Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201000017 Staff Report 2011-09-27COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA 2010 - 00017, Redfields Staff: Claudette Grant PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing:Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: September 27, 2011 To Be Determined Owner(s): Redfields Development Corporation Applicant: Redfields Development Corporation. Contact: Marcia Joseph Acreage: 58.47 acres Rezone from: Planned Residential District, PRD Open Space) to PRD (126 residential units proposed) TMP: 076R0000000100 & 076R00000000E4 By - right use: Open space in a PRD district, See Attachments A & B)which allows residential with limited commercial Location: Redfields parallels Interstate 64 and uses at a density of 3 — 34 units /acre. This is southeast of the 1 -64 and Route 29 property does not currently have any interchange.development potential under the PRD. Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers: Yes Proposal: Request to rezone /amend the Requested # of Dwelling Units: 126 application plan and add proffers on property zoned PRD (Open Space) which allows residential with limited commercial uses at a density of 3 — 34 units /acre to PRD Residential). Proposed number of units is 126 for a density of 2.15 units /acre. DA (Development Area): Not in the Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas- preserve Development Area and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots) Character of Property: 58.472 acres of open Use of Surrounding Properties: Open space. The property is undeveloped open Space /rural and residential space /rural and wooded with a stream. Factors Favorable:Factors Unfavorable: 1. In developing this site, the applicant is 1. The proposed residential development is proposing to minimize disturbance to the inconsistent with the Growth Management critical slopes area.Policy and Rural Areas policies. 2. The proposal involves a site that includes 2. The Land Use Plan Map in the existing PRD Zoning, is adjacent to the Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Development Area and to PRD zoning.Rural Area, which is not recommended for 3. The site is near major highway access and this proposed scale of development. is accessible to utilities.3. This rezoning request does not follow the 4. The proposal could potentially add some process and direction the Planning residential uses that were lost in the Biscuit Commission provided at last year's Run property becoming a state park, and worksession. The Commission recommended replaces it within the same general future expansion areas be studied in a southern urban area location.comprehensive manner and that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA2010- ZMA2010- 00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 1 ATTACHMENT 1 001) currently underway be studied with the comprehensive plan. These initial discussions are scheduled to begin October 11, 2011 with the Planning Commission. 4. Some proffers need to be rewritten to address staff's concerns, as noted above under the description of each proffer. 5. The loss of open space /trails that the community has been using. 6. An increase in traffic to the area. 7. No commitment has been made to provide affordable housing. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of ZMA2010- 00017, Redfields PRD because the residential use proposed is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. ZMA2010- 00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 2 STAFF PERSON:Claudette Grant PLANNING COMMISSION:September 27, 2011 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS To Be Determined ZMA 2010 - 00017, Redfields PRD With waiver request of Section 4.2.5(a) of Zoning Ordinance for critical slopes PETITION PROJECT: ZMA201000017 /Redfields PRD PROPOSAL: Rezone 58.47 acres from PRD (Open Space) - Planned Residential District zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34 units /acre) with limited commercial uses to PRD (Residential) Planned Residential District zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34 units /acre) with limited commercial uses. Proposed number of units is 126 for a density of 2.15 units /acre. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE /DENSITY: Rural Areas- preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: Located on west side of Old Lynchburg Road and accessed by Sunset Avenue and Redfields Road. TAX MAP /PARCEL: 076R00000000E4 and 076R0000000100 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller CHARACTER OF THE AREA Redfield's phases 2 -A, 2 -B, 1 -A and 1 -B are located to the east of the subject area, which is phase 5 of Redfields. Phases 2 -A, 2 -B, 1 -A and 1 -B, located in the Development Area, are developed primarily with single family residential units. Phase 5 is designated open space that is undeveloped, and wooded with some hilly terrain. Route 29 and Interstate 64 are located to the northwest of Redfields. Mosby Mountain, a residential development in the rural area is located to the south and Sherwood Farms another residential development in the rural area is located to the northwest. SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting to rezone /amend the application plan and add proffers on property zoned PRD. The approved site is described as open space with no proposed development under the current PRD district. The applicant proposes to develop the site with no limitations, inclusive of 126 residential units at a density of 2.15 units /acre. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Rural Area allowing a density of 0.5 units /acre. (See Attachment C) APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The applicant proposes an expansion of the existing Redfields development. As written in the application, the applicant describes a shortage of residential units in this portion of the County due in part, to the loss of the Biscuit Run development, which was approved with a potential of over 3,000 homes along with some commercial uses, and is now proposed to be a state park. The applicant believes that requesting an expansion of the Redfields development and developing on the existing open space property will provide some additional residential units in the southern end of the County. The applicant requested this site be included in the Development Area last year, and believes that this will make up for the Toss of potential residential units with the Biscuit Run property development now owned by the State for future park use. The applicant also feels that the following attributes makes this property ideal for additional development of residential use: close proximity to utilities, other supporting infrastructure, employment, shopping, downtown ZMA2010- 00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 3 Charlottesville and the consistency of the proposed development to existing surrounding development. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY The original rezoning for the Redfields Development (ZMA 89 -18) rezoned 266 acres from R -1 to PRD. It allowed for the development of 656 dwelling units on 266 acres. The original rezoning had 6 Phases and Phase 6 was located outside the Development Area and dedicated as open space. The applicant wanted to retain the option to develop the open space and indicated that the boundary may change in the future. Staff recommended the open space be permanent and acknowledged that if the applicant wishes to build in the open space, he will have to go through the comprehensive plan process and potential rezoning process. ZMA 91 -07 allowed a boundary adjustment to allow for a more efficient use of land. This rezoning also renamed Phase 6 to Phase 5 and showed Phase 5 only as open space. ZMA 98 -08 allowed the developer to reduce the setback lines to zero on a single side lot line and 10 -feet on the front setbacks in Phases 3 and 4. With this rezoning, the applicant mentions that he wants Phase 5 to be a place for future rezoning approval. ZMA 01 -01 allowed additional Tots within Phase 4 of the development. However, the request for additional Tots within the open space was not approved. Letter of Determination from Jan Sprinkle dated October 25, 2005, specifically states that the applicant will need to apply for a ZMA if he wishes to develop Phase 5 of the Redfields PRD. A letter referenced as "Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for Tax Map 76R, Parcel 1" from David Benish dated June 4, 2008, confirms that the parcel is located in an area designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Rural Area and that no action has been done since the initial rezoning to change the land use designation of the parcel or the boundary of the designated Development Area to include this parcel. Letter of Determination from Amelia McCulley dated May 15, 2009, states that there is nothing that prevents this property from being sold to third parties and that tax map 76R, parcels 1 and E4 are not required open space that needs to be conveyed to the Redfields Homeowners' Association. Also included in this determination letter is the confirmation that prior to any future use of the parcels, an amendment to the Redfields Planned Residential District (PRD) zoning must be obtained. There is currently no designated use on the approved application plan. A Work Session was held with the Planning Commission on November 30, 2010 for Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2010 -00001 to include tax map 76R, parcels 1 and E4 in the Development Area and amend the Land Use Plan from Rural Area to Neighborhood Density - residential (3 -6 units /acre). The Commission directed that this CPA be studied with the Comprehensive Plan, which is now underway. (See Attachment D) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan currently designates the subject property as Rural Areas and the Rural Areas Plan places a strong emphasis on resource protection, through the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, biological, historic and scenic resources, and farming and forestal activities. The "vision" for the Rural Area can be found in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan (page 9 of the Rural Areas Plan). ZMA2010- 00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 4 As previously mentioned in the Planning and Zoning History section of this staff report, there is a pending Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA2010 -001) requesting to expand the subject parcels into the Development Area from the Rural Area. The Planning Commission requested CPA2010 -001 be reviewed with the update of the Comprehensive Plan in 2011. This review is currently underway and scheduled for initial discussions to begin with the Planning Commission on October 11, 2011. Decisions on whether to expand to the Development Area, how much expansion is needed, and where locations of areas for expansion should be, need to be considered on a comprehensive, county wide level, during the review and update of the Comprehensive Plan. These decisions should not be made in a vacuum, based on review of an individual proposal. The Open Space Plan shows this area has many critical slopes, all of which are wooded. The applicant is minimizing disturbance of the critical slopes. The Neighborhood Model: Staff's analysis below indicates how well the proposed development meets the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model: Pedestrian There are sidewalks and trails shown throughout the proposed site. While Orientation this principle is met, staff would like to see a connection made between the trails on the proposed site with the existing trails in other portions of the Redfields development. Neighborhood The street sections on the plans show the provision of street trees and Friendly Streets sidewalks throughout the proposed site. This principle is met. and Paths Interconnected The proposed development will connect with the existing Refields Streets and development via an extension of Fieldstone Road. There will only be one Transportation way in and out of this portion of the development. Additional future Networks interconnections could be possible with the extension of Road B, as shown on the plan, connecting to Ambrose Commons in the Mountain Valley subdivision. This principle is met, but could be expanded to include additional road interconnections. Parks and Open The applicant is providing approximately 41 acres of open space, most of Space which is located in areas with critical slopes. This principle is met. Neighborhood This proposed development would become part of the existing Redfields Centers subdivision. Redfields includes a community pool and center for residents. However, this proposal would increase the number of residents living in Redfields. It is not clear that the existing neighborhood centers can serve and are adequate for the potential additional residents who may live in this development. No additional center or expansion to the existing club is proposed. More information is needed. Buildings and This proposal consists of single family houses and townhouses with a Spaces of Human maximum height of 35 feet. Although building elevations have not been Scale provided. Two to three story buildings are appropriate at this location and will fit in with existing buildings in the Redfields Development. This principle is met. Relegated Parking This is not applicable. Mixture of Uses Redfields is an existing residential development with the subject proposal of expanding the residential uses within the development. No mixture of uses are proposed. ZMA2010- 00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 5 Mixture of Housing The applicant is proposing single family and townhouse units. This is not a Types and strong mixture of housing types. No commitment has been made to Affordability affordable units. This principle is not met. Redevelopment This principle is not applicable. Site Planning that Approximately 1/3 of this site has critical slopes on it, some of which will be Respects Terrain disturbed. The applicant has shown most of the proposed development out of the critical slopes. The plan shows an undisturbed buffer along the western portion of the site, but the applicant has provided a proffer allowing a variety of disturbances within the buffer. This proffer is not consistent with the plan and should be revised. Trails are shown on critical slopes. Staff is concerned with the practical use of the trails, if they are located on very steep slopes. The trails should be adequate for a variety of residents to use. This information is not clearly provided. For the most part this principle is met; however, the buffer issues mentioned need revision and some clarity regarding the practical use of the trails should be provided. Clear Boundaries This proposed site is currently open space with no development on it. It is with the Rural the boundary with the Rural Areas. Adding development to this site will Areas change the character of the area. A 100 foot buffer is proposed for the area adjacent to the Sherwood Farms development and on the northeastern portion of the property. The area adjacent to the Mountain Valley subdivision does not include a buffer. The applicant used this portion of the property for development in order to stay out of many of the critical slope areas. The clear boundary in this general area has already been impacted by the existence of "old zoning" in the Rural Area, and the ultimate development of these properties (Mosby Mountain). This proposal further impacts the clarity of the boundary. Economic Vitality Action Plan The primary goal of the County's Economic Vitality Action Plan is to: Increase the County's economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local residents. This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local residents and existing local businesses. The proposed expansion of the Redfields development is primarily intended for residential uses. While this proposed expansion supports the local construction industry, this area is not intended for business use. STAFF COMMENT Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district: The following section is an excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance: PRD districts may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map in accordance with the provisions set forth generally for PD districts in sections 8.0 and 33.0, and with densities and in locations in accordance with the comprehensive plan. ZMA2010- 00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 6 The PRD 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. To these ends, the PRD provides for flexibility and variety of development for 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 of agricultural activity. While a PRD approach is recommended for developments of any density, it is recommended but not required that the PRD be employed in areas where the comprehensive plan recommends densities in excess of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre, in recognition that development at such densities generally requires careful planning with respect to impact. Amended 8- 14 -85) This proposal is unique because this property was zoned PRD with the original Redfields rezoning. However, no development plan was associated with this property and it was designated open space. Adding to this unique situation, the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Rural Area, and it is not located in the Development Area, which is intended for higher density developments similar to what the applicant is proposing. Typically, if this proposed development were located in the Development Area, it would meet the intent of the Planned Residential Development, particularly since the applicant has taken care to develop with low impacts to the areas with critical slopes. Staff believes that the proposal does meet the intent of the Planned Residential Development (PRD) district. However, staff does not support this request at this time because the Comprehensive Plan does not designate this portion of the County as Development Area. It is designated Rural Area which supports a much lower density than what is being requested. The following engineering comments remain outstanding and need to be addressed: As previously mentioned, it is recommended that delinquent bond work, related to other sectors of Redfields, be completed before any approvals. With narrow lots on a mountainside, an overall grading plan, as is already shown conceptually, would be helpful. This plan would need to be approved before any grading permits. The current conceptual plan would be inadequate in this regard. The overall lot grading plan would need to follow general guidelines as have been formulated with other rezonings, such as a limit on lot drainage such that it does not flow through more than three lots. In addition, some parameters on the unit type, or on the extent of re- grading that builders can do, would also be helpful. For example, rear and side loading garages could be eliminated. These tend to cause the most problems with lot -to -lot grading by builders. See the proffer section later in this report for suggested proffer language relating to proffer 5. Iv. Public need and justification for the change: With the recent change of the nearby Biscuit Run property going from large residential development to a state park, the applicant sees a need for additional housing that is conveniently located in this part of the County. The applicant feels the change of use from open space to additional residential development will begin to make up for the loss of residential units when the Biscuit Run site becomes a state park. However, the Land Use Plan map in the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Rural Area and more intensive urban development is not consistent with current County policies and goals. While it is possible that this site might be appropriate for additional residential units, as previously stated, there is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request underway. The ZMA2010- 00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 7 ultimate need for any expansion to the Development Area, the amount of expansion and the best location for that expansion is best determined during the Comprehensive Plan update process. This is consistent with the Commission's prior direction at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Worksession last year. Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources — There are several critical slopes on this site. Some of the slopes will be disturbed, but the applicant has taken care to minimize the disturbance to these slopes. A stream is located on this site; however, a 100 foot buffer is shown to help protect the stream. The plan also shows a 100 foot undisturbed buffer adjacent to several residents in the Sherwood Farms subdivision and in the northeastern portion of the site. The proffers describe some potential disturbance to this undisturbed buffer, leaving some inconsistency regarding the level of disturbance for the buffer. Staff believes impacts on the environment are minimal and can be resolved with adequate treatment of impacted critical slopes through the waiver review process and revisions to the proffers. There are no cultural or historic resources on the site. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services: Streets: VDOT has indicated that: In regards to crashes on Route 781 and Route 875, the County Board of Supervisors should consider adding Route 781 as a proposed Secondary Road Project to the Secondary Six Year Plan schedule to widen the travel way, add sidewalk, improve the intersection at Route 875 and improve drainage. An increase in traffic may occur along Route 781 from additional development and the connector road to Stribling Avenue. In order to bring the intersection of Redfields Road and Sunset Avenue Extended up to the current VDOT intersection sight distance standard, some minor grading and trimming of vegetation will be needed. Staff Comment: Sunset Avenue (Route 781) is identified as a high priority improvement project in the "County Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements" adopted by the Board of Supervisors. However, due to limited state secondary road funding, the project is not scheduled for design or improvements at this time. The proposed sidewalk on the extension of Fieldstone Road should be extended along existing Fieldstone road to connect with the existing crosswalk and trail system at the intersection of Fieldstone Road and Redfields Road. A connection to the existing Ambrose Commons Road would be beneficial from this proposed development or a future development to allow residents of Mountain Valley Subdivision a second connection besides Mosby Mountain. At this time because of the lot divisions in Mountain Valley a connection appears to be unlikely. ( See Attachment E) Schools — Students living in this area would attend Cale Elementary School, Burley Middle School, and Monticello High School. Fire and Rescue — The closest station for this area is located in the City of Charlottesville. Utilities —This site is in the jurisdictional area for public water and sewer. Service would be provided based on the approved PRD. No immediate or significant service capacity issues have been identified. (See Attachment F for comments from the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)) ZMA2010- 00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 8 Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties: The primary impacts anticipated on surrounding properties is an increase in traffic once the residential units are constructed and occupied and the loss of open space and the natural environment many. Sunset Avenue is in need of upgrade to existing and future development in the area. PROFFERS Attachment G contains the current proffers. Wording changes are expected prior to the Board of Supervisor's hearing to address non - substantive issues. Individual proffers are described below, and followed by suggestions (in italics) from staff and the County Attorney: Proffer 1: Describes the undisturbed buffer adjacent to Sherwood Farms properties and the northeastern section of the proposed development, along with the possible disturbances. The buffer area appears to be within the area designated as open space, so if that designation remains, the buffer area needs to, at the very least, be subject to the use provisions in Zoning Ordinance section 4.7 and not go beyond them; (b) in line 9, a second parenthesis should be added at the end of "(whether now known or developed in the future))'; (c) at the end of the proffer, the proffer should identify at what height the minimum 1 %" caliper will be measured. Staff suggests that for it to serve the purpose / intent of a buffer, limitations to encroachment need to be included in the proffer. As an example, staff recommends limiting disturbance to a) the location of public utilities when an alternative location is not practical and /or b) removal of trees that are determined by an arborist to be diseased or dying. For the replanting standard, please add that the 1 % inch caliper is as measured at six inches above ground (Reference Section 4.3). Proffer 2: States that land labeled on the Application Plan as trail, Open Space, scenic overlook, or recreation area will be dedicated to the Redfields Community Association, Inc. If the area designated as "Open Space" is open space within the meaning of Zoning Ordinance 4.7, it is subject to the provisions in that section; the owner may want to clarify that designation. The last sentence of the proffer should be deleted because it pertains to private property rights and the residents' right of access to this area, which the County will not enforce. The last sentence may also conflict with the approved trail plan for Redfields. Proffer 3: Describes the construction of a new class B type 1 primitive nature trail on this portion of the site. Proffer 4: States that upon the issuance of an occupancy permit for the sixty - fourth (64 dwelling unit the Owner shall construct a tot lot, a scenic area and a basketball half - court. Proffer 5: Commits the Owner to submit an overall lot grading plan. The second line of the proffer should state "before the first final subdivision plat is approved ". 5(iv) The last clause of this proffer ( "such finding not to be unreasonably withheld") should be eliminated. It is a given that any public officer or employee must act reasonably. 5(x) It is not clear if Phase V will be platted in phases or sections, but if it's possible, the first sentence should include the following underlined clause at the end to read ". . . a waiver request with the preliminary or final plat for the phase or section within Phase V." 5(xiii) We suggest that this paragraph be added so that Proffer 5 expressly states that all grading in Phase V will comply with the approved Plan. Suggested language: "All grading within Phase V shall comply with the Plan approved by the County Engineer." ZMA2010- 00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 9 Proffer 6: Attempts to limit the number of units within the Redfields PRD. Since only Phase V is being rezoned, the scope of the proffers can't amend the proffer regarding density applicable to other parts of Redfields. Suggested language for Proffer 6: Phase V shall have not more than XX dwelling units, and these dwelling units shall count toward the aggregate number of YYY dwelling units permitted in Redfields PRD as established in ZMA ZZZZ-ZZZZZ." Proffer 7: Commits the Owner to provide a pavement analysis for the existing Fieldstone Road. This proffer needs to include an action if the pavement analysis concludes that a pavement overlay is required. Suggested language: "The Owner shall install a pavement overlay in conjunction with the first final subdivision plat if it is recommended by the pavement analysis and required by the Virginia Department of Transportation or the County Engineer." This may need more work. WAIVERS The applicant is requesting a critical slopes waiver, which staff recommends approval. (See Attachment I for analysis of the critical slope modification. See Attachment H for the critical slope waiver request) SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request: 1. In developing this site, the applicant is proposing to minimize disturbance to the critical slopes area. 2. The proposal involves a site that includes existing PRD Zoning, is adjacent to the Development Area and to PRD zoning. 3. The site is near major highway access and is accessible to utilities. 4. The proposal could potentially add some residential uses that were lost in the Biscuit Run property becoming a state park, and replaces it within the same general southern urban area location. Staff has found the following factors unfavorable to this rezoning: 1. The proposed residential development is inconsistent with the Growth Management Policy and Rural Areas policies. 2. The Land Use Plan Map in the Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Rural Area, which is not recommended for this proposed scale of development. 3. This rezoning request does not follow the process and direction the Planning Commission provided at last year's work session. The Commission recommended future expansion areas be studied in a comprehensive manner and that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA2010- 001) currently underway be studied with the Comprehensive Plan. These initial discussions are scheduled to begin October 11, 2011 with the Planning Commission. 4. Some proffers need to be rewritten to address staff's concerns, as noted above under the description of each proffer. 5. The loss of open space /trails that the community has been using. 6. An increase in traffic to the area. 7. No commitment has been made to provide affordable housing. ZMA2010- 00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 10 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of ZMA2010- 00017, Redfields PRD because the residential use proposed is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. WAIVERS Staff recommends approval of the modification to Section 4.2.5(a) of Zoning Ordinance for critical slopes waiver. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION — Zoninq Map Amendment: A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2010 - 00017, Redfields, PRD with the proffers and waiver provided. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2010 - 00017, Redfields, PRD, based on the recommendation of staff. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial. ATTACHMENT A: Location Map ATTACHMENT B: Land Use Plan Map ATTACHMENT C: Application Plan ATTACHMENT D: Planning Commission Minutes, dated 11 -30 -10 ATTACHMENT E: VDOT Comment Letter from Joel DeNunzio, dated 8 -17 -11 ATTACHMENT F: Electronic Mail from Alex Morrison, dated 8 -2 -11 ATTACHMENT G: Proffers, dated July 18, 2011 ATTACHMENT H: Letter from Scott Collins, dated July 18, 2011 ATTACHMENT I: Critical Slopes Modification Analysis ZMA2010- 00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 11 my,on zm 2010 = 17,1 4 f Y. .RjIit` s 4004 . * .. Re rt Y11WAi • .f 302 ( , . hp, : , _ , _ , , i Ne eik‘ • ,.. .4°4 4 .010 Als• 1 1,10 f#i&'* .so9.4* 4-#. fij.,.as kg:km.0-mi r-----47-Aiop.-1 lIFAVM:" ---.. , 1N K Iraq li t.1 VQ t q fi vI7 $r ga 1 p ilk r. Alt= p,o. lik u Al 1111,c4frc,..11i0 +..,..miliv:t....5:;;:::,* ps ,..., iAPO IF fir ;' i 7J2•..1,I d.:.' pry 11 .41; 1 - a `a - . - - =• :•. =:. y w:FrIll vi orshi> 0 . i .,,„ Mlle: S / r 411 ,, i ‘ 1 „ 0t, mss j N 1 It e 4 N 4 tl,,‘:441114sherik, a 4 ro,-rip t E_ krei ' Roads I Parcels U k, k •g11of Interest . z,o S Water Body d Eno PiV ZMA 2010 -17 r Redfields rig \I 859 1 , Oo 0`` o A4.0. , , efi 76R-E4 1 Q A O_ . A ________ _ c -le p i 76R -1 r ailP / A. V ---VLi Roads Parcels S E COMI Streams Parcels of Interest z R D R water BodyS. x gli Community Service Office Service Transdional IndusMal Servica O(fice /Regional Service Urban Density InstRUtional Parks and Greenways Rural Area Feet Neighborhood Density Regional Service j See Development Area Text 050100 200 El il Neighborhood Service TownNllage Center Master Plan Areas P IPro* ects1102048 - Redf' ields V rezoning\ dwpll - COVER. dwp, Layout Name: Layoutl Jul 18, 2011 - 1. O6pm ill Tq' cm x s g G 5 m A z 2 c o F ( 1 1 s :4 g r, g o g A 4 8 T 9 7 NI 0 N 4 2 2 z O Z n A x o 7 2 Ll OO r w a p= o p m 0 ° Ll g n m s DD P Z Ll m o Q 33 o a o i o 2 0 W n ii o 0. a o N y o y o X Cn ` o n q 6 av o f o $' s rn o w g g n a E 0 z I a 4 s 4 i3 F' Q5 0 ' l 62 c . c a i 1 p o $ r n p x m Q A" i a 1 o x A ° m o m i n z l'' N 8 ° 0 0 i A a N " A 5z^ 3 2n a e TQA F ' - w rS> c b y 1x8 1 z 8 o a o c 8"' 8.- K o x S aN$ 7 1 . g Z o o z '' g o Q 8 o g a Z g E na c In',.' v: z n a c w m go o g o g o n F n m mkN 2-- 1 " n u7 r .. F Y I n z o c p m i n n 6 F. z m bo n i g 2 MI 5 ' j c, r° V, I ° zn T W a o 9y U z? E a 3 Z Z A m a o" 3 0 8 z w T A 3 3 6 i 8 Y N m o p i o a M m GIY ' m 0 6 N N O D X ill Z m oQ 0 0 j- 1 1`1 f t CA D 1 rn N III iil D C RI N o 41 F 1 1 r., La r •— U) 1 40: p° c) 11 = d rn r Z O N r o m orn m 1, CD HP IH rn o z -i T m ° O i 111, s r O mg 11. Ti ,:',/ ,-/- -:-:,_", ii: iiii, x xi z I XII n O / Ih I l [ J I 1 1 , I' 1-- i G) 2 i 4 4, - _-, , , t.,. 1 0 Z y ' u 8 \ t, . i . A 9 ° • re \_ C l n D O z z r D r" O n1 c v n C$ r , 4 0 w i o oSQoo g R= a a a ZC1 fa i w. rww t u, o o m Z N ti. i` Z ti E o f 111 4 Oy n 0: z 1' 11 d k+ 1 gi Z I i CO 5. 2, :. i., n. M I ' , : i ( ' ig I i i i P . A t f` i 1 i rV W" Rp$ p $ r' o R $ $ A N r ». r / o I / 4) za3 ci tl F, v ° [ O J` , . J ' , r, '' s. o n m w g 7 F Y J s , A t sa 2 h Il #$ M 4 rt I-n P \ Propcts1102046 - Redfields V rezonIng\ dwg\2 - 0VERALL. dwg, Layout Name: tayout1 Jul 15, 2011 - 2. 36pm l\IIh ill'Il lIl n 1 l 0 Il llj\ r I ' r mZ w . --sP m o I a Q s 1 Z j m Z i l GI T ao1 v 1,) j N I a I t' `\ t o U \ `` f' x ll 3 a y i 6 y ni O 4 % „ // y . i j I 11 O L i 54 I N fl, i i I x, iiiiiir r rn m r r r r p r v i Mr 1 r- A) rn Illt C7 A O 0 ) 0 cn o; , rno L If', L N b a x 7„-- ,,,,,-, 7 c D j 1411 w i o a\ j ' Z I j J i i j " may y-----_,-_-_, 7 r r AIiFF =_ f l ir j / \ 7: 3 i / fif ----- tf). 7 c el__________„ rn KD N N m t rnO o J ` S I e 1 r S r 1. J '_ ` 1 o p r Z pa PI p 2 I 9 j a a F?. o' <% 0 h"'' 010 - - . i s 3^ 0 6 fl k sf\ g m Z rt p p p A g P A P P P % %: % % % % %' % % % % % % % ° ' 3 E, b o ' ssgg gg 4asas ' 4as$' 8sa$ 4'4 tttt8' 8t!! z s o s s o o o' a s s s o'' a o s " s s n Zomn ; on n o > 8 a 0 C D O f A r n r I I N m O o p f G z O z_ n-)°! 7"'- 2 n 1 g F 1 A m i 7 f m v, 0 8 i o i> o a n a z Q z' Z Z y T m i C y i Z c D P ' o 2 P P p c s s C o z m ° o A CC p r m -, p a 9 7. I T 3 o / i n y a y i I , 9 It A p ? N ! ,,, O S g 0, p m 1 1 Z p L° 1 ' g A 5 Y 1 2 r g v o C 2 n s 4 F IK T a m 2‘ 3 z p m A mp om i a I v ; m o , c > y o m $ o _ ° p6 + A 5 g I' g'' 1 w p o °_ _ i ° 8 3 P ly= noi I m m C € F m 7 x 2 p a° 9° s k i '' a, g 8 7. P g A i S z z x6 w , n a mnFF - t n :: n I 3 5 m ' m m r s D Y n o Z g In o Y' 1 I i D S a m m m CZ D M I o I g 6 n a S g 7 `" oav ° T 8 I 5 i m o m . 9oc N I P ill 2§ D d m o m Z C O z j y n Q 0 ti D m m a C I v - az 5 P a v e m o a° w m o 1 1 m e o e G o e S i G da m C T 9 N W C g 4l L 4 R R G, G it R G R G L L L , , L R L i i R , LL , 4 , c A z 3 r C In I 3a Dm' g o W E S , , o w W m l N N S P a .. w P, o, a m E e N , i'' > w o o iii 2-. 4_ d a a a 9 a a a 9 9 9 o a 9 e a a 9 9 9 a d d d v m p p a v o a o 0 0` v o 0 0 0 0 0 o R` 0 0 7 g 0 0 0 0 0 - P, 0 p 4 4 1 2. W W A R U R R Q W 0 W R 9 q R W N W@ W Q O W 9 W R Q g W - 2 2 2 _ B m I a s tl' 3 3 9 3 9 3 Q 9 p Q 4 p e? a n a e 3 e e c a 8 4$ R U a 9 9 3 0 L i i sD d v a d d c Z - p 7C t .= 2 , 1n O A W n ., K x *< c N a O v 0 2 3o PC S 0' n m C7 f1 2 D 1 7- / 1 1 1 m D g 8" 1 i z I O r 1 \ ah - u° . 741. I r ( _. _ _ - - - - I N' 1• I 1 I _ fi¢` -.*" N to ` __- I I x II go - -- n N 0 1 I o - I O I 1T T I 1 1 1(_ _, i 1 y - o 1 1 I ,) ' I 1 1 1 1 \ Y 1 O 11 • , 1,,,,-',,,', - 1 1 I 11 \ \ 1 \. \ \ v' 9 ° o: l E \\ 11 1 I 1 Im I f V I I I N 0. 67 ' 55 00 " N qq , , ` I1' 1l' \ z - 217. 7 ao' Bi. 1 Z 1 , \,‘ ads O p2 D 1 a s s ,\ B\ s ° , b, tv p D , P / f', // r ' 1' I O . t . i / \ 9 `\ \ 1 ' O j ". 7,',.?, ¢ Y a M /.; ' /' o ,' 1 I ' , 1 11 v V m i ''/ / ./ 1 I I ' , SQo 1 ui pp A J 1 I 1 37 / ! , / / I r I ' III 1 1 i ' \ 1 1 rn r - >< E -_ I ' , I' I\ 1,, 01 4 Z y 1 v\ - A 1 I g Z Z y a l m omz n I / 1 N P zB P A, ti 0 r Z i N$ r , I 1 ° 4 ; , \ \` g , D y 1 E dd8 a t ' . t 8t 53 t A 212. 100' -. o i c b l w'. p3 15 " 61 S7@' 30. 00 O 1 11 \\ I \ \ oc Z i 527 n Y , 1 7 1 , \ 1 \ \,, O+ / n' Ss 3g 1' 1 1 7 D g 1 , \ y 4 R l R z°. _ - 0 00 " 00 0 1 1'' ', I 1, log BOO s p O p, [ i , 44 j 1 p a • l ' _ t P I s G rq M1 P r II I v of r% Q r I I 1 V / 1 I o Q w v y v I i g b p o m II r4 s 1 o B IZ \ O 1 s y )),,, T,„1, - I Q Q yY' L 66 w i . z r------------ ----;) Q 2 - v / 157: 74 2e4. 14a' A 1 . 25 p0 548. x . 31' 3 2 1 \ oi I j. 9, d,", ° n . r ,/ r', r, w n / I I f , t, A e m o 1, ,• 1.' 4 o • m v A A A •. waa 1 ; , I 1 - I o I Y a .— A I S 1 0 _ 73. 730 3 f m 1- y h v a N i•,)- 7/- 165. 498L' = 1 05.: a P 24. 00 1 g4.8 5 o / 0C' X1 ° o o I 1_ wowai r1 cm2 535' 26' 44. 91 " W 527' 51 m g y _ z' Ad ______ mm 7 1 nn z 5 ' , 5200` W Mp 064. \ y a z o I - I l n df g 1 D " y 2 11 O O N YLp O <_ I f in 2 1 F „ ££ A r1) S _ / _ ` C ' I s — I J_ I nP I n W m . 0 z N ,,, I q N I n P Is nadflmdav==* p‘ d~ w°^ oUT* w Layout Name La~°` Jul . 20`, 1 03pm 61 6 II tin 1 -' - It ill 0 z - L 1 I 1 i N., eill'' Min 1 1 1 r'' l'\ A11111111 ' '''' 1,"' 4 , -; , '/'.' 1. '',. ' ' C '''"". v.... 441: S4. 4C, X1 Noit„ p„,„. 1,:::,,,,,*,, \ x' 4.. 1 0 IIIIIFMIE I 4f> 19 11. ' I r. ' - A milini r''' P'` ,, 14' 0 * 0 ''-'-'/', 7 \ z' i e i I ; P, 01111/ 111111 2 h z 4 4 c. I\ 4 , <-- 4 _ _ i i 1 Adi ril P: 1Pn ) ecta1102648 - Redhelds V rezonmg1dwg45- GR4DING 8 5WM dwg, Layout Name Layoutl Jul 18, 2011 - 1 01pm N fig 7 '' Z n T: N., N 7-- 0 N r g r N W w N N II s " N m p Z I E ``D N 1 7 / 1 yv Z r g ii! 1 i fra w a . m rn 1 I IN) s + rr{ J+ d w t r- c4 r `,,;,' 4'.'",,.,.' # a4 r , a r' x - d M kt' ` , }, , , , w, '. 4t A 1 / i 0 x ik ' t s t 1 e a Yc , T x2 8 1 4 yid 4",'" 7/,' 111, 4" ^3 5 o FrHt" nt' 1 . y,Y' w_ a{ ` // S ° p 1 i : i.+° h Gd 4 ' L` 5 i t ` ir , 4 iW i1 '"" + t " N O 1 I ilk h wY' SSE r`°, ` i*'. `` l ` " ,{ - } z x . a II . N t " f J'- v t "' 3 x : _ e F D S ' + 1K Y J ~ 7' "" '`"§ i k ' ifi, 3 1 - Si., c+ M ', 0,::', 10:::::',17. w .`, ` tt' . i` 1 m as r : s 1 l t r 1/ Lk b a` r S j' rA X1 , 112 4k u , so ,, F t I III r m X1 5 m r ay n 3 r 4,,,, 1-,,,,..- t Yt mG x t .{• w i T x j 1 ; T : : 9TOQ" O SC rIt 5 t 1 D p z Q N r lP P z D 4Q 1 7. 000 iiii , .., i t' 9 fit v k r s j s ' 841111. 112788.E1 litillaliiir '' " r- ', ' 0 ' 110, r '.--. - , „ r.,'"; ` , r," '" r, ak I '- ' 441' ',', , Z ' t D1 r e r d e'. * 1 a t k.,, r 3 -. ,, n} ,pp 5 2 < ¢ . r a t °, t a r .{ 2 '^ r z y k V / st i' BS f z 4 F A 3 . ti C T ^ t , x , } n i ^ y . r y y , y t3 3 • 4 s 111 111 111 , 11161 ;, P 1 10 t , l , h " 't 1 bs 4 t l 1 f 1 F h S ` to 4 S 1s og ,-„ r r r is a t u I f 9,: f fi s• - ' • ,- 4,',... 4( Y 1 } ' ) A4: i t. so Y t,., r k , 1 . ' 0 5 1 1 s + Y+ .: rt ',''' 1,- 1' t k, 3 S M Tz O alum, Y y Y A 9 y, 2 1 4 4 5 1 r 4 V killiiiii al ilikespoilit‘ i 1 I I 1111Irall0111116. 44. l 0 m , s s r , .' swami 66 k' r i s ` D y AE A j y k Z 55 y S' 1 sau 2c, 1 g die INNEN" Ad romorass,.. 41/ 10 illicit,: s ' 5' t ---. g 2 0/ 00 t ...--.... 111MMillli=ralw 48 ki4 4 g% * , k g 6' x' u t u G ,—,.--,-,-_,-,-/- I Y t 1N 1151' Y -\ 5 ." 9ix I u n i t d I L _ LI m : .;,.. 1,,,,,,,,, i2 s V I t i V / v I z N x 4 tt n P.\ Profecta \ 102048 - Redfields V rezoning 1, dwg\6- TRAIL PROFILES dwg, Layout Name. 6 Jul 18, 2011 - 12. 33pn a 44- 4 O C71 O O V 4 CT O CT O CT O N A H_ INE - SEE ABOVE O 641 O CO 828 BB O O T A W V V 0 626 880 CA 0 W i - III 00 668 01 C' 1 O • n -_ 83 5.82 O 6 05.60 O 635. 617 O 668 006 Y r T ti 0 605 600 7 n I 1 r uJ O 5 2 O 638. 920 4 O 6 8932 -_ s a W O 689. 318 ti I N 59017 j_ -_ - W 64084 N 898. 87 c W 640 645 00 696 869 q 1 g 0 590. 170 m r`__ -- 1 65Y 09 8 688. 083 W 688. 08 Z 5 1 CO 592 34 0 592. 339 L 0 t I 8 GI 01 A 672 2 875 83 3 N W + i p0 675827 g Z y p 672. 220 592 65 I O 582. 646 r CT m v 8842a T + 65627 C. 71 600 75 684 240 V 0 656 272 p m p 606 752 X 7 O 895881 O 8 7 - -- V 645 24 co + 607 22 i_ _ , ___ co, m 645 237 if 6 217 7, Z s r V Y c Co 712 207 S 0 624 58 h_ W 712. 21 i 618. 27 624 561 i O O 616271 I. - - - -- 0 CO 71733 601 17 r -__ C 63694 O 717. 326 O 601. 188 O 636939 O N f 1 T 642 977 y 1 1 596 41 O 725 1 2 I I' 0 596 413 Q CO 642. 98 1 0 12.:1 p0 C) 1 O C O N O O 10 Y- 0 0 726 76 3 0 602 41 O 602 411 728 - 764 o o o 7 0) 0) J V o ' o ' o cT 1, 3 - 728. 77 O O O O 0 726 767 0 W - 726. 28 O 726. 277 I 720. 38 IV 0 720. 375 r. D IO + 7 12.000 0 712. 002 i jLP O lfA N 707 : N i r/) 1 0 707. 207 ifi 2 97162 Ill o e-, g I' T 1 m 4 r L ) 0 D i W O 682833 T O O rn 11 X Z Z r O O 877. 15 0 . m O 677. 155 i e I nn O o 677. 167 3 13 N 6 N 667. 30 O O 867.301 0 O O T 0) I sa_ o O D O N El 54378 68 1 72 Z 0 681. 718 0 543. 783 0 1. Z 66273 0 5338987 I! -_ _.- O 662. 732 0 N ll 53710 CT 662 36 Ti 0 537 088 A 86 380 O 8 n G f f r N i 537 49 g a to m 64317 N 00 537 495 g 0 643. 170 X N O A 537. 88 1 A -, V 637 08 O 537 684 3 Cn 0 637083 m °m 11 n O 171 Z o ."! CO 837. 63 0 37. 614 O o M ', i:- 0 637 830 I• $ 2 '.nt m ti N', O O • c ;. N 537. 80 CO' °`.. o , 1 " CO O 628. 88 860 8 537, 798 C o, y 0 828 a Z A W 537. 19 i m O 805, 60 C 0 537187 c 9, A' Cn 0 MSOSRBQJE OW O O ' - C O Rm2 0 o p 0 0 tom Zn 3;, 0 1 1 I Z Z ; 31 592 55 H O 592. 552 I. E o A 3m I2 FBI co 590 17 ell 0 590170 l co44 + 592 34 8 592. 339 Albemarle County Planning Commission November 30, 2010 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, November 30, 2010, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Don Franco, Calvin Morris, Linda Porterfield, Ed Smith, Mac Lafferty, Thomas Loach, Chairman and Duane Zobrist, Vice Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non - voting representative for the University of Virginia was present. Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Joan McDowell, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Loach called the regular meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and established a quorum. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Mr. Loach invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda or on the consent agenda. There being none, the meeting moved to the next item. Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — November 10, 2010. Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 10, 2010. He noted the Board of Supervisors are considering the question of a community council for the Village of Rivanna. Staff has no information on any decision made at this point. Consent Agenda Approval of Minutes: September 21, 2010 and October 5, 2010 Mr. Loach asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda. Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of the consent agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Loach noted that the consent agenda was approved Public Hearing Items: SP- 2010 -00026 Pink Ribbon Polo PROPOSED: Amend SP- 2006 -00003 to remove condition of approval #4 that requires submittal of application by November 3, 2010, to renew the special use permit by five years (May 3, 2011) from the date of the approval. ZONING CATEGORY /GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations that are related to, and supportive of the RA, Rural Areas District (reference 5.1.27). (Added 12- 2 -87). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE /DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic, and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D Mr. Cilimberg asked to speak to the question of precedent. Each request received in any area is subject to review under the circumstances of that particular request independent of others. It is not precedent setting to have one home occupation approved in a particular location. It is on a case by case basis review. Mr. Loach noted this is not unique for the Planning Commission since they look at special use permits on a case by case basis. The Commission takes in all available information and public comment to base their decision on. Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of SP- 2010 - 00029, Hungarian Bakery subject to the conditions as recommended by staff. 1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled "Hungarian Bakery Home Occupation Class B Concept Plan" and dated 11/12/10 (hereafter "Conceptual Plan "), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development: a. building orientation b. location of buildings and structures c. location of parking areas; Minor modifications to the plan that do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Compliance with Virginia Department of Health requirements regarding water supply and the septic system for this use shall be verified by the Health Department prior to issuance of a zoning compliance clearance and the commencement of the special use. The motion carried by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Loach noted that SP- 2010 - 00029, Hungarian Bakery would go before the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval with conditions. Work Session: CPA - 2010 -00001 Redfields PROPOSAL: Amend Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Rural Areas to Neighborhood Density - residential (3 -6 units /acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small - scale non - residential uses. The applicant is seeking the CPA to allow for the potential of a future rezoning that would permit residential uses. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE /DENSITY: Rural Areas- preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic, and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). EXISTING ZONING: Planned Residential District - residential (3 - 34 units /acre) with limited commercial uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: Redfields development parallels Interstate 64 and is southeast of the 1 -64 and Route 29 interchange. Redfields is south of the City of Charlottesville and west of Old Lynchburg Road. TAX MAP & PARCELS: TMP 076R0 -00 -00 -00100 & TMP 076R0- 00- 00- 000E4. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller (Claudette Grant) Mr. Loach explained the next item was a work session. Public comment would be taken. Mr. Zobrist asked to be recognized. His name was Duane Zobrist and he was an Attorney -at -Law. He has worked with, and continues to work with the Redfields Development Corporation and its principals. Under appropriate rules of ethics, which lawyers are required to abide by, they have a special relationship by being lawyers to disqualify themselves, as they are not allowed to appear before any members of the Commission or to talk to any members of the Commission about anything in which they are disqualified ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 6 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D in. He would like to represent for the record that he has had no conversations with any of his fellow Commissioners with respect to Redfields. He had some preliminary discussions with staff before it was determined that this would be the action that would be taken. They had some disagreements with whether this was the appropriate action. They did meet with staff. At the time, they concluded that the CPA would be filed. Since that time he has not been involved with the staff directly, neither he or any members of his staff. Although it is appropriate for members of his staff to contact the staff, he is not allowed to contact staff. He has not spoken with the staff since that time about Redfields or has he spoken to any of the Commissioners. He submitted a declaration for the record, disqualified himself, and left the meeting room at 6:28 p.m. (Attachment) Mr. Loach invited staff to present the staff report. Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report for CPA - 2010 - 00001, Redfields. The purpose of the work session is to include property in the Development Area and amend the Land Use Plan from Rural Area to Neighborhood Density - Residential. The current zoning district of the subject property is Planned Residential District (PRD), which allows residential units (3 to 34 units per acre) with limited commercial uses. However, the property is designated as open space with no development potential under the PRD. The Redfields Subdivision has been around for a little over 20 years. There is quite a bit of history to this development, which includes a variety of revisions over the years. Redfields was originally approved in 1990 for development of 656 dwelling units. The open space area that is subject to this request was shown in the slide presentation. To clarify, there is open space within the Redfields development and there is open space that was originally described as phase 6. This gets a little confusing since it is not designated as phase 5. The area they are primarily focusing on this evening is the phase 5 area plus an adjacent open space parcel. The phase 5 parcel is not approved for development. The applicant originally stated that they might seek to amend the PRD at some time in the future to allow development in phase 6. This is not to say that at the time the development rights were limited. This is to say that it could change in the future. This type of request has not been approved. To add development to the open space is not something that has been approved in the last several years. In order to allow additional development in this subject area the applicant will need to amend the rezoning. The following key environmental resources could be impacted should development occur on this property: The property is heavily wooded. There are several critical slopes and a stream that will require a buffer. The staff report provides more details on this. In addition, the staff report contains more detail on the criteria for the review of Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications. This is also described in the applicant's submittal and in the staff report. The following factors are favorable: The proposal involves a site that includes existing PRD zoning, and is adjacent to the Development Area and to PRD zoning. The site is near major highway access and utilities. The proposal could potentially add some residential uses that were lost in Biscuit Run becoming a state park, and replaces it within the same general southern urban area location. The following factors are unfavorable: The proposal is inconsistent with the current Growth Management Policy and Rural Areas policies, and would impact important resources identified in the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan for protection, specifically extensive areas of critical slopes, stream /buffers, and high quality soils for forestry. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 7 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D The site is constrained by critical slopes and a stream with associated buffer. There may be other sites in the County that could support more efficient urban form development as recommended by the Neighborhood Model concepts with less impact on environmental resources. Roads in the immediate area serving the site are substandard in design and alignment. The assessment of the amount and location of land needed for designation for residential use should be evaluated on a county -wide level to determine the most appropriate places to locate new lands designated for residential use. In general, Comprehensive Plan amendments should be evaluated in the larger context of the entire Albemarle Development Area and Rural Areas and in conjunction with relevant planning processes. The update of the Comprehensive Plan will begin within the next six months. The loss of open space /trails that the community has been using. In summary, the main question is whether the property should remain in the Rural Area or become a part of the Development Area. Staff feels it is important to look at the County comprehensively in terms of expansion of the Development Area because there may be other sites in the County that could support more effective urban development looked for in the Neighborhood Model concept that may have less impact on environmental resources. In conclusion, staff recommends that this area be further studied with the Comprehensive Plan update, which is to begin in the spring of next year. Mr. Loach invited questions. Regarding process staff suggests that it be folded in the Comp Plan review next year. If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment becomes tabled and rolled into the study, what is the process and how would the CPA be handled. Mr. Benish replied if it was determined that expansion was needed, then staff would evaluate this specific request along with others. Requests from other property owners for the same type of consideration will most likely be received. He has spoken to four other property owners in the County that intend to ask for their property to be considered for expansion. Staff would ask those property owners to provide specific information about what their interests are for that property and look at those specifically, but comprehensively for all possible areas for adjustments to the boundary. The word tabled probably sends the wrong message. They will certainly be looking at the specifics of this area, but they would also be looking at other areas and making a judgment as to what the best areas would be for expansion when and if that is determined to be appropriate. Mr. Loach asked if they are under any time restraint. Mr. Benish pointed out the applicant has requested a quicker review, which is one of the questions for the Commission to provide staff direction on. Does the Commission think these expansions should be looked at comprehensively. They have a two -year process that staff is anticipating for the update of the Comprehensive Plan. That would be the period by which staff would come back and provide a recommendation to the Commission and ultimately to the Board for expansion. They think it has merit given its location for consideration, but there are constraints. That is why staff would prefer to look at it in the context of how much, if any, expansion they need and what the best candidates are for that. Mr. Morris asked if he heard correctly that staff plans on looking at expansion areas that are going to include all development areas within the County. Mr. Benish replied staff would assess the Land Use Plan and the development trends or capacities within our current Development Area to determine if there is a need for expansion. Once that is determined, they will look at the boundaries and land uses within those land use designations. They are taking public requests for areas to be considered through public comment, which staff will evaluate as part of that process. For this particular step, just procedurally, staff would like direction. If the Commission wants to incorporate it into the larger plan, staff would still like a resolution of intent that indicates that since this was an application that was submitted. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D Ms. Porterfield asked to follow up on that. In their studies, there will be a good hard look at whether or not there is a need to expand the development areas. In other words, they will be looking at whether they have enough land currently zoned for more residential, whether they have capacity for more people to come in, and whether they have the financing to provide the services. Mr. Benish replied that staff takes all of those things into consideration. It includes the growth projections, what capacity they have based on our land use designations, and the growth trends they perceive. They will look at the inventory of existing land that has already been approved and the capacities there. Most likely, staff will give direction both short-, medium- and long -term as to whether there is an essential need or a long term need for expansion. Typically, staff looks at the quality of the areas already designated. They may find there are adjustments to the boundary that are not actually expansions, which has been considered before as well. Following up on Ms. Porterfield's question regarding fiscal impact, Mr. Loach noted that the Commission in the past received reports from Steve Allshouse that used the model to provide data about the financial impact of any decisions they were making. He asked if they are no longer doing that. Mr. Benish replied for residential rezoning they would be doing that, but the Comp Plan process takes it in steps. The first step would be whether there is merit to consider this area. Then they would focus in on the specifics of the type of development proposal that would be called for. As they get into the Comprehensive Plan update that may be one of the factors or information that they would look at. However, typically at this stage of a CPA they don't do that. Mr. Cilimberg noted staff had the fiscal impact analysis done with rezoning before they had the cash proffer policy. Once the Board established the cash proffer policy, which indicated the cash expected per unit to cover fiscal impact, the analysis was no longer necessary on rezoning. It now becomes more pertinent as an analysis when they are looking at land use in the Comprehensive Plan. The things Mr. Benish described they would be looking at include fiscal impact modeling on how different changes might have a different effect fiscally on the County. Mr. Franco asked that the process be explained again. If somebody submits, is there a specific timeline they have to act upon their application. Mr. Benish replied the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process are policies that have been set by the Board of Supervisors. The initial schedule is a review within 90 days to determine whether there is merit for further study. That is the process they are in right now and is the only time requirement. Once a decision is made that the Commission wants to undertake the applicant's request, it becomes more of a County controlled process to determine when that change would take place and whether they are going to amend the plan. The only timing is really that first 90 -day process. If it is incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan update, they do have specific expectations for completion of the Comprehensive Plan that they work towards. Mr. Cilimberg said there is no Virginia Code requirement that they have a Comprehensive Plan Amendment process for the citizens. This is something the County decided to do before Mr. Benish or he came to work at the County back in the 80's. Under Virginia law, this request is not like a rezoning with timelines and such, but something the County is doing at its own initiative. The only timeline, as Mr. Benish noted, was getting the request before the Planning Commission within the 90 days to get a decision on what direction they want to go. Mr. Franco asked if there were staffing impacts if they were to create a resolution of intent to move this request forward outside of the Comp Plan process that starts in six months. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the proposal has the potential to delay that process because they would be taking it separately to work with. It may delay staff from getting started with the overall comprehensive plan review, which process is something they need to do under Virginia law. Mr. Franco asked if it complicated that because of staffing requirements. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D Mr. Cilimberg replied yes, because they would be putting staff resources to doing this analysis and not getting started with the overall review. There would be some implications there. Mr. Benish agreed that was the case, but it would be dependent on how aggressive their expectations are. In February, staff plans to present an outline for the Comprehensive Plan update to the Commission and Board. One of the earlier components is to begin in the Land Use section of the plan and update the guidelines and standards so they can move into the process of looking at the map changes. It is the most involved component of the plan update. It will span most of that 18 -month period before staff brings something back to the Commission for review. It is a labor intensive process. Other initiatives outside of that work, with the staff they have available, could have an implication on how quickly that is done. Mr. Franco asked if this does move forward, how active can the applicant be in that process. In other words, instead of staff having to run all of the models can the applicant provide that information along with other studies. Staff could then spend more time in reviewing the information presented. Mr. Benish replied that the context that staff would be looking at, the fiscal and transportation analysis, was going to be broader than one particular site area. They would probably be looking at the distribution of non - residential to residential and commercial to industrial on a more macro scale. Each of these properties will contribute and adjust that balance. The applicant has provided good information on what their expectations are. As he understands it, the applicant intends to follow the form that was previously approved. Therefore, it is fairly easy to look at that analysis from a staff stand point individually. It is the time it takes to put that analysis in the context of the other possible areas and give the Commission a comprehensive look at the need for expansion and whether this area fits better or worse than other opportunities they might have. He thought that the applicant could assist some in the process, but probably not significantly. Staff is really looking at the bigger picture and then comparing this to what they need to do to address the changes to the larger plan. Ms. Monteith asked in terms of looking at all the other opportunities and the checks and balances if there was some kind of schedule that staff might have that analysis to the extent that it is going to be County- wide. Mr. Benish replied with some adjustments as they work to try to coordinate our plan update with the City's update in a grant that they recently received, they are looking at 12 months at least before they come back with a recommended Land Use Plan. It will probably be next fall before staff comes back with work sessions for land use updates. Mr. Smith asked what schedule is the applicant hoping for. Mr. Benish replied that the applicant could best answer that, but he was sure it was shorter than the two year window they are talking about here. Mr. Loach opened the work session and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Ms. Joseph presented a PowerPoint presentation, as follows: Redfields CPA Request To include the entire Redfields PRD into the Development Area and to amend the Land Use Plan from Rural Area to Neighborhood Density Residential To build 138 units to complete the PRD To arrange the 138 units to reflect the existing development pattern The developer throughout the years has said that they plan to develop this area. It is not common open space. It is open space. There is a big difference. The concept for common open space went before the Board of Zoning Appeals in August 2010. The Board of Zoning Appeals upheld the Zoning Administrator's determination that this space could be used and was not a requirement of the original PRD for common open space that is owned by the homeowners. It is private property. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D The map shows that there are 58 lots that currently exist with houses on them that are outside of the development area. Biscuit Run has the same Land Use designation as Redfields. She noted Whittington Subdivision was just granted public sewer by the Board of Supervisors, which is now in the jurisdictional area for public water and sewer. She understood it would be coming into the Comprehensive Plan as part of the development area. Unfavorable Factors Cited in Staff Report 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the Growth Management Policy and Rural Areas policies, and would impact important resources identified in the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan for protection, specifically extensive areas of critical slopes, stream /buffers, and high quality soils for forestry. Response - The County Code does not allow areas of critical slopes or stream buffers to be disturbed. These areas can be preserved and become the 30% common open space required in the PRD zoning district. Although the soils are high quality for forestry purposes, forestry use /activity is not allowed in the PRD zoning district. A rezoning to Rural Areas zoning district would allow forestry uses. Forestry uses on the property would access the site through the Redfields Subdivision. Forestry is not a compatible use with the surrounding properties. 2. The site is constrained by critical slopes and a stream with associated buffer. There may be other sites in the County that could support more efficient development in an urban form as recommended by the neighborhood model concepts with less impact on environmental resources. Response - This request is not to build on a mountain but to complete a project that began with its' approval in 1990. The critical slope map that follows in the slides illustrates critical slopes and streams in Mill Creek, Biscuit Run and other areas currently located within the Development Areas. Redfields in relation to the Neighborhood Model Like the Neighborhood Model Redfields is a compact development. Redfields has received approval for reduced setback to allow for a more environmentally sensitive design. Redfields has more than one type of housing approved for the PRD. Redfields has a community center and connecting asphalt pedestrian pathways. Unfavorable Factors Cited in the Staff Report 3. Roads in the immediate area serving the site are substandard in design and alignment. Response - The Redfields PRD was approved for 656 lots in 1990. The number of units left to be built is 215, the applicant proposes to build 138 units (77 less units than approved in 1990). No additional density has been requested. The applicant requests assistance from the Planning Commission to help craft Comprehensive Plan language to ensure that the density allowed by a CPA will not exceed the approved density of the Redfields PRD. Therefore, the vehicular use will not be intensified. 4. The assessment of the amount and location of land needed for designation of residential use should be evaluated on a county -wide level to determine the most appropriate places to locate new lands designated for residential use. Response - Instead of finding new areas, most likely currently zoned Rural Areas, why not add land that is currently zoned PRD, is close to town, is close to a 1,100 acre state park, is in the service authority's jurisdictional area, and merely completes the development that was approved 21 years ago? 5. In general, Comprehensive Plan amendments should be evaluated in the larger context of the entire Albemarle Development Area and Rural Areas and in conjunction with relevant planning processes. The update of the Comprehensive Plan will begin within the next six months. Response - The Albemarle County CPA application form states the policy for submittal of proposed amendments as follows "5. No Comprehensive Plan amendment application from a citizen will be processed within six months prior to the expected date of adoption of a major five - year Comprehensive Plan revision." Staff notes the process will begin in six months. Staff has noted verbally that the Comprehensive Plan review would likely take two years. We respectfully ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 11 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D request that we adhere to the current policy and ask the Commission to approve a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include all of Redfields PRD into the Comprehensive Plan, and not ask this applicant to wait two and a half years. 6. The loss of open space /trails that the community has been using. Response - This area is not designated common open space. On August 10, 2010 the Board of Zoning Appeals upheld the zoning administrator's determination that Phase 5 was not required to be designated as common open space as part of the Redfields PRD approval, and, therefore the land in Phase 5 is determined to be private property and available to legally complete the build - out of Redfields PRD. Favorable Factors as Cited in Staff Report 1. The proposal involves a site that includes existing PRD Zoning, is adjacent to the Development Area and to PRD zoning. Response - As many as 58 Redfield residences currently exist outside the Development Area. It makes planning sense to include the entire PRD within the Development Area. The PRD is surrounded by residential lots that are a higher density than, and do not conform to, the density allowed and expected in the Rural Areas. 2. The site is near major highway access and is accessible to utilities. Response - 5th Street Extended has been widened to a four -lane road with a median and the entrance to 1 -64 has been improved since the 1990 PRD approval. The entire PRD is located within the ACSA jurisdictional area for water and sewer. 3. The proposal could potentially add some residential uses that were lost in Biscuit Run becoming a state park, and replaces it within the same general southern urban area location. Response - The Redfields CPA proposal will add 58.472 acres to the Development Area. Biscuit Run covers over 1,100 acres, of which 700 acres are in the Development Area. Biscuit Run was approved for 3,000 residences, Redfields CPA proposes to create 138 additional residences. In relation, the area Redfields CPA covers is approximately 8.0% of the area lost within Neighborhood Four, and around 4.6% of the residential units lost within Neighborhood Four. The increase within the Development Area in the southern urban area is minimal considering the area that was lost to a state park. Favorable Factors The proposal involves a site that is zoned PRD. The site is adjacent to the Development Area, and surrounded by residential developments in a higher density than is allowed in the Rural Areas. The site is near a major highway access. A 60' ROW with a construction easement exists to connect Redfields to the Mountain Valley subdivision. The site is accessible to utilities. A water tank built and paid for by the Redfields developers to serve Redfields and the surrounding area, improved the water pressure and water availability. The proposal would add residential uses that were lost within the same general southern urban area location when Biscuit Run became a state park. The area has been in the ACSA jurisdictional area for public water and sewer since the jurisdictional areas were created in the 1980s. The area was rezoned in 1990 to allow for a total of 656 units, no additional units are requested, and in fact, although the PRD is allowed to create another 215 units, the applicant feels that 138 units will complete the build -out for Redfields. Part of the existing residential units in the PRD are located within the development area, at least 58 existing units are outside the Development Area. Approval of the CPA would bring the entire development into compliance. In 1989, the applicant was urged to request a rezoning to increase the density. Hence, the PRD was approved for 656 units, not the 159 units that were allowed by right. In 1994, the applicant pursued a CPA and rezoning. They were requested to wait until the DISC committee completed its study. The DISC committee has completed its study. The property is not in the Reservoir water supply watershed. The property is not considered common open space, but is private property. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 12 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D We Respectfully Request: The Planning Commission to Authorize Staff to Prepare a Resolution of Intent to Allow the Redfields Comprehensive Plan Amendment to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for inclusion into the Neighborhood Five Development Area in a timely fashion, without waiting until the overall Comprehensive Plan review is conducted. Mr. Cilimberg left the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Loach invited questions for the applicant. There being no questions for the applicant, Mr. Loach invited public comment. Public comment was taken from the following individuals: Rex Linville asked for additional time since he was speaking for a number of individuals that did not sign up to speak. Mr. Loach replied that an additional minute would be given. Rex Linville, resident of Redfields and Land Conservation Officer with the Piedmont Environmental Council, said fortunately the position he takes on tonight was consistent with that professional role as well as his own self enlightened self interest as a resident of Redfields. His colleague with PEC, Jeff Werner, will also speak tonight on the matter generally on growth area expansion for the Comprehensive Plan. In January 1990, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved the ZMA- 89 -18, which created the original Redfields PRD. One of the conditions of that approval was proffer 8 -3 -C, which was revise land use notes to include phase 6 as open space. As heard from the applicant and staff nothing has changed since that time to remove that open space requirement for this parcel. During the Planning Commission for the original rezoning the applicant was very clear and said, "They want to reserve the right to come back later and talk to them about future development on that spot. They did not want to indicate that specifically as open space. Despite this, the Planning Commission recommended and the Board of Supervisors approved the project with that proffer language 8.3.0 intact that it be open space. At the same meeting, Wayne Cilimberg summed up the County's position when he said, "If they want to market it as potential for future development, that is fine. We can't control their marketing." What they are saying for the approved plan that the Commission acts on tonight and that the Board acts on is it open space in phase 6 and that is it. He distributed a handout entitled "Redfields, A Beautiful Place to Settle." (Attachment: Redfields A Beautiful Place to Settle Brochure) The paper handed out is relevant at this point. Instead of taking this option, the developer marketed the land as open space. In the brochure, the land in question is shown as an undeveloped wood lot with trails, trees, and no roads or lot lines. In effect, the land is shown as open space. Further in the last and most recent ZMA for Redfields the developer's own agent is on record as stating that they had gotten to the 440 lots that will finish the develop. If this statement could not be used by the public as evidence upon which to make their own investment decisions for the neighborhood, he did not know what could. Zoning establishes a long term vision. The stability gives home owners, small businesses and corporate interests the confidence to make long term investments in our community. Home owners have made investments with the belief that this land is open space. Moving forward with this comprehensive plan amendment would result in a financial windfall to one individual land owner, but an economic loss and decrease in the quality of life to an entire neighborhood. The County does not need to make this growth area expansion at this time. The Planning Commission can reject this proposal. Mr. Linville questioned if the 215 units always have been intended to go here, which is what the applicant has said in his application that it was always understood that the remaining units would be allowed in phase 5. The reality is that this portion of Redfields was never approved for the 656 units and it has no density allocation. The 656 units were to be placed on only the portion of the PRD that was not open space. Despite this, the developer constructed their project at a lower density, built more single - family homes and fewer cottages and detached units. They made a ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 13 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D voluntary decision to reduce their density on that portion of the PRD approved for 656 lots. They made the decision to build it out at 440 lots. This was covered as a discussion in the September, 1991 Board of Supervisors meetings when Mr. Cilimberg explained that the PRD had originally been requested for 876 units and went down to 615 units because, "initially it was anticipated that there would be development in the southwest part of the site, which is the phase 5 land, for residential use. That part of the property became open space in the process of reviewing the plan because it was primarily in the Rural Area designation. This is where the first loss of lots came about. In other words, what Mr. Cilimberg was saying is that the change from 876 to 656 was a result of designating phase 5 as open space. It was never anticipated that any lots would go there. There is a question of whether this and is private open space or common open space. It certainly is private land. Section 4.7 of the Albemarle County Code addresses what open space can be used for. Open space shall be maintained in its natural space and shall not be developed with any improvements is what it says. Specifically, Section 4.7.d of the County Code, which deals with the ownership of open space, says that open space and private ownership shall be, subject to a legal instrument ensuring the maintenance and preservation of the open space that is approved by the agent and the County." Such a legal instrument has never been drafted or prepared for this open space property. The community has been waiting 20 years to see something like that. Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum, noted that over 25 years ago the members of the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission thought it was important because it was not required by State Code to have land owners have the opportunities to come forward and petition for an amendment. It seems to be that is a fundamental right for landowners and of property rights. He has to wonder about the validity of the question. Shouldn't a landowner have the right to come forward about what should be formed as a restoration of the growth area. Mr. Williamson continued that this idea of a two -year process for a Comprehensive Plan amendment reminds him in 2005 when they embarked on a small plan, a two -year plan, called Places29. He anticipates the Board of Supervisors will be acting on that sometime in the first quarter of 2011. Therefore, he can understand an applicant's reluctance to move into a Comprehensive Plan Update that is predicted to be two years time. If the Planning Commission does not wish to see such land owner applications come forward, they should instead pass a resolution of intent to remove that provision from Albemarle County Code. Otherwise, he suggests that this amendment should go forward and be voted up or down on its merits. Barry Condron, a 14 year resident of Redfields, pointed out the main reason he moved here was a brochure he got from Montague Miller. The real estate agents walked the property and the nature trail, which had signs on it. He built his house adjoining it. For the last few years, he and his neighbors have had to come out at nights to deal with attorney after attorney as many plans move forward trying to develop this property. They bought their land thinking that this was something that they had. He asked that they think about the precedent they would set if they allow this land to be developed. He was sure that many developments have loopholes built into them. This development definitely has loopholes since there was no legal binding language saying that this and has to be kept as open space for the property owners. Many persons cannot attend night meetings. He noted that he was a boy scout leader and had found that eventually people do not show up and these things go through. He asked that they protect the residents and not allow this kind of thing to happen because it is just wrong. Jack Stoner, resident of the Sherwood Farm Subdivision, said originally they were in favor of the Redfields Development because it was represented to them that a large buffer area would be kept between the high density and low density neighborhoods. They were not aware at the time, which he did not think many people did, that there was a difference between common open land and open land. They have been surprised over the years as the applicant has come forward and cut into that buffer area and areas that originally were called open space. They are opposed to this application because of that. They are in support of staff's unfavorable recommendations. Personally, he did not see where Biscuit Run has a whole lot to do with whether they should spot zone something out of the growth area. It seems it would ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 14 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D be in the public's best interest to look at the growth area and make changes to it comprehensively and with a larger view. Jeff Werner, with Piedmont Environmental Council, said he had no doubt that the Commission would hear arguments supporting this growth area expansion because they need to restore the loss of Biscuit Run. The simple fact is if there had been a market for Biscuit Run, it would not now be a State Park. Therefore, the argument that they must restore the growth area is dubious at best. In the past ten years, Albemarle County has granted through rezoning and site plans approval for approximately 13,000 new residential units within the growth area. These are not building permits. These are potential units through approvals and this does not include the 3,100 units that had been approved at Biscuit Run. In that same time, the County has issued building permits for 5,975 new growth area homes. They don't know how many of these correspond to the 13,000 or so approved units. Even if all of these new homes were from that total, the County would still have at least 7,100 unbuilt units in the growth area. There are another 800 or so units that are going through review. On three major projects, Albemarle Place approved in 2003, Rivanna Village in 2007, and North Pointe in 2006, those three projects no work has yet begun on a total of 2,038 units. Old Trail was approved in 2005 for 2,275 units. Since that time, only 697 new building permits were issued in Crozet. So even if they assign all of those building permits to Old Trail, which is unlikely, it still leave 1,800 units or so at Old Trail to be built. Just in four projects, the County has roughly 3,855 unbuilt units. With so many unbuilt homes, it is difficult to see an argument that a growth area expansion is in the best interest of the community. The bigger question is under what circumstances would you consider a growth area expansion. The PEC would argue that good planning would require thorough analysis of what has already been approved where and how much of it has been built. This should be part of next year's plan review of the Comp Plan. It is only after that analysis that PEC suggests they should even consider this proposal. The last time the County issued a real comprehensive development activity report was in 2003. He urged the Commission to read it. It would tell them many things, such as the commercial approved, the number of rezonings, and what is happening in the rural areas. What they don't know is how many units have been approved in rezonings, how many are in building permits, and how many of those ultimately are built. Mr. Williamson indicated it needed to be weighed on the merits of this proposal. He asked how could they determine the need for more development if they don't even know what has already been built. Information he had handed out included information from Loudoun County on how they track their information. Attachment 2: 2009 Fiscal Impact Committee Guidelines — Demographic, Economic, and Fiscal Assumptions and Forecasts Loudoun County Board of Supervisors Fiscal Impact Committee October 2009) Cathy Cassidy, an adjoining property owner, said that there are two phases represented in the open space, Phase 5 and 2, which the Commission has been looking at. She abuts Phase 2 at the end of Willow Glen. She was also speaking on behalf of her parents who live next door that also abut that land. When they bought their homes in 2001, they checked to the best that they could that the open space behind the property was in perpetuity. They asked everyone that represented the land, and were assured that was open space in perpetuity. They did not know there was a difference between common open space and open space. Her family has over 1/2 million dollars invested in this land. It would be taking away a lot of value to have it developed behind their homes. She served on the Redfield Board of Directors. There are 444 homes in that neighborhood. If the developer shows he could have built 658 in the developable land, not including the and under discussion today, the developer chose to build 444 homes. They have been told repeatedly that Redfields has been built out. That is the second indicator that buyer beware that they think this community is finished and done. Therefore, that was a voluntary choice on the developer's part. They were approved for 658 homes. However, in the land they were allowed to develop they chose for whatever marketing research they had to build 444 homes. She reiterated if the prior speaker was correct, there was already 7,000 units approved in the growth zone. She did not think adding 138 units is necessary especially in this climate. Charlie Friel said he would be brief since everybody had made the point as eloquently as he could possibly think about doing. The only point he would like to talk about is the traffic flow. They talked about whether the traffic flow was going to be adequate. If they are going to put in 100 plus units in addition to ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 15 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D the existing 400 units, they are basically putting 25 percent of the density in one specific area. While the roads may be "ok" for the entire area most of that traffic is going to comes down one road. Therefore, it is not clear that the traffic would be adequate for that one road. They have to live on that one road. That would drastically change the nature of their neighborhood where they would have 138 units all concentrated in one spot. Otherwise, he agreed with everything everybody else has said. Loach invited other public comment Carlos Armengol, M.D., resident of Redfields and pediatrician in town, said that he does business with Percy Montague who is one of the owners of Redfields Land Trust. Therefore, he was he an unusual position. He asked to point out a few inaccuracies. The applicant represented that several of the homes are outside of the residential area and in the development zone. As shown on the map he handed out, that was not their understanding. All the homes in Redfields are within the residential area. All of the land with a small exception that is under question is in the rural area. The other point is it is correct that adding the extra homes being suggested would be no more than what they had asked for originally. As pointed out, in fact, it was less than the original amount and should have limited if any effect on the traffic that exists currently. However, those were designations made 20 years ago. Since then in that very area, which can only be accessed through Sunset Avenue Extended, there have been several apartment complexes built. It includes Jefferson Ridge and several others that abut the Redfields neighborhood. Those were not accounted when this neighborhood was first developed. The traffic from those apartments is tremendous. Sunset Avenue Extended is a very busy road as a result of that. He would like the Commission to take that into consideration. To the east is Wintergreen Farm, which is in the development area and is being sold. He suggested that property was being sold for purposes of development. He was sure that not one person was going to buy it and move in. That will add even more traffic to the Sunset Avenue Extended area. That is also something the Commission should consider. He thinks the Planning Commission has an opportunity to do right by the neighborhood. They live on the edge. Every few years they have to put up with this process. They never know what the end result will be. None of the residents wants to lose this precious land. He understands that the Redfields Development Corporation has some business goals that they need to meet. They should have thought about that when they first decided to build this community and built the 656 units that they originally were permitted to build instead of choosing to build 140. It is too late now and they have already marketed this area. Welfong Fresin, 999 Kelsey Drive, noted that it was right at the edge of where the development would be. When he was with his wife in 1986 standing on Kelsey Drive they spoke with one of the developing parties, Gaylon Beights, who assured them personally when they asked him that the space up there would not be developed. It was important to them. Mr. Beights told them probably not, but at most there may be a few, four or five large houses that would be put up there, but they would never see them and it would be no imp act. That was the personal assurance why they bought their house. He asked the Commission not to reward veracity with a building permit. He takes veracity seriously and knows the Commission does, too. Christina Parker, resident of Redfields, noted that she had her two with her tonight. They live on Laurel Glen, which was one street away from the land in question. Redfields has a large number of children. They live on a corner. Fieldstone goes right next to her house and that would be the entrance to this new area. If they are asking for 130 units, she felt those would be condominiums. Most people who do condominiums either have large families or are younger in age. If Redfields Subdivision was meant to have condominiums, they should have put them in earlier. The developers put in single family homes and duplexes. They go back there and hike almost every week. It would be a big shame to take this area away from the children in the neighborhood. John Ecenrode, a retired military officer, said his wife was an active duty JAG officer. They moved to the area 1 1/2 years ago for her to attend the UVA Jag School. They fell in love with the area and she now works in the Pentagon. They found a wonderful neighborhood where they wanted their children to finish ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 16 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D growing up in. Their youngest is a junior at Monticello High School and this is her ninth school. As part of their moving in obviously was the open space. It was a good place to walk their dog. That was one of their biggest concerns moving in. He was also a member of the Board of Directors for Redfields. He asked that they get their stories straight. One day they say the area is not going to be developed and the next it will be developed. He asked why redevelop. Nobody is developing now because houses are not selling. There are many houses sitting empty. He asked why they are looking at rezoning this property. He had heard a lot about Biscuit Run. What happened to Biscuit Run? It was a tax write off for open space. He asked what they are asking for. He questioned whether they were asking to develop or not. Why are they pushing so hard for this. If there is a Comprehensive Plan for the entire County why are they acting like they are the only game in town. If they want a piece of the action, they should throw it in there with everyone else. If their proposal is the best and most beneficial for the County and its residents, so be it. He asked that they not push it through before the entire comprehensive review is completed just to push it through. Mary Key Brents, resident of 998 Kelsey Drive, said that her house was located on the main street of Fieldstone. She moved to the area from Atlanta. The first thing the agent told them was that is open space right behind their house, which won't be developed. This was a well known realtor in this community who sells many homes. It was said that there would be no impact from cars. If they have 138 homes or condominiums there will two times 2 that or 276 cars going down that little road every day. That little road is a section of America that you all have not seen. Every morning when the school bus comes to pick up the kids from the ends of these little cul -de -sacs there are many people standing at those corners. The traffic will take over and make it dangerous for these children. She asked that they not allow this to happen. She asked that they go out and walk through this area to see what a beautiful area it is. She asked that they preserve this area. She noted that Old Lynchburg Road could not handle the increased traffic. Sandy Lambert, resident of 120 Overlook Drive, said that he lived some distance away from this particular development. He had served on the Board of Directors and had been the President of the Association. What they are dealing with here tonight is weight against density rights. It also conveys a similarity to the previous site plan submitted of 138 units, which involved a different type of housing, which was mentioned earlier. Even though he lived a distance away, he would consider this so important that if the association wanted to put up the front cost to fight this they certainly would have his support. Christine Davis, resident at 120 Overlook Drive, said her property abuts E4, which was in the Sherwood Farms neighborhood. The battle for development over this parcel E4 and R1 has been going on for a minimum of ten years. Given the length of this batter, it would seem letting the battle continue on for another year or two while they get the County growth plan in place makes sense. She did not see any real sense for urgency in making this amendment. Secondly, she wanted to address a point on the favorable factor summary. It says the proposal involves a site that includes existing PRD zoning. It is adjacent to a development area and to PRD zoning. She pointed out that the majority of the abutting land is zoned Rural and not to the PRD zoning. Therefore, the proportion of rural land kind of wraps around this area. They need to consider the issue of crime. They seem to have a little crime hotbed in the apartments near this proposed area. With multiple family dwellings, this may become an issue that she thought the area ought to consider. Avia Kiduran, a professor of Curry School of Education and also a resident at Redfields, voiced concern with the proposal. When she moved to the area the playground /tiny swim pool and community play area were attractions for her children. There are a lot of teenagers and children in Redfields that enjoy this area and deserve to keep the open space available. The green space should be kept open for the children of Redfields. Percy Montague, from Montague Miller and Company, said that he was one of the principals of Redfields Development Corporation. He was not planning to speak, but after hearing some of this he felt that he needs to just to give a little more of the background. For the last 10 to 15 years when they've had active sales going on in Redfields and they were in the process of developing, they had a sales center. In that sales center, they had a display that one had to walk around as they came in. As each phase was designed, it was added to that. On ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 17 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D the left hand side of that was an area that they have always called phase 5 and that specifically said that it was future development. Therefore, the fact that was not indicated he did not think is accurate. In terms of intent when they originally came to request permission to do this back in 1989, they were told that the growth area bisected a portion of the property. The planner they were working with at the time said that it just ran through the middle of a field. They talked to them and persuaded them that it made sense to move it or at least from a planning standpoint while they were trying to design this to move it to a geographic feature. So staff let them develop a portion that went as far over as the creek. That creek is now the boundary of what is phase 5. He believes there are a number of homes there, and Ms. Joseph indicated based on her research, that she thought there were 58 homes that are actually currently outside of the designated growth area. Again, all of Redfields is zoned PRD. One other point was that when they came in and had a discussion with the planner they said every so often they review the Comprehensive Plan and this will be a slam dunk. They were told to bring it in to staff and they will include all of Redfields in the growth area. They did that in the mid 1990's. The staff recommended approval of both Redfields and what is now Mountain Valley Farm as additions to the growth area at that time. When they got to the Board of Supervisors, they started talking about infill development and the DISC Study and they tabled all future expansion of the growth areas at that time. Certainly going through that whole process, they indicated that they certainly planned to do something with phase 5. The DISC Study and DISC II since then completed, but there still have not been any adjustments to the growth area. They feel the area zoned PRD was always intended to be part of Redfields and should be included. Mr. Loach asked if he was saying that all of the people who came up and explicitly stated that they were told that the land would stay in open space were misunderstanding what they were being told. Mr. Montagu replied he was not sure what they were told or who told them what they were told. If they look at this area in detail that when they get to the site planning and bring it back, they will see that there are critical slopes and there are going to need to be stream setbacks. Those areas will be open space. The requirement they had originally was 25 percent open space. They proffered and the portion of Redfields that has been developed has that 30 percent open space. This is excess land for future development. At least 30 percent of this site, and based on the characteristics of the land probably more like 50 percent of this, will ultimately be open space. It will be common open space once they are finished. However, for the time being the open space designation that has been talked about tonight was merely the way the property was parked by the staff at the time they originally proposed this in the early 90's because it was outside of the growth area. They have a determination that was done in August that said clearly it is not common open space. There is no requirement. Mr. Linville talked about an agreement that they have been waiting 20 years to have. The Board of Zoning Appeals said specifically that did not apply. Again, they request that they go ahead and make a decision on this at this time. Mr. Zobrist invited further public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed, and the matter brought before the Planning Commission for further discussion and action. The Planning Commission took a break at 7:42 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 7:51 p.m. Mr. Loach invited comments from the Commission. He noted this was a work session and no action would be taken. The Commission would be giving the staff essentially guidance as to what should be done next in the Planning Commission's purview. He asked for comments. Mr. Franco said he heard from staff the recommendations to wait for the Comprehensive Plan to be evaluated in total. They also have heard from the community that they don't want to see this happen. However, he had heard from other people that there is a process out there for processing CPA's. They are within the policy guidelines. He would like to understand from the applicant's perspective what are the advantages to processing it now versus hanging on for six months and waiting for this long a process to start. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 18 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D Gaylon Beights, one of the developers of Redfields, replied they need to get going. It takes a long time from today to bring a product to market. The time to begin a project is when everybody else says it is the wrong time. They had the 600 acre Mountain Valley Farm that they met with Sally Thomas on. Ms. Thomas said if they would wait for DISC that they would rezone it. Therefore, they waited and waited, which turned into almost five years. Every time they mention study, it causes him to say he does not want to wait. He would rather evaluate what they have today. At Old Trail they bought a project by right and they asked to develop it. They are asked to bring it in for the master plan. It took them four or five years to get that through the process. Luckily, they were allowed to begin by right with the back portion of the property. He would suggest that even today they still own Mountain Valley Farm. They missed the market. They should have developed it eight years ago. They think it is time to move forward. This is not their open space, it is his open space. This is left over space from the overall project. It is encumbered upon them because of the Redfields Land Trust to proceed and do something with it. Ms. Porterfield said from the information it appears that approximately one -half of the land he would like to develop is not developable. Mr. Beights replied that was correct. Ms. Porterfield asked what type of residences were being proposed. Mr. Beights replied that they were wondering where the condominium concept came up. They are asking for 2.3 to 2.4 units per acre. They believe it would be similar to what Mr. Sam Craig built in Redfields, which is the same product. In fact, they hope Mr. Craig will return to help them finish it. Ms. Porterfield asked what was that product type. Mr. Beights replied that product is attached single family one levels. That product is single family on a small lot. That will be some townhouses similar to down to the lake. They are not talking about bringing in anything that is not consistent. It is Redfields. It is very painful for Percy Montague and he to care so much about Redfields and listen to the stories tonight. What he did hear through the noise and the static is that they love their place. That is very important to them. The irony of their lives are that they built trails when nobody thought the trail would be a marketable product. Percy, his sons and he built them ourselves. They are very proud of those trails. They have carried that to other developments. Their trails are our trails and they are very partial to them. Ms. Porterfield said he was saying this is an attached product of some sort. Mr. Beights replied yes, as it exists in Redfields today. Ms. Porterfield said that it is an ownership product as opposed to a rental. Mr. Beights replied yes. Mr. Smith asked if he owns the property, pays taxes on it, and insures it. Mr. Beights replied yes. He had a tax bill on his desk. Mr. Smith said that Ms. Joseph mentioned a 60 foot right -of -way. He asked where does that exist that connects Redfields. Mr. Beights replied that the main road that comes in and turns left is a 60 foot right -of -way. It goes down to the cul -de -sac that will eventually go on up to the top. It won't tie into Ambrose at all, even though it is a good idea. Mr. Loach asked for other comments. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 19 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D Mr. Morris said in Mr. Cilimberg's briefing on the Board of Supervisors he heard the words that they are going to be looking at expansions again. In this request they are talking about expansions. He really thinks when they talk about expansions they need to look at the big picture of the expansions within Albemarle County. That is what he would like to see. It pains him to think that it is going to be a two year process for the folks who are looking for expansion on the southern end right now when they are looking at expansions on the northern end like tomorrow. It bothers him that they are starting to piece mill expansions of the development area into the rural area. Therefore, he thinks they need to package this. Mr. Lafferty said down at the cul -de -sac there is a stem that goes into the property that was never sold as a lot. He asked if the intension was always to leave that vacant to put the road in. Mr. Loach asked staff to read the proffer language in the original agreement regarding the open space. Ms. Grant replied that it was proffer 3D that basically said revise land use notes to include phase 6 as open space. Mr. Benish noted unfortunately Mr. Cilimberg had to leave because he was more directly involved in this. The records or minutes in 1989 did indicate that if the development area boundaries were to change in that area it was possible to rezone that property. That is in the record of the minutes that there was a possibility for reconsideration of a rezoning in the future. That is where they are now in that rezoning was based on this hearing coming into the designated development area that is currently shown in the rural areas. Ms. Porterfield noted her concern is that they have a lot of land that has been rezoned to residential throughout the County and nothing is being built. It is just the economy at this point. She can say from the Village of Rivanna there are hundreds and hundreds of lots that have been approved or areas that have been approved for single family dwellings that have not been built. There is nobody building. Additionally, she was concerned because the County does not have the finances to provide the amenities that it needs to provide to the development areas. They have one community that is trying desperately to replace its library. However, at least it has a library. The Village of Rivanna does not have a library. She thinks that somewhere along the line there has to be a real study as to whether they have enough for the near future and what is that foreseeable future. As Mr. Benish mentioned before, for near -term, mid -term, and long -term. She thought it would be only fair to all of the various developers and land owners out there who would like to offer a plan like this to all be considered at the same time and not be piece milling, especially since they are going to start studying this. She knew government certainly moves away too slow for Ms. Porterfield. However, the point is that it does move. There is a plan. She did not think there was an absolute rush because there were not people beating down the doors to buy new construction right now. She would feel more comfortable if they could keep this within the planned look that the County staff is going to do over the entire County. If might be one of the requests that is approved because it has many things going for it. However, it has the other sides, too. The first question is can the County afford it and do they need more new construction even in the mid -term. Mr. Smith said that he feels for the people in Redfields and does not blame them one bit for the way they feel. He has lived in the County all his life and has a subdivision next door that he does not like. However, he could not afford to buy the land next door. These people have land. It is open space. If they want to take the gamble to develop lots and build them and nobody buys them, then they still have their open space. However, that will be their problem. He did not know why they look somewhere else if they have land that is easily developable in it is already there with existing facilities for sewer and water. Mr. Franco asked to follow up on a couple things he heard. He thought that the points Mr. Morris raised were important in that the Board is now going to be looking at expansions of growth areas in a couple places different places in association with 29 Master Plan. That is one of the things he was thinking about early on in how fair is that to other people that might want to see that expansion. He agreed with Ms. Porterfield in listening to staff that part of the evaluation is this the best place to go. Therefore, it is less a question about uses and things like that for the land use side. It is more about whether it is appropriate. He finds that they have a policy that says they ought to be able to process this thing. He feels really torn. As long as they have this policy, he tends to say they ought to move forward with this. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 9n DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D He had not heard anybody on the staff say that it would not make the first blush cut of being evaluated. He was not saying that they ought to add it as part of the Comp Plan. However, they should start the process of looking at it because they have a policy that is in place. He would not want to do that at the expense of the comprehensive review that staff is going to do. So if there is a way that the applicant can supply meaningful information that would be helpful. But similar to past master plan amendments and other CPA's that he has seen he could also see some benefit of having the applicant going ahead of the curb a little bit to provide us more specific detail of what his plans are. Part of the problem he heard tonight was sort of a misunderstanding of what the intent is. He had heard condominiums from the adjacent neighbors. He had heard that is not the intent from the developer. He thought by beginning that process they could allow the developer to provide some more specific information that might help them make the decision about the CPA as well. It could be information showing how they plans to avoid the critical slopes and the buffers. It could be specific enough to show the land plan with the housing types on it so that is incorporated into the language of the CPA. They could find if there is common ground to allay the fears and the concerns of the residents. Mr. Loach thought that the language Ms. Grant read shows that there was a clear intent that there would be a proffer for open space. He thought what Mr. Benish said is that in his remembrance of it that there was also some understanding that there may be development. Therefore, there is a clear question in his mind whether, in fact, there was an obligation for the open space. He finds it very hard to believe that the number and the caliper of the people who spoke tonight could have consistently misunderstood what they were being told with regard to the open space being an open space in perpetuity versus until the developer decided to develop the land. Those are the specifics on that. He thought the bigger question, as Ms. Porterfield has alluded to, was whether this is the time to be looking at growth area expansion when they don't have enough money for fire houses, police, libraries, or parks. On the other side of the coin, there is a process and they should be to some degree accountable to the process that is set up within the County. Those are the two sides. He thought that at this point the more overriding concern is the policies that the Board has set with what it can provide in terms of services to the community to the level of development that is going on. There is no way that he knows now where they could tie development to concurrency with infrastructure. One of the reasons they did the master plan was because they were told that there would be concurrency of infrastructure. That has not been the case. Once they approve development, they can't say because they are in hard times that development stops as well, despite what the County has to spend. He thinks that is the overriding concern. In order to give staff direction, he needs direction from the Board whether in fact if the Planning Commission in these times take this application and continue it in the process. Mr. Franco said the two concerns he heard were sort of the proffer and the promise of the common open space and needing better information on that. The second was the concurrency of the infrastructure and the policies that are in place. He believed that is what the Comp Plan amendment process would reveal. He thought as part of that the responsibility of the applicant or staff would be to address where it stands. For instance, if they find in this particular growth area it does not generate the need for an additional library or fire station per the policies that are established by the Board, then it would say that is not a problem for the expansion in that particular area. He did not know if that was the case or not. However, that is what they are going to be doing six months from now when they begin that process. It is not a commitment to allow it to rezone or anything else so much as the planning aspects that answer the questions that he is raising. Mr. Loach asked if he was saying this should be rolled into the Comp Plan review as alluded to by staff in their recommendation. Mr. Franco replied that he was really torn because of the Board's willingness to look at expansions in other areas as well as the policy on processing CPA's of delaying it. He respects what Mr. Beights has said about what it takes process wise. He hears the other Commissioners, but if it is 2 1 /2 years before it gets a CPA and then rezoning in the past have taken several years as well, he has problems. Projects in Crozet were delayed four or five years. Therefore, they are talking about something that before it is delivering product is potentially five to seven years down the road. It is not addressing potential needs now, but is getting prepared for needs of the future. So he was okay with moving forward, but he did not want to slow down the comprehensive look that the County is about to undertake. When he hears from ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 21 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D Mr. Benish about the delay of that process, he gets concerned. However, he does not have a problem processing it ahead of time. He does not know what the solution is going to be. He would like to have the answers to the questions he has raised. Mr. Morris agreed with what Mr. Franco was saying. Mr. Loach suggested that they roll this request into the Comp Plan review and deal with it in terms of all five requests so that they can see which is the best one for the tax payers. Ms. Monteith suggested that if they are going to look at one they need to look at five. She thought part of what Mr. Benish was talking about is the staff issue in how far that backs up the start of the Comprehensive Plan planning process. It is really complicated. Mr. Franco agreed. He was not sure if all five have filed applications at this point or just expressed an interest. There is a difference in officially filing and not. In the CPA process within that 90 days is it this body that has to take action to initiate it. He asked if the Board could do it as well. Mr. Benish replied the way the process was established the Planning Commission determines whether to move forward with the study or not. Then the Commission's action is forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for information. They are not required to act, but they can appeal the decision or call it up for review. Theoretically, it ends here and the information is provided to the Board. The Board can take that action. They are not talking about two years just to get the Land Use Plan done. This is the full update of the Comprehensive Plan. There are a number of priorities that have been put into that. Staff is trying to figure that out. They have industrial inventory analysis to undertake. The interstate interchange policy is a priority to some. The transportation network in the Southern Urban Area. Questions have been raised about the viability of the Sunset / Fontaine Connector. Staff is trying to put together a regional transportation study to get that answered and that has been put into the Comprehensive Plan update. He can mentioned a couple others, which includes the State MDO legislation that could impact the policies that they have established in their water supply planning, which might need to be adjusted. All those have some priority that staff is trying to balance. He has right now two staff planners on this project. When the other items are brought into that work program it just makes it more complicated to get all of those expectations that are embedded in the Land Use Plan completed. That is not to talk the Commission out of the direction they might go if they want staff to do further study on it. It would be very important what particular information outside of the Comprehensive Plan evaluation of this analysis they would be looking for over that span of time. That would enable staff to focus in on that information. If it is about how the property is going to be developed or the physical development of the site, he thinks the applicant can help with that. If it goes further to physical analysis and transportation impacts, then that is what staff is trying to look at comprehensively within that region. This particular site, although it is a good size site for a development, is pretty small in the context of the overall development area. They are looking at it from a larger perspective of what that impact is. Mr. Loach asked staff's opinion about the proffer language. Mr. Kamptner replied no, that he would have to see the proffer. Someone in the audience spoke from Redfields that referred to a proffer 8C. What Ms. Grant read sounded like a condition of approval of a planned development. He would have to see that. He might have reviewed it several years ago when the zoning administrator was doing the official determination that resulted in the Board of Zoning Appeals decision this past August. However, it has been a couple of years since he has looked at these documents. Mr. Loach asked if his opinion on the proffer Ms. Grant read for open space is, in fact, a binding on the part of the developer. He suggested if Mr. Kamptner needed time that they could take it under advisement. Mr. Benish suggested if the Commission wanted more information about what the status is it would take some time. He believed the applicant provided the Board of Zoning Appeals determination. He ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 22 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D suggested that it was more Mr. Kamptner's and Ms. McCulley's responsibility. However, staff could provide the Commission a written discussion of the status of the proffer. Mr. Kamptner said there are two ways to approach this. One is that the decision in front of them right now may be whether to move forward with this CPA separately in conjunction with the five -year review or not at all at this point. He did not think the Commission's decision should be based upon what has already been decided by the Board of Zoning Appeals. That is whether or not this land is available for development. At this point that decision has been made and resolved. It is now a thing decided. His understanding is that there was no appeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals decision. However, he was not involved with that. They should give the Commission that information so they have a fuller picture of what has gone on over the last 20 years for these parcels. Mr. Franco asked when the Commission could get that information. He asked if they should defer this. Mr. Loach noted that there is some question and he would like to get the additional information. If there is a problem with the proffer, then the question is almost moot. Mr. Kamptner said Rex Linville gave him was a copy of the approval letter dated January 22, 1990. The provision 3D is actually a condition of approval which is what the old planned development regulations provided for. In conjunction with the Board's approval, the Board could impose conditions, which would require typically revisions to the application plan. So this one states, "Revise the following notes on page 1D as revise land use notes to include phase 6 as open space." That is what it says. He has seen applications and plans possibly with some of the latter rezoning where the notations on the plan included a note that said reserve for future development or something like that. The notations on these plans have not been consistent over the last 20 years. However, all of that should be captured in the Zoning Administrator's determination and possibly the Board of Zoning Appeals decision. He was not sure if they adopted a written decision or if it was just on a motion that would be contained in the minutes. However, the Zoning Administrator thoroughly looked at this history to come up with her determination. Mr. Lafferty said that his concern is they are piece milling the Comprehensive Plan by not putting this in and looking at it. He did not have much of a doubt that it has always been the desire of the developer to develop this piece of land. He realized that many people did not have that impression that spoke tonight. He can understand how something like that would happen in that the developer obviously left a way to get into the land at the end of the cul -de -sac. He still thinks they should look at the development in a more comprehensive way and incorporate this in the study with the Comprehensive Plan. What they are seeing tonight is the effects of our austerity that is not only affecting the citizens, such as the cut back in Crozet with the library and things like that, but for the time period. It is affecting the developers who want to get something done in a timely manner and they are saying they just don't have the staff time. It is an awkward position to be in for anybody. It is a two -edged sword. For keeping the County as the County they all like to live in, he thought that they should go defer this and have it considered during the Comprehensive Plan review. Mr. Morris asked if he was saying move it ahead with the Comp Plan process. Mr. Lafferty suggested that they roll this into the Comp Plan review process. Mr. Franco noted that he did not know if he shared that opinion completely. It makes it more palatable to also recommend that they look at the policy that they have in place for processing CPA's and amend it to reflect this perspective so they don't confuse applicants in the future about whether they should be submitting or not. Mr. Loach said that he would like to defer to get additional information from Mr. Kamptner regarding the standing of that condition. He questioned where they actually stand. He did not want to make the big decision until he knew if they have to make the big decision and that rests on what the opinion will be after he takes it under advisement. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 23 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D Ms. Porterfield asked if it would make a difference as to how it is studied. That would be a part of the study. Mr. Loach yes, if the opinion comes back and the letter of condition that says it is open space has standing, then there is no point. They would not have to discuss putting it into the Comprehensive Plan roll out because it has been decided essentially that they were told it was open space and it was a condition of approval. Mr. Lafferty asked wouldn't it just disqualify it from being reviewed as part of the Comprehensive Plan review. Mr. Kamptner said staff would provide the Commission with that determination. He recalled there are different qualities of open space. There are some that are binding on the applicant. There are some that the minutes from some of these rezoning indicated that the notation of open space was essentially a place holder because the applicant had reflected a desire to develop eventually. Staff will provide that determination. He could not recall the level of detail that determination explores that issue, but staff will provide that to the Commission. Mr. Franco said in addition to that information what is important to him is he recognizes that over the years that the terminology has really changed dramatically. In the 15 years he has been doing this he has seen different notations being different things and the same notation mean different things. He would like to know specifically who has to be a party to the application. They can always go back and rezone a property and change conditions that are on it. The real question is who are the participants in that. That may have been a promise, but it may be a condition that is on there and is something that can be rezoned by the owner of the property. It would be in different standing if it were something like in Hollymead Town Center that required more than just the owner of the property, but some representation within the PRD to participate in the rezoning. Mr. Loach asked if he honestly thinks all of the people tonight that said upon sale of their property that they were told that area would be open space misunderstood what they were being told. Mr. Franco replied that he did not. However, having been in the business for years he also knows that it is often hard to know who told them that. Sometimes that is a seller. Sometimes it is a real estate agent. It could be a number of different people that made that promise or statement and not necessarily just the developer. He also believes from what he has seen that the developer had intentions of developing this and has pursued this over the years. He agreed that there is conflicting information. Therefore, he was asking about the legal process that exists. What is the legal determination. As he understands the zoning determination, the Board of Zoning Appeals has said that it is something that can be rezoned. His question goes further and says who has to participate in that rezoning. Motion: Ms. Porterfield felt that they need to put an end to this tonight. Many people are present tonight. The information they are asking for would be part and parcel of any study of this application. She thought that it should be done at that time. Based on that she moved that CPA - 2010 -00001 Redfields be studied with the Comprehensive Plan update that staff is going to undertake in the beginning of 2011. Mr. Franco asked for a friendly amendment to include addressing or looking at the policies that are in place. Ms. Porterfield said that she would like to do it in a second motion. Mr. Franco said that would be acceptable. Mr. Lafferty seconded the motion. Mr. Loach asked for a roll call. Mr. Franco voted no because they have a process in place and they ought to respect the process. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 24 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D The motion passed by a vote of 4:2. (Smith and Franco voted nay) (Zobrist abstained) Mr. Loach asked that a separate motion be made regarding the process. Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded to create a resolution of intent to review the policy on the processing of Comprehensive Plan Amendments to avoid conflicts in the future. Mr. Lafferty asked if this would delay the Comprehensive Plan review. Mr. Franco asked to get this forwarded to the Board to have them look at their policy so that they are not having to defer plans when they have a process in place that says it should be processed. Mr. Loach seconded the motion because the Board has the obligation to look at the process and it would give them better direction in how to handle requests for growth area expansion. The motion carried by a vote of 6:0. (Zobrist abstained) Mr. Loach noted that both motions have passed. He thanked everyone for their input. Mr. Benish pointed out technically the Commission recommended studying it and staff would normally do a resolution of intent. Therefore, staff will draft resolutions of intent for the two actions and bring it back to the Commission as a consent agenda item for approval. Old Business Mr. Loach asked if there was any old business. Mr. Franco reported the CIP Oversight Committee had a second meeting. The Committee has asked staff to go back and create a second proposal that would pull other items that are not maintenance, such as Greer Elementary School expansion, into the CIP recommended projects. Because there is a process evolving of restructuring how projects are evaluated the Commission will not be seeing this until after the first of the year. Mr. Lafferty, Mr. Smith, and Ms. Monteith reported on the MPO Tech Committee Meetings. Mr. Loach asked to go back to one item being the family subdivisions. Both of the families in the two family division requests the Commission heard had agreed to use the ten -year max, which was the State maximum that the Commission imposed. Mr. Kamptner noted that the State maximum is actually 15 years. However, they had agreed to a longer period. Mr. Loach suggested to make the family subdivision more palatable that they use a higher standard than the four years. He did not find the four years as being acceptable. He thought that the ten years agreed to seems to be a reasonable time limit being it was a half of a generation. He asked how the other Commissioners felt about it. Mr. Franco said he thought the Commission had that discussion at that time. He was comfortable with a higher number, but there was a debate. It was not just the family subdivision, but it was really a request for an additional development right in both those cases. He wanted the minutes to show, he was comfortable with a higher term for additional development rights. Mr. Morris agreed. Mr. Benish clarified that it was for special use permits for family division type of subdivisions for extra development rights. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2010 25 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ATTACHMENT D dcita ii , J, COMMONWEALTH .L of VI' G' NIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 GREGORY A. WHIRLEY COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS August 17 2011 Mr. Glenn Brooks, P.E. Albemarle County Engineer Community Development 401 McIntire Road North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Redfields Phase 5 Chapter 527 TIA Dear Mr. Brooks, In accordance with § 15.2- 2222.1 of the Code of Virginia and the Virginia Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations. 24 VAC 30 -155, a traffic impact analysis was prepared by Engineering and Planning Resources on the site plan for the proposed development project entitled Redfields Phase 5 by Collins Engineering. We have evaluated this traffic impact analysis and prepared a report that summarizes the key findings and conclusions of the analysis. Our report is attached to assist the county in their decision making process regarding the proposed development. I am available at your convenience to meet and discuss VDOT's finding if you need assistance. And finally, I ask that you include VDOT's key findings of the traffic analysis in the official public records on the proposed project and have this letter. our report, and the traffic impact analysis placed in the case file for this site plan. VDOT will make these documents available to the general public through various methods including posting them on VDOT's website. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio Area Land Use Engineer WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Attachment E Ivey Findings for Traffic Impact Analysis entitled Redfields Phase 5 Residential Development Albemarle County, VA Project ID: ZMA -2010 -00017 Prepared by Engineering and Planning Resources for Collins Engineering Below are VDOT's key findings for the TIA on the above project: Errors and Omissions: No errors or omissions have been identified by the VDOT review of the traffic impact study. Summary of Data: The study adequately addresses the Chapter 527 Traffic Impact Analysis regulations. The study does not identify any major impacts to the transportation network from the development. The safety study indicates that the crashes on Route 781 and Route 875 are mainly due to the two roads having narrow travel lanes with little to no shoulder from the travelway to the ditch. The safety study also indicates that the steep approach grades contribute to crashes at the intersection of Sunset Avenue Extended and Country Green Road during adverse weather conditions. The data indicates that these crashes are minor in nature with only property damage. The sight distance section of the safety study indicates that minor grading and trimming of vegetation will bring the intersection of Redfields Road and Sunset Avenue Extended up to the current VDOT intersection sight distance standard. VDOT conducted a safety study at this intersection in 2002 and installed intersection approach warning signs on Route 781 on each approach to the intersection of Route 1270 due to limited stopping sight distance along 781 from a crest vertical curve. Study Recommendation: The County Board of Supervisors should consider adding Route 781 as a proposed Secondary Road Project to the Secondary Six Year Plan schedule to widen the travel way, add sidewalk, improve the intersection at Route 875 and improve drainage. An increase in traffic may occur along Route 781 from additional development and the connector road to Stribling Avenue. The proposed sidewalk on the extension of Fieldstone Road should be extended along existing Fieldstone road to connect with the existing crosswalk and trail system at the intersection of Fieldstone Road and Redfields Road. Other Items: A connection to the existing Ambrose Commons Road would be beneficial from this proposed development or a future development to allow residents of Mountain Valley Subdivision a second connection besides Mosby Mountain. At this time because of the lot divisions in Mountain Valley a connection appears to be unlikely. Attachment E Claudette Grant From:Alex Morrison [ amorrison ©serviceauthority.org] Sent:Tuesday, August 02, 2011 3:08 PM To:Claudette Grant Subject:ZMA2010017: Redfields Attachments:image001.jpg; ZMA2010017 - Redfields.pdf COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Dear Claudette : The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has received and reviewed the plan /document /project described above. Attached is the ACSA comment sheet with any relevant comments and concerns we may have regarding the plan /document /project. Please - Feel - Free to contact me at the number below with any comments or questions you may have about the attached ACSA comment sheet. Thank you. The ACSA has no - Further comments on the above referenced ZMA. All previous comments have been acknowledged. Alexander 7. Morrison Civil Engineer Description: Description: Description: Description: C:\ Users \lbreeden \Documents \Logo \ACSA logos \24 bit Logo.BMP 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 Office: (434) 977 - 4511 EXT: 116 1 ATTACHMENT F ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — Information from Service Providers To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's 1. Site is in jurisdictional area for x water x sewer water to existing structures only not in jurisdictional area. 2. Distance to the closest water line if in the development area is (12" D.I.P. Line Runs Through Property) feet. Water pressure is with gallons per minute at psi. 3. Distance to the closest sewer line if in the development area is (8" D.I.P. Line Runs Through Property) feet. 4. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal : 5. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification Yes x No 6. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal 7. Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) ATTACHMENT F Proffer Statement Redfields PRD Application Plan Amendment Date:July 18. 2011 Owner:Redfields Development Corporation Property:Redfields Phase V, PIN 076R0-00-00-000E4 and PIN 07R0-00-00-00100 Application: ZMA -2010- 00017, Amendment to Application Plan, Existing PRD Zoning. Amendment Application ") This Proffer Statement accompanies and relates to the Redfields Phase V, Amendment to Application Plan. Existing PRD Zoning, dated June 6, 2011 ( "Application Plan "). The Owner is Redfields Development Corporation, a Virginia corporation, or its successors (the "Owner "). The Application Plan was submitted by the Owner as part of the Amendment Application. The Application Plan applies to approximately 58.46 acres in the Redfields Planned Residential District of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County ") known as tax map parcels 076R0- 00 -00- 000E4 and 07R0 -00 -00 -00100 ( "Phase V "). Phase V is zoned Planned Residential Development in accordance with Section 8 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance "). Conditions. Pursuant to section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and subject to the reservations and clarifications that follow, the Owner hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed in this Proffer Statement, which shall be applied to Redfields Phase V if the proposed Application Plan is approved by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County. If the Application Plan is denied, these conditions shall be immediately null, void and of no effect. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested Amendment Application and it is agreed that: 1) the uses described in the Amendment Application itself give rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the uses described in the Amendment Application. The following shall be the sole conditions /proffers applicable to Redfield Phase V. 1.Except as provided hereafter, the Owner will not disturb the area in Phase V that is within one hundred feet (100') of the property line adjoining the following lots in Sherwood Farms: tax map parcel identification numbers 076N0- 00- 00- 013A0, 076N0- 00- 00- 01300, 076N0- 01 -00- 000E2, 076N0 00 00 01200, 076N 00 - 00 - 01100, and 076N0 00 00 - 008B1 as well as existing lots in Redfields Phase 2 -A and 2 -B that are contiguous to Phase V, (the "Buffer "), as shown on the Application Plan. Owner, or its successors may disturb the Buffer to provide, construct, improve, realign, remove, replace, maintain and repair trails and utilities (including without limitation electric power, water, sewer, telephone, cable, natural gas, internet and other similar utility services (whether now known or developed in the future) to or for the benefit of the owners in the Redfields PRD or others. The Owner may disturb the Buffer for forest management and for public health and safety reasons. The Owner may disturb the Buffer for other reasons approved by the County's Zoning Administrator; provided however that in the event that the Buffer is disturbed for any purpose allowed herein, such disturbance shall be limited to that necessary to permit the allowed use, and to the extent practical, the disturbed area shall be replanted with the same number of trees that have been removed. The replacement trees shall measure a minimum of 1 V2" caliper and shall be a species indigenous to the area. 1 ATTACHMENT G 2.At the request of the Redfields Community Association, Inc., (the "Association ") but not sooner than the issuance of an occupancy permit for the sixty- fourth (64` dwelling unit within Phase V, Redfields, the Owner shall dedicate to the Association, by deed of conveyance those certain parcels of land in Phase V that are labeled on the Application Plan as "Open Space ", together with the improvements described below in paragraphs 3 and 4. The Owner reserves the right to transfer any or all of the Open Space to Association at any time before the requirements to transfer the Open Space are met. Notwithstanding anything contained herein, any and all rights of the Association or residents of Redfields in Phase V (including without limitation any area labeled trail. Open Space, scenic overlook or recreation arca) shall only arise by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia. The Application Plan itself is not a conveyance and this Proffer Statement is not a conveyance. Approval of either is not a conveyance and does not transfer any interest in the land or its use. Unless and until a conveyance is made by deed, neither the Association nor any resident of Redfields has a right by reason of the Application Plan or this Proffer Statement, or by approval of either, to access or use any of this property including without limitation any area labeled trail whether existing or new), Open Space, scenic area or recreation area. 3.On or before the issuance of an occupancy permit for the sixty -fourth (64 dwelling unit within Phase V, Redfields, Owner shall construct new class B type 1 primitive nature trails (as described in the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual, last updated February 12, 2010) in the general locations shown on the Application Plan. The Owner reserves the right to include, at its sole discretion, a parcourse as part of the trail or within the scenic area, as shown on the Application Plan. A parcourse consists of a path or course equipped with obstacles or stations distributed along its length for exercise. 4.On or before the issuance of an occupancy permit for the sixty -fourth (64 dwelling unit within Phase V, Redfields, the Owner shall construct a tot lot, a scenic area and a basketball half - court in the approximate locations shown on the Application Plan. The scenic area shall contain two (2) park benches. The Owner will construct the tot lot, scenic area and basketball half -court before dedicating the Common Open Space to the Association. The Owner reserves the right to construct the tot lot, scenic area and basketball half -court at any time before the requirements to construct them are met. 5.The Owner will submit an overall lot grading plan meeting the requirements of this paragraph 5 for Phase V (the "Plan ") before a final subdivision plat is approved. i) The Plan will show all proposed streets, building sites, surface drainage, driveways, trails, and other features the County Engineer determines are needed to verify that the Plan satisfies the requirements of this paragraph 5. ii) The Plan shall be drawn to a scale not greater than one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet. iii) All proposed grading shall be shown with contour intervals not greater than two (2) feet. All concentrated surface drainage over lots shall be clearly shown with the proposed grading. All proposed grading shall be shown to assure that surface drainage can provide adequate relief from the flooding of dwellings in the event a storm sewer fails. ATTACHMENT G iv) Graded slopes on lots proposed to be planted with turf grasses (lawns) shall not exceed a gradient of three (3) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (3:1). Steeper slopes shall be vegetated with low maintenance vegetation as determined to be appropriate by the County's program authority in its approval of an erosion and sediment control Plan for the land disturbing activity. These steeper slopes shall not exceed a gradient of two (2) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fell (2:1), unless the County Engineer finds that the grading recommendations for steeper slopes have adequately addressed the impacts, such finding not to be unreasonably withheld. v) Surface drainage may flow across up to three (3) lots before being collected in a storm sewer or directed to a drainage way outside of the Tots. vi) No surface drainage across a residential lot shall have more than one -half (1/2) acre of land draining to it. vii) All drainage from streets shall be carried across lots in a storm sewer to a point beyond the buildable area. viii) The Plan shall demonstrate that driveways to lots will not be steeper than twenty (20 %) percent unless certified by an engineer that the driveway at the proposed steepness would be safe and convenient for passenger and emergency vehicles to use, and shall include grading transitions at the street that the agent determines will allow passenger vehicles to avoid scraping the vehicle body on the driveway or the street. Additionally, the driveway grading shall provide an area in front of the proposed garage, or an area proposed for vehicle parking where no garage is proposed, that is not less than eighteen (18) feet in length that will be graded no steeper than eight (8) percent ix) The Plan shall demonstrate that an area at least ten (10) feet in width, or to the lot line if it is less than (10) feet. from the portion of the structure facing the street, has grades no steeper than ten (10) percent adjacent to possible entrances to dwellings that will not be served by a stairway. This graded area also shall extend from the entrances to the driveways or walkways connecting the dwelling to the street. x) Any requirement of this condition may be waived by the County Engineer by submitting a waiver request with the preliminary or final plat. If such a request is made, it shall include: (a) a justification for the request contained in a certified engineer's report; (b) a vicinity snap showing a larger street network at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch equals six hundred (600) feet; (c) a conceptual plan at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch equals two hundred (200) feet showing surveyed boundaries of the property, (d) topography of the property at five (5) foot intervals for the property being subdivided and on abutting lands to a distance of five hundred (500) feet from the boundary line or a lesser distance determined to be sufficient by the agent; (e) the locations of streams, stream buffers, steep slopes, floodplains, known wetlands; and (f) the proposed layout of streets and lots, unit types, uses, and location of parking. as applicable. In reviewing a waiver request. the County Engineer shall consider whether the alternative proposed by the Owner generally satisfies the purpose of the requirement to be waived. The County Engineer should also consider whether granting the waiver will result in substantial detriment to the public health, safety or welfare. 3 ATTACHMENT G xi) The Owner may request that the Plan be amended at any time. All amendments shall be subject to the review and approval by the County Engineer. xii) In the event that the County adopts overall lot grading regulations after the date the Application Plan is approved, any requirement of those regulations that is Tess restrictive than any requirement of this paragraph 5 that is imposed on the Owner shall automatically supersede the corresponding requirement of this paragraph. Any requirement that is more restrictive in such an ordinance will be superseded by the less restrictive requirement in this paragraph 5. The following conditions /proffers shall be applicable to Redfields PRD generally. 6. The Redfields PRD shall include not more than 567 dwelling units. 7. Prior to approval of any road plans for Phase V, the Owner shall provide a pavement analysis for the existing Fieldstone Road in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation Engineering Guidelines (Chapter 6, entitled Pavement Design and Evaluation.) 4 ATTACHMENT G 200 GARRETT ST, SUITE K CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 COLLINS 434.293.3719 PH 434.293.2813 FX www.collrns- engineenng.com July 18, 2011 William Fritz County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, VA 22902 The Redfields Phase V Amendment - Request for Critical Slopes Waiver UPDATED Dear Bill: Please allow this letter to serve as a formal request of a critical slope waiver for the Redfields Phase V project. Relief is sought from the critical slope requirements of Section 18 -4.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, to facilitate the grading and construction improvements associated with the proposed development. This request accompanies the Redfields Phase V Zoning Amendment Plan submission, which depicts the critical slope locations along the subject parcel TMP 76R -1 and 76R -E4. As shown within the plan, there are areas with 25% or greater slopes that are proposed to be disturbed as part of this project. The following table summarizes the critical slope characteristics of the subject parcel: Total Project Area:58.46 acres Project Area Total Project Area Critical Slopes:22.4 acres Total Project Area Critical Slope Impacts:0.30 acres* Percentage Total Project Area Critical Slopes Impacted:1.34% Note that additional impacts may be necessary for the construction of trails as shown on the Application Plan. The total area of critical slopes disturbed by the proposed development is 0.30 acre, which comprises 1.34% of the 22.4 total acres of critical slopes that exist on the property. Special attention has been given to the preservation of a vast majority of the critical slopes as well as large systems of critical slope. The project layout sites roads and new lots outside the limits of critical slopes as much as possible. Some disturbance of a minimal amount of slope is necessary to complete the road grading. The majority of critical slope impacts are a result of grading to install an extensive trail system that complies with County standards. This development has been designed to maintain and preserve large portions of existing land and slopes; these areas will have a system of nature trails running throughout. The proposed lots keep new units close to the road to limit any additional disturbance and maintain vegetative ground cover and mature canopy trees as much as possible. ATTACHMENT H Development of this site would be unreasonably restricted by the requirements of Section 18 -4.2 of the Ordinance. Phase V of the Redflelds rezoning has always been anticipated. Disturbance to critical slopes is caused primarily by road connections and other improvements that will be required by Albemarle County. Challenging topography covers large swaths of land within these two parcels; this proposed amendment exhibits every effort to avoid these sensitive areas of the site. 18- 4.2.6c Access ways, public utility lines and appurtenances, stormwater management facilities, and any other public facilities necessary to allow the use of the parcel shall not be required to be located within a building site and shall not be subject to the requirements of this section 4.2.2, provided that the applicant demonstrates that no reasonable alternative location or alignment exists. The county engineer shall require that protective and restorative measures be installed and maintained as deemed necessary to insure that the development will be consistent with the intent of section 4.2 of this chapter. Below, the considerations of developing critical slopes as provided in the Zoning Ordinance Section 18- 4.2 are addressed: 1. movement of soil and rock ": Critical slope impacts have been minimized in this development plan, and we have paid careful attention to not disturb critical slopes in the vicinity of waterways when at all possible. Erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented to ensure that no construction runoff harms adjacent areas. 2. excessive stormwater runoff": The development plan provides stormwater conveyance, storage, and filtration via the proposed storm sewer and stormwater management facilities. 3. siltation of natural and man -made bodies of water": The erosion and sediment control plan for this project will take measures to ensure that stormwater runoff is captured and treated before reaching natural and man -made bodies of water. These measures will be inspected and bonded by the County to ensure their proper functioning and continued stability. 4. loss of aesthetic resource ": As stated previously, the vast majority of critical slopes will be preserved in their natural condition for this project. It is a top priority to maintain these aesthetic resources as an amenity for the surrounding area and the County in general. 5. septic effluent ": This site is serviced by public sewer and will not release any septic effluent to the surrounding environment. The proposed site development protects the existing woodland areas and a majority of the natural critical slopes, in a cluster development design. The evidence provided herein demonstrates that the grading within critical slopes on this project will have minimal impact to public health, safety, welfare, or other considerations that might result from the disturbance of the critical slopes. Thank you for your assistance in this matter; please do not hesitate to contact me for any additional information pertaining to this waiver request. Since ely, Scdt Collins, PE ATTACHMENT H CRITICAL SLOPES MODIFICATION STAFF COMMENT: I. CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER The proposed development will require the disturbance of critical slopes. A modification to allow critical slopes disturbance is necessary before the site plan can be approved by the Planning Commission. The request for a modification has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the critical slopes regulations. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth - disturbing activity on critical slopes, while Section 4.2.5(a) allows the Planning Commission to waive this restriction. The applicant has submitted a request and justification for the waiver (Attachment H), and staff has analyzed this request to address the provisions of the Ordinance. The critical slopes in the area of this request appear to be natural. Staff has reviewed this waiver request with consideration for the concerns that are set forth in Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled Critical Slopes." These concerns have been addressed directly through the analysis provided herein, which is presented in two parts, based on the Section of the Ordinance each pertains to. Section 4.2.5(a) Review of the request by Current Development Engineering staff: Engineering staff has reviewed this and finds there are no measurable impacts. Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slope disturbances are in the form of Areas Acres Total site area 58.46 Area of critical slopes Man -made = 0 0% of development man -made & natural)Natural = 22.4 38% of development Total critical slopes area 22.4 38% of development Total critical slopes disturbed 0.30 1% of critical slopes The engineering analysis of the request follows: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slope areas contain natural critical slope areas. Please see the applicant's waiver request for details on these areas and the percentages of disturbance. Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18-4.2 is addressed: 1. rapid and /or large scale movement of soil and rock ": 2. excessive stormwater run - off": 3. siltation of natural and man -made bodies of water 4. loss of aesthetic resource ": Attachment I Based on the Open Space Plan and field observation, there are critical slopes located in this area; however, these slopes are not shown to be significant. 5. septic effluent ": This site will be served by public sewer. No portion of this site plan is located inside the 100 -year flood plain area according to FEMA Maps, dated 04 February 2005. Based on the above review, the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the technical criteria for the disturbance of critical slopes. The critical slopes areas disturbed are not delineated as a significant resource on the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan. Review of the request by Current Development Planning staff: Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2: Section 4.2.5 establishes the review process and criteria for granting a waiver of Section 4.2.3. The preceding comments by staff address the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a). Staff has included the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a)(3) here, along with staff comment on the various provisions. The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon finding that: A. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare; This critical slopes waiver is unusual. The critical slopes impact is generated by the construction of the trail system, road network, utilities and stormwater. The disturbance associated with road network, utilities and stormwater is exempt from the critical slopes regulations and no wavier is needed for that activity. The critical slopes disturbance associated with the construction of the trail system may or may not be exempt depending on the timing of construction. The mechanics of the ordinance would allow for the construction of the trails without a waiver if the trails are constructed with the single family lots subdivision. However, if the trails are constructed with the multi - family site plan a waiver is required. Even if this request for a waiver is denied the trails could still be constructed as long as the construction occurs with the single family subdivision development. Staff opinion is that denial of the waiver would not forward the purpose of the ordinance. Approval will allow for passive recreation to be provided with minimal impact. It would allow the residents of this development to take advantage of the large open space area being provided. It is likely that if formal trails were not provided that the residents would establish informal trails that might have more significant erosion risks than the formal trails proposed by the applicant. B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; As stated above, the establishment of formal trails may result in less impact than would be generated by the establishment of informal trails. Based on this staff opinion is that approval of this request would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree. C. Due to the property's unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent properties; or Denial of this request would not restrict the development of the property. Attachment 1 D. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived. Approval of this request will provide recreational opportunities in a natural setting and allow for the use of the significant open space area shown on the plan. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff review has resulted in both favorable and unfavorable findings: Favorable factors: 1. Even if this waiver is denied the critical slopes may be impacted by -right as part of the subdivision review. 2. Approval of formal trails may result in less impact than would be generated by informal trails. 3. Approval of the request allows the residents to make effective use of provided open space. Unfavorable factors: 1. None identified. After considering the favorable and unfavorable factors staff recommends approval of this waiver. Attachment I nT AL6.41%,-,1- II, IkG1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 November 16, 2011 Ms. Marcia Joseph 481 Clarks Tract Keswick, VA 22947 RE: ZMA2010 -00017 — Redfields PRD Dear Marcia: Staff has reviewed the revised proffers dated October 12 for the subject rezoning request for Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 076R0 -00 -00 -00100 & 076R0- 00- 00- 000E4. Our comments are consolidated below. The comment numbers match the proffer numbers: Proffers Proffer 1: The following comment has been provided by Greg Kamptner: In the first sentence, change "Owner agrees to additional restrictions to apply..." to "The following restrictions shall apply within..." Proffer 2: The following comment has been provided by Greg Kamptner: In the third line, suggest changing "dedicate" to "convey" (in this context, "dedicate" has a connotation of conveying something for public use) and add a deadline for completing the conveyance after the RCA makes a request. The following comment has been provided by Amelia McCulley of Zoning: (Previous comment does not appear to have been addressed) Because the existing trail plan for Redfields (proposed by the applicant and approved by the County) shows trails on this property, we cannot accept a proffer that restricts the residents from using the trail until the property is conveyed to the Association. Proffer 3: No comments Proffer 4: The following comment has been provided by Greg Kamptner: What equipment will be included in the tot lot and what does the proffer require that would not be required under Zoning Ordinance 4.16? Also, what is a "scenic area "? Proffer 5: No Comments Proffer 6: No Comments Proffer 7: The following comment has been provided by Joel DeNunzio of VDOT: This proffer identifies the owner providing a pavement analysis for the existing Fieldstone Road for the Attachment I1 additional traffic. The proffer also says the owner will perform an overlay on the existing pavement if the analysis recommends this improvement. This was not the intent of the VDOT comments previously submitted. The existing Fieldstone Road was designed for the number of trips associated with the existing number of units accessing the existing road. The new proposed development adds about 1000 trips per day and over doubles the existing traffic. The existing Fieldstone road was not designed for this volume of traffic and requires additional pavement thickness for the new proposed volume in addition to adequate drainage. The developers engineer proposed a 2 inch overlay of the road to get the needed pavement structure but this would not be adequate for this road. VDOT requested a pavement analysis prior to the increase in the structural capacity to identify existing base failures in the road. This road is close to 20 years old and a simple overlay will not bring it up to capacity due to existing base, subbase and surface failures. The proper ,pr to identify +ho needs for the road and to inr the stn it ranarity is tn design the adequate pavement structure for the proposed pavement according to the new traffic numbers, perform a pavement analysis, mill the existing surface material, replace base materials or base and subbase materials in places identified on the pavement analysis where there are failures in the base or subbase, Pxcavate unsuitable materials where needed, install underdrains along the road due to the new volumes being in excess of 1000 trips add asphalt base material in accordance with the new pavement structure for the Nr vNvacu iIL41TIL/GI VI iriNa, add surface asphalt material in accordance with the new pavement structure for the proposed number of trips. The following comment has been provided by Greg Kamptner: Based on conversations with Joel DeNunzio, it is suggested that the reference to "overlay" on line 4 be changed to "reconstruction ". The following comment has been provided by Amelia McCulley: This proffer should state improvements" and keep it open because it will depend. It should also state the "first final subdivision plat in phase V." Proffer 8: The following comment has been provided by Glenn Brooks: Proffer 8 commits the owner to build an asphalt path from phase 5 to Redfieids Road. This should be on a plan, and all affected property owners should be part of the request. From a practical standpoint, the right -of- way referenced in this proffer contains landscaping, ditches and areas that are maintained as yards. Asphalt paths have also historically had significant quality issues. The following comment has been provided by Amelia McCulley: It is not clear how this can be accommodated within the right - of - way as stated /proposed. This needs to be worked out either way as proposed or by showing that adequate easement exists for it to be on private property on existing lots. Proffer 9: The following comment has been provided by Greg Kamptner: This proffer may address the concerns of some residents in the existing Redfields development; however, this really is not a proffer. We don't anticipate the County wanting to put itself in a position of enforcing this proffer. These matters are more appropriate in a recorded declaration of restrictions. 2 The following comment has been provided by Amelia McCulley: Based on this proffer, proposed phase V will need to stand on its own in meeting recreational requirements and based on a proposal of over 80 townhouse units, two tot lots are required with a minimum 2,000 square feet Section 4.16.2). The plan shows one tot lot. Proffer 10: The following comment has been provided by Greg Kamptner: In the last sentence, Wintergreen" should be changed to "Evergreen" and the timing for installing the gate and vehicular access should be added. The following comment has been provided by Amelia McCulley: This proffer should either state a standard or state that it will be built to a standard acceptable by Albemarle County Fire Rescue. It also needs to state a trigger as to when it will be built. As we have discussed, this rezoning request is scheduled for a Board of Supervisors public hearing on December 14, 2011. In summary, the executive summary to the Board of Supervisors for the December 14, 2011 public hearing will be based on the existing proffers reviewed by staff and the comments in this letter. The proffers are in need of both technical and substantive revisions and based on the staff comments described in this letter, the proffers would not be supported by the County Attorney's office or reviewing staff. If the project is to stay active and you wish to keep the December 14 public hearing with the Board of Supervisors, you will need to provide the existing, signed proffers by Monday, November 21, 2011, which is when the legal ad and proffers for the December 14, 2011 Board meeting need to be completed. If you wish to resubmit revised proffers, we will reschedule the public hearing with the Board of Supervisors. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is cgrant(a albemarle.orq Sincerely, 1 i , Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development 3 Attachment II Proffer Statement Redfields PRD Application Plan Amendment Date:November 16, 2011 Owner:Redfields Development Corporation Property:Redfields Phase V, PIN 076R0- 00- 00 -000E4 and PIN 07R0 -00 -00 -00100 Application: ZMA- 2010 - 00017, Amendment to Application Plan, Existing PRD Zoning, Amendment Application ") This Proffer Statement accompanies and relates to the Redfields Phase V, Amendment to Application Plan, Existing PRD Zoning, dated June 6, 2011 ( "Application Plan "). The Owner is Redfields Development Corporation, a Virginia corporation, or its successors (the "Owner "). The Application Plan was submitted by the Owner as part of the Amendment Application. The Application Plan applies to approximately 58.46 acres in the Redfields Planned Residential District of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County ") known as tax map parcels 076R0- 00 -00- 000E4 and 07R0 -00 -00 -00100 ( "Phase V "). Phase V is zoned Planned Residential Development in accordance with Section 8 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance "). Conditions. Pursuant to section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and subject to the reservations and clarifications that follow, the Owner hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed in this Proffer Statement, which shall be applied to Redfields Phase V if the proposed Application Plan is approved by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County. If the Application Plan is denied, these conditions shall be immediately null, void and of no effect. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested Amendment Application and it is agreed that: 1) the uses described in the Amendment Application itself give rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the uses described in the Amendment Application. The following shall be the sole conditions /proffers applicable to Redfield Phase V. 1.The following restrictions shall apply within the Open Space area in Phase V that is within one hundred feet (100') of the property line adjoining the following lots in Sherwood Farms: tax map parcel identification numbers 076N0- 00- 00- 013A0, 076N0- 00 -00- 01300, 076N0- 01- 00- 000E2, 076N0- 00 -00- 01200, 076N- 00 -00- 01100, and 076N0- 00- 00 -008B1 as well as existing lots in Redfields Phase 2 -A and 2 -B that are contiguous to Phase V, (the "Buffer "), as shown on the Application Plan. In addition to any disturbance limitations imposed on Open Space under Ordinance Section 4.7, any Buffer Area disturbance shall be limited to: a) the location of utilities when an alternative location is not practical; and b) removal of trees that are determined by an arborist to be diseased or dying or for the installation of improvements contemplated by this ZMA 2010 -0017. Where the Owner may disturb the Buffer as allowed herein, such disturbance shall be limited to that necessary to permit the allowed use, and to the extent practical, the disturbed area shall be replanted with the same number of trees that have been removed. The replacement trees shall measure a minimum of 1 '/" caliper (as measured at six (6) inches from the ground) and shall be a species indigenous to the area. 1 Attachment III 2.At the request of the Redfields Community Association, Inc., (the "Association ") but not sooner than the issuance of an occupancy pen for the sixty - fourth (64 dwelling unit within Phase V, Redfields, the Owner shall within sixty (60) days, convey to the Association, by deed of conveyance those certain parcels of land in Phase V that are labeled on the Application Plan as "Open Space ", together with the improvements described below in paragraphs 3 and 4; which Open Space shall have the same meaning as set forth in Section 4.7 of the Ordinance. The Owner reserves the right to transfer any or all of the Open Space to Association at any time before the requirements to transfer the Open Space are met. 3.On or before the issuance of an occupancy permit for the sixty - fourth (64 dwelling unit within Phase V, Redfields, Owner shall construct new class B type 1 primitive nature trails (as described in the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual, last updated February 12, 2010) in the general locations shown on the Application Plan. The Owner reserves the right to include, at its sole discretion, a parcourse as part of the trail or within the scenic area, as shown on the Application Plan. A parcourse consists of a path or course equipped with obstacles or stations distributed along its length for exercise. 4.Intentionally deleted]. 5.The Owner will submit an overall lot grading plan meeting the requirements of this paragraph 5 for Phase V (the "Plan ") before the first final subdivision plat is approved. i) The Plan will show all proposed streets, building sites, surface drainage, driveways, trails, and other features the County Engineer determines are needed to verify that the Plan satisfies the requirements of this paragraph 5. ii) The Plan shall be drawn to a scale not greater than one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet. iii) All proposed grading shall be shown with contour intervals not greater than two (2) feet. All concentrated surface drainage over lots shall be clearly shown with the proposed grading. All proposed grading shall be shown to assure that surface drainage can provide adequate relief from the flooding of dwellings in the event a store sewer fails. iv) Graded slopes on lots proposed to be planted with turf grasses (lawns) shall not exceed a gradient of three (3) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (3:1). Steeper slopes shall be vegetated with low maintenance vegetation as determined to be appropriate by the County's program authority in its approval of an erosion and sediment control Plan for the land disturbing activity. These steeper slopes shall not exceed a gradient of two (2) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fell (2:1), unless the County Engineer finds that the grading recommendations for steeper slopes have adequately addressed the impacts. v) Surface drainage may flow across up to three (3) lots before being collected in a storm sewer or directed to a drainage way outside of the lots. vi) No surface drainage across a residential lot shall have more than one -half (%) acre of land draining to it. 2 vii) All drainage from streets shall be carried across lots in a storm sewer to a point beyond the buildable area. viii) The Plan shall demonstrate that driveways to lots will not be steeper than twenty (20 %) percent unless certified by an engineer that the driveway at the proposed steepness would be safe and convenient for passenger and emergency vehicles to use, and shall include grading transitions at the street that the agent determines will allow passenger vehicles to avoid scraping the vehicle body on the driveway or the street. Additionally, the driveway grading shall provide an area in front of the proposed garage, or an area proposed for vehicle parking where no garage is proposed, that is not less than eighteen (18) feet in length that will be graded no steeper than eight (8) percent ix) The Plan shall demonstrate that an area at least ten (10) feet in width, or to the lot line if it is less than (10) feet, from the portion of the structure facing the street, has grades no steeper than ten (10) percent adjacent to possible entrances to dwellings that will not be served by a stairway. This graded area also shall extend from the entrances to the driveways or walkways connecting the dwelling to the street. x) Any requirement of this condition may be waived by the County Engineer by submitting a waiver request with the preliminary or final plat for the phase or section within Phase V. If such a request is made, it shall include: (a) a justification for the request contained in a certified engineer's report; (b) a vicinity map showing a larger street network at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch equals six hundred (600) feet; (c) a conceptual plan at a scale no smaller than one 1) inch equals two hundred (200) feet showing surveyed boundaries of the property, (d) topography of the property at five (5) foot intervals for the property being subdivided and on abutting lands to a distance of five hundred (500) feet from the boundary line or a lesser distance determined to be sufficient by the agent; (e) the locations of streams, stream buffers, steep slopes, floodplains, known wetlands; and (f) the proposed layout of streets and lots, unit types, uses, and location of parking, as applicable. In reviewing a waiver request, the County Engineer shall consider whether the alternative proposed by the Owner generally satisfies the purpose of the requirement to be waived. The County Engineer should also consider whether granting the waiver will result in substantial detriment to the public health, safety or welfare. xi) The Owner may request that the Plan be amended at any time. All amendments shall be subject to the review and approval by the County Engineer. xii) In the event that the County adopts overall lot grading regulations after the date the Application Plan is approved, any requirement of those regulations that is less restrictive than any requirement of this paragraph 5 that is imposed on the Owner shall automatically supersede the corresponding requirement of this paragraph. Any requirement that is more restrictive in such an ordinance will be superseded by the less restrictive requirement in this paragraph 5. xiii) All grading within Phase V shall comply with the Plan approved by the County Engineer. 6. Phase V shall include not more than 126 dwelling units and these dwelling units shall count toward the aggregate number of 656 dwelling units permitted in Redfields PRD as established in ZMA 89 -18. J Attachment III 7. Prior to approval of any road plans for Phase V, the Owner shall provide a pavement analysis for the existing Fieldstone Road in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation Engineering Guidelines (Chapter 6, entitled Pavement Design and Evaluation.) The Owner shall install all required reconstruction and improvements in conjunction with the first final subdivision plat in Phase V if it is recommended by such pavement analysis, and required by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 8. The Owner shall install a five (5) foot wide asphalt footpath in the right -of -way along Fieldstone Road between Phase V and Redfields Road. A road segment plan showing the right - of -way dimensions and conceptual alignment for the footpath is attached to these Proffers. The final alignment of this footpath shall be subject to VDOT and Albemarle County Service Authority approvals. This footpath shall be installed with the construction of any improvements within the first final subdivision plat for Phase V. 9. The Owner agrees that the owners of residential units within Phase V shall not have the right to use the existing Redfields community pool and clubhouse as an amenity or incidence of membership in the Redfields community association, without the express consent of the Redfields Homeowners Association, under rules and guidelines as may be established by the Redfields Homeowners Association. Accordingly, the owners of residential units within Phase V shall be allowed to pay reduced general assessments, pro -rated to reflect the exclusion of the costs attributable to the community pool and clubhouse. The provisions of this Proffer 9 shall be incorporated into the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for Redfields when Phase V is added to the Declaration by amendment with the recording of the first subdivision plat for Phase V. The County shall have no obligation or duty to enforce the terms of the Redfields Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions or this Proffer 9 except to the extent that it may withhold any approval of a building permit until the amendment containing this Proffer 9 provision is recorded. 10. The Owner shall install with the construction of any improvements within the first final subdivision plat for Phase V a gate and vehicular access at the cul -de -sac located adjacent to Albemarle County Tax Map Parcel 89 -73D (the "Evergreen Land Company Property "). The gate and vehicular access shall be to a standard approved by Albemarle County Fire and Rescue. Owner shall cause emergency access to be granted for fire and rescue personnel to access Redfields from Ambrose Commons Drive over the Evergreen Land Company Property, including, if necessary extending gravel access from an existing faun road on the Evergreen Land Company Property. If the Evergreen Land Company Property is ever developed, the owners of such property may relocate the access road in order to accommodate such future development. 4 Witness the following signature and seal. Redfields Development Corporation By: 1/1),,_ Proffer Statement Redfields PRD Application Plan Amendment 5 Attachment III W Q m a. o o U ti W W r :- \ o 1I— DC LiJ DC Co n CD O 1 o m i E o O O 1 Z OQ W N W — VI: -' : u , 3 ra { iru. r 0 u- : 9 if, I : Levi- Z - S-a J I - Illhir a 7 \ y tr, Z L .. .. .- I:, 63W 7": „,..„ 7„. ' i . Atis:;: i. ci.... E11 Z O W O Z ' - 0 J r r,. l'- J \> , n 1 3 rqN r_, z N Y\ \ a JWwv q . J pu I T W N 3 ' ) till F/) ,. 77'' 1 w pi I rl , 7 , 7-- t, i ri A f/ 1 1_ IA to 0 CI i 1 W, v rn1 m a tI\ ` \ Z m m R J \ D 1 N fir, 1D to u 2 r i 1 a m f° irD , J.: i ., -„ rim m r m p i p o 111 _ - I R v I + 21 TO o y 1 r 1: I I D 0 O T neo o 70 o zO y z r T o gym ll r,- r O NCO T T n L Th O o CO T 13 tz O a ti 0 1 zz rn aa rfl Z N , CS Q