Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201000017 Action Letter Zoning Map Amendment 2011-10-18COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 December 21, 2011 Marcia Joseph 481 Clarks Tract Keswick, Va 22947 RE: ZMA201000017/Redfields PRD TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76R/E4 and 76R/1 Dear Ms. Joseph: On December 14, 2011, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, by a vote of 6:0 denied the above -noted petition. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner Planning Division COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 October 18, 2011 Marcia Joseph 481 Clarks Tract Keswick, Va 22947 RE: ZMA201000017/Redfields PRD TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76R/E4 and 76R/1 Dear Ms. Joseph: On September 27, 2011, the Albemarle County Planning Commission, by a vote of 6:0 approved a motion to recommend denial of the above -noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. This recommendation of denial was based on the following staff recommendations: • The proposed residential development is inconsistent with the Growth Management and Rural Areas policies. • 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. • This rezoning request does not follow the process and direction the Planning Commission provided at last year's worksession. 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. • Some proffers need to be rewritten to address staff's concerns, as noted in the proffer section of the staff report. • The loss of open space/trails that the community has been using. • An increase in traffic to the area. • No commitment has been made to provide affordable housing. The Planning Commission recommends denial of the critical slopes waiver based on the their denial of ZMA-2010-00017 Redfields PRD because the result of that denial meant the Commission had nothing on which to base its consideration of the waiver. Should the Board of Supervisors recommend approval of the rezoning, the Planning Commission recommends consideration of the following concerns and conditions. (See Minutes for Detailed Comments) - It is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. They need to take a look at that section of the Comprehensive Plan so not to piece -meal things together. - It was inconsistent with the density of the adjacent neighborhood. - There are some safety issues. This plan did not seem consistent or in keeping with the character of the district and was totally out of character with the neighborhood. - Proffers — could not support the request because of deficiencies in the proffers, especially on the affordable housing side. The proffers are inadequate or inconsistent with County policy. - It is not only the fact that there are safety issues, but there are also other impacts in terms of where the location of the density is in the existing neighborhood. - The larger question brought up was where are we, what is the inventory, and how great an impact should that be in making the decision on these comprehensive plan amendments versus just looking at a V spot therein and does it work. There was a broader context that has to be taken into consideration. They have infrastructure projects that are not even on the long-term planning list and have to be paid for based on development that has already been approved. They have to get to the point where that infrastructure catches up to our Comprehensive Plan. One of the reasons they wanted to do master planning in the beginning was to ensure there was concurrency of infrastructure for the growth area residents so there was no degradation in the quality of life in our growth areas because development got too far ahead of the infrastructure. That was where they are today. There are infrastructure issues with the small road to their amenity that has 16 parking spaces. There is no place on the road to park. It is not easy to get to. There could be real problems with the roads that are leading into the site. It is not the way they should go about adding density to our areas. - The county needs to figure out how many residential lots they have in the development areas that have not been built on. They need to decide how much more amenities, infrastructure the county could provide. They need to make sure before they start bringing in more residential into the development areas that they can handle what they already have. That includes our water situation. - A hope was expressed that they would see in the future a master plan for the southern part of the County. It may be the right development in the wrong place because there are some good things about it. There is a place for density in the growth area as long as it is in the right place. - One Commissioner felt disadvantaged of not having heard from staff the report they are expecting next month regarding an evaluation of this with the Comp Plan. They have to get to a point in time where the residents and the developers (the owner) have clear understanding of what the expectations are going to be. Everybody is getting tired of coming here every couple of years and readdressing this situation. As long as the developer owns the property, he has the right to request a rezoning. There was disappointment expressed that the applicant could not wait until next month to hear what staff's evaluation of the property was before the Commission was required to take a vote. They should consider what conditions, if any, they would recommend for approval of this property when it goes forward so that the Board has a basis for making a decision the other way. Provide an overview of where the county is going that give a synopsis of the build out and what is available. The Commission gave clear direction last time that this should wait until the Comprehensive Plan takes a look at this. They don't have that study or evaluation in front of them. So they are being required to make a decision. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting, to be determined. It is the Board of Supervisor's preference that a public hearing not be advertised until all of the final materials for a zoning application have been received by the County and are available for public review. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner Planning Division CC: Redfields Development Corporation 800 E Jefferson Street Charlottesville, Va 22902 Redfields Development Corporation Po Box 5347 Charlottesville, Va 22905