F — Resolution to approve Special Exception
County of Albemarle
Planning Staff Report Summary
Project Name: ZMA 2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Staff. Megan Nedostup, Principal Planner
Planning Commission Hearing: October 15, 2019
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBD
Owner: David and Anna Marie Witmer
Applicant: Blackbird of Charlottesville, LLC- Nicole Scro
Kelsey Schlein- Shimp Engineering
Acreage: 13.36 acres
Rezone from: R-1 Residential to Planned Residential
Development (PRD)
TMP: 09100000000900; 09100000001500
Location: 193 Galaxie Farm Lane off of Route 20 South.
Approximately 1/3 of a mile south from Mill Creek Drive's
intersection with Rt. 20.
School Districts: Cale (Elementary); Walton
By -right use: RI residential uses at a density of 1 unit per
(Middle School); Monticello (High School)
acre
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Proffers: No
Proposal: Rezone 13.36 acres from RI Residential
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 72 units
zoning district, which allows residential uses at a
density of 1 unit per acre to Planned Residential
Development (PRD) that allows residential (3 — 34
units/acre) with limited commercial uses. A
maximum of 72 units are proposed for a gross
density of approximately 6 units per acre and a net
density of 7 units per acre.
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 4 of the
Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Density
Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan
Residential — residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses
such as places of worship, schools, public and institutional
uses and small-scale neighborhood serving retail and
commercial;
Parks and Green Systems — parks, playgrounds, play fields,
greenways, trails, paths, recreational facilities and equipment,
plazas, outdoor sitting areas, natural areas, preservation of
stream buffers, floodplains and steep slopes adjacent to rivers
and streams in the Southern Neighborhood 4 within the
Southern and Western Urban Area Master Plan.
Affordable Housing Provided:
Affordable Housing AMI (%): Application Plan: 15% (10
® Yes ❑No
units- 7 above density in Comp Plan) 80% AMI per current
housing policy
Character of Property: Property is wooded with a
Use of Surrounding Properties: Kappa Sigma, single
stream across the front adjacent to Route 20. There
family attached development- Avinity to the south; Cale
are also some preserved slopes on the property. Two
Elementary, Assisted Living Facility- Albemarle Health and
houses exist on the properties and have access from
Rehab, Tandem Friends Private School, Monticello Fire
Galaxie Farm Lane which is a private street off of Rt
Station to the north and east; and single family detached
20. One of the houses, garage and barn are
homes. Rural area is located across the property along Rt. 20
contributing resources to the Southern Albemarle
to the west.
Rural Historic District. There are also two properties
that currently have their access from Galaxie Farm
Lane that are not a part of the rezoning.
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
1
Factors Favorable:
1. The rezoning request is consistent with the
majority of the recommendations within the
Southern and Western Neighborhoods
Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan.
2. The rezoning is consistent with the majority
of the applicable Neighborhood Model
Principles.
3. The rezoning provides affordable housing
that meets the housing policy within the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The rezoning provides a portion of the
connector road that is recommended in the
Southern and Western Neighborhoods
Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The rezoning request will add additional students to
Cale Elementary, which is over capacity with no
plans for expansion for future capacity.
2. The density proposed is above the
recommendations within the Southern and Western
Neighborhoods Master Plan.
Zoning Map Amendment: Overall, staff believes that the favorable factors outweigh the unfavorable factors. If the
Planning Commission agrees with staff recommendations regarding the modification and waiver requests, staff
recommends approval of the rezoning with the following changes:
1. The application plan is modified based upon staff recommendations on the waiver requests to revise the street
sections and layout.
2. If Road D becomes two public streets, the right of way should be extended to the property line to the north, and
a note should be added to the application plan for future right of way dedication.
Modification Requests:
1. Private street authorization (Sections 14-233 and 14-234) for Roads D and E. (Staff recommends approval of
Road E only)
2. Modification of street standards
a. 14-422(E)- Sidewalks along private streets for Road E (Staff recommends approval with condition)
b. 14-422(F)- Planting strips along private streets for Road E (Staff recommends approval)
c. 14-410 (I)- Curb and gutter for Road E (Staff recommends denial)
3. Modification of Planned Residential Development Setbacks (Section 18-8.2b) for front and rear setbacks. (Staff
recommends partial approval)
STAFF PERSON: Megan Nedostup
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: October 15, 2019
PETITION:
PROJECT: ZMA201800012 Galaxie Faun
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 09100000000900; 09100000001500
LOCATION: 193 Galaxie Farm Lane
PROPOSAL: Rezone property from residential to a higher density residential development with a mixture of unit types.
PETITION: Rezone 13.36 acres from RI Residential zoning district, which allows residential uses at a density of 1 unit
per acre to Planned Residential Development (PRD) that allows residential (3 — 34 units/acre) with limited commercial
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
2
uses. A maximum of 72 units are proposed for a gross density of approximately 6 units per acre and a net density of 7
units per acre.
OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): Entrance Corridor; Steep Slopes- Managed and Preserved; Scenic Byways
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential — residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses such as
places of worship, schools, public and institutional uses and small-scale neighborhood serving retail and commercial;
Parks and Green Systems — parks, playgrounds, play fields, greenways, trails, paths, recreational facilities and equipment,
plazas, outdoor sitting areas, natural areas, preservation of stream buffers, floodplains and steep slopes adjacent to rivers
and streams in the Southern Neighborhood 4 within the Southern and Western Urban Area Master Plan.
MONTICELLO VIEWSHED: No
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The subject properties consists of two parcels located along Route 20 South and is adjacent to Kappa Sigma, Avinity,
vacant County owned property, and Cale Elementary (Attachment 1). The subject properties are on the edge of the
development area, and the Rural Area is across Route 20. Route 20 is considered to be an Entrance Corridor and a Scenic
By -Way. There are a number of additional uses nearby the proposal including Tandem Friends School, Monticello Fire
Station, Albemarle Health and rehab, and a number of County owned properties that are currently vacant. Two houses
exist on the properties and have access from Galaxie Farm Lane which is a private street off of Rt 20. One of the houses,
garage and barn are contributing resources to the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. There are also two
properties that currently have their access from Galaxie Farm Lane that are not a part of the rezoning. The property
contains a stream at the frontage along Route 20, and a small amount of preserved slopes near the stream buffer.
BACKGROUND AND COMMUNITY MEETING
The following is a summary of meetings to date:
• The applicant submitted the rezoning proposal on September 17, 2018 and held a community meeting with the 51 and
Avon CAC on October 18, 2018. During this meeting the applicant presented the proposal and the community
provided comments and asked questions.
• A work session for the application occurred on December 18, 2018. At the time of the work session, the applicant's
proposal included County owned property. However, since that time the applicant has revised their application to only
include those parcels which they own. The staff report and minutes are provided in Attachments 5 and 6.
• Applicant provided an update to the CAC on August 15, 2019 on the proposal and changes. Concerns raised were
capacity of Cale, density above Comprehensive Plan recommendations, and affordable housing.
• The applicant requested deferral from the September 3, 2019 Planning Commission meeting prior to the meeting
taking place. The applicant has since revised their narrative, application plan, and modification requests to address
concerns from the staff report that was prepared for the September 31 meeting.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to rezone two parcels from RI -Residential (1 unitsacre) to Planned Residential Development
(PRD) which allows 3-34 units/acre with limited commercial uses (Attachments 2, 3, and 4). The application includes two
parcels to be rezoned totaling 13.36 acres. The applicant is proposing a maximum of 72 units that would include single
family attached, detached, and townhomes. The application does not propose any limitations on the types of residential
uses permitted within the development; therefore, the property could be developed as single-family detached dwellings,
single-family attached dwellings, townhomes, or a mixture thereof. The application plan shows proposed locations of
streets, open space, blocks, and trails.
If the property were developed to the proposed maximum of 72 units, the density of the project would be 7 units per acre,
which is above the range of the Neighborhood Density Residential land use designation of 3-6.01 units per acre. The
applicant is proposing nine (9) units above the Master Plan recommendation, stating that these units will be provided to
address the affordable housing policy of 15%. Justification for this request is provided in Attachment 2.
The property contains a residence, garage, and bam that are contributing resources in the Southern Albemarle Rural
Historic District. Historic preservation staff, Margaret Maliszewski, recommended that the residence be retained and
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
3
incorporated into the development to support the Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving the County's historic resources.
The applicant responded that the structure is beyond repair and too damaged to retain, and provided information and
photographs (Attachment 7) for staff review. Staff reviewed the information and stated that although it did appear that the
residence had not been maintained in prime condition and has suffered damage, it still retains integrity of location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association and was not beyond renovation and again recommended its
incorporation into the development. The applicant then submitted a demolition permit application for the removal of the
structures. The county has no historic preservation ordinance that would require that the structures be retained, and the
demolition permit must be evaluated on the same standards as all other demolition permits. Staff worked with the
applicant to coordinate documentation of the structures prior to its demolition. The documentation has been complete, and
all other standard approvals have been obtained, therefore the structures can be demolished at any time. As of the writing
of this report, the structures are still in place and have not been demolished.
In addition to the rezoning request, the applicant is requesting three modifications (Attachments 2 and 3) as indicated
below:
1. Private street authorization (Sections 14-233 and 14-234) for Roads D and E. (Staff recommends approval of
Road E only)
2. Modification of street standards
a. 14-422(E)- Sidewalks along private streets for Road E (Staff recommends approval)
b. 14-422(F)- Planting strips along private streets for Road E (Staff recommends approval)
c. 14-410 (I)- Curb and gutter for Road E (Staff recommends denial)
3. Modification of Planned Residential Development Setbacks (Section 18-8.2b) for front and rear setbacks. (Staff
recommends partial approval)
The applicant also requested an exception for double frontage lots, however this is an administrative waiver and
staff has reviewed this request and found it to be acceptable, therefore it is not included as part of this report.
It should be noted that the applicant requested to go straight to the Planning Commission and not receive comments
on their latest submittal from September 9, 2019.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant has provided a detailed narrative as justification for the request in Attachment 2. Modification
justification is provided on pages 8-11 in Attachment 2, and associated exhibits are provided in Attachment 3.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan calls for all 13.36 acres of the subject properties to be developed
in accordance with the Neighborhood Density Residential land use classification (see map inset below; subject property
highlighted):
Neighborhood Density Residential (yellow): this designation calls for primarily residential uses with densities between 3-
6 dwelling unitslacre. Housing types found in this category include: single family detached, single family attached, and
townhouses. The classification also allows secondary uses places of worship, public and private schools, early childhood
education (preschools and daycare), public uses, and public institutional uses provided they are compatible with the
surrounding area.
The applicant is proposing a maximum of 72 residential units. This equates to 7 units above the recommendations within
the Master Plan. The Master Plan recommends a maximum of 65 units using the calculation of net density (10.94 acres
outside of the environmental features multiplied by six (6)). The applicant is proposing that the units above the
recommend density will be provided in order to meet the housing policy recommendation of 15% affordable units.
However, staff believes that the development should meet the density recommendations within the Master Plan and
provide affordable units in accordance with the housing policy. Additional analysis is provided below in the Affordable
Housing portion of this report.
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
4
The properties are within Priority Area 1 within the Master Plan, and there are some recommendations for these
properties specifically (See inserts below). It recommends that the development of the properties provide for a connector
road that contain curb, gutter, sidewalks, street trees, and bike lanes. It also recommends that interconnections be
provided within the design. The application plan for the proposal includes a street section for the connector road that
meets the recommendation of the Master Plan. In addition, proposed Road C, includes a future right of way dedication to
allow for future connections to the west of the property.
Figure 33: Galaxy Farm Property
7. The Galaxy Farm Property (Figure 33) is the
location of a proposed connector road emphasizing
the expectation that interconnections will be a part
of future neighborhood block and street design. It is
also anticipated that all new streets should have two
lanes and be built with the features of an urban
street.
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
5
2. Galaxy Farm Lane Property
Recommendations (Figure 39):
Galaxy Farm Lane is an existing
private street which is accessed from
Rt. 20 South. This street should be
upgraded and connect Rt. 20 South
to Mill Creek Drive. Figure 39 shows FJ
a conceptual location of this connector road.
When constructed the street should have
curb, gutter, street trees, sidewalks, and bike
lanes.
It should be noted that a center is recommended for the adjacent County properties and recommends a collaborative
community process and small area plan for the programming of that center. The Master Plan states that pedestrian and
bicycle access will be essential for the future development. The proposed rezoning street section for Galaxie Farm drive
allows for bike and pedestrian facilities, as stated above.
13. The Mill Greek Drive Center (Figure 23) includes
the Monticello Fire Rescue Station Monticello High
School, the fire rescue station, and several large
undeveloped parcels owned by the County. Civic uses
are expected on the County -owned properties in the
future; however, a collaborative community process is
needed before the County decides on the uses for the
properties. The process should result in a small area
plan for the Center. Pedestrian and bicycle access
will be essential in any future development. Attention
will be needed to size, scale, and massing of buildings
to create a pedestrian -oriented place for civic
activities. Preservation of important environmental
features such as streams, stream buffers, and preserved slopes is expected.
The Parks and Green Systems Plan within the Master Plan recommends a greenway/trail along the frontage of these
properties, and along the recommended connector road (See insert below). The application plan proposes a trail along the
frontage of the property adjacent to the stream, and Road A provides trail, sidewalk, and bike lanes.
Affordable Housing:
The current housing policy states that 15% of the units provided should be affordable. Using net density for the
properties, the maximum number of units recommended in the Master Plan is 65. To meet the affordable housing
recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan for 65 units, 10 units would need to be affordable (See chart below for
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
6
breakdown). The applicant is proposing density above the recommended density within the Comprehensive Plan to
provide the affordable housing units, at a maximum density of 72 units, and not provide them within the recommended
density in the Master Plan (see justification in Attachment 2).
Number of Units
15% Affordable
15% Affordable
Recommended in
Number of
Number of Units
Units for Comp Plan
Units for Proposed
Comp Plan
Units Proposed
above Comp Plan
Density
Density
65
72
7
10
11
Staff recommends that the density be reduced to the recommendations within the Master Plan, and that the proposal meet
the housing policy recommendation for affordable housing.
It should be noted that a similar request was approved for Riverside Village rezoning. Per the Pantops Master Plan, 59
units were recommended and nine (9) affordable units required under the housing policy for the property. The application
was approved for 69 units, with a proffer for 10 affordable units to be provided.
The Neighborhood Model:
Staff has reviewed the proposal against the Neighborhood Model (NM) Principles and has found that it is consistent with
the majority of the principles. The application does not frilly meet some aspects of the NM related to a mixture of uses
and housing types within the development and relegated parking. Residential is the only proposed use, and housing type
is not specified other than allowing for a maximum of 72 dwelling units on the property. However, it does allow for a
greater variety of housing types within the general area of the property.
In addition, the proposed plan does not fully meet the principle for relegated parking, though the language proposed has
been accepted by the County in the past for rezonings with front loaded garage design. The detailed Neighborhood Model
analysis can be found in Attachment 8.
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district:
The requested zoning district is Planned Residential Development (PRD). According to the zoning ordinance, this district
is intended to encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and toward impact on the surrounding
area in land development. More specifically, the PRD is intended to promote economical and efficient land use, an
improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical development, and creative design consistent with the
best interest of the county and the area in which it is located.
The PRD provides for flexibility and variety of developmentfor residential purposes and uses ancillary thereto. Open
space may serve such varied uses as recreation, protection of areas sensitive to development, buffering between
dissimilar uses and preservation ofagrtcultural activity. While a PRD approach is recommendedfor developments ofany
density, it is recommended but not required that the PRD be employed in areas where the comprehensive plan
recommends densities in excess offfteen (15) dwelling units per acre, in recognition that development at such densities
generally requires careful planning with respect to impact.
Staff reviewed the request and has found that this rezoning meets the purposes and intent of the PRD. The proposal
includes a variety of housing types, 25% open space, buffer/open space along Route 20, and recreation.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services:
Streets:
The applicant provided estimated traffic counts and turn lane analysis within the narrative. VDOT and the County
Transportation Planner reviewed the application and traffic information and does not anticipate a significant traffic impact
on the nearby street network. A traffic study was not required or provided due to the low volume of traffic expected by the
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
7
proposed number of units. The applicant is providing for a street design and building a portion of the connector road that
is recommended within the Master Plan.
Schools:
Students living in this area would attend Cale Elementary School, Walton Middle School, and Monticello High School.
Calculation for the yield rates of students are provided below that outline the rates for the proposed number of units (72)
and the Comp Plan recommended units (65) based on the type of units.
Yield Rates for Proposed 72 Units
Dwelling Type
Elementary
Middle
High
Total
Single Family
(Detached)
10.8
5.8
8.6
25
Single Family
Attached
9.4
3.6
5.8
19
Townhome
10.8
4.3
5.8
21
Yield Rates for 65
Units
Dwelling Type
Elementary
Middle
High
Total
Single Family
(Detached)
9.8
5.2
7.8
23
Single Family
Attached
8.5
3.3
5.2
17
Townhome
9.8
3.9
5.2
19
Cale Elementary does not have any additional capacity. The Long Range Planning Advisory Committee report for schools
requested in the FYI 21/22 CIP funds for improvements at Cale. This project funds expansions and site improvements to
support the current student population at Cale Elementary. The project expands the cafeteria and adds four classrooms, a
music and art classroom for a total addition of 8,800 square feet. Site improvements include additional parking, enhancing
outdoor learning spaces and playgrounds, and the removal of the mobile units. However, it further states that "due to its
already large size as well limited space to expand on the lot, it is not recommended that the school be enlarged to meet the
long range needs. These recommendations are for the current school population and should be accompanied with further
study to develop a long-term solution for anticipated growth in the area."
There is adequate capacity at Walton Middle School and Monticello High School and increased enrollment would benefit
both schools.
Since there are currently no projects in the CIP to address future school capacity impacts at these schools, no
commitments would be expected from this development to address future school capacity.
Fire &Rescue:
This project is near the Monticello Fire and Rescue Station. Fire & Rescue has not expressed any concerns with, or
objections to, this proposal.
Utilities:
This project is in the ACSA water and sewer service jurisdictional area and both services are available. Neither ACSA nor
RWSA have expressed any concerns with, or objections to, this proposal.
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
8
Anticipated impact on environmental, cultural and historic resources:
As stated above, the properties contain a residence, garage, and barn that are contributing resources in the Southern
Albemarle Rural Historic District. However, the applicant has submitted a demolition permit application for the removal
of the structures. The county has no historic preservation ordinance that would require that the structures be retained, and
the demolition permit must be evaluated on the same standards as all other demolition permits. Staff is working with the
applicant to coordinate documentation of the structures prior to its demolition. Once the documentation is complete and
all other standard approvals have been obtained, the structures can be demolished.
The stream and its buffer are located within proposed open space. In addition, lots and structures are not permitted within
the stream buffer or on preserved slopes, and the preserved slopes will not be disturbed.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties:
Use of the property as proposed is not anticipated to have significant impacts on adjacent properties. The portion of the
recommended connector road, and the trail along the frontage of the property will provide a benefit to nearby and
surrounding properties, including the future Center on County property.
Public need and justification for the change:
The County's growth management policy says that new residential development should occur in the designated
Development Areas where infrastructure and services are provided, rather than in the Rural Area. However, there are a
number of issues of concern which include: the proposal exceeds the Comprehensive Plan density recommendations
which create a small additional impact to Cale Elementary, which is over capacity; the affordable housing language needs
to be updated to meet the Comprehensive Plan recommendations; and required information for the modification requests
have not been provided to make the findings in the ordinance.
MODIFICATION REQUESTS
The applicant is requesting three modifications as indicated below:
I. Private street authorization (Sections 14-233 and 14-234) for Roads D and E. (Staff recommends approval of
Road E only)
2. Modification of street standards
a. 14-422(E)- Sidewalks along private streets for Road E (Staff recommends approval with condition)
b. 14-422(F)- Planting strips along private streets for Road E (Staff recommends approval)
c. 14-410 (I)- Curb and gutter for Road E (Staff recommends denial)
3. Modification of Planned Residential Development Setbacks (Section 18-8.2b) for front and rear setbacks. (Staff
recommends partial approval)
Detailed staff analysis is provided in Attachment 9.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. The rezoning request is consistent with the majority of the recommendations within the Southern and Western
Neighborhoods Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan.
2. The rezoning is consistent with the majority of the applicable Neighborhood Model Principles.
3. The rezoning provides affordable housing that meets the housing policy within the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The rezoning provides a portion of the connector road that is recommended in the Southern and Western
Neighborhoods Master Plan.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this rezoning request:
1. The rezoning request will add additional students to Cale Elementary, which is over capacity with no plans for
expansion for future capacity.
2. The density proposed is above the recommendations within the Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master
Plan.
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
9
Zoning Map Amendment: Overall, staff believes that the favorable factors outweigh the unfavorable factors. If the
Planning Commission agrees with staff recommendations regarding the modification and waiver requests, staff
recommends approval of the rezoning with the following changes:
1. The application plan is modified based upon staff recommendations on the waiver requests to revise the street
sections and layout.
2. If Road D becomes two public streets, the right of way should be extended to the property line to the north, and a
note should be added to the application plan for future right of way dedication.
Modification Requests:
1. Private street authorization (Sections 14-233 and 14-234) for Roads D and E. (Staff recommends approval of
Road E only)
2. Modification of street standards
a. 14-422(E)- Sidewalks along private streets for Road E (Staff recommends approval with condition)
b. 14422(F)- Planting strips along private streets for Road E (Staff recommends approval)
c. 14-410 (1)- Curb and gutter for Road E (Staff recommends denial)
3. Modification of Planned Residential Development Setbacks (Section 18-8.2b) for front and rear setbacks. (Staff
recommends partial approval)
Motions will be provided at the meeting based on the direction from the Commission.
Attachments:
Attachment 1.
Vicinity Maps
Attachment 2:
Applicant Narrative and Modification requests
Attachment 3:
Modification Request Exhibits A and B
Attachment 4:
Application Plan dated September 4, 2019
Attachment 5:
December 18, 2018 Work Session Staff Report
Attachment 6:
December 18 2018 Work Session Minutes
Attachment 7:
Applicant Photographs of Historic Resource Structures
Attachment 8:
Neighborhood Model Principles Staff Analysis
Attachment 9:
Modification Requests Staff Analysis
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
10
My JetemrMallon Mtaprgrapby or madours, or any deplNm Mphyslcal tnprovemeMs, properly lines ar bmedada of for gereral raformallm only and Mall not be used for Me design, margination, or panstruNm of YnprovemeMs to real property or for IIoM plain personination. Hugust 26. 2019
Map elerreMs may stale larger Man GIS data treasured In the map or as probed an the data Mail page due M Me protection used. Map Projection: WGSBO Web Mamtar (MAKI 3pMre) (EPSG 3857)
My determination of topography or mMwrs, or any deplcOm Mphyslcal tnprovemeMa, properly tons w NurMarlet Is for general raformallon orgy and Mall not Le used for Me design, modification, or mrm9uNtn MYnprovemenls to real properly mtm POM platy delemtlnallm. Augint M, 3019
Map elements may scale larger Man Gl3 dale meal Nln iM map or as pm{dedon Use data dowNoed page due M Me projection used. Map Protect K EfSI K4L Memator(AUMYary 3pMre)(EPS 3815])
Galaxie Rezoning —Written Narrative
Supplemented
Updated
Updated
Updated
Updated
PROJECT PROPOSAL
September 17, 2018
November 30, 2018
April 1, 2019
May 20, 2019
July 15, 2019
September 6, 2019
Blackbird of Charlottesville, LLC (the "Applicant") is the contract purchaser for property located
in the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "County'), having addresses of 192 and 193 Galaxie
Farm Lane, designated on County tax maps as parcels 091-00-00-01500 and 091-00-00-00900
(the "Blackbird Property"). The Blackbird Property is located immediately adjacent to that
certain real property of approximately 15.8 acres, more or less, having an address of 133
Galaxie Farm Lane, and designated on County tax maps as parcel 09100-00-00-01100.
The County also owns other nearby parcels: 09100-00-00-01000, 09100-00-00-008130, 09100-
00-00-002E0, and 09100-00-00-01300 (collectively, the "County Property').
Blackbird Property:
Tax Map Parcel No.
Acreage
Zoning
Comprehensive
Plan Designation
09100-00-00-01500
8.27
R1 Residential
Neighborhood
192 Galaxie Farm Lane
Density Residential
09100-00-00-00900
509
R1 Residential
Neighborhood
193 Galaxie Farm Lane
.
Density Residential
Total:
13.36
Countv Propertv:
Tax Map Parcel No.
Acreage
Zoning
Comprehensive
Plan Designation
09100-00-00-01100
15.8
R1 Residential
Institutional
133 Galaxie Farm Lane
Neighborhood
Density Residential
09100-00-00-01000
8.33
R1 Residential
Institutional
167 Galaxie Farm Lane
09100-00-00-008B0
8.34
R1 Residential
Institutional
1506 Scottsville Road
09100-00-00-002E0
13.27
R15 Residential
Institutional
1515 Founders Place
09100-00-00-002E0
15.96
R1 Residential
Institutional
1757 Avon Street Ext
Total:
61.7
In the image below, the Blackbird Property is highlighted in yellow and the County Property is
highlighted in red. The 2.77 acres that were proposed to be conveyed to the Applicant is
roughly highlighted in blue on the image below.
The Applicant had proposed to construct an approximately 1,400-foot long, 67-foot wide
connector road in exchange for 2.77 acres of County Property. On October 261", 2018, the
County Property Committee recommended that the Board of Supervisors move forward with the
proposal. However, it was discussed at several County Board of Supervisors' meetings in
closed sessions where it was ultimately decided that the County would not move forward with
the proposed exchange.
Because the County Board of Supervisors declined to move forward with the exchange, the
Applicant now proposes to develop only the 13.36 acres of the Blackbird Property as a
residential subdivision with a maximum allowable density of 75 units (reduced from 130 units).
These 75 units include of a variety of housing types, with various price points:
• Townhomes or Single Family Attached (of various sizes and price points, ranging from a
larger "villa" unit akin to two traditional single-family detached units that are attached to
much smaller and more conventional townhome units)
2
Single Family Detached (of various sizes and price points, ranging from larger, more
traditional single-family detached homes to slightly smaller, and less expensive units)
• Affordable Dwelling Units
The variety of housing types are dispersed throughout the Property, as evidenced by the variety
of shades of blue on the Application Plan. The variety of shades of blue are based on the
intensity of use within each Block.
CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
As stated earlier, the original application for ZMA 2018-012 included 2.77 acres of adjacent
property owned by the County (shown in blue on the previous page). This property was shown
as a "Future Phase" on the original Application Plan and was dependent upon an agreement
between the Applicant and the County in which the Applicant would build a portion of a
"Connector Road" per the specifications of the Comprehensive Plan in exchange for the
conveyance of the County Property to the Applicant.
The original application also requested a density of 130 total units, 10.65 dwelling units per acre
(inclusive of the acreage of the County Property). Because the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation for the Property recommends between 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre, i.e. a
maximum of 65 total units, staff recommended the application go to a work session with the
Planning Commission. The work session was held on December 18, 2018. The Planning
Commission recommended the Applicant explore the possibility of a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA). However, the County Zoning Ordinance was amended on January 3, 2018,
eliminating the ability for applicants to initiate CPAs. The revised process for CPAs requires
initiation by a member of the Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission.
Instead of a CPA, the Applicant proposes 65 market -rate residential units and 10 affordable
housing units. One goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to encourage 15% affordable housing in
each new project. However, due to changes in Virginia proffer laws, the County is no longer
able to accept proffers for 15% affordable housing units. Therefore, it is especially important for
the County to maximize the number of affordable housing units when it is able. While the
Virginia proffer law is changing again effective July 1, 2019, the most recently revised proffer
law still does not allow the County to deny projects based on the fact that proffers that are not
specifically attributable to the impacts of the proposed development were not offered.
Therefore, applications after July 1, 2019 still cannot be denied based on the fact that they do
not offer affordable housing.
In order to satisfy the 15% affordable housing goal of the Comprehensive Plan within the
context of the new Virginia proffer laws, the Applicant is proposing affordable housing as a
condition of the Application Plan rather than in a proffer statement. If the Application were
revised to a rezoning to a Residential R-6 designation, an Application Plan like the one
submitted for this Planned Residential Development (PRD) would no longer be required and
therefore affordable housing could only be provided through a proffer statement, which would
not be allowed. This results in the perverse outcome of discouraging rezonings to planned
residential districts, which is contrary to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. In the
Development Areas Section of the Comprehensive Plan, Expectation #2 states that "High
quality development through application of the Neighborhood Model principles" is expected in
3
the Development Areas. The best way to achieve the Neighborhood Model principles is through
the requirements and regulations in the planned development districts.
In addition, under the by -right regulations of R-6, Section 16.4.3 of the County Code states, "For
providing affordable housing units, a density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted..."
Therefore, by not allowing the 9 affordable housing units above the recommended density in the
case of a rezoning, the County would incentivize by -right development, where bonuses are
provided, or rezonings to non -planned development districts, where requiring proffers for
affordable housing are prohibited. Given these perverse incentives, the Applicant believes it is
a reasonable request, and consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, to allow for 9
affordable housing units above the property's recommended density.
In addition, a bonus for affordable housing above the recommended density has been
previously approved by the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. In 2013,
the County approved ZMA-2012-00002, Riverside Village, a request to rezone property
designated as Residential R-1 to a Neighborhood Model District. The Riverside Village
Application proposed 10 units above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan, with
the justification being that such units would be designated as affordable housing. Enclosed are
the minutes from the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor public hearings on
this issue.
Similar to the Riverside Village justification for the 10 units above the Comprehensive Plan's
recommended density, the proposed project would also have no measurable impact attributable
to the small increase of 9 units above the recommended density; the proposed project is also
located in an area with very few neighbors; and the proposed project is also located nearby a
"Center." A "Center" is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as "a school or a park... major
employment area or a shopping area... [or] mixed -use area. It is a "place" to which people want
to walk... [and] should be located within ''/z to % mile walk zone from residences..." There are
zero residences within'/2 mile and only a portion of the Avinity subdivision within'% mile.
Therefore, to fulfill the Comprehensive Plan's vision of having a "Center" on the County -owned
properties adjacent to the proposed development, it would be prudent to allow for the proposed
residential development to help support the "Center" designation.
As stated earlier, since the County declined to pursue the exchange related to the County
Property, the total maximum density recommended by the Comprehensive Plan (excluding the
County Property acreage) is 65 units (see the image on the following page where it shows the
Blackbird Property as being designated Neighborhood Density Residential). The Application
allows for 10 units over the maximum recommended density to accommodate 10 affordable
housing units (15% of 65).
Allowing a small bonus above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan for
affordable housing is consistent with other key goals of the County, avoids treating planned
zoning districts differently than conventional zoning districts, is consistent with how affordable
housing is encouraged for by -right developments, and such bonuses have previously been
approved by the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors (e.g. the Riverside
Village Rezoning).
0
.rRM
Comp Plan Land Use Into
Southern and Western Urb 91-tb st s 13B
Neighborhood Density Re y�' ;
Neighborhood Mixed Use qd �% GN 9,
■ Urban Density Residential
■ CommunityMixed Use 6p .0 /
a
■ Regional Mixed Use
■ Offoe / R & D ! Flex ! Light
■ Industrial
■ Institutional yGOA'�-
■ Parks and Green Systems
.tit-17
The project is also consistent with other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. The Application
shows the greenway trail along Route 20 that is shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan also shows a Connector Road through the property. However, due to the
same changes in Virginia proffer law noted above, the County is no longer able to accept such
transportation proffers unless such proffers are specifically attributable to the impacts of the
proposed development. The proposed development consists of only 72 residential units and
therefore does not warrant the construction of a "Connector Road" as specified in the
Comprehensive Plan. While the Application does not show the Connector Road that is
specified in the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant made a good faith effort to provide such
road within the framework of the new Virginia proffer laws. However, the County declined to
pursue the road and so the revised Application no longer shows construction of the road. The
Application Plan still provides bike lanes along Road A and enables the County to connect to
Road A should it desire to do so in the future.
While the Comprehensive Plan states that a small area plan is needed for the County -owned
properties, it explicitly does not include the adjacent parcels not owned by the County.
Importantly, the Comprehensive Plan also shows the County Property as being a "Center." A
"Center" is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as "a school or a park... major employment area
or a shopping area... [or] mixed -use area. It is a "place" to which people want to walk... [and]
should be located within'/2 to % mile walk zone from residences..." There are zero residences
within Yz mile and only a portion of the Avinity subdivision within ''/< mile. Therefore, to fulfill the
Comprehensive Plan's vision of having a "Center" on the County -owned properties adjacent to
the proposed development, it would be prudent to allow for the proposed residential
development to help support the "Center" designation.
5
IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
There will be a 100-foot buffer consisting of greenspace with a trails system located on the
portion of the Property fronting Route 20. The 100-foot buffer will protect "Cow Branch" stream,
a perennial stream located in this area. In addition, the development adjacent to the buffer will
consist of a boardwalk, with a row of houses fronting the boardwalk. Thus, the development will
orient towards greenspace, encouraging use of the boardwalk and trail network complementing
Cow Branch.
Also, there will be a pocket park. The 2.78 acres of passive recreational open space (stream
buffer) and 0.91 acres of active recreational open space (Block 8 and Block 7 outside of the
stream buffer) total 3.69 acres of common open space, which satisfies the required 3.34 acres
(or 25%).
The proposed development is required to have a second entrance to accommodate fire/rescue.
This second entrance is shown as Road F. The orientation of Road F shall be determined at
the site plan stage of development. The Applicant requested connecting to the existing
emergency accessway adjacent to the Property, utilized by the Avinity subdivision; however,
such offer/request to connect was declined by the developer of the Avinity subdivision.
PROPOSED PROFFERS TO ADDRESS IMPACTS
The Applicant is no longer providing a proffer statement. However, below is a statement related
to impacts of the proposed development.
The Applicant has discussed the Application with Rosalyn Schmitt, Chief Operating Officer of
Albemarle County Public Schools and Joe Letteri, Director of Building Services for Albemarle
County Public Schools. Both officers stated that development is welcome in this area of the
County due to low enrollment (and under capacity) of Monticello High School and Walton Middle
School. While Cale Elementary School is at or over capacity, Albemarle County Public School
officers stated that this issue would need to be addressed regardless of the proposed
development and may be solved through redrawing the district boundaries or some other
means. The officers stated Cale Elementary School will likely not expand towards the applicant -
controlled property as Cale is already larger than the ideal size for an elementary school and
there are steep slopes and stormwater management facilities located where the possible
expansion could occur, rendering such expansion impractical.
The Monticello Fire and Rescue Station is located within a'% mile of the proposed development.
The station was constructed within the past several years and has the capacity to serve the
nearby proposed development. A second emergency -only entrance was added to the proposed
development since the original Application Plan in response to Fire & Safety comments.
The proposed development is located within close proximity to several park facilities, including
the facilities of Cale Elementary School and Monticello High School. In addition, the newly
proposed Biscuit Run park is also nearby. The proposed development also includes 2.78 acres
of passive recreational space, which includes greenway trails along the perennial stream
located parallel to Route 20. These greenway trails will include a trail envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan to continue along Route 20 and possibly connect to the Monticello Trails
and/or Biscuit Run. A little less than an acre of the proposed development will be used for more
M
active recreational space, including playground facilities, dog park, and possibly a clubhouse (if
feasible).
Estimated traffic counts are provided below:
AM
PM
Use Description
ITE
Qty
in
out
Total
in
out
Total
Single Family Detached
210
42
10
27
37
30
17
47
Townhomes
220
30
5
13
18
12
9
21
Total
15
40
55
42
26
68
Right Turn
4
32
Left Turn
11
10
The above table assumes 42 single family detached units and 30 townhomes (72 units total).
According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Manuel, it is estimated that 40 units will be
turning out of the proposed site in the morning and 15 will be turning in, with the stream of traffic
reversing in the afternoon (42 cars into the site, 26 cars out of the site). Based on Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) data on Scottsville Road (Route 20), it is estimated that
of those turning into the site (in the AM: 11 will be turning left into the site, 3 will be right into the
site; in the PM: 10 will be turning left into the site, 32 will be turning right into the site). The
image on the next page depicts the above data based on current traffic estimates on Route 20.
If a certain relationship between turns and the existing volume of traffic is met, a right turn lane
or right turn taper would be warranted. In this instance, a right turn taper is warranted, which
will allow more room for cars turning right into the site. This right turn taper will minimize delays
on Route 20 that might have resulted from a backlog of cars turning right into the site.
120
/00
*::3i; FULL -WIDTH TURN LANE AND TAPER
z
BO
•` TAPER REOUIREO
y7,
•.•�•
'w
}:ti•�Y ?� is
32
:•::3•
OR TAPERS REQV=
I sis
7
In addition, based on advancing volume and opposing volumes (VPH), speed and percentage
left turns of Route 20, a left turn lane is not warranted. See the below graphic.
vPa
ADVANCING VOLUM
OPPOGING
VOLUM
1% 10% 20% 30%
1D17111OLi t[>•T iVA7G L2II r,Aw:lpr 7y,a¢
40- I D bo" SPEED^
ow
2�0
100
100
000
410
305
225
200
400
510
360
275
245
200
"a
470
350
305
100
720
515
3W
340
50 AIN DESIGN SPEED-
a00
200
210
1M
135
600
360
280
lG6
170
320
400
M5
240
300
1 335
210
270
205
00a DESIGN SPEED'
am
230
170
125
116
000
290
210
160
140
400
305
270
1
200
1
175
200
450
330
250
215
100
505
370
275
TABLE 3.1
Source. Adapted from 2011 AAS14TO
Green Book, Chapter 9, Section 9.7.3,
Page 9-132. Table 9.23
The location and timing of the traffic signals along Route 20 result in steady openings in traffic,
which will allow residents of the proposed development to turn left out of the site at regular
intervals without extended delays.
WAIVER REQUESTS
Enclosed with this Written Narrative are two exhibits. Exhibit A shows the full preliminary layout
across the entire property. Exhibit B shows the layout of Block 1 with Road D as a private
street versus the layout of Block 1 with Road D as a public street.
(1) Double Frontage Lots
The Applicant requests a wavier to allow for double frontage lots between Road B and Road E.
Section 14.401 of the County Subdivision Ordinance prohibits the development of double
frontage lots for single family detached and attached residential uses. Section 13.203.1(B)
allows the agent or Planning Commission to vary or allow an exception from this prohibition.
We request an exception from such prohibition to allow double frontage lots between Road B
and Road E, consistent with the Application Plan, and in accordance with neighborhood model
principles. Block 2 consists of rear loaded units facing either the green space of Block 7 or
Roads B and A.2. Exhibit A shows the preliminary layout of Block 2 in further detail. As shown,
the alleyway (labeled as Road E) that will allow for the rear loaded units along the open space
of Block 7 and Roads B and A.2 will also create double frontage lots between such alleyway
and Roads B and A.2. This is unavoidable due to the size, shape and location of the property.
M
The alternative would be to elongate and curve Road C into Road A, and eliminate Road B.
This new version of Road C would then consist entirely of larger, front loaded units — eliminating
the smaller, rear loaded units of Blocks 2 and 3. This would reduce the mixture of housing units
within the development as well as the possibility for rear loaded units, two key goals of the
neighborhood model.
(2) Private Street Authorizations
We request Roads D and E be authorized as private streets
As stated above, Road E will allow for the creative design of Block 2, enabling alleyways and
the avoidance of front -loaded units where possible. Road D must be a private street because it
does not satisfy the VDOT turn -radius requirement. The alternative to Road D would be larger
units surrounding two cul-de-sacs. Please see Exhibit B for further detail. The addition of two
cul-de-sacs would reduce interconnectivity and again, encourage larger, detached units rather
than the mixture of attached and detached product types.
Section 14-233 provides the regulations for the authorization of private streets in the
development areas. According to these regulations, the commission may authorize a
subdivision to be developed with one (1) or more new private streets when, "the proposed
private street(s) would enable the principles of the neighborhood model to be more fully
implemented than could be achieved with a public street, without diminishing other principles of
the neighborhood model, in the following circumstances: (i) the subdivision would have a
streetscape more consistent with the neighborhood model; (ii) the subdivision design would
allow it to better achieve the density goals of the comprehensive plan; (iii) rear vehicular access
to buildings would be provided so that the buildings may face a common amenity; (iv) a
significant environmental resources would be protected; or (v) relegated parking would be
provided to a greater extent than could otherwise be provided."
We request private street authorizations for Roads D and E on the Application Plan to allow rear
loaded units and alleyways to accommodate such units, as well as the avoidance of an
excessive number of cul-de-sacs. This design, shown on Exhibit A, is in keeping with
neighborhood model principles, such as, encouraging active greenspace and pedestrian
connectivity. The rear loaded units encourage pedestrian access on main streets and
preserves the main roadways for greenspace. The addition of cul-de-sacs also reduces
interconnectivity.
Pursuant to Section 14-234(C), the agent and the commission may authorize one or more
private streets in a subdivision if it finds that "one or more of the circumstances described in
sections 14-232 or 14-233 exist and it determines that..."
(1) "The private street will be adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be
reasonably expected to be generated by the subdivision;"
The cross sections on the Application Plan show that sufficient travelway will
still be provided for Roads D and E, accommodating travel into/from the
adjoining residential units.
(2) "The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in the
approximate location of the proposed private street;"
0
The Comprehensive Pan does not contemplate public streets in the locations of
Roads D and E, rather, it does contemplate a Connector Road for Road A.
Accordingly, Road A provides for more right-of-way. The Comprehensive Plan
does have the goals to `provide for a variety of housing types of all income
levels and help provide for increased density in the Development Areas."
Roads D and E will enable the designs preferred by the County: rear loaded or
alleyway access for vehicles entering/exiting residential units, while still
efficiently utilizing space for density and a variety of housing types.
(3) "The fee of the private street will be owned by the owner of each lot abutting the
right-of-way thereof or by an association composed of the owners of all lots in the
subdivision, subject in either case to any easement for the benefit of all lots
served by the street;"
A homeowners' association will be formed upon development of the residential
units and such association will bear the cost of fees/maintenance of the private
roads.
(4) "Except where required by the commission to serve a specific public purpose, the
private street will not serve through traffic nor intersect the state highway system
in more than one location;" and
The private streets will be accessed from Road A, a road internal to the
development.
(5) "If applicable, the private street has been approved in accordance with section
30.3, flood hazard overlay district, of the zoning ordinance and other
applicable law."
This is not applicable as the Property is not within a flood hazard overlay
district.
In keeping with the principles of neighborhood model design and upon meeting each of the
conditions of 14-234(C) noted above, we request authorization of private streets as designated
in the Application Plan.
(3) Waiver of Private Street Design Requirements
Road E is intended to act as an alleyway, providing vehicular entrances/exits for the homes in
Block 2, some of which will "face" the greenspace of Block 7. Therefore, we do not believe it is
necessary for Road E to meet all of the requirements of a typical private street.
(1) Section 14-410(H) requires curb, curb and gutter, sidewalks and planting strips.
Because pedestrian traffic will be limited along the alleyway such infrastructure is
not necessary. Such infrastructure will be located along the trails at the
beginning of Block 7 and the surrounding public roads. Section 14-410(I) allows
the commission to grant variations or exceptions for such requirements.
Per 14-203.1(B)(2), "the agent or commission may approve a request for a variation to
substitute a required improvement upon finding that because of an unusual situation, the
subdivider's substitution of a technique, design or materials of comparable quality from that
10
required by the applicable regulation results in an improvement that substantially satisfies the
overall purposes of this chapter in a manner equal to or exceeding the desired effects of the
requirement in the applicable regulation."
The use of Road E as an alleyway for vehicles allows for the "face" of such units to be
orientated towards greenspace. The use of Road E as an alleyway also allows rear -loaded units
in Blocks 2 and 3, another goal of the County.
Per 14-203.1(B)(3), "the agent or commission may approve a request for an exception from any
requirement of the applicable regulation upon finding that: (i) because of an unusual situation,
including but not limited to, the unusual size, topography, shape of the site or the location of the
site; or (ii) when strict adherence to the requirements would result in significant degradation of
the site or to adjacent properties', causing a detriment to the public health, safety or welfare, or
by inhibiting the orderly development of the area or the application of sound engineering
practices."
Strict adherence to the requirement of curb, curb and gutter, sidewalks and planting strips would
not allow the economical construction of the alleyways, which would disincentivize the benefit of
rear loaded units, which was a specific request of the County.
Because the above two conditions are met, we believe a waiver of the requirement for curb,
curb and gutter, sidewalks and planting strips on Road E should be granted.
(4) Modifications of Setbacks
(A) Note B of Sheet 7 of the Application Plan states, "Minimum front setback shall be 3
feet from the right-of-way for Private Road "E"."
(B) Noted E of Sheet 7 of the Application Plan states, "Structures adjoining Private
Road "E" shall have a minimum rear setback of 5 feet."
According to Section 4.19, a minimum front setback of 5 feet is required and a minimum rear
setback of 20 feet is required. However, Note 2 of Section 4.19 allows for a special exception
request for any minimum setback. In addition, Section 8.2b allows for the waiver or modification
of any requirement of Section 4. We request special exceptions to (1) modify the minimum front
setback from 5 feet to 3 feet along Private Road E, and (2) modify the minimum rear setback
from 20 feet to 5 feet for structures adjoining Private Road E.
According to Section 8.2b3, a waiver or modification may be granted only if:
(i) the modification or waiver is consistent with the intent and purposes of the planned
development district under the particular circumstances, and satisfies all other applicable
requirements of Section 8;
(ii) the modification or waiver is consistent with planned development design principles;
(iii) the waiver or modification would not adversely affect the public health, safety, or
general welfare; and
(iv) in the case of a requested modification, that the public purposes of the original
regulation would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by the modification.
11
According to Section 19.1, Planned Residential Districts are intended to "encourage
sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and toward impact on the
surrounding area in land development. More specifically, the PRD is intended to promote
economical and efficient land use, an improved level of amenities, appropriate and
harmonious physical development, and creative design consistent with the best interest
of the county and the area in which it is located."
Modified front and rear setbacks enable the efficient construction of alleyways for rear
loaded units. Without modification to such setbacks for Private Road E, it would be
difficult for the alleyway to serve as a means of access to the rear of the units because
the structure would be required to be located a larger distance from the alleyway.
In sum, allowing modifications to front and rear setbacks along Private Road E allows
the design of rear loaded units. As stated earlier, the alternative would be to elongate
and curve Road C into Road A, and eliminate Road B. This new version of Road C
would then consist entirely of larger, front loaded units — eliminating the smaller, rear
loaded units of Blocks 2 and 3. This would reduce the mixture of housing units within
the development as well as the possibility for rear loaded units, two key goals of the
neighborhood model. Therefore, allowing for the modifications necessary for Road E to
function as an alleyway would be consistent with the intent and design of PRD, would
not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare and satisfy the public
purposes of the original regulation.
Conclusion
In sum, the project is consistent with the Property's land use designation and intended design of
the Comprehensive Plan, allowing for the County to connect Route 20 to Mill Creek Drive, while
still preserving quality design.
12
N
W
Exhibit A
Galaxie Farm
Product Summary
Attarhad
N
W
Exhibit A
Galaxie Farm
Product Summary
Attarhad
Layout with Road D as a Private Street
I
Exhibit B
Layout with Road D as a Public Street
i
i
60 0 60 120 180
SCALE: 1 "-60'
I, 0
i, LI
Awl
i
U.S. Routey64 yam"
jf
/ J 'r ,q•V�,/ IY�lyaI
�'• i �;�._�' .. � .max {,�{��!
MAUL H. LE
c ELEIGEN7ARX S1400L
i�
,•'A „ SITE -
It
+� •� t � y�T� i
YIN
NTS
ZONING MAPAMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
GALAXI E FARM
CONTEXT:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Sheet 2 of 10
TMP(s) 91-09, 91-15
Submitted 17 September 2019
Revised 01 April 2019
Revised 20 May 2019
Revised 15 July 2019
Revised 21 August 2019
REVISED 04 SEPTEMBER 2019
project: 18.025
NTS
Image: Albemarle County Virginia GIS Database -Comprehensive Plan
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
ZONING MAPAMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
,"LAXa t' �a
�EXI�TJN CdA%(T��NIS
J
yG I / /' ; i Sheet ,3 /of 10
V _//�
TMPN-12A
Clau or Virginia
.51 \Acre
Zonep R1/
/ TMP 9 Ir-11, 1 i _ - , 94-9 , �
/ / r iCouty of AlbernMe �' Uavj&or, aria Wi4mer/
15.8 Acres . 9 Acres ;
1 done R1 i , - - - / Zoned/R1 /-
GALAXXJE-FARM LANE
TIG(P91
_ - - Jasper or Mallie Haynes
- - 8.27 Acress I
- - - Zoned R1
i � 1
/ -
li - ---_-------/--����� `\rMP(s)91-Qg61-15
/ ——T-mP-146_ _-
Ayi nity-Estat_eCU-C= — — — — _ -_- _- - - _ 1 ' / ` \t
2 16 QcreS — — — — — _ _ S�brrNtteii 1�Sept1 April 019
1 _ �� i / /� Revised 01 April 2019
— i _ I �/' /� �/ , — -Revised 20 May 2019
Zoned PRD
Revised T5 .yuly 2919
_ — — — F. \ — \ ' �/ Revised 21 Augusi 2-019
EVI �' RS ""EPTEMBER 2019
00
100 0 1200 300— Project 18.025
Graphic Scale: 1 100' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
ZONING MAPAMENDMENT
APPLICATIOhYPLAN
qr4LAXIE FARO
TW
/Q QC RK
i St*et,4 of 16
` / I �♦ / / / / / Block
i — Critical dopes
i
--Block
I I -
� GALAXIE FARM LA14E ROAD A.2 � � � � ' '
, -Block' / � � / � ' ` � , �� ' i , ' , ' ROg0
_ loc Block _ q /
/ ' - m Brio '
11�
/ 3 Q40
Q
54'lRqW
p1 1` Ex ends to — �In i S i 0 I
IPrppfrtyLine — ROAD C J I
. �4
4;�
----_ _ p
-- —- — —— %����—-- _ — acceSr9enF , ���' <
\ 1 _ _— —_ _ _— ]� _ _ S°niY) / _ Vmp(s) 91-Q6,\91 15
Srubrriitted 17 September 2b19
Revised 01 April2619
Revised 20 May 2b19
Revised 13 duly 2b19
Revised 21 August 2b19
REVISED-O"EPTEMBER_2019
100 0 100 200 300
-project: 18.025
Graphic Scale: 1 " = 100' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
i �I APPLICATION/PLAN
QAL/A)U E %R10
\ \ N \ - - / ' C,IRCt1LA-Tf0A
/ i Sh§et 5/of/16
ROAD D
'Critical dope; i
G LAXIE FAR ANE ROAD A.2
Q
CO
40
\..-. .
54' ROUV — ' ' Q
�O
Qp ds to — ' - ; ROAD
x e �rty Line ,
-- — ——
— — _ — �� �� PRESERVED $TREAM BUFFE
i % \ — — — — — _ 1\ (2.78!Acres)100
0 100 200 �300
Graphic Scale: 1 "=100' ,
♦F'KIMI I IVL NAI,UKL /
TRAIL i
Ro
i
• �Q
0 /
/ Q; I 1 1 I
�♦ // 1`Wej/
/ 0 0 11 I
�MP(s) 91-09,\94 15
Submitted 17 September 2d19
Revised 01 April 2d19
Revised,20 May 2619
Revised 15 July-2619
-i�vised 21 August 2b19
REVISED-04:SEPTEMBER 2019
project: 18.025
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
BLOCK ID
ALLOWABLE
RECREATION OR
STRUCTURE
ACREAGE
TRAILS, DOG PARK,
PLAYGROUND,
3.39
NATURESCAPE,
SPORTS FIXTURES
TRAILS, DOG PARK,
PLAYGROUND,
8
NATURESCAPE,
0.3
CLUBHOUSE,
SPORTS FIXTURES
ZONING MAPAMENDMENT
APPLICF(Tlb� PhA' N
/
OA(LAI E FARM
�S�/ eet 6/of 10
ROAD
— --- _
' NOTES: / %
\ \ A) The 2.78 acres of Block 7 shown as the hashed area on
this Sheet shall be restricted to low impact trial use and pas-
Ns
ive recreation. I A 1 I V � i / / � � ! •. %
B) If Block 8 includes a clubhouse or other similar structure,
related negyired park ng shall be provided in Bloch 3. Block
AA LANE 7
GALAXIE FAR / ROAD A.2
4AD /
/ 0 • i / /
54' ROW
i Expends-fo — ' / , ' ROAD e Q. O
l 1Prop�rryLin— — -: < .••-... 1 I
I
i
acc
esS one / / \ \ \
— — — —— — — — —_ — _ _ _ _ _-- , TNIR(s) 91-09,91-15
Submitted 17 September 2019
Revis-ed-01April 2019
'devised 20 May-2Q.19
I
wised 15 July 2019
-Revised 21 August-20-19
REVISER P� 04�EEMBER2019
S
100 0 100 200 300
project:18.025
Graphic Scale: 1 " = 100' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
BLOCK ID
UNIT TYPE
ACREAGE
MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE
UNITS
MAXIMUM
STRUCTURE
HEIGHT (ft)
1
SFD, SFA
2.5
16
35
2
SFD, SFA, TH
0.93
10
35
3
SFD, SFA, TH
0.62
10
35
4
SFD, SFA
1.9
12
35
5
SFD, SFA
0.98
7
35
6
SFD, SFA, TH
1.29
20
35
7
OPEN SPACE
3.39
N/A
35
8
OPEN SPACE
0.3
N/A
35
Total
75
Z6NIN9
MAPAMFNDN)ENT
OAL X it ,,FA�Rm,
RE,§1 6EN TT 44-A-RE�A
Sheet/? Of 10
/ OAS
'Acreage per block excludes areas that overlap with the stream buffer (except block 7) r
4r,Block
M LANE s
ALAXIE FAR / ROAD A.2 ��'' • ' '
Block/
i - - -4 ' loc Black . j
Ica /
.. !. / —
................. ......
/
i O
-- --_ -- -- / `/ / �/ /�B—C / —_ � i6 �� , ' .: •�•• / / /�v/v,�!'�O/O QORON
Ex en�s tom BjOGk/ .. . ........
I Prpp rtr Line .... ROAD C
lock /
/
II I
f
NOTES: — —
A) For front loaded garages, the porch or building face shall be a minimum of 3 feet closer to the street as measured from the face of the garage—� _ °n/y) • ' z // _ \ \
B) Minimum front setback shall be 3 feet from the right-of-way for Private Road "E" 1 '
♦ — _
C) All Blocks except 7 and 8 may be used for residential uses as noted by the unit types listed above. ♦ i / �, — — \
D) All rear yards (except those adjoining Road "E") shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet.
E) Structures along Road "O' shall have a minimum rear setback of 5 feet. I \ / / / �// / / — �` \ Q� 'Q�1•dt$
F) No structures or lots shall be permitted in the stream buffer or on preserved slopes. No preserved slopes within the development shall be disturbed.
G) Retaining walls within the development shall meet the design standards required for the distance of managed slopes in Section 30.7.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. , / / / /
H) Total allowable residentialunitsshallhe75. q g P g / / /' _ �Ut)mitted 17 September�2019
I) Road "C" is shown as a possible future connection to Tax Map Parcel 91-13 to be extended and dedicated upon demand of the County. / // /tevlSed-01_A(Zrl 12019
J) 25% of the required stormwater quality treatment shall be provided onsite. / ( Y l / / / / / _ — — — �'R@vISIay 20.19
Revlsed,1Tv JuAy,2019
Revised 21 August 2019
REVISED 04 SEPTEMBER 2019
project: 18.025
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
_ A.2
B
E
%
_
-----------
ROAD A.1- Public
i
1' 6" 2'
5' I
11'
71'
5'
2' 6" 1'
WK W
Z
Z
2
W
W KU
z0:
w
5
5
4
0<
W U'
Y
;
Y
0 W
z
m
Q
m
Z
10 0 10 20 30
Graphic Scale: 1 "=10'
ROAD A.2- Public
1' 5' 6' 6" 2' 5' 11' 11' 5' 6" 6' 5' i'
W J h K W Z W Y W
Z Z K J
d
3J
W ❑ U' U' Y W W _Y U' ❑ FW
N Z m Q m Z h ~
z g
a a
GALAXIE FARM
URBAN STREET SECTIONS
STREETS A - C
Sheet 8 of 10
ROADS B, C- Public
1' 5'
6' 6"
10,
19 9
6" 6'
5' 1'
W
Q w
LL K
N ❑
Z
W Z
K LL
0z
z
W
F ❑
N
W
J
>
yJ1 (�
> z
Z
z
O F
vi
Q
ZQ
a
F Q
a
z
TMP()
a
91-0991-15
Submitted 17 September 2019
Revised 01 April 2019
Revised 20 May 2019
Revised 15 July 2019
Revised 21 August 2019
REVISED 04 SEPTEMBER 2019
project: 18.025
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
ROAD D- Private
1' 5' 6' 2' 10. 102' 6' S' 1'
w
V Q z z Q 2
a 3 rc 5 5 m 3 Q
Z W w W W w U' p W
H y Z F > Z y F
Z F Qa, p F Z
Ja Ja
10 0 10 20 30
ROAD E- Private
30 FT EASEMENT
WAIN T_`
._
w
W
a
3
J
J
Q
Q
�
K
ROAD F- Emergency Access Only
30 FT EASEMENT
10 FT
EMERGENCY
ACCESS
ZONING MAPAMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
GALAXI E FARM
URBAN STREET SECTIONS
D - F & NATURE TRAIL
Sheet 9 of 10
CLASS B - TYPE 1
PRIMITIVE NATURE TRAIL -Private
30'
EA:
--5'—I
CLASS B - TYPE 1
PRIMITIVE NATURE TRAIL
TMP(s) 91-09, 91-15
Submitted 17 September 2019
Revised 01 April 2019
Revised 20 May 2019
Revised 15 July 2019
Revised 21 August 2019
REVISED 04 SEPTEMBER 2019
project: 18.025
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Scale: 1"=10'
ZONING MAPAMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
A) AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
15% of the total residential dwelling units within
the project shall be Affordable Dwelling Units (the
15% Affordable Housing Requirement'). The 15%
Affordable Housing Requirement may be met
through a variety of housing types, including but
not limited to, for -sale units, or rental units.
(i) For -Sale Affordable Dwelling Units.
All purchasers of the affordable units shall be
approved by the Albemarle County Office of
Housing or its designee ("Housing Office"). A
for -sale Affordable Dwelling Unit shall mean any
unit affordable to households with income less
than eighty percent (80%) of the area median
income (as determined from time to time by the
Housing Office) such that housing costs consisting
of principal, interest, real estate taxes and
homeowners insurance (PITT) do not exceed thirty
percent (30%) of the gross household income;
provided, however, that in no event shall the
selling price for such affordable units be more than
sixty-five percent (65%) of the applicable Virginia
Housing Development Authority (VHDA) maximum
sales price / loan limit for first-time homebuyer
programs (the "VHDA Limit'). The Applicant
or its successor shall provide the County or its
designee a period of ninety (90) days to identify
and prequalify an eligible purchaser for the for -
sale Affordable Dwelling Units. The ninety (90)
day period shall commence upon written notice
from the Applicant or its successor that the unit(s)
will be available for sale. This notice shall not be
given more than sixty (60) days prior to receipt
of the Certificate of Occupancy for the applicable
for -sale Affordable Dwelling Unit; the County or
its designee may then have thirty (30) days within
which to provide a qualified purchaser for such for -
sale Affordable Dwelling Unit. If the County or its
designee does not provide a qualified purchaser
during the ninety (90) day period, the Applicant or
its successor shall have the right to sell the unit(s)
without any restriction on sales price or income of
the purchaser(s). This shall apply only to the first
sale of each of the for -sale Affordable Dwelling
Units.
(ii) For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Units.
(1) Rental Rates.
The initial net rent for each rental housing unit
which shall qualify as an Affordable Dwelling Unit,
("For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit') shall not
exceed the then -current and applicable maximum
net rent rate approved by the Housing Office.
In each subsequent calendar year, the monthly
net rent for each For -Rent Affordable Dwelling
Unit may be increased up to three percent (3%).
The term "net rent' means that the rent does
not include tenant -paid utilities or Homeowners
Association fees. The requirement that the rents
for such For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Units may
not exceed the maximum rents established in this
Section shall apply for a period of ten (10) years
following the date the certificate of occupancy is
issued by the County for each For -Rent Affordable
Dwelling Unit, or until the units are sold as low
or moderate cost units qualifying as such under
either the VHDA, Farmers Home Administration,
or Housing and Urban Development, Section 8,
whichever comes first (the "Affordable Term").
(2) Conveyance of Interest.
All deeds conveying any interest in the For -Rent
Affordable Dwelling Units during the Affordable
Term shall contain language reciting that such unit
is subject to the terms of this Section. In addition,
all contracts pertaining to a conveyance of any
For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit, or any part
thereof, during the Affordable Term shall contain a
complete and full disclosure of the restrictions and
controls established by this Section. At least thirty
(30) days prior to the conveyance of any interest
in any For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit during
the Affordable Term, the then -current Owner shall
notify the County in writing of the conveyance
and provide the name, address and telephone
number of the potential grantee, and state that the
requirements of this Section have been satisfied.
(3) Reporting Rental Rates.
During the Affordable Term, within thirty (30)
days of each rental or lease term for each For -
Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit, the Applicant or
its successor shall provide to the Housing Office
a copy of the rental or lease agreement for each
such unit rented that shows the rental rate for such
unit and the term of the rental or lease agreement.
In addition, during the Affordable Term, the
Applicant or its successor shall provide to the
County, if requested, any reports, copies of rental
or lease agreements, or other data pertaining to
rental rates as the County may reasonably require.
(iii) Tracking.
Each subdivision plat and site plan for land within
the Property shall: i) designate the lots or units,
as applicable, that will constitute Affordable
Dwelling Units within the Project and ii) contain a
running tally of the Affordable Dwelling Units either
constructed or contributed for under this Section.
The designated lots or units shown on each site
plan shall designate 15% of the total units shown
as Affordable Dwelling Units. The 15% Affordable
Housing Requirement shall be satisfied prior to
more than sixty-five percent (65%) completion of
the Project.
GALAXI E FARM
SUPPLEMENTARY
REGULATIONS
Sheet 10 of 10
TMP(s) 91-09, 91-15
Submitted 17 September 2019
Revised 01 April 2019
Revised 20 May 2019
Revised 15 July 2019
Revised 21 August 2019
REVISED 04 SEPTEMBER 2019
project: 18.025
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
I
W�v fr
'op-,O-
t
I
,fir•
offAm—
mink
j
r
24
et
Y ° ti: V�rr1.d ����� '' '• �:' •ryr �L��t� ���jv
/•1��/ �4 `�. Vi p,} f;i /' <,..• � 'rah y,,l {
f ti. j
F„,�L7,�P ,Y i� r�yi1 , i��`!S Clj7�. �, '� t dam•: - \ .y•
-'�R ti � P / it /�`A • )'�(( { ` � i 4 \ i .. -
a�t';j i ,� �,jY,< 1,•S�.lw� � � ' t � �i. � { fy �J`/t
' � �: �.1 YI1Y 7�I t, ej: y' / �'1 �P ��;, v fie ^F4� v,.♦I�1 '�, �;� r.. �' � w' 7•!•,
16,
% " ' � t•�� �,Yy ....say ,r� , " '�.-
i
a
i.
.` 'lid. .�. f. -{• '� � 'I + �' r
i
1
Attachment 7 — ZMA201800012 Galaxie Farm
Staff Analysis of Application's Consistency with Neighborhood Model Principles
Pedestrian
. Sidewalks and trails are provided throughout the development. This principle has
Orientation
been met.
Mixture of Uses
. The proposal is for residential uses only, however there are a mixture of uses
within the immediate area including schools, assisted living, fire station, shopping,
and County owned land designated for institutional.
. In addition to the above, the Neighborhood Model principles for mixture of uses
discusses how Historic Properties should be respected and that a desire to
preserve these resources should be included. As stated within the report there are
historic buildings on the property that were recommended to be incorporated into
the development, however they are proposed by the applicant to be demolished.
. This principle is partially met.
Neighborhood
The Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan indicates that a Center
Centers
should be provided on a County owned property near the proposed properties. It
further discusses that a small area plan be developed to determine what type of
center would be appropriate on the County owned property. While the proposed
properties do not include a center, they are important considerations as the
County considers how to develop their property.
Mixture of 15% affordable housing is offered, however most of the units will only be
Housing Types provided if density is above the recommendations of the Comp Plan.
and . A mix of housing types is permitted within all blocks, but nothing in the
Affordability application requires a mix of housing types within the development, so the
development could end up being built to one housing type.
This principle is partially met.
Interconnected
. The application plan proposes the connector road as recommended in the master
Streets and
plan, and allows for this road to be extended within County properties.
Transportation
. Road C allows for a future connection to the west of properties.
Networks
. This principle has been met.
Multi -modal
. A pedestrian primitive trail is provided along the frontage of the property and bike
Transportation
lanes and sidewalks are provided for Road A.
Opportunities
. This principle has been met.
. Open space is being provided along the stream buffers where a primitive trail will
Parks,
Recreational
be located.
Amenities, and
. Block 8 provides for an active recreation area.
Open Space
. This principle has been met.
Buildings and
• Structures are proposed to be a maximum of 35 feet in height.
Space of
. This principle has been met.
Human Scale
Relegated
. Front loaded lots are expected within the development. The application plan
Parking
states that for front loaded garages, the porch or building face shall be a minimum
of 3 feet closer to the street as measure from the garage door.
. Parking should be relegated to the back or side of buildings. Alleys should be
explored to provide relegated parking behind main structures. The applicant has
stated in response to relegated parking that there are zero side or rear loaded
structures in the Avinity subdivision, and therefore it's not appropriate here. While
other developments have been approved in the vicinity to have front loaded
garages, that does not mean that form of development, which doesn't meet the
Attachment 7 — ZMA201800012 Galaxie Farm
Staff Analysis of Application's Consistency with Neighborhood Model Principles
Neighborhood Model, should continue. Staff believes that a design could be
explored for Blocks 4-6 to incorporate alleys behind lots to address this principle.
. While staff believes alleys could be incorporated into the development, it is
recognized that previous applications have been approved with the same
language that is proposed regarding the garages being setback from the porch.
Redevelopment This proposal is on property that is currently not developed, therefore, this
principle does not apply.
Respecting Preserved slopes and stream buffer are located within Block 1. All lots are
Terrain and proposed to be located outside of the preserved slopes and stream buffer.
Careful This principle has been met.
Grading and
Re -grading of `
Terrain I
Clear Rural area is located across the street from this proposal. The proposed buffer
Boundaries and open space will mitigate the impact.
with the Rural This principle is met.
Area
Modification Requests- Staff Analysis
#1: Authorization of Private Streets for Roads D and E
Private streets may be authorized by the Planning Commission as provided by any one of the
provisions of Section 14-233.
The applicant has requested approval of private streets for Roads D and E using Neighborhood
model development as justification. Ordinance language presented in bold italics followed by
staff comment.
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-233(A)(1) Neighborhood model development.
May be authorized if the proposed private street(s) would enable the principles of the
neighborhood model to be more fully implemented than could be achieved with a public street,
without diminishing other principles of the neighborhood model, in the following circumstances:
(i) the subdivision would have a streetscape more consistent with the neighborhood model; (ii)
the subdivision design would allow it to better achieve the density goals of the comprehensive
plan; (iii) rear vehicular access to buildings would be provided so that the buildings may face a
common amenity; (iv) a significant environmental resource would be protected, or (v) relegated
parking would be provided to a greater extent than could otherwise be provided.
Staff has reviewed this request and recommends approval for private streets for Road E only.
Road E provides rear access to lots that are oriented toward a common amenity, and the traffic
generated from the streets will be for the residents and their visitors and not cut through traffic.
The layout for the amenity -oriented block will allow for a design that is consistent with the
neighborhood model principles by providing rear access and relegated parking.
However, staff does not recommend approval for the private street request for Road D. While
the road does provide interconnection internally to the development, staff does not believe this
interconnection outweighs the cost for the residents to maintain the road. In addition, the layout
for public roads would provide an opportunity to provide interconnection to adjacent property by
extending the right of way to the property line at the end of the western most cul-de-sac. Also, a
pedestrian access could be provided between the cul-de-sacs within the created open space,
and the same number of lots and types of units are achievable with the public street layout.
The analysis provided below is only for Road E, which staff is supporting
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-234:
Per Section 14-234(C), the Commission may authorize one or more private roads to be
constructed in a subdivision if it finds that one or more of the circumstances described in
Section 14-233 exists and that: (ordinance language presented in bold italics followed by staff
comment)
1. The private road will be adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonably
expected to be generated by the subdivision.
The amount of traffic expected on the requested private streets is minimal. While Fire
Rescue and Engineering Divisions find no objections to the proposed streets being private,
the ultimate design of the streets are subject to approval by both agencies and must meet
their requirements.
2. The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in the approximate location of
the proposed private road;
The Southern and Western Neighborhood Master Plan does not show a public street in this
location.
3. The fee of the private road will be owned by the owner of each lot abutting the right-of-way
thereof or by an association composed of the owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in
either case to any easement for the benefit of all lots served by the road;
Section 14-317 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that a maintenance agreement be
submitted for review by Planning staff and the County Attorney in all situations where
improvements are required to be maintained. This agreement will be required during the
subdivision process. The applicant has indicated that the private streets will be entirely owned
and maintained by the HOA.
4. Except where required by the commission to serve a specific public purpose, the private road
will not serve through traffic nor intersect the state highway system in more than one location;
While the street will intersect the state highway system in more than one location, staff believes
with the low number of lots served by the street, that there will be minimal if any cut -through
traffic. The proposed amenity oriented private streets serve a public purpose by enabling the
principles of the neighborhood model to be more fully implemented than could be achieved with
a public street by allowing a smaller pavement section and rear access to the lots.
5. If applicable, the private road has been approved in accordance with section 30.3, flood
hazard overlay district, of the zoning ordinance and other applicable law.
The requested private streets will not require any upgrades nor impact the flood plain.
Summary:
Staff recommends approval of private street Road E which serves amenity -oriented lots.
#2: Modification of Street Standards
2a. Exception of Sidewalk Requirement for Road E
Sidewalks are required to be established on both sides of each new street within a subdivision
in the development areas. The applicant has requested a sidewalk variation for Road E. The
requirements for sidewalks may be varied by the commission as provided in section 14-
203.1(13)(1).
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-422 (E) Waivers from sidewalk requirements:
Per Section 14-422(E)(2), in reviewing a request to vary the requirement for sidewalks, the
commission shall consider whether: (ordinance language presented in bold italics followed by
staff comment)
i. A waiver to allow a rural cross section has been granted,
A waiver to allow a rural cross section has not been granted or requested.
ii. A surface other than concrete is more appropriate for the subdivision because of the
character of the proposed subdivision and the surround neighborhood,
No alternative surface is proposed.
iii. Sidewalks on one side of the street are appropriate due to environmental constraints such as
streams, stream buffers, critical slopes, floodplain, or wetlands, or because lots are provided on
only one side of the street;
Sidewalks are not being proposed on one side of the street.
iv. The sidewalks reasonably can connect to an existing or future pedestrian system in the area;
Sidewalks will be required along all public streets that will create a pedestrian network
throughout the development. Staff is recommending a condition that a five (5) foot sidewalk be
provided across the length of the amenity area, outside of the stream buffer, for access to and
from the lots and connect to the sidewalk network along the public streets.
v. The length of the street is so short and the density of the development is so low that it is
unlikely that the sidewalk would be used to an extent that it would provide a public benefit;
The length of the streets is short, and the density within this area is minimal and other nearby
pedestrian facilities are provided to connect to the larger development. Also, a trail will be
provided within the amenity to allow pedestrian access from the lots to the surround sidewalks
and pedestrian network.
vi. An alternate pedestrian system including an alternative pavement could provide more
appropriate access throughout the subdivision and to adjoining lands, based on a proposed
alternative profile submitted by the subdivider,
The subdivider has not proposed an alternative profile and is proposing sidewalks that meet the
County's design standards.
vii. The sidewalks would be publicly or privately maintained;
Sidewalks for private streets would be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Sidewalks
adjacent to public streets will be maintained by VDOT.
viii. The waiver promotes the goals of the comprehensive plan, the neighborhood model, and the
applicable neighborhood master plan, and
This waiver promotes the goals of the neighborhood model. Alleyways without sidewalks and
planting strips are encouraged under the neighborhood model for blocks that provide rear
access to proposed lots.
ix. waiving the requirement would enable a different principle of the neighborhood model to be
more fully achieved.
Waiving the requirement will allow the lots to be accessed from the rear of the property. This
allows the relegated parking principle to be fully achieved.
SUMMARY:
Staff's opinion is that sidewalk does not need to be provided along the private streets providing
rear access for Road E. Additionally, this request has been previously approved in a number of
other planned development in the County.
Staff recommends approval of the sidewalk exception for the Road E only with the following
condition:
1. A five (5) foot sidewalk across the length of the amenity area, outside of the stream
buffer, will be provided for access to and from the lots and connect to the sidewalk
network along the public streets.
2b. Exception of Planting Strip Requirement for Road E
Planting strips for street trees and other vegetation are required to be established on both sides
of each new street within the development areas. The applicant has requested an exception to
the planting strip requirement for Road E. The requirements for planting strips may be waived by
the commission as provided in Section 14-203.1(13)(3).
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-203.1 (13)(3) Findings for an exception:
Per Section 14-203.1(13)(3) the commission may approve a request for an exception from any
requirement of the applicable regulation upon finding that: (ordinance language presented in
bold italics followed by staff comment)
i. Because of an unusual situation, including but not limited to, the unusual size, topography,
shape of the site or the location of the site, or
No unusual situation exists.
ii. When strict adherence to the requirements would result in substantial injustice or hardship by,
including but not limited to, resulting in the significant degradation of the site or to adjacent
properties, causing a detriment to the public health, safety or welfare, or by inhibiting the orderly
development of the area or the application of sound engineering practices.
The neighborhood model principles encourage relegated parking and rear access to lots. Since
the proposal will include amenity -oriented lots in this location and Road E is functioning as an
alley, staff believes planting strip requirements are not needed in this location. The orderly
development, as recommended in the comprehensive plan, would be better served by not
providing planting strips.
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-422 (F) Waivers from planting strip requirements:
Per Section 14-422(F)(2), the commission shall consider whether: (ordinance language
presented in bold italics followed by staff comment)
i. A waiver to allow a rural cross section has been granted,
A waiver to allow a rural cross section has not been granted or requested.
ii. A sidewalk waiver has been granted,
A sidewalk waiver is included with this request and is recommended for approval by staff.
iii. Reducing the size of or eliminating the planting strip promotes the goals of the
comprehensive plan, the neighborhood model, and the applicable neighborhood master plan;
and
Eliminating the planting strip maximizes the area available for open space and creates an alley -
like streetscape for rear access to each lot. Sidewalks and street trees are required on both
sides of the street on all other roads within the development.
iv. Waiving the requirement would enable a different principle of the neighborhood model to be
more fully achieved.
rd
This waiver promotes the goals of the neighborhood model by allowing an alleyway like
condition to allow the majority of the lots to front on an amenity while relegating parking to the
rear.
SUMMARY:
Staff's opinion is that the proposed private streets would function as alleys and planting strips
are not required for alleyways. Planting strips are required to be provided along the proposed
public roads within the development and there will be the amenity open space as well.
Staff recommends approval of the planting strip exception for Road E only.
2c. Exception of Curb and Gutter Requirement for Road E
Curb or curb and gutter are required to be established on both sides of each new street within a
subdivision in the development areas. The applicant has requested an exception for Road E. The
requirements for curb or curb and gutter may be waived by the commission as provided in
section 14-203.14-203.1(13)(3).
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-203.1 (13)(3) Findings for an exception:
Per Section 14-203.1(13)(3) the commission may approve a request for an exception from any
requirement of the applicable regulation upon finding that: (ordinance language presented in
bold italics followed by staff comment)
i. Because of an unusual situation, including but not limited to, the unusual size, topography,
shape of the site or the location of the site, or
No unusual situation exists.
ii. When strict adherence to the requirements would result in substantial injustice or hardship by,
including but not limited to, resulting in the significant degradation of the site or to adjacent
properties, causing a detriment to the public health, safety or welfare, or by inhibiting the orderly
development of the area or the application of sound engineering practices.
Staff believes that curb and gutter should be provided to protect the health, safety and welfare
by allowing for better stormwater management and limiting parking along the shoulder.
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-410 (1) Waivers from curb and curb and gutter requirements:
Per Section 14-410(I)(2), in reviewing a request to waive the requirement for curb or curb and
gutter, the commission shall consider whether: (ordinance language presented in bold italics
followed by staff comment)
i. The number of lots in the subdivision and the types of lots to be served,
There are a low number of lots to be served from Road E.
ii. The length of the street,
The length of the street is approximately 250 feet.
iii. Whether the proposed street(s) or street extension connects into an existing system of
streets constructed to a rural cross-section,
The proposed street does not connect to an existing system of streets constructed to a rural
cross-section.
iv. The proximity of the subdivision and the street to the boundaries of the development and
rural areas,
The rural area boundary is across Route 20, however the street does not connect directly to
Route 20 and is internal to the development, which is in the development areas.
v. Whether the street terminates in the neighborhood or at the edge of the development area or
is otherwise expected to provide interconnections to abutting lands;
The street terminates in the neighborhood and is not expected to provide interconnections to
abutting lands.
vi. Whether a rural cross-section in the development areas furthers the goals of the
comprehensive plan, with particular emphasis on the neighborhood model and the applicable
neighborhood master plan;
A rural cross section in this location does not further the goals of the comprehensive plan, nor
the neighborhood model or neighborhood master plan.
vii. Whether the use of a rural cross-section would enable a different principle of the
neighborhood model to be more fully implemented, and
Use of a rural cross section would not enable a different principle of the neighborhood model to
be more fully implemented.
viii. Whether the proposed density of the subdivision is consistent with the density
recommended in the land use plan section of the comprehensive plan.
The proposed density of the rezoning is not consistent with the recommended density within
the comprehensive plan.
SUMMARY:
Engineering and Planning staff has reviewed this request and recommends denial. The County
Engineer recommends curb and gutter for better management of stormwater. Additionally, a
number of other developments within the County that have private streets serving amenity -
oriented lots, including Old Trail and Cascadia, have provided curb and gutter.
#3. Modification of Planned Residential Development Setbacks for front and rear setback
The applicant is requesting to modify the front and rear setbacks for structures accessed by proposed
private street Road E. Section 4.19 of Chapter 18 of the Zoning Ordinance, requires a five (5) foot
minimum front setback and a 20-foot minimum rear setback for PRD zoning district. The applicant
proposes a minimum front setback of three (3) feet and a minimum rear setback of five (5) feet.
County Code § 18-8.2(b) permits any regulation under Section 4 to be modified or waived by the
Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under County Code §§ 18-33.43 through 18-33.51.
Staff analysis for County Code § 18-8.2(b)(3) is provided below:
3. Findings. In addition to making the findings required for the granting of a waiver or
modification in sections 4, 5, 21, 26, or 32, a waiver or modification may be granted only if it is
also found:
No findings are required under Section 4.19.
69
To be consistent with the intent and purposes of the planned development district under the
particular circumstances, and satisfies all other applicable requirements of section 8,
Staff has reviewed the intent and purposes of the Planned Residential Development District and
found the proposal to be consistent with the purposes of the district, including promoting
efficient land use, and encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site. The
proposed PRD provides several residential types, and open space/stream buffer along the
frontage of Route 20 provides a buffer to the adjacent rural area across the street.
ii. To be consistent with planned development design principles,
The application has been reviewed under the Neighborhood Model Principles and has been
found to meet those principles.
iii. That the waiver or modification would not adversely affect the public health, safety or general
welfare,
Staff has found that the public health, safety, and general welfare will be maintained.
iv. In the case of a requested modification, that the public purposes of the original regulation
would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by the modification.
The proposed amenity -oriented lots served by proposed private street Road E serve a public
purpose by enabling the principles of the neighborhood model to be more fully implemented
than could be achieved with a public street by allowing a smaller pavement section and rear
access to the lots. However, staff believes that the front setback should be maintained for those
lots fronting on the public streets, Road A and B.
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends approval of the front setbacks only for the amenity -oriented lots accessed by
Road E and recommends approval of the rear setback for all lots accessed by Road E. Therefore,
lots that front on Roads A and B must meet the front setback requirements under 4.19.
7
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
November 13, 2019
Nicole Scro
Gallifrey Enterprises
912 East High St, Suite C
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA201800012 Galaxie Farm
Dear Ms. Scro,
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 15, 2019, recommended approval by a vote of 6:0,
for the reasons stated in the staff report, with changes recommended by staff to reduce the density to match the
Comprehensive Plan recommendation, and changes to the application plan.
The commission approved by a vote of 4:2, for the authorization of the private street request on Road E only, for the
reasons stated in the staff report.
The commission approved by a vote of 6:0 for the requested sidewalk modification with the condition (listed below) and
reasons stated in the staff report.
Condition:
1. A five (5) foot sidewalk across the length of the amenity area, outside of the stream buffer, will be provided for
access to and from the lots and connect to the sidewalk network along the public streets.
The commission approved by a vote of 6:0 for the requested planting strip modification for the reasons stated in the staff
report.
The commission approved by a vote of 6:0 for the curb and gutter exception request for Road E as requested by the
applicant.
The commission recommended approval by a vote of 6:0 for the requested special exception for the front setback
modification for the amenity -oriented lots, accessed by Road E only, and the rear setback for all lots accessed by Road E,
for reasons stated in the staff report.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434)296-5832.
Sin ly,
r
Mr
M an Nedost p
Principal Planner
Planning Division
cc: David & Anna Marie Witmer
444 Rookwood Dr
Charlottesville VA 22903
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL October 15, 2019
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 15,
2019, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Tim Keller, Chair; Julian Bivins, Vice -Chair; Karen Firehock; Jennie
More; Bruce Dotson; Pam Riley; and Luis Carrazana, UVA representative.
Members absent: Daphne Spain.
Other officials present were Jodie Filardo, Director of Community Development; Amelia McCulley,
Deputy Director of Community Development; Carolyn Shaffer, Clerk to Planning Commission;
Megan Nedostup; Andrew Knuppel; Rachel Falkenstein; Michaela Accardi; Lea Brumfield; Stacey
Pethia; and Andy Herrick.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Mr. Keller called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda
Mr. Keller invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. Hearing
none, he moved on to the consent agenda.
Consent Agenda
Mr. Keller asked if any of the commissioners cared to pull a consent agenda item. Hearing none,
he asked if there was a motion for acceptance.
Ms. Firehock moved to approve the consent agenda. Ms. More seconded the motion, which
carried by a vote of 6:0. (Ms. Spain was absent.)
Mr. Keller asked if anyone else cared to speak. Hearing none, he moved on to the first public
hearing item.
Public Hearing Items
ZMA201800012 Galaxie Farm
Ms. Megan Nedostup, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. She said it was a rezoning
request for a property located along Route 20 South (Scottsville Road), approximately one-third
of a mile from the intersection of Mill Creek Drive.
Ms. Nedostup presented a map of the parcels, which she highlighted. She explained there were
two parcels and indicated to Route 20, Mill Creek Drive, the Monticello Fire Station, Monticello
High School, and Cale Elementary School on the map. She said there were adjacent county -
owned properties to the north, Avinity subdivision to the south, and Cale Elementary to the west.
She said the rural areas are located across Route 20.
Ms. Nedostup said the applicant is proposing to rezone 13.36 acres from R1 Residential (which
is 1 unit per acre) to Planned Residential Development PRD (which allows 3-34 units per acre) to
allow for 72 units. She said the development is proposed to have a variety of housing types,
including single-family detached, single-family attached, townhomes, or a mixture.
Ms. Nedostup said that a buffer and open space is proposed along Route 20, indicating to a green
area on the map and explaining that includes the existing stream buffer and some steep slopes.
She said there is also a green space located within Block 8, and there are proposed primitive
trails within the open space area.
Ms. Nedostup said the Comprehensive Plan designates these properties as Neighborhood
Density Residential, which recommends a density of 3-6 units per acre. She presented two maps
— the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the Parks and Green Systems Map. She said the
adjacent county -owned properties on the map, shown in blue, are designated as Institutional. She
said that Avinity (to the south) and the Kappa Sigma properties are designated as Urban Density
Residential.
Ms. Nedostup said that there is a shown road connection in the Master Plan from Route 20 to Mill
Creek Drive, and that a multi -use trail is located along Route 20 within the Comprehensive Plan.
She said the application plan shows a portion of the connector road within the properties that
includes bike lanes. She said the primitive trails were determined to be sufficient by the
Transportation Planner, in this case, for the multi -use path to serve as that connection.
Ms. Nedostup added that there is discussion around the center, indicating to this designation on
the county properties on the map. She said it states that a collaborative community process is
needed prior to a decision on the use of county properties resulting in the Small Area Plan for the
center, but that this has not been planned yet by the board.
Ms. Nedostup said the applicant was proposing to go above the recommended density stated in
the Comprehensive Plan. She said that if it is development to the proposed maximum number of
72 units of density, the project would be 7 units per acre, which is above the recommended range
of 3-6 units per acre. She said the applicant is proposing 9 units above the recommendation,
stating that these units will be provided to address the affordable housing of 15%. She said staff
has recommended that the density within the report be reduced to the recommendations within
the Master Plan and that the proposal meet the housing policy for affordable housing. She noted
that Stacey Pethia was present to answer any questions about affordable housing.
Ms. Nedostup said that in addition to the rezoning request, the applicant is requesting a number
of modifications and exceptions including private street authorization; modifications to street
standards for sidewalks, planting strips, curb and gutter; and modification of the setbacks. She
said the staff analysis was provided in Attachment 9 and that she was happy to answer any
questions about the findings and recommendations, noting that she wasn't planning to go into
detail on those.
Ms. Nedostup noted that the private street modifications of street standard requests are Planning
Commission approvals, and so the Commission would be making a motion that evening to either
approve or deny those requests. She said the setback modification requires Board of Supervisors
approval, and this would require the Commission to make a motion of recommended approval or
denial of that request.
Ms. Nedostup said the favorable factors for the rezoning is that the request is consistent with the
majority of the recommendations within the Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan
and Comprehensive Plan; the rezoning is consistent with the majority of the applicable
Neighborhood Model principles; it provides affordable housing that meets the housing policy
within the Comprehensive Plan; and provides a portion of the connector road that is
recommended in the Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan.
Ms. Nedostup said that unfavorable factors include adding additional students to Cale
Elementary, which is over capacity with no current plans for expansion for future capacity; and
the density proposed is above the recommendations within the Southern and Western
Neighborhoods Master Plan.
Ms. Nedostup offered to answer questions, noting that Frank Pohl (County Engineer) was also
present to answer questions about the private street request.
Ms. Firehock asked which road is the one that is supposed to connect all the way through.
Ms. Nedostup replied that it was Road A.
Ms. Firehock asked if Galaxie Farm Lane would continue, and if the county decided it wanted to
build the connector, how this would go.
Ms. Nedostup replied that the road was a dashed line on the map and that this was yet to be
determined.
Ms. Firehock said she was confused because it looked as though it went along Galaxie Farm
Lane but that this seemed odd. She asked if Road A was public and would be built to public
standards.
Ms. Nedostup replied yes.
Ms. Firehock asked if it was proposed currently to be built to public standards.
Ms. Nedostup replied yes.
Ms. Firehock asked if the roads in question, then, were Roads D and E.
Ms. Nedostup confirmed this.
Ms. Firehock said that perhaps the applicant could explain that there were two options provided
for Road D as public versus private, and the private one connects but the public one does not
connect and ends in two cul-de-sacs. She said she couldn't determine why this was. She asked
if it was because there was not enough width at the top of Road D as a private street or can only
be connected if it is a private street.
Ms. Nedostup replied yes, mentioning the VDOT standard for the radius.
Ms. Firehock said that this was what the turn radius was referring to, and it must be private
because they could not get the curbs right.
Ms. Riley said that in a prior version of the application, the county requested there be connectivity
to Avinity. She said she was curious as to why this was not part of the application and if Ms.
Nedostup could explain how it would be feasible, if not.
Ms. Nedostup presented a map and indicated to the Cale property as well as to where the
connection to Avinity had been proposed. She said staff was not certain of the feasibility of this.
She said there is also stormwater management in the back of Cale at that location, and because
the property is offsite, staff cannot require it, but they are requiring that a 50-foot right-of-way be
extended to the property line if, in the future, they wish to make the connection.
Ms. Riley asked if it would be the county wanting to make this connection and if it would run
through the county land to Avon.
Ms. Nedostup replied that it would run to Avinity.
Mr. Keller opened the public hearing.
Ms. Nicole Scro, representative of the applicant, introduced herself, noting that she used to be a
land use and zoning attorney in Charlottesville and started Gallifrey (a real estate development
company) in September 2018. She said her family develops elsewhere — her grandfather started
the company through which her family has built several thousand houses — and that she is
marrying her family's real estate experience with her knowledge of Charlottesville. She said she
was accompanied by Justin Shimp (Shimp Engineering).
Ms. Scro said that the property is about 13 acres off of Route 20 and is designated as
Neighborhood Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre). She said she had come before
the Commission in December 2018 to talk about density, during which she had proposed some
small cottage units. She said the consensus seemed to be a Comprehensive Plan amendment
and rather than taking that route (since they are no longer able to initiate that CPA themselves),
the applicant is now adjusting the plan to make it fairly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Scro presented the project timeline to explain why it has taken some time to arrive in front of
the Commission. She said some other project changes were that the applicant was no longer
involving the county property and that the density has lowered.
Ms. Scro explained that the applicant has engaged extensively with the community, meeting with
the 5ch and Avon CAC twice and the residents of Avinity twice. She said there are two families
who live off of Galaxie Farm Lane and will be impacted by any change to Galaxie Farm, and so
the applicant has met with them several times, as well as others such as the owners of Somerset
Farm (across the street), the Kappa Sigma headquarters, the nursing home, and Tandem Friends
School.
Ms. Scro presented the illustrative plan, explaining that it shows more detail than the block plan
in the application. She said that upon entering the site, there is focus an entrance off of Route 20,
and what the plan shows is preserving a rural landscape while still having a development in the
area. She said that when entering off of Route 20, there will be mostly green space because of
the 3 acres of stream buffer.
Ms. Nedostup said upon entering, there are private streets along each side due to the shape of
the property. She noted that Mr. Shimp would be later discussing why the street is private, as he
was more knowledgeable about the intricacies of the regulations. She indicated to another private
street, noting that Ms. Nedostup recommended approval of it, and that it was simply serving as
an alleyway so that the adjacent homes can face the green space and so the vehicles can enter
in the back. She explained that rather than having a larger street and having the homes face the
street, they can orient towards the green space by having the private street in the back.
Ms. Scro indicated to where she said there was a good mixture of houses, even with the
Neighborhood Density Residential. She said that even with the 3-6 acres, there is a mixture of
townhouses and single-family detached units as well as affordable townhomes in one of the
blocks. She said the applicant has been in preliminary discussions with Habitat for Humanity to
partner with them, adding that this was not finalized. She indicated to about 0.3 acres of green
space, explaining it was marked as a dog park and playground on the map but that it could
change.
Ms. Scro said that what the applicant has heard from Avinity is that much of the area consists of
townhouses and attached units (and that Avinity entirely consists of this), and that people were
excited to be able to transition (after living in Avinity for 5-6 years) to a single-family detached
house. She said this was why the county often encourages a mixture of housing types in one
location so that people do not have to move to a very different location in the county, but can
move into a single-family detached house nearby. She said there are already people looking at
reserving certain lots, which was exciting and positive.
Ms. Scro said that affordable housing has been a major issue under discussion and that the
applicant is proposing units above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan, with
those units that are above the recommendation being designated as affordable. She said the
numbers in her presentation were slightly off and that she would adjust them to what Ms.
Nedostup had put in the staff report. She said it would be 72 proposed units, with 7 units above
the Comprehensive Plan and 11 units being designated as affordable.
Ms. Scro said the main concept was that by allowing the applicant a density above the
Comprehensive Plan, they are mirroring what was previously approved at Riverside. She said
that there, 59 units were recommended, 69 were proposed, and 10 were above the recommended
density and were required to be affordable. She said she did not see where there would be a
compelling reason to treat the Galaxie Farm application differently because they have a very
similar location via center, and that the county wants to fulfill the center's designation by having
residents nearby it. She added that the traffic there was not necessarily an issue.
Ms. Scro said that she was at a pre -op with Ms. Pethia the day before, where a similar application
in a different location was looking to do the same thing. She said she thinks this will have an
impact in the ability of smaller projects to include more affordability, especially in places where
there is a Neighborhood Density Residential designation. She said it is difficult to build affordably
in those designations because the density allowed is so low. She said there is the desire to build
smaller units that are affordable, but that more of those are needed to make it financially feasible
due to high land costs. She said the ability to provide a bonus above the Comprehensive Plan is
important.
Ms. Scro noted there were intricacies with the proffer law changing. She said if the applicant had
proposed R6, the county would not be able to require a proffer statement of 15% affordable
housing in that designation. She said that here, they were conditioning it as part of the application
plan to still require affordable housing and that rather than treating it too differently from a R6
application, they are allowing for affordable housing but asking for a bonus for it.
Ms. Scro presented a map showing the center designation nearby. She said a center is defined
as a place to which people want to walk to within one -quarter to one-half mile. She said there
were not many centers currently.
Mr. Shimp, engineer for the project, said that as alluded to earlier, there were some small
differences between the private and public street standards that were bringing the applicant to
asking for some private streets. He said that generally, he finds it easier to get more Neighborhood
Model oriented development if he does not have to deal with VDOT streets. He said this was
nothing against VDOT, but that VDOT has certain things they are looking for across the whole
state, with one of the main things being the turning radius. He provided the example of another
project off Sunset that was by -right and R1. He said that going this by -right VDOT route, they
were compelled towards that design due to the ordinance.
Mr. Shimp presented the public option for the street, noting that it could be done and that though
it would not adversely affect the people living there, if they could get by with a private street, there
could be flexibility for a smaller radius. He said it was a site plan issue but that the flexibility would
allow them to go down the road with some other considerations. He said the applicant would like
to have it as a narrow loop street rather than two streets with a cul-de-sac as it was a better design
and is generally found in mini -neighborhood developments.
Mr. Shimp presented the table from VDOT that the applicant has to go by. He said there was a
200-foot radius and if they go down to the low speed, they can go to lower 70s or 125 feet and
more compact curves with a lower speed with that standard. He said to the extent the applicant
could have this flexibility, they would like to have it, but if public streets are required, they could
work with that.
Mr. Keller invited the public to comment. Hearing no comments from the public, he invited the
applicant to come forward again for questions.
Ms. Firehock asked for the width of the private street.
Mr. Shimp replied that the applicant would like to have it 24 feet wide with parking on one side.
Ms. Firehock asked if it was the typical width of a City of Charlottesville street.
Mr. Shimp replied that it would be typical of the streets one drives on where sometimes; the driver
has to wait for someone to pass by. He said there would be about 12-13 houses on that street
and therefore, low traffic.
Ms. Firehock asked for the width of a VDOT standard street.
Mr. Shimp replied that if parking is desired, it has to be 29 feet.
Ms. Firehock asked if the applicant was asking to only reduce the width by 6 feet.
Mr. Shimp replied that it was more about the radius — that the curvature was more important than
the width in many ways. He said the public street would have two cul-de-sacs and with private
(with the County Engineer's approval), they would have an option.
Ms. Firehock said that in looking at the two options, it struck her that being able to drive around
the road doesn't really get one that much as they are not really getting anywhere. She said it was
a question of whether someone can drive around or if they have to come back out in their car to
go back. She said if someone wanted to visit their neighbor, where were they actually driving to.
Mr. Shimp said that in a way, it was more about walkability (for instance, if someone was walking
the loop with their dog).
Ms. Firehock said that to this end, it struck her that perhaps the applicant could connect the two
cul-de-sacs with a walking path because neighborhood connectivity is important, but she doesn't
see the need for a vehicle to necessarily drive around the edge of that.
Mr. Shimp agreed that it was not necessary, but it was a preference of the cul-de-sacs versus the
connection around. He said as it is laid out, having a trail in someone's back yard was awkward.
Ms. Firehock countered that this might be preferable to having a road behind the house
Mr. Shimp explained that it would be beside the house. He said in the private street layout, there
is a corner lot. He said it is a design preference and that the applicant didn't feel very strongly
about it other than to say that they prefer the private street option, as it is a better layout for the
street. He said that if they need to do cul-de-sacs, it can be done.
Ms. Firehock said she was trying to figure out a compelling reason for why it is needed because
it doesn't really go anywhere.
Mr. Shimp said that if attached dwelling units are there, it is an agent approval anyway.
Ms. Firehock asked Mr. Shimp what he meant.
Mr. Shimp explained that essentially, staff would approve it. He said the Planning Commission
would approve it if it is single-family houses. He said if they put all the housing side by side, he
would ask staff for an agent approval rather than Commission. He said they need it purely to have
single-family for the roads to be private.
Ms. Firehock asked if there were four additional single-family, referring to the plan and noting that
the ones on the bottom were attached and the ones in pink were all single-family detached. She
said in the other option, they were getting three unattached.
Mr. Shimp said it was similar in the way of the unit count. He said if all the units were attached,
they could do the private street by -right and that this was standard for townhomes. He said that
4-5 single family houses warrant this discussion, even though they may not be that much different
than the attached housing that would replace it.
Ms. Firehock said she didn't see a compelling reason either way.
Ms. Riley said that at some point, Mr. Pohl would likely weigh in on the radius turning issue. She
asked if it was a private road, it would become an additional maintenance area for the HOA and
factor into costs for HOA fees.
Mr. Shimp replied that it would, noting that it would be weighed out over all the units
Ms. Riley asked if this would include the affordable units.
Mr. Shimp said it would include everything.
Ms. Riley asked if the entire community would have one HOA.
Mr. Shimp replied yes
Ms. More said she had a question about the reference that was made to Riverside Village, with
regards to density and affordable housing. She said what she was hearing the applicant say was
that in comparing the approval to Riverside Village over which what was recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan in regard to the number units, the applicant was expressing that in order to
achieve those units, they would like to go over what staff was recommending.
Mr. Shimp said it was the same consideration. He said that Riverside Village's proposal was over
the recommended units, but it was said that the 10 additional units were affordable and that this
was voted through as acceptable by the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. More said that her concern in following this logic was that the request becomes the norm —
that in order to achieve affordable units, the Commission should always be asked to allow for
people to go over what is recommended to accommodate for the affordability component.
Ms. Scro said that it would still be on a case -by -case basis, and if there is a compelling reason
why the density should be the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan, that can be a
decision and consideration of the Planning Commission. She said it should be allowed on a case -
by -case basis because it does impact to be able to build affordable units in Neighborhood Density
Residential and that by "affordable," she means that a for -profit developer can build something
that is smaller and therefore more affordable if more of them can be built. She said this was very
difficult to do in Neighborhood Density Residential.
Ms. Scro continued that she knew the decision that evening would impact how other applications
will consider how they will design their developments. She said that with this being said, it still
would be a case -by -case basis and should be handled carefully because there are instances were
density is very sensitive when building in a certain area. She said she didn't think this was the
case in her application or in some other instances, but that the door should at least be open to a
case -by -case analysis to allow for this ability, especially in light of the affordable housing crisis
and that in those areas where affordable units can be built, there should be as much as can be
done in order to encourage that.
Ms. More said that to this point, the applicant's language is "more, smaller." She said she
understood that the applicant has a bottom line, but that it concerns her as to if they are building
truly affordable units and that the unit types being produced don't always meet the needs of those
in the community if all that is put out within a development are the tiniest units. She said, for
example, that in an apartment complex, it is the smallest apartment in the most undesirable
location that is unfortunate to see, with some boxes checked to say that the applicant has
accomplished the affordable housing when she is not sure that they actually did.
Ms. Scro said that the way the decision will impact the affordability of this project is that if the
applicant were to only provide what is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, they would take
away some units and therefore, other lots would increase in size. She said this is how those units
would become even more costly. She said the units there might be around $400,000-500,000,
noting that those are very expensive homes, but that they would increase even higher to
$500,000-700,000. She said that while they are still not necessarily achieving affordability in the
sense that is desired, they are able to do it marginally in decisions such as this one.
Ms. Scro said that in other cases, such as the pre -op that was done recently, they would be able
to build at $250,000 in that instance. She said this would be changing the way that developers
are able to distribute the costs of land by allowing for this.
Mr. Shimp clarified that when the lot total goes down, the lots become bigger and the houses
become more expensive. He said it was really an issue of 3-6 units in those zones, and the
question was to if they go over this number by 6 or 7 units and there are no traffic issues, if this
was really a problem because it creates more affordable units. He said every additional unit
applies the math of 15%, and every house that is built becomes slightly more affordable. He said
if there was no compelling reason against this, it should certainly be considered.
Ms. More asked if Roads D and E were to be private, who would maintain them. She said she
was specifically thinking of plowing the alleyway, especially for Road E. She asked if the
community would pay to have those roads plowed when it snows, and if VDOT would stop at the
main road and would not plow the private streets or alleyway.
Mr. Shimp replied yes. He said that the parking lot and back alley for the townhomes has to also
be maintained. He said that in those neighborhoods, residents do not mow their own grass
because they have lawn maintenance all year round. He said that all sorts of maintenance occur
in the HOA. He acknowledged that this all does add up.
Mr. Shimp said that in a townhome development, all the streets are generally private, and all the
people who own those homes pay to maintain the streets. He said the people who are buying less
expensive houses pay to maintain their own streets. He said on the other hand, if there are single-
family houses and public streets are built, the state pays to maintain those, so that people who
have more expensive houses have maintenance done for them, and people who have less
expensive houses pay. He said he personally finds this troubling. He said in apartment
complexes, everyone drives a car and pays a gas tax. He said that people who live in single-
family neighborhoods with public roads get them plowed and people in apartment complexes pay
to do it. He said this should be considered.
Ms. More said that the applicant was back before the CAC in August with the proposed changes,
and then the concerns that were raised were capacity at Cale and that the density is above the
Comprehensive Plan recommendations, as well as affordable housing. She asked what the
applicant's responses were to the CAC's concerns, with the understanding that they may have
explained to the CAC what they were explaining to the Commission in terms of density and
affordability, but perhaps speaking more directly to the capacity issue at the school.
Ms. Scro replied that the CAC didn't necessarily expressing concerns, but that there were
questions in regard to density. She said this CAC is particularly well -versed in policy and zoning,
and so they were curious about how those things interact and change.
Ms. Scro said in terms of Cale, this is an issue in the area. She said she was at a capital
improvement meeting earlier and that this was discussed. She said there seems to be money that
is being prioritized to address the current capacity issues, but not necessarily future capacity
issues. She said she had discussed this issue with Rosalyn Schmitt and others at the School
Board to come up with something that the applicant can do. She said what Ms. Schmitt said was
that Walton Middle School and Monticello High School are under capacity, and so they do not
necessarily want to discourage people from moving into the area because they want to utilize the
under -capacity facilities. She said Ms. Schmitt had said that Cale is an issue, but that the project
would not really change the game for how Cale needs to be addressed, no matter what.
Ms. More said that she did read this in the applicant's narrative.
Mr. Dotson asked when the applicant would expect to start building, and how long the project
would take to build out. He said that what lies behind his question was to when the students would
need to be serviced by Cale.
Ms. Scro replied that it would likely be a year before any dirt moves. She said the full buildout
would take 5-6 years, depending on what builder is building. She said if it is Stanley Martin, it
might be faster.
Mr. Shimp said the first students would arrive in 2.5 to 3 years.
Ms. Scro said the estimates in the staff report were 10-11 elementary students, expressing that
the benefits of the project outweigh the negatives and acknowledging that Cale needs to be
addressed no matter what.
Mr. Dotson asked about the affordable units and the discussions with Habitat. He said one of the
very positive features of Habitat is long-term affordability. He asked that in the case that the
partnership with Habitat doesn't work out, if the applicant had thoughts on long-term affordability.
Ms. Scro asked if Mr. Dotson was referencing how Habitat has a right of first refusal.
Mr. Dotson replied yes.
Ms. Scro said the land trust is another entity that the applicant has spoken to, noting that they are
trying to expand but that it is difficult to ramp this up quickly. She said she also spoke to New Hill,
who is also trying to enter the non-profit affordability field. She said she was hopeful that there
would be a non-profit in the area to provide the affordable units. She said the applicant was not
looking to provide a cash -in -lieu, but to build on site and have the units come to fruition. She said
this would hopefully be a positive.
Mr. Bivins said he was trying to figure out why 7 units equals 1. He explained that the applicant
gets 7 houses, at $400,000 or so, and the county gets one affordable property, where if they stay
at 65, the county gets 10 affordable units and the applicant gets 55. He said he has been
struggling with why he should agree to one affordable unit when the applicant gets 10.
Ms. Scro replied that it is based on 15% of the total units that will be built. She asked Mr. Bivins if
he was saying it should be higher than 15%.
Mr. Bivins said he was saying that if the applicant builds to the Comprehensive Plan level (which
is 65 units), then 10% of this would push 10 units would push them into a smaller half -unit, which
is something one might do with a historic property instead of taking this down. He said the
applicant provided pictures of the historic property but that there was no narrative included about
it. He said if he assumed, he was going with staffs recommendation, it was coming down, and
that it makes him uncomfortable.
Mr. Bivins said that when he sees that under the Comprehensive Plan, it would be 55 homes at
market rate, with 10 homes at an affordable rate. He said if the Commission approves what the
applicant is asking for, the total number would then go to 72, with 11 affordable units. He said he
was trying to figure out why he would be willing to take that deal.
Ms. Scro began to state that if it were an R6 rezoning.
Mr. Bivins interjected that he was not talking about what it could be. He said that what the applicant
was proposing was not R6.
Ms. Scro said the applicant had originally applied for a PRD to try to do cottages and smaller
houses. She said this was basically an R6 application but that they did not formally make that
change. She said the applicant was asking not to be treated differently from an R6, where there
would be no required affordable housing. She stressed that by allowing 15% over the
Comprehensive Plan for Neighborhood Density Residential districts, it will have an impact on
other applications.
Mr. Bivins asked if he was correct in saying that if they hold to the Comprehensive Plan, there still
should be 10 affordable units that come on the property.
Ms. Scro replied yes — that they could take that path, looking at the Comprehensive Plan
language.
Mr. Bivins said this was all he was trying to get to — that there will be 10 units that will be under
some affordable index if they go with the 65-unit density. He said the argument was as to why he
should take the deal for only one additional affordable unit.
Ms. Firehock said that they were assuming that someone else would come in and ask for exactly
6. She said they could come in and develop it by -right at far less, which is what is frequently
happening in Crozet.
Mr. Bivins said that this was not this project.
Ms. Firehock said she understood this, but that he cannot assume that another developer will
want to do 6.
Mr. Bivins agreed, but that he was dealing with what was before the Commission.
Ms. Firehock said he was making it sound as if there were choices to make between one and
another. She said this was not necessarily a choice that the Commission had.
Mr. Bivins said that this is what the applicant was asking them to do.
Ms. Scro stressed the impact that the decision, from a policy perspective, will have on others.
Mr. Bivins expressed that he understood.
Ms. Riley expressed her appreciation for the applicant's effort to provide affordable housing and
that they have consistently emphasized this. She said she wanted to drill down on the numbers
because in principle, she believed that they should provide an opportunity for increased density
in exchange for affordable housing, and therefore it was important to understand what the
applicant was offering in terms of how much more density they get versus how many units are
provided. She said this would not necessarily be the precedent for every single applicant going
forward, but that the county was in the midst of developing a new affordable housing policy and
every case informs what new policy gets developed. She said the Commission should be talking
about this in terms of policy.
Ms. Riley said that if the applicant came in at the land use recommendations for the area of 65
homes, and the applicant was to do 15% affordable housing (which is what the Comprehensive
Plan and current housing policy ask for), the applicant would be offering 10 affordable units, and
that the applicant was offering 9. She said the applicant was, in fact, asking for an 11 % increase
in density and when adding up the units being offered under that increased density, the applicant's
affordable housing units fall below 15%. She said whether the applicant is coming in under the
Comprehensive Plan or under the current density bonus, neither one meets the county's current
policy of 15%. She asked for comment on this.
Ms. Scro said that the numbers were confusing because the applicant had calculated the area
differently. She said the applicant was providing 15%, whether it is at the 65-unit total or the 72-
unit total. She said it is 15% no matter what.
Ms. Riley asked for explanation as to how many affordable units it would be under 65 units and
how many would be under 72.
Ms. Scro replied that under 65 units, it would be 10 affordable units. She said that under 72 units,
it would be 11 units. She said that as they discussed before, the other units in the development
also become increased in size and also become more expensive, and thus this has a trickling
effect. She said she hoped the Planning Commission would look beyond simply the 10 versus 11
number and looks at how marginally the price of the units can be changed.
Ms. Riley said she completely agreed that 10 units of 65 is 15%, but that she did not understand
the math that says that 11 units out of 72 is 15%.
Ms. Scro said that 15% of 72 was 10.8 and then it is rounded up to 11. She said 15% of 65 is 9.75
and is rounded up to 10.
Ms. Riley said that staff ran projections on the impacts to the local schools. She said when running
the numbers on yield rates for proposed 72 units, there are 31 elementary students, and the yield
rates for 65 units is 28.1 elementary students.
Mr. Dotson said this struck him as high.
Ms. Scro said she was confused about this as well. She said the projections looked at if all 72
units were single-family detached, if all of them were single-family attached, and if all of them
were townhouses to see the extreme variations.
Ms. Nedostup replied that this was correct. She said Ms. Schmitt provided the numbers in Excel
sheets that included multiplication factors. She said it was correct that if all of the 72 units were
detached, it would be 25 elementary students.
Ms. Scro said it was about 10-11 new students.
Ms. Firehock said this is what she wrote down
Mr. Dotson said that in other words, the column doesn't add up
Ms. Riley asked if each one of the rows on the sheet were a different assumption, and so if they
were all single-family detached, it would be 10.8; if it was all single-family attached, it would be
9.4. She said she was curious about running a scenario like this versus what the application does,
which is proposing a variety of types of houses. She said that when the Commission looks at the
numbers, some explanation would be helpful, and that the numbers should reflect the applicant's
proposal.
Ms. Nedostup explained that often times, staff does not know what the ultimate mixture built on
the ground will be and that these numbers were the best tool they have to anticipate what the
impact will be to schools.
Ms. Firehock said she looked at it compared to what could be done by right, by the
Comprehensive Plan, or by this proposal. She said that by the Comprehensive Plan versus the
proposal, it is only a handful of students and not a big difference.
Mr. Keller said he wanted to discuss propinquity (closeness or nearness). He said it seemed to
him that the strongest argument, from a land use standpoint, for the project is that the applicant
is building a number of residential units, with some of them being affordable (noting that he did
not like the term "affordable" in this case and that he thought it was actually "workforce"), with the
potential for workforce housing (assuming they didn't have an over -capacity in the school) where
students and their teachers could live near and walk to a school. He said this seemed to be in
keeping with the Neighborhood Model, which was frequently being discussed, if there is an ability
for connection. He asked if the applicant has spoken to the schools about how they could at least
connect by bike and pathway.
Ms. Scro replied that she did, and interestingly, the discussion was about security. She said she
had proposed a path from Road C up to Cale, and Ms. Schmitt was concerned about security but
acknowledged that this would help as there is congestion in the area with so many school vehicles
and buses coming and going. She said the connection would be a potentially helpful thing, but
that a chaperone would have to walk with the kids for security reasons.
Mr. Keller said he understood what the policy and process has forced the applicant into, and that
depending on how the Commission decides, if they pull back and look at the big picture, it seemed
to be a factor of propinquity, which was important to the project. He encouraged the applicant to
think it through and make the arguments in this way, because this has been an issue in other
recent projects because of residential "islands" that are isolated due to transportation. He said
this project has the potential for propinquity beyond many projects that he had seen, which he
saw as a positive.
Mr. Shimp said that when the applicant first started the project, one of the things they had talked
about with the county was having a path in the original plan coming from the county property and
running to Monticello High School. He said this was the first proposal but that there was a lot of
complexity associated with this, with the county needing to go through their process, so the
applicant backed off of this plan. He said the connection did cross the applicant's mind from the
start because it was a great opportunity to build a road where people can walk places. He said
that with the way the county operates, this will happen, and connections will be made.
Mr. Keller said his final question comes in under the umbrella of affordability and workforce. He
noted that the county would soon have an affordable housing policy. He said that because of the
location being close to an elementary school, and with what they are not sure what is going to be
developed on the county -owned land, there needs to be some mechanism of ensuring that the
workforce housing doesn't go up to market after the first sale. He said the county was grappling
with this, but that if the applicant could think about this and offer it, it would be interesting in the
future. He said he did not necessarily mean for it to happen with this project.
Ms. Firehock asked for more explanation about the curb and gutter variance request and the
reason for this.
Mr. Shimp replied that this was for Road E, which they are trying to make into an alley. He said
staff supports the private road and suggested for the applicant to do the curb. He said there are
curb options they can do there.
Ms. Firehock said this made sense.
Ms. More said the applicant had enclosed pictures of the historic home and garage or barn. She
said she did not see it in the narrative, but that she knew they had no way to protect those historic
structures. She said it seemed as if the applicant had asserted that these were beyond repair.
She said she did not know if it was occupied or not and did not mean any insult to anyone who
has occupied or have owned or tried to repair the property, as she has also owned a historic home
and knows it is costly with constant maintenance involved. She said it was not staffs
determination that it was condemnation by neglect — that there was something there that could
be saved. She said she understood this was costly and asked if it was ever considered to try to
work it into a plan.
Ms. Scro replied that it was very difficult to include the historic property as part of the development.
She said the applicant had thought about doing it for the other house, which is not designated as
historic but has more of a home site. She said the location of the property (the house on the
longer, narrow property) is right where the development's roads would intersect, therefore making
it difficult to include.
Ms. Scro said the applicant had also worked with the Hanes, who lived there, and that they would
actually have the higher evaluation of more density than keeping it. She said they now live in
North Carolina and return to the property for their cow that is there and that they do not live there
anymore. She said this is their retirement, and that this was their preference, as the applicant
needed the Hanes' permission to ask for the demolition permit.
Ms. More said she could see that the permit had already been pulled.
Mr. Shimp noted that there was a tornado that swept through the houses a year before and that
had destroyed the trees, home sites, and things that would have made it valuable to save.
Mr. Keller closed the public hearing and brought the item back for discussion and action.
Ms. Firehock said that regarding Modification Requests in the staff report, page 10 listed
Modification Request #3 as, "Modification of PRD setbacks: for front and rear setbacks, staff
recommends partial approval." She asked what the "partial" part of the approval was.
Ms. Nedostup replied that in Attachment 9 (her full analysis) on pages 6 and 7, there is more
detail on this. She said the exhibit that was provided by the applicant, along with the narrative,
indicate that there were some lots that did not seem to meet the front setback that were accessed
by Road E. She said that the way it is written in the summary is that she was recommending
approval of the front setbacks only for the amenity -oriented lots that face the open space area
towards Route 20.
Ms. Firehock asked if Ms. Nedostup was recommending the setbacks could be waived for those
that face the open space.
Ms. Nedostup replied yes, adding that the rear setbacks for all of them would be 20 feet. She said
there were lots that faced Road A and Road B that didn't necessarily need the front setback
waived.
Mr. Dotson commented that something the applicant mentioned several times as a positive factor
was that the Commission's decision that evening will have an impact on other applicants. He said
that to him, this was a reason not to use a specific project to set a precedent. He said there is an
ongoing study about housing policy and that this was the place where the question should be
addressed — not on a project level.
Mr. Keller added that the Commission would be, in fact, discussing this as a component of form -
based code in their third item that evening.
Ms. Firehock said that she believed their attorney would tell them that each application is unique,
because every time the Commission has a conversation about a project becoming a precedent
and making a new rule about affordable units, there is concern.
Mr. Andy Herrick (County Attorney) said that Ms. Firehock made the statement for him. He said
that each project is context -specific and is judged on its own merits.
Ms. Firehock said she did not think that this was not actually a concern. She said it is always
challenging when someone is proposing a project and that they are the ones who have to pay for
it. She said the county does not have their pro forma and has no idea what is necessary to make
their project a financial success, and that it has to be a financial success, or no one will do it. She
said that on a certain level, the Commission is always being asked to move forward on faith that
someone will need to go above the density required to be able to include affordable housing.
Ms. Firehock said she didn't have a negative concern about the site. She said her interest in it is
that it is located close in and has walkability components. She said she was not concerned about
the request to go above the recommendation — that it was 3-6 units in the Comprehensive Plan
and that the applicant is asking for 7. She said with it being a relatively small development, the
profits margins will thus be smaller as well and that there is more risk in a development like this.
She said she found the arguments to be compelling.
Ms. More said that even with the explanation of not setting a precedent and having each
application reviewed on its own merits, she was concerned about going over the recommended
units. She acknowledged that it is a small amount and said she was familiar with other projects
(even some by -right projects) who would like to go over the recommendations with the promise
of offering affordability, but the pathway for them to do this is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
She said these were all separate projects that would be looked at differently and have a different
process.
Ms. More said she didn't like the idea that just because it is a small difference, it is okay. She said
she understood and appreciated the argument and knows that the Master Plans are a guideline,
but that they offer neighbors who choose to understand the plans a degree of information and
certainty about the possibilities about the way that properties might develop around them. She
said if the Commission allows totals to go over the recommendations, it undermines the Master
Planning process, to an extent and doesn't send the message that she personally would like to
send. She said if they continue to go down this path, the numbers could be greater that they are
asked to give in the name of affordability or whatever else is the "dangling carrot."
Mr. Keller said they had not discussed transportation and the additional flow of traffic on Route
20 near a number of intersections and interchanges.
Ms. Riley said the staff report noted that they did not think it would be difficult for people to turn
left out of the subdivision onto Route 20, which would likely be the biggest issue in the area. She
said she has gone on record saying that while there is a connector road from Route 20 to Mill
Creek in the Master Plan, it really hasn't been studied for either justifying its need or its alignment.
She said allowing for the connection (while not forcing it) in her opinion was perfectly acceptable.
She said that while there were some traffic impacts, she personally did not see any significant
ones and that they were not a reason to not recommend approval.
Ms. Riley said that in regard to affordable housing and increased density for some additional
housing units, she didn't think that the Commission was establishing a precedent. She said there
is an argument for not just a general affordable housing need, but for affordable housing
specifically in this area as it has already been allowed for affordable housing and could use some
more.
Ms. Riley said she does continue to have concerns about the Commission receiving staff reports
that say that because there is no elementary school project in the CIP to address expansion
beyond the current students, there is no impact, or they cannot expect any impact mitigation from
applicants. She recognized that they cannot but expressed that it was still a concern for her. She
said it comes down to increased density providing some more affordable units and will likely result
in additional elementary students, but that this was likely a marginally small number in the
difference.
Ms. Riley said she was inclined to say that this was a reasonable infill development project. She
said she would have to have faith that the infrastructure issues will get worked out.
Ms. Firehock said that to Ms. Riley's point, they were only talking about 7 additional units. She
said if they had a housing development of 200 units allowed, and the additional was 60, this was
a much different consideration than 7. She said she was leaning towards supporting the project,
except for the fact that she agrees with staff that the modifications for the private road for Road E
makes sense, but not necessarily for Road D. She said she agreed with the rest of the staff
recommendations.
Mr. Bivins said that he was with the Comprehensive Plan on this proposal. He said that it was
important that when someone looks at the county regulations, they understand what the
regulations are asking them to do. He said that from a developer's standpoint, if a developer is
looking at moving to the area, they will look at what the regulations say that for this particular area.
As an aside, Mr. Bivins commented that he did not deem the property as infill, but the development
of an old farm. He said it was not as if they are putting something down on Albemarle Square.
Away from the microphone, Ms. Firehock mentioned Infill" being defined.
Mr. Bivins said he understood this and was going to look for this because he noticed that in their
definitions, it didn't say anything about redevelopment there. He said he was going to ask staff,
at some point, to consider putting in a term for redevelopment because there is no terminology in
their definitions about this and would be helpful.
Mr. Bivins said that if he was a developer, he would be looking at the regulations and wonder if
he was supposed to come before a body (whether the Commission, or someone else) and "roll
the dice" on a new idea, or if he was supposed to go through the plan and determine that in the
particular area, there would be 10 affordable units. He said that if someone wants to make the
argument that they could go higher, it would mean he would be giving 15 affordable units to
include the extra density, and if he wants to go the business model of making it all affordable
that's possible. He expressed that to include the affordability piece and to net one additional
affordable unit for stepping away from the Comprehensive Plan was not something that he could
agree to.
Ms. Firehock said the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan was to serve as an advisory document
and not a regulation. She said the Commission doesn't want to get carried away with themselves
because in looking at the Comprehensive Plan and the size of the county, and all the
recommended ranges, none of them were sat down with a very careful, site -specific analysis for
every single parcel. She said at the scale to which the county's Comprehensive Plan rests, they
do not have this, and this is why these projects come before the Commission — so the Commission
can perform a detailed analysis on the parcel and determine what makes sense for it.
Ms. Firehock said the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and this is how it is set out in the state code.
She said therefore, it is not something that should be taken as an exact, precise number. She
said one could look at the Comprehensive Plan and decide that it was wildly wrong, disagree with
it and do something else, which was perfectly legal. She said she didn't want to get hung up on
what the Comprehensive Plan says, and that this got back to the point about not setting a
precedent because each site is unique. She suggested that Mr. Bivins should not get hung up on
the number 6 because it was not a very detailed analysis that went into making that number for
this particular site in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bivins said he appreciated Ms. Firehock's statements. He said he was not hung up on the
number 6 total, but rather what the Commission is signaling to people. He said in this particular
situation, the Commission was signaling a number to developers. He said that while he knows
that when they did this part of the Comprehensive Plan in which they thought in broad terms, from
his experience on the Commission, every applicant that comes before the Commission wanting
to do a variance always points to a decision that the Commission made. He referenced Riverside
being mentioned earlier.
Mr. Bivins said he appreciated Ms. Firehock's point that the Comprehensive Plan was something
the Commission should use to steer its decisions by but not be chained to. He suggested that the
Commission would be doing the community a disservice if someone does not recommend
following the plan and if it needs to be changed, following the process to do so.
Ms. Riley asked the commissioners whether it would be helpful to hear Ms. Pethia's thoughts on
this incentive zoning approach.
Mr. Dotson said he supposed he would like to hear from Ms. Pethia, if she was interested. He
pointed out that it was somewhat unfair to spring the question on her.
Ms. More said the Commission incentivizing this was not presented as a new policy. She asked
if this was what Ms. Riley was referring to.
Ms. Riley said yes. She said they were talking about allowing increased density for additional
affordable units. She addressed Ms. Pethia, expressing that she was interested in any insights
she could offer on this.
Mr. Keller noted that Ms. Pethia would be coming back before the Commission again that evening
to discuss form -based code and affordable housing, and thus she did not need to provide all this
information immediately.
Ms. Stacey Pethia (Housing Planner) said that she was, in principle, in favor of increased density
to provide affordable units. She said that often times, this is the only way to make it financially
feasible to make those units available. She said that even workforce housing units sell or rent
below market rate. She said she thought it was a good way to incentivize provision of those units
in developments. She offered to answer any questions.
Ms. More asked if she would have the same response for a by -right project that is at their
maximum allowed density, according to the Master Plan for that area and the Comprehensive
Plan. She asked if she would support them going over their recommended unit numbers in order
to provide affordability.
Ms. Pethia replied that she would support this within reason. She said she wouldn't say that if
they came back and said that they need 70 extra units to provide 10 affordable units, that this
would be acceptable because it was not. She said that within reason, to balance this out, it would
be a good incentive.
Ms. More said she wondered where they would draw the line. She asked if it would be to get 6
more or 10 more; or if the developer were to say that they were already getting 240 units or more
on a by -right property, they will do affordable if they can have 40 more, which would all be
affordable. She asked if this were the case, it would be okay to go over the recommendation, or
when it would not be okay.
Ms. Pethia replied that this was dependent upon the site and the neighborhood. She said she
would assume that most communities would not be happy for anyone to come in and say, "Give
me 40 extra units so that I can give you 10 affordable ones." She said she would not like this in
her neighborhood.
Ms. More said that it could be 40 units that are all affordable
Ms. Pethia said that it goes on a case -by -case basis. She said it was something that needs to be
addressed over the next year for the county to figure out what it is comfortable with. She said
these numbers are often done in percentages (e.g. a 30% increase with half of the new units as
affordable). She said the county needs to find a balance that it is comfortable with county -wide,
then work on a case -by -case basis.
Mr. Dotson asked staff for the origin of the cap using the Comprehensive Plan on bonus density.
He asked if this was something in the Comprehensive Plan, in the zoning, or something that staff
has simply always done.
Ms. Nedostup replied that if a property came in that was by -right R6 and wanted to use bonus
provisions, they wouldn't be eligible for them because in the zoning ordinance, they cannot go
above the Comprehensive Plan recommendations by using bonus provisions.
Mr. David Benish (Planning Director) said the intent behind this was to enforce the
Comprehensive Plan recommendations.
Ms. Riley said that in terms of the discussion, and though it was not a question for the Commission
(but was raised earlier), the current housing policy does not provide for longer -term affordability.
She said she was encouraged in the Performance Agreement with Habitat at Southwood that at
least there was a requirement for those 75 ownership units to be held affordable for 30 years. She
said she was hopeful that as the county develops its policy, going forward, that this will become
a standard criteria or something longer. She said ultimately, the county cannot keep providing
subsidies for the units every time they go to market. She said they do need to consider creating
affordability in locations that are more walkable and closer to schools and employment.
Ms. Riley acknowledged that the Commission could not require this tonight and that they could
not ask for it, but that it should be a consideration for any of the applications coming through to
provide conditions of longer terms for the affordable units.
Mr. Keller said he was inclined to support the application. He noted that the Commission had not
discussed the buffer or Albemarle's green line. He said Route 20 is a green line. He said there is
a development area and a rural area, and that he believed (as a person who spends time on that
section of Route 20) that having a protected buffer zone reinforces what he believes is a very
important line.
Mr. Keller said that, thinking back to his question of closeness or proximity and in the spirit of what
the Commission was working towards, if the applicant (during the next stage with the Board of
Supervisors) could show a discussion between the developer and the school system to try to
place some incoming Cale teachers who need workforce housing, it would be a great model in
helping people reduce their household annual costs because they wouldn't have to drive vehicles
if there was a bike-ped connection, and teachers and students could walk to school. He said that
with these things said, he was positively inclined.
Ms. Riley asked if they were ready to make a motion.
Ms. Nedostup noted that the motions were challenging, as there were five of them, and the way
they were ordered was with the rezoning first and the modification requests following that. She
said that the staff report, on page 10, listed staff's recommendations on the modifications or
changes that needed to be made to the application plan. She said there were a couple motions
for the Commission to consider — one being in agreement with staff's recommendations; and one
being in agreement with the applicant's ask for density, but with the changes to the application
plan for the modification requests. She asked if this made sense.
Ms. Firehock said she thought it made sense.
Ms. More asked if the Commission was going to be given the option of staffs recommended
density, but that stays within the limits.
Ms. Nedostup presented the motion options on the screen. She said that "A" is the
recommendation by staff; and alternatively, "Al" is approval as requested by the applicant, with
the changes to the application plan for the modification requests.
Ms. Firehock asked if Ms. Nedostup was suggesting the Commission to go through each one of
the modifications, or if they could make a motion.
Ms. Nedostup replied the Commission could make a motion, depending on whether it wants to
recommend approval.
Mr. Herrick said there would be a series of five slides, and that staffs suggestion was for the
Commission to choose one option from each of the five slides.
Ms. Firehock said she already wrote her plan for motions.
Mr. Herrick said he wanted to clarify that the motions on the screen were mutually exclusive.
Ms. Riley said she wanted to be sure she completely understood the Al Alternative Approval.
She asked if the Commission was to recommend approval, as requested by the applicant, what
the changes would be to the application plan, as recommended by staff. She asked what was
being referred to.
Ms. Nedostup replied that this was referring to the street sections that were shown in the
application plan, if the Commission was in agreement with staffs recommendations for the private
streets.
Ms. Riley asked if this was Road D only and not for Road E
Ms. Nedostup said this was correct. She said this would include the planting strips, sidewalks,
and curb and gutter. She said there were two changes on page 10 that needed to be made. She
read from that page, "The application is modified based upon staffs recommendation and the
waiver request to revise the street sections and layouts," noting it included the layout of Road D.
She said that if Road D becomes two public streets, she recommended that the right-of-way
should be extended at the property line to the north, and a note should be added to the application
for future right-of-way dedication, if the county chooses to make that future connection.
Ms. Riley said she was prepared to make a motion, unless there were other questions.
Ms. Firehock said the only thing she disagreed with in the staff report was that the applicant asked
for a curb and gutter waiver on Road E, and she thought that this made sense, but that staff did
not agree. She said she agreed with all of staff's recommendations except for requiring curb and
gutter on the alley structured road (Road E).
Ms. Riley moved to recommend approval of ZMA201800012 Galaxie Farm for the reasons stated
in the staff report as requested by the applicant, with the changes to the application plan as
recommended by staff.
Mr. Bivins seconded the motion.
Ms. More asked if that with Approval A, if a motion had been made to reduce the density to match
the Comprehensive Plan, they still would have achieved affordable units, but that Al was giving
them one additional affordable unit by going over the recommended total.
Ms. Nedostup replied yes.
Ms. Firehock asked if this that motion was for everything.
Mr. Keller said to clarify what Ms. More said, the Commission could vote this down and then move
to the alternative, which would lower the density.
Ms. More asked if the motion on the floor was Al.
Mr. Keller said this was correct because they were working through the order that staff suggested.
The vote was split 3:3 (with Ms. More, Mr. Bivins, and Mr. Dotson dissenting; and with Ms. Spain
absent).
Mr. Keller said that the vote was split.
Mr. Dotson said this meant it was not approved.
Mr. Herrick said this was correct — that it was not approved, because a tie vote fails.
Mr. Keller asked if there was a motion for the alternative.
Ms. More moved to recommend approval of ZMA201800012 Galaxie Farm for the reasons stated
in the staff report, with changes recommended by staff to reduce the density to match the
Comprehensive Plan recommendation, and changes to the application plan.
Mr. Bivins seconded the motion.
Ms. Firehock said she was confused. She asked if the Commission was then saying that if they
vote for this motion, this would not go forward because the developer would not be able to do this
development with the reduced density.
Mr. Keller said that this was for the developer to decide, not the Commission.
The motion was carried unanimously 6:0. (Ms. Spain was absent.)
Mr. Keller asked if they would then need to work through the five points.
Ms. Nedostup said yes, and that the first one was the private street request. She said that Motion
A was for Road E only, for the reasons in the staff report. She said Al (the alternative) was for
Roads D and E, as requested by the applicant.
Ms. Firehock said that again, she was confused, because now they are talking about Road E,
which may not exist now. She said Road E is where the affordable units were proposed.
Ms. More said there were still affordable units, and that the Commission did not vote to eliminate
them.
Ms. Firehock pointed out that they do not know how the site plan will change now.
Mr. Keller asked Mr. Herrick to correct him if he was wrong, explaining to Ms. Firehock that the
Commission could vote on this and then she could offer an amendment to remove the condition
on the street that she was interested in.
Mr. Herrick said that if Ms. Firehock wants to make a motion and make this the original motion,
this was her prerogative. He said there was a request, at that point, from the applicant and they
were bringing this original request from the applicant forward to the Commission.
Ms. Riley moved to authorize the private street request for Road E only for ZMA201800012
Galaxie Farm for the reasons stated in the staff report.
Ms. Firehock seconded the motion, which was carried by a vote of 4:2 (with Mr. Dotson and Mr.
Keller dissenting, and with Ms. Spain absent).
Ms. Nedostup said the next motion only had two choices — for approval or denial of the sidewalk
modification request, noting that staff was in agreement with the applicant's request.
Ms. Riley moved to approve the sidewalk modification request for ZMA201800012 Galaxie Farm
with the conditions and the reasons stated in the staff report.
Ms. Firehock seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6:0. (Ms. Spain was absent.)
Ms. Nedostup presented the planting strip request, noting that staff was in agreement with the
applicant on this request for Road E.
Ms. Riley moved to approve the planting strip modification request for Road E for ZMA201800012
Galaxie Farm for the reasons stated in the staff report.
Ms. Firehock seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6:0. (Ms. Spain was absent.)
Ms. Nedostup presented the motion for the curb and gutter request. She acknowledged it was
confusing the way it was laid out. She said that she put, in agreement with staff, to deny as the
first option A; and that option B was to approve the curb and gutter for Road E.
Ms. Firehock moved to approve the curb and gutter exception request for Road E for
ZMA201800012 Galaxie Farm as requested by the applicant.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6:0. (Ms. Spain was absent.)
Ms. Nedostup that the last motion was for the Commission to make a recommendation, with the
Board of Supervisors ultimately making the decision, on the setback special exception. She said
there were two approval alternatives: the first being for the amenity -oriented lots access by Road
E only, and the rear setback for all lots accessed by Road E; and the alternative being for the
modification request as requested by the applicant.
Mr. Dotson said he was still not clear on the difference.
Ms. Nedostup presented the plan on the screen. She said that in the exhibit that was provided for
the request, the request was for the lots that were accessed by Road E, and that there were front
setback requests and rear setback requests for the lots within that block area. She said staff
believes it is appropriate for the setback (front and rear) for the amenity -oriented lots, and the rear
setbacks that would provide access for the lots. She said, however, that regarding the front
setbacks for the lots that front onto Roads A and B, she did not agree with the applicant that those
should be modified from the minimum setback of 5 feet. She said she did not think it should be
reduced to 3 feet in that location.
Ms. Riley moved to recommend approval of the front setback modification for the amenity -oriented
lots accessed by Road E only, and the rear setback for all lots accessed by Road E, for
ZMA201800012 Galaxie Farm for the reasons stated in the staff report.
Ms. Firehock seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6:0. (Ms. Spain was absent.)
Mr. Keller thanked staff and the applicant, stating that the application would be moving forward to
the Board of Supervisors.
yr.. 1 . � •�r .�e /jar.
• ,� r •
' •'� •% . ie,_�. i ` TIC
• f �s 1 .1
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ^. r s t�•''
1 .
c ^•'� tSt SITE'- -: !. : , }. �..ai ri\r�',,: - •.f.�
nk-
�J�0 �•pir -il ^i
� .�� �O �1 i2 •�_�Yd��ikj0 s'
� 1
a v
7
299�
Ir
vt
T 9�}AMJ i5 91-128
161891A-I
I'A•1
/20721�� 11791 12A 91-2C1
2068ti1A_g�. yi-;ll
o- Dona
>�$tA-' .
�2 05091A-Jc / )_ • • GQ7ilLYr`]
9�9, �' ,30'91Ar50-�,.
99 q ,!, 1A•-87 01�49'IA-54
23145 �.
1A� —
90 al
9�4A6-88y
793`
-15
91.9
O �
'1425
1" .792 r 9Y-8A I `�
4�qX/��qR �SCUjjs�'L`�tiU � \ 1435
r 24V/
etaa /,
}•} ��-�C>iJi• of �fF3D of 1-%'-225�.
*+1 18 _ 225'
Fee<eoR ,
229
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800012
GALAXI E FARM
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Sheet 2 of 10
TMP(s) 91-09, 91-15
Submitted 17 September 2019
Revised 01 April 2019
Revised 20 May 2019
Revised 15 July 2019
Revised 21 August 2019
Revised 04 September 2019
Revised 28 October 2019
REVISED 13 NOVEMBER 2019
NTS
Image: Albemarle County Virginia GIs Database -Comprehensive Plan
project: 18.025
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800012
�II - - - I' GALAXI E FARM
�li � � � ,
\ -K / // /' �� �' EXISTING CONDITIONS
Sheet 3 of 10
TII(IPWA2A
Clau or Virginia
XS;Ihorse
X .51 \Acre
01 Zoned R1/
TMP 9Ir-11 i _ _ - T �94-9
/ (County of Albem�wle DayJd o aria Witmer/
�15.8.�cres \ I V/0 9Acr�s ;
one R1 i - - - Zoned/ R1
GALAX,jEFARM LANE
TI11(P91-15
_ - - - - Japer or Mallie Haynes
- - 8.27 Acres I
- - - ' Zoned R1
TMP(s) 91-09, 91-15
Ir z — — —� Submitted 17 September 2019
i ——T11AP$1- — — _ _ _ _ _ _ — - — _ Revised 01 April 2019
I - Avinity-Estates LLf�- — — — — — _ Revised 20 May 2019
2.16 QcreS — — — — — — — — _ �� I i /� �� ` Revised 15 July 2019
i — Zoned PRD i — — — _ ` �� ` I A� — — Revised 21 August 2019
Revised 04 September 2019
Revised 28 October 2019
REVISED 13 NOVEMBER 2019
100 0 100 200 300 — _ / / 1 / — _ _ -project:18.025
GraphicScale: 1"=100' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800012
; i - GALAXI E FARM
BLOCK NETWORK
\ — - Sheet 4 of 10
ROW
Extends t0
Property Line
Block ,
Steep Slopes - eserved
o j
-'Block
LAXIE FARM E
J94
ROAD A.2
v 7
Block JYO
v 4 ' Block Block 0° Block
g 3 Q� c� 2
Steep
MetO
. - Slopes -
R57
AW �
�Managed
� '
Extends to - BIOck _ -� ROAD Cg O�
f
i '
� ------------------
Property Line- - - - , -
Block ,< J
/ -- 1-15
4e TM P(s) 91-0 9, 9
ac ess o F 5G Submitted 17 September 2019
— — — — — - - - Steep Slopes -Managed j - - - _ Revised 01 April 2019
ir> ------------------- — — _ - - -� ,
` / Revised20 May2019--
-- _ ----- — — - -- Revi ed15July2019
- _ - Revised 21 August 2019
Revised 04 September 2019
/,' Revised 28 October 2019
---- - - ' — REVISED 13 NOVEMBER 2019
100 0 100 200 300 '
Graphic Scale:1"=100' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
/ APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800012
/ ;;,; ; / � v,/ , ---- ---- ,' GALAXIE FARM
% 1 CIRCULATION
— / 1 Sheet 5 of 10
ROW /
/ A Extends to /
Property Line
\ Steep Slopes - served
6iASS B -TYPE
PRIMITIVE NATUR
N TRAIL
ROAD A.2
LU
w Steep
BROW Slop s- O
Extfen4i to, _ - - i RO Managed OQ
- - -
- -- ADC �PrOpertm�-
yLe-----
�-_ �Qi p
— _ /
• O Q�J TM
-- - ---- - - - P(s) 91-09,91 15
ROq ,
-\-------------- --------- --
acces �9encY
/ - _--------- Submitted
_ _ _ s - Managed °niY) S ted 17 September 2019
- - - - - _ _ - -- Revised 01 April 2019
_ _ Revised 20 May 2019
---------- AIR �� - Revised 15July 2019
\
_ \ - PRESERVED D STIR FFER �,' - - - Revised 21 August 2019
A (2.78 -
Revised 04 September 2019
Revised 28 October 2019
REVISED 13 NOVEMBER 2019
100 0 100 200 300-11,0101
SIMON-
.' -
project: 18.025
Graphic Scale:1"=100' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
BLOCK ID
ALLOWABLE
RECREATION OR
STRUCTURE
ACREAGE
TRAILS, DOG PARK,
PLAYGROUND,
7
NATURESCAPE,
3.37
SPORTS FIXTURES
TRAILS, DOG PARK,
PLAYGROUND,
8
NATURESCAPE,
0.46
CLUBHOUSE, SPORTS
FIXTURES
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
/ -- -- - APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800012
-� GALAXI E FARM,
/ / 1 RECREATION £s
COMMON OPEN SPACE
/ Sheet 6 of 10
/
QW ,
Extends tom
Property Line
,
NOTES:
r
A) The 2.78 acres of Block 7 shown as the hashed area on this Sheet
I
\ shall be restricted to low impact trial use and passive recreation.
\
/
• /
\ B) If Block 8 includes a clubhouse or other similar structure, the �,
I
I Q j
/ i ♦ ♦
0
related required parking shall be provided in Block 3.ce
I v
0
Q i i
i
O
_-
LANE
♦♦ 7
---- -----1-------- '
GALAXIE FARM
ROAD A.2
-
� ,' ;
BIOC i
m l'
�..
OI p
i
O
Row
Extends to —- ___
—-C
Property Line
ROAD-------
p
; ; Q�
----
�O
\
/
�RpgO F
a Does epc•.
i ��C3
@` TMP(s) 91-09, 91-15
— \
only)
• GO
— —
; Submitted 17 September 2019
Revised 01 April 2019
j
1
/ Revised 20 May 2019
Revised 15 July 2019
Revised 21 August 2019
Revised 04 September 2019
— Revised 28 October 2019
l / REVISED 13 NOVEMBER 2019
100 0 100 200 300
project: 18.025
Graphic Scale: I"=100'
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
BLOCK ID
UNIT TYPE
ACREAGE
MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE
UNITS
MAXIMUM
STRUCTURE
HEIGHT (fr)
1
SFD, SFA
2.2
12
35
2
SFD, SFA, TH
0.95
8
35
3
SFD, SFA, TH
0.76
10
35
4
SFD, SFA
1.65
11
35
5
SFD, SEA
1.43
11
35
6
SFD, SFA, TH
0.81
13
35
7
OPEN SPACE
3.37
N/A
35
8
OPEN SPACE
0.46
N/A
35
Total
65
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
- - - - - - - APPLICATION PLAN
Z MA201800012
GALAXI E FARM
RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Sheet 7 of 10
i
-Extends tom
Property Line _
*Acreage per block excludes areas that overlap with the stream buffer (except block 7); private roads r
included in ac age, whereas public roads are not. Qir Mock
-' I / .♦ 7
- ROAD A.2
' �` R
--Bloch / oqp `
4, Bloc Block loch , to
k q
I _ i w 2
ROW
-------------
I Extends to BIDChr ROAD C QO
Property Line �
Block �` �'k, '
NOTES: a�RogO i �0 '(F0
A) For front loaded garages, the porch or building face shall be a minimum of 3 feet closer to the street as measured from the face of the garage door. C�$$ hCy ,' ♦ " - -
O�i ,
B) For those units that (1) do not front Roads A.2' or `B ;and (2) are located in Block 2, utilizing Private Road `E'; shall have a minimum front setback of 3 feet
from the right-of-way of Private Road "E" All other units shall have a minimum front setback of 5 feet, per Section 4.19 of the Zoning Ordinance. - ----- i - -
C) All Blocks except 7 and 8 may be used for residential uses as noted by the unit types listed above. - 1 z� ' • / TM P(S� 91-09, 91-15
D) All rear yards (except those adjoining Road "E") shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet. \ ----
E) Structures along Road "E" shall have a minimum rear setback of 5 feet. _ _ _ , Submitted 17 September 2019
F) No structures or lots shall be permitted in the stream buffer or on preserved slopes. No preserved slopes within the development shall be disturbed. r ' - `- - '
G) Asa applicable, retaining walls within the development shall meet the design standards required for the disturbance of managed slopes in Section 30.7.5 of the Revised 01 April 2019
PP g P g q g P
Zoning Ordinance. Revised 20 May 2019
� i � � � � / �' /� ' i ,'
H) Total allowable residential units shall be65. �i r r i �' r' — R2VIS2d 15 July 2019
I) Road "C" is shown as a possible future connection to Tax Map Parcel 91-13 to be extended and dedicated upon demand of the County. r ' ' ' ' , - - - - _ _ Revised 21 August 2019
J) Road "D.1" is shown as a possible future connection to Tax Map Parcel 91-10 to be extended and dedicated upon demand of the County. �i ' i - - - - - Revised 04 September 2019
K) 25% of the required stormwater quality treatment shall be provided onsite. Revised 28 October 2019
REVISED 13 NOVEMBER 2019
100 0 100 200 300
project: 18.025
Graphic Scale:1"=100' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
r;
n 1
I
IF
I
rT
M w
w
0
0
z
30
--------- A.2
B E
ROAD A.1 - Public
-T
wM w w w w
�w z z z
z w
w Y w w
t2 2-3 Z ><
7C w
10 0 10 20
LFLFLF---L---F-
Graphic Scale: I"= 10'
All sections to comply with V]DOT and/or Albemarle
County standards, as applicable
ROAD A.2- Public
ROADS B, C- Public
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800012
GALAXIE FARM
URBAN STREET SECTIONS
ROADS A-C
Sheet 8 of 10
w Y M w
z
w
z
w
z
w M M
z
Y w
w Y M w
z
w
z
w
z
M
w
w
0
z
z w
w
w
w
z
0 w
z
z
z
z M
F=
z
z
z
TMP(s)
91-09,91-15
Submitted 17 September 2019
Revised 01 April 2019
Revised 20 May 2019
Revised 15 July 2019
Revised 21 August 2019
Revised 04 September 2019
Revised 28 October 2019
REVISED 13 NOVEMBER 2019
project: 18.025
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
F
ROAD D.1, D.2 -Public
All sections to comply with VDOT and/or Albemarle
County standards, as applicable
w ZY a w w a Y w
z 2 z
w w U O w
z m F i r m z
g r f
a a
ROAD E- Private
EASEMENT
w
w
5
5
Q
Q
�
F
ROAD F- Emergency Access Only
EASEMENT
EMERGENCY
ACCESS
S
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800012
GALAXI E FARM
URBAN STREET SECTIONS
ROADS D-F & NATURE TRAIL
Sheet 9 of 10
CLASS B - TYPE 1
PRIMITIVE NATURE TRAIL -Private
EASEMENT
I— 6---I
CLASS B - TYPE 1
PRIMITIVE NATURE TRAIL
TMP(s) 91-09, 91-15
Submitted 17 September 2019
Revised 01 April 2019
Revised 20 May 2019
Revised 15 July 2019
Revised 21 August 2019
Revised 04 September 2019
Revised 28 October 2019
REVISED 13 NOVEMBER 2019
10 0 10 20 30
project: 18.025
Graphic Scale:l"=10' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
A) AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
15% of the total residential dwelling units within the
project shall be Affordable Dwelling Units (the "15%
Affordable Housing Requirement"). The 15% Affordable
Housing Requirement may be met through a variety of
housing types, including but not limited to, for -sale units
or rental units.
(i) For -Sale Affordable Dwelling Units.
All purchasers of the affordable units shall be approved by
the Albemarle County Office of Housing or its designee
("Housing Office"). A for -sale Affordable Dwelling
Unit shall mean any unit affordable to households with
income less than eighty percent (80%) of the area median
income (as determined from time to time by the Housing
Office) such that housing costs consisting of principal,
interest, real estate taxes and homeowners insurance
(PITT) do not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross
household income; provided, however, that in no event
shall the selling price for such affordable units be more
than sixty-five percent (65%) of the applicable Virginia
Housing Development Authority (VHDA) maximum
sales price / loan limit for first-time homebuyer programs
(the "VHDA Limit"). The Applicant or its successor shall
provide the County or its designee a period of ninety (90)
days to identify and prequalify an eligible purchaser for
the for -sale Affordable Dwelling Units. The ninety (90)
day period shall commence upon written notice from the
Applicant or its successor that the unit(s) will be available
for sale. This notice shall not be given more than sixty
(60) days prior to receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy
for the applicable for -sale Affordable Dwelling Unit; the
County or its designee may then have thirty (30) days
within which to provide a qualified purchaser for such
for -sale Affordable Dwelling Unit. If the County or its
designee does not provide a qualified purchaser during
the ninety (90) day period, the Applicant or its successor
shall have the right to sell the unit(s) without any
restriction on sales price or income of the purchaser(s).
This shall apply only to the first sale of each of the for -sale
Affordable Dwelling Units.
(ii) For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Units.
(1) Rental Rates.
The initial net rent for each rental housing unit which
shall qualify as an Affordable Dwelling Unit, ("For -Rent
Affordable Dwelling Unit") shall not exceed the then -
current and applicable maximum net rent rate approved
by the Housing Office. In each subsequent calendar
year, the monthly net rent for each For -Rent Affordable
Dwelling Unit may be increased up to three percent
(3%). The term "net rent" means that the rent does not
include tenant -paid utilities or Homeowners Association
fees. The requirement that the rents for such For -Rent
Affordable Dwelling Units may not exceed the maximum
rents established in this Section shall apply for a period
of ten (10) years following the date the certificate of
occupancy is issued by the County for each For -Rent
Affordable Dwelling Unit, or until the units are sold
as low or moderate cost units qualifying as such under
either the VHDA, Farmers Home Administration, or
Housing and Urban Development, Section 8, whichever
comes first (the "Affordable Term").
(2) Conveyance of Interest.
All deeds conveying any interest in the For -Rent
Affordable Dwelling Units during the Affordable Term
shall contain language reciting that such unit is subject
to the terms of this Section. In addition, all contracts
pertaining to a conveyance of any For -Rent Affordable
Dwelling Unit, or any part thereof, during the Affordable
Term shall contain a complete and full disclosure of the
restrictions and controls established by this Section.
At least thirty (30) days prior to the conveyance of any
interest in any For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit during
the Affordable Term, the then -current Owner shall notify
the County in writing of the conveyance and provide the
name, address and telephone number of the potential
grantee, and state that the requirements of this Section
have been satisfied.
(3) Reporting Rental Rates.
During the Affordable Term, within thirty (30) days of
each rental or lease term for each For -Rent Affordable
Dwelling Unit, the Applicant or its successor shall
provide to the Housing Office a copy of the rental or
lease agreement for each such unit rented that shows
the rental rate for such unit and the term of the rental
or lease agreement. In addition, during the Affordable
Term, the Applicant or its successor shall provide to the
County, if requested, any reports, copies of rental or lease
agreements, or other data pertaining to rental rates as the
County may reasonably require.
(iii) Tracking.
Each subdivision plat and site plan for land within the
Property shall: i) designate the lots or units, as applicable,
that will constitute Affordable Dwelling Units within the
Project and ii) contain a running tally of the Affordable
Dwelling Units either constructed or contributed for
under this Section. The designated lots or units shown
on each site plan shall designate 15% of the total units
shown as Affordable Dwelling Units. The 15% Affordable
Housing Requirement shall be satisfied prior to more
than sixty-five percent (65%) completion of the Project.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ZMA201800012
GALAXI E FARM
SUPPLEMENTARY
REGULATIONS
Sheet 10 of 10
TMP(s) 91-09, 91-15
Submitted 17 September 2019
Revised 01 April 2019
Revised 20 May 2019
Revised 15 July 2019
Revised 21 August 2019
Revised 04 September 2019
Revised 28 October 2019
REVISED 13 NOVEMBER 2019
project: 18.025
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.