Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAP200900007 Application 2010-08-25i Application for `,irtr,INrj Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination ❑ Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination = $120 (To be refunded if the decision of the Zoning Administrator is overturned.) Project Name: Redfields PRD P g Tax map and parcel: 76R, parcels 1 and E4 Magisterial District: SamuelMller Zoning: PRD Physical Street Address (if assigned): Location of property if determination is made regarding a property (landmarks, intersections, or other): Contact Person (Who should we call /write concerning this project ?): Robert J. Kroner Address 418 East Water Street City Charlottesville State VA Zip 22902 Daytime Phone 43 296 -2161 Fax # (43/� 220 -2719 E -mail rkroner @scottkroner. eom Owner of Record Redfields Development Corporation Address City State Zip Daytime Phone Fax # L_) E -mail Applicant (Who is the Contact person representing ?): Redfields Community Association, Inc., and Barry Condron Address City State Zip Daytime Phone (_, Fax # L__) E -mail Redfields Community Association, Inc. Barry Condron c/o Kristin Parker, President .978 Kelsey Drive 994 Laurel Glen Charlottesville, VA 22903 Charlottesville, VA 22903 Board of Zoning Appeals Action /vote:', Arp &4t-t J r lklllp ,��lrla�r� -�c. ©a1 ��� VKAwL x --v l,r 4-0 �Zr Board of Zoning Appeals Chairman's signature: `� / <� Date: O y � ' i fi FOR OFTICIJ USE ONLY AP # `l �L �y who4` W 6\ iii Receipt # Ck# BY Fee Amount $ • a V Date Paid County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296 -5832 Fax: (434) 972 -4126 7/1/08 Page 1 of 2 The following information shall be submitted with the application and is to be provided by the applicant: 1) Completed application including subject of appeal. 2) Justification for applicant's position, including error in Zoning Administrators determination. You may use the space below to provide this information or submit an attached sheet. 3) If applicable, a copy of the latest deed for the property involved, and the approved and recorded plat. 4) If applicable, the appropriate drawings showing all existing and proposed improvements on the property and any special conditions. for the situation that may justify the appeal. 1 5) Reference to the relevant Zoning Ordinance section or other applicable regulations or case precedence to justify the appeal. 6) Appropriate fee made payable to the County of Albemarle. 7) Explanation of error in determination and justification of applicant's position: See statement attached. Owner /Applicant Must head and Sign I hereby certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Redfields Communit Association, Inc. By: i`vwiT, f4>-12 -0 Kristin Parker, President Date Br dronDa ti eq ' c� a um� O _t — � Y P Daytime phone number 7/1/08 Page 2 oft Owner /Applicant Must head and Sign I hereby certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Redfields Communit Association, Inc. By: i`vwiT, f4>-12 -0 Kristin Parker, President Date Br dronDa ti eq ' c� a um� O _t — � Y P Daytime phone number 7/1/08 Page 2 oft NOTICE OF APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION Statement Attached to Application Project Name: Redfields PRD, Tax Map76R, Parcels 1 and E4 (the "Phase 5 ") Property Owner: Redfields Development Corporation Applicants: Redfields Community Association, Inc., and Barry G. Condron The Applicants hereby request that the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals overturn the determination made by the Zoning Administrator as set forth in her letter to Pete Caramanis dated May 15, 2009 (the "Zoning Determination Letter "), that Phase 5 of Redfields is not "Open Space" as such term is defined in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. As grounds for this appeal, the Applicants state as ,follows: Proffer of Open Space in 1990 The Owner of Phase 5 was the original developer of the Redfields subdivision ( "Redfields "). The Board of Supervisors' approval of the original Redfields development plan was conditioned, among other things, on the owner designating as "Open Space" the portion of the property then designated as Phase 6 (and subsequently re- designated as Phase 5) (see item 3d in the attached ZMA 89 -18 approval letter dated January 22, 1990, addressed to Gaylon Beights). Section 4.7 of the County Zoning Ordinance dictates that "Open Space shall be maintained in a natural state and shall not be developed with any improvements." ZMA 2001 -01 does not apply to the Open Space Despite this condition, the Zoning Administrator determined that "[t]here is no specific proffer language that requires Parcels 1 of E4 to be maintained as open space" (Zoning Determination Letter, page 3). In the Zoning Determination Letter, the Zoning Administrator relied in part on the Board of Supervisors' action in approving ZMA 2001- 01. It is the Applicants' position that ZMA 2001 -01 was a request for critical slopes waiver and a request for private roads that applied only to Redfields Phase 413, and that such action did not modify any of the proffers or conditions associated with Phase 5. In fact, the owner's representative specifically stated in a letter addressed to Wayne Cilimberg, in advance of the Board hearing on ZMA 2001 -001 that "[t]his portion of the property [namely, Phase 5] was not then and is not now in the county's designated growth area and is not a part of this request" (see attached letter dated August 6, 2001, from Percy Montague, IV, on behalf of Redfields Development Corporation; emphasis added). Decision is contrary to ZMA 89 -18 The Zoning Administrator also based her determination in part on the fact that "[t]he most current application plan (the one approved with ZMA 2001 -01) shows Parcel 1 [TMP 76R -11 as `future phase 5' . . . and shows [T'MP 76R] Parcel E4 with no designation as to use. [and] that the 30% open space requirement has been met without the inclusion of either parcel 1 or E4" (Zoning Determination Letter, page 3). The Applicants believe that. the Board's approval of ZMA 89 -18 was conditioned on designating what is now known as Phase 5 as Open Space, because it was in the rural area, and with full knowledge on both the part of the Board and the Owner that such requirement was in excess of the 30% open space requirement for the development. Accordingly, it is reversible error for the Zoning Adm"-- *s to deter. -nme that the "Open Space" designation specifically imposed by the Board of Supervisors on Phase ``5-- could be removed because such Open Space was not required for purposes of satisfying the 30% open space requirement of the development code. Regardless, it is not the Zoning Administrator's prerogative to reverse ZMA 89 -18. No explicit removal of Open Space designation Similarly, in tracing the history of the County approvals relative to Redfields, the Zoning Administrator correctly noted that ZMA 91 -07 and ZMA 98 -08 made no mention of Phase 5. It is the Applicants' belief that the removal of the "Open Space" designation from the development plan filed with ZMA 2001 -001 was made in error and that, inasmuch as Phase 5 was not a subject of any of the actions taken in ZMA 91 -07, ZMA 98 -08 or ZMA 2001 -001, it was reversible error on the part of the Zoning Administrator to determine that the removal of the Phase 5 Open Space designation was an intentional reversal of the Board of Supervisors' action in ZMA 89 -18. Conclusion In summary, the Applicants believe that the Zoning Determination Letter is an administrative reversal of clear directive by the Board of Supervisors that Phase 5 is Open Space, and that such a reversal may be made only by the Board of Supervisors. As such, the Applicants respectfully petition the Board of Zoning Appeals to reverse the finding of the Zoning Administrator that Phase 5 is not Open Space as defined in Section 4.7 of the County Zoning Ordinance. Interest of Applicants The Applicants are (1) Redfields Community Association, Inc., a non -stock corporation established by the Property Owner as the entity responsible for maintaining Common Areas in Redfields and for enforcing compliance with the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions of Redfields, and (2) an owner of property located in Phase 2B of the Redfields subdivision, which is adjacent to TMP 76R, parcels 1 and E4. The Applicants, as direct beneficiaries of the zoning proffers which designated Phase 5 as "Open Space," are aggrieved persons within the meaning of Section 15.2 -2311 of the Code of Virginia. .. ZM 8CI -I8 L `0- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept, of Planning & Community D_ evelopment, 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 -4596 (804) 296 -5823 January 22, 1990 Gaylon Beights 246 East High Street Char!ottesville, VA 22901 RB: Mal-89-18 Redfieids Development Tax Map 76, Parcels 21A1, 22A, 23, 24B, 47, and 49 Dear Mr. Beights: „�. The Albemarle County Board. of Supervisors, at its meeting on January 17, 1990, unanimously approved the above -noted regcest to rezone 276 acres from R -1, Residential to PRD, Planned Residential Development, result`ng in 656 lots. Property, located adjacent to Sherwood Farms, and bounded by Sunset Road an 1 -64. The Board approved u_IA -8? -18 subject to the conditions as- amended--, and addendum as recom- - mended by the Planning C =...- .ission; as Prof_ered in a letter dated December 3 1989, to WaVn. Cil- IL=e_g signed by Frank D. Cox, jr., verbally verified by the applicant before the Bcard on January 17, and deleting proffer ,4r4 in said letter. The conditions as recommended are set out below: 1. Each lot shall comply with cur-rent building site cro-risions. No drit;eway.shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 250 or greater. 2. All roads with the exception of roads A and B and the -private road to serve lot 106 shall be built to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards for urban cross section and placed in the Secondary Svste:a at time of development of those residential areas utilizing those roads. Roads A and B shall be constructed in accordance with VDOT standards for rural cross section and placed in the Secondary System' at the time of development of the residential areas utilizing,' those roads. Gaylon Beights Page 2 January 22, 1990 __Not__more than 276 -dwelling units _ will be constructed_ until such time as the Rt. 631 improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning & community Development; 4. The proposed recreation center shall be constructed with Phase 1; 5. There shall be only single family detached dwellings south of .road L. 6. .Future lots will have limited access to roads A and B in accordance with Engineering comments in attached memorandum (Attachment A) dated December 19, 1989; 7. Acceptance of applicant's proffers 1, 2, and 3 found in Attachment D which read: �. A reduction in total residential units from 867 to 656 dwellings; 2. A reduction in gross residential density from 3.14 to 2.38 units /acre; and 3. A maximum neighborhood density not to exceed 4.0 U nits /acre in any given residential neighborhood or development phase. 8. Comnli arse :pith ccnditior_s of addendum as follows: A revised app-lication plan _n accordance with Sect-Ion 8.!5.5 of t----e Zcring Crdina ca is required and sh ail in cude the �olowrg: _ li 1. Setbacks for single family detached lots shall be 25 feet front setback, 15 feet side setback and 20 feet rear setback. (Note side setback may be reduced to not less than six feet in accordance with Section 4.11.3.1) This shall be noted on the plan on Page 1 note 9b; 2. Note on the plan that only single family detached units will be located south of road L. A 20 -foot strip of common open space shall be provided adjacent to Tax map 76, Parcel 49B. The-open space strip shall include a landscape easement to allow for Tax Map 76, Parcel 49B, to install screening trees. A 20 -foot rear setback shall extend from the open space /landscape strip;. Gaylon Beights Page 3 January 22, 1990 3. Revise the" following noes on page one: a. Remove RPC and replace with PRD in note 9b; b. Note 11 must delete the following "and shall conform with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) residential subdivision street design standards in effect as of the date of PRD Development Plan approval." c. Delete Note 19. Staff does not support administrative approval of the final plats or site plans. Staff does request administrative approval of the final subdivision plats for Lots 1 through 104. d. Revise land use notes to include Phase 6 as Open Space; e. Total number of lots is 656, not 658; 4. Remove all preliminary plat notes found on sheet 5a, and 9; 5. Revise the following notes on sheet 9: a. Note 2 in water and sewer schematic locations must refer to the Albemarle County Service Authority and not County standards; and b. Total number of lots is 656, not 658; 6. Note 2 in gate= and sewer schematic locations must refer to the Albemarle County service Authority and not County s;,a .cards as found or_ shee;:s 0, 11, and 12; f— 9. No access f=om Redf_elds through Sherwood Farms Subdivision. Tf you should have any uestions or comments regarding the above noted action, p:; - lease do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, V. Wayn Cilimberg Direct of Plann Community Development VWC /j cw cc: Kathy Dodson Jeff Echols Richard Moring Frank Cox , . I) 1 0 0 THE COX COMPANY Planners - Landscape Architects Civil Engineers - Urban Designers December 3, 1989 Mr. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning The County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: The Redfields Residential Community PRD Zoning Application Revision Samuel Miller District /Albemarle County, Virginia Dear Wayne: As you know, our office submitted on October 23 the Redfields residential community zoning application for a change of use from the R -1 district to the R- 4 and R -10 districts. Pursuant to our meeting this past Monday, we have attempted to incorporate the recommendations by Staff addressing the initial zoning submission package. In this regard, this correspondence. serves to formally amend the Redfields zoning request to seek a PRD, Planned Residential Development district to overlay the entire 276 -acre tract. Thus, the PRD district will substitute for the R -4 and R -10 districts in our current application. The significant aspects of this amended application which incorporates Staff recommendations and the PRD concept are as follows: 1. A reduction in total residential units from 867 to 656 dwellings. 2 A reduction in gross residential density. from 3.14 to 2.38 units /acre. 3.. A maximum neighborhood density not -to- exceed 4.0 units /acre in any given residential neighborhood or development phase. 4. A commitment not to construct more than 276 dwelling units prior to the completion of VDOT's 5th Street extension project, which is scheduled to commence July, 1991 with an anticipated completion of November, 1992. We agree with you that the PRD zoning approach affords a greater opportunity to establish a general development plan for Redfields which is fully compatible with the Jefferson Park Avenue /Fontaine Avenue Neighborhood study and subsequent Comprehensive Plan Amendment adoptions by the County. In this regard, I believe our recommended PRD development plan 804.295.7131 220 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 ■ ■ ■% .O Mr. Wayne Cilimberg December 3, 1989 Page Two establishes an environmentally sensitive land use approach while adhering to the range of County planning goals for this area. Our new PRD Development Plan responds to the major directives of the original LDR study, for the Miller Tract (Parcels D 1 and D2): Existing steep slopes and vegetation have been preserved, low density has been allocated to the westerly sector of the site, medium density has been organized near the easterly sector and close to road access, and the LDR recommendation for a "planned unit development with mixed density" has been followed. In light of these considerations, we feel that the Redfields proposal is consistent with the County's visions for this sector of the Urban Area. For your review and continued input, I am forwarding a copy of the PDR Development Plan and pertinent conditions relating to this proposal. As additional comments and concerns arise, please keep my advised. We are deeply interested in seeking Commission action on this matter at their first meeting of the New Year and your assistance in this pursuit will be deeply appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to meet with me at on November 27. With warm regards, I am Yours very ytruly, +I,,-- !� Frank D. Cox, Jr. E AIC attachments. fdcjr /ac xc: Gaylon Beights Percy Montague, IV Bill Fritz O O 0y0 REDFiELDS PRD DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Tract Size: 275.97 Acres 2. Existing Zoning: R-1 3. Proposed Zoning: PRD-Planned Residential Development (See Zoning App.. cation date d October 23;1989) 4. Owners: - Ben M. Miller and Percy Montague, III (Trustees) 5. Contract Owners: Gaylon Belghts and Percy Montague, IV (Trustees) 246 East High Street Chariottesville, Va 22901 6. Tax Map Reference: TM 76; Parcels 49, 47, 24B, 23,22A and 21 A. 7. Magisterial District: Samuel Miller 8. Deed Reference: DB 304, Page 381 and DB 430, Page 371. 9. PRD Planned Land Uses: Residential Dwellings with Mixed Density (A).Suburban Residential Neighborhoods Single Family Detached Dwellings. 109.34 Gross Acres. Maximum Gross Density: 2.0 DU /Acre PRD Plan Yield: 105 Residential Lots Minimum SFD Lot Size: 10,000 SF Min. Setbacks: 25' front, 20' rear, 15' side. (B). Cottage & Attached Residential Neighborhoods 166.63 Gross Acres. 9 tracts proposed with development use and density subject to conditions of RPC Zoning, final, and preliminary plan approvals, as required. Maximum Gross Density: 4.0 DU /Acre PRD Plan Yield: 551 Residential Units Minimum SFD Lot Size: 5000 SF Min SFD Setbacks: 10' front, 10' rear, 0' side Minimum Attached Lot Size: NR Min Attached Setbacks: NR 10, Public Utilities: Public water and sewer available to property. 11. Transportation: All roads Indicated hereon are planned 50' public rights -of- -way to be dedicated to the Virginia Department of Transportation. Specific road classifications (ROW, pavement width, construction sections and preliminary grades) are depicted on Sheet 13, 14, 15, and 16 and shall conform with VDOT residential subdivision street design standards as of date of PRD Development Plan approval. 12. The General Development Plan /Preliminary Plat indicated hereon is subject to PRD zoning approval by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for the subject property. 13. Average Suburban Residential Lot Size (Parcels 1 -104): 17,939 SF /Lot 14. Average Parcel Size (Parcels 105 -115): 19.80 Acres 11 200 Feet (Road s "q -_ -K- ) 15. Linear Feet of Pavement in Public Rights-of-Way: 16. Area in Public Rights -of -Way: 13.50 Acres (Roads "A " -`K') 17. Boundary plat data and acreage taken from surveys by William Roudabush, Jr., CLS; dated April 5,1967 and April 11, 1967. 18. Topographic mapping taken from aerial photogrammetric topography prepared by Photo Science, Inc., March 24, 1974. 19. Final subdivision plats and final plans for land developed in conformance with the PRD General Development Plan is subject only to Staff review and approvals and shall require no further approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. 20. The subject property is not in an Albemarle County public water supply watershed. 21. No more than 276 dwellings will be constructed prior to the construction of the 5th Street Extension project by VDOT. r ■ ■s � e �i a REDFIELDS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY: PRD Residential Land Use and Phasing - Phasel - - Planned__ Planned land Use Residences Phase 1: Suburban SFD Residential 38 Cottage and Atta hed Residential $Q 118 Phase 2: Suburban SFD Residential 13 Cottage and Attached Residential 44 57 Phase 3: Suburban SFD Residential 36 Cottage and Attached Residential 93 129 Phase 4: Suburban SFD Residential 18 Cottage and Attached Residential $5 103 Phase 5: Suburban SFD Residential 0 Cottgae and Attached Residential 1544. 154 Phase 6: Suburban SFD Residential 0 Cottgge and Attached Residential 9-5 95 Total Planned Residences: Suburban SFD Residential 105 otfaae and Attached Residential �55l. Total Residences: 656 Total PRD Land Area Suburban SFD Residential 109.34 ac. 166.63 ac. Cottage and Attached Re1d_ent141 Total Residential 275.97 ac. PRD Residential Densities Suburban SFD Residential Density 0.96 DU /AC Cottage and Attached Residential bensity 3.31 DU /A Total Redfields PRD Density 2.38 DU /AC REALTORS Serving Central Virginia Sbuv 1944 August 6, 2001 Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Director Of Planning & Community Development County of Albemarle 401 Mclntie'Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Wayne; Re: ZMA- 200 -001 Redfields Phase 4 On Wednesday night you will be considering Phase 4 of Redfields subdivision including the rezoning of. an adjoining 9:4 acres which has been acquired by Redfields and the addition of 10 large lots to the original development plan. After many months of work with the Planning Staff and numerous redesigns and .compromises,. which included the elimination of one cul de sac, the connection of two others into a neighborhood loop road, and the proffer of a lengthy sidewalk and an. easement for a greenbelt trail, we brought forward a plan which enjoyed strong staff support. We also worked closely with the Service Authority to eliminate two .sewer - pumping stations and instead provide an expensive gravity solution byextending a view dine several thousand feet frorn the Maury Creek'intercepta at the Fontaine Business Park: The resulting plan was financially viable and in keeping with the previous .phases of Redfields which have been developed over the last dozen years. On July 10th, however, the Planning Commission recommended several changes, which have significant financial impact and more importantlymake a lie of the, assurances� we. have made to the residences of the Redfields.and Sherwood Farms communities for the last 12 years. We believe those changes were made capriciously and with less than accurate information. We ask that you reconsider their action and approve the original plan. The first change that we would like for you to consider is the elimination of lots 117 —120. Inahis instance; I believe the Planning Commission was dealing with misinformation. According to the meeting minutes, they attempted to review the old records to "discern what the original approval hinged upon": Mr: Rooker stated; "there was'significant concern about a buffer from the residents of Sherwood Farms ". A careful review of the historical file shows that at the. January 4, 1989 Planuiri g Commission Public. Hearing there was .extended discussion of the future of Phase 5 (then described .as Phase 6 or lot 106). This portion of the property was not then and is not now in the county's designated growth area and is not a part of this request. The only other. comment was from Sherwood Farms resident Norma Diehl. She asked that there be an undisturbed buffer between iVilh Offres Located in Charlottesville • Lovingston.• F7uvanna • Orange • Aladison 500 Mesyielel Road • Charlottesville, L irtiriuiet. 22901 • (804) 973 -5393 • Fax (804) 951 -7100 • tb'()'0) 179.3-53932 1990 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing there was not discussion of a buffer from the residents of Sherwood Farms. Other than a few comments about Phase.5, the only other public comment was. from. Sherwood Farms resident Wayne Olive. He expressed concern "about the density of the proposed development and the possibility that there may someday be an access to the development. from Route 29 South, through the Sherwood Farms subdivision ". The only Discussion of a buffer dealt with a 20 -foot buffer from the common boundary with )Vintergreen - - - Farm. on the other side of the property. In fact, in response to a question from Ms. Humphris, Ron Keeler of the planning staff states, "the Zoning Ordinance sets 20 feet as the. minimum width for a landscaped buffer; however; the provisions in the Zoning Ordinance do not apply to buffers separating two properties developed with single family residences ". It. should also be pointed out that Lots 23 — 25 in Phase, lB of Redfields were previously approved with no open space buffer from Sherwood Farms and no comment from Sherwood Farms residents. . Mr. Rooker also stated that there was concern about building above a certain. elevation. A review of the file shows that the only comment relevant to, elevation was in. the staff report and dealt with providing water pressure at elevations. above 580 feet. The building sites on Lots. 117 & 118. are approximately 566 feet, while those on lots 119 & 120 are at approximately 500 feet. It should be noted..thai in the adjoining phase of Redfields homes on Lots 72 — 77 are-at-elevations similar to the-highest home sites in Phase 4, while lots 75 — 76 in Phase 3B are approximately 50 feet higher. The minutes of the July 10, .2001 Planning Commission meeting also reveal another piece of misinformation, which may have influenced the decision to eliminate lots 117 —120.: n response to a question from Mr. Thomas, Mr. Barnes of the planning staff indicated lots 117 —118 were "30 feet from the.property line and 100 feet from the nearest residence ". He went on to say that "lot 11.9 was 50 feet from the property line ". Actually, after adding the required 20 -foot rear yard building setback, the building sites on lots 117 —118 are at least 200 feet away from the nearest residences in Sherwood Farms .and the property line is 170 feet away. It should also be noted that one of the affected residences in Sherwood Farms is only 230 feet away. from their nearest neighbor in Sherwood Farms, so the building separations in dispute are not materially different from existing conditions within Sherwood Farms. Further, the building sites on lots 119 120 are at least 360 feet- from the nearest residence in Sherwood Farms. Finally, Mr. Rieley expressed a dislike for homes on private drives in the growth area; however, similar,home sites were provided and approved in two previous phases of Redfields. Due to the additional . acreage and privacy they have proven to be some of our most popular home sites and provide additional choices within a relatively densely populated development within the ggrowth area. Certainly this :is better public policy than creating another two -acre home site in the -rural area. In summary, while according to Mr. Keeler, there is no provision in the ordinance. for a buffer between single - family residential.developments, a band of open space of between 30 50. --feet has been.provided: In,addition, the actual home sites are at least 200 feet from the nearest neighbor in Sherwood Farms. This results in a separation between residences not unlike existing. conditions within Sherwood Farms. Finally, a.-review of the historical'file shows a total of one comment, which addressed .the issue of a buffer at all. For these reasons, we feel that lots 117 — 1.20 should be reinstated to Phase 4 of Redfields.. The second provision that we would like for you to change is the requirement that Redfields preserve a right of way for access to Route 29. This request presents us with a number of difficulties, the most important of which is that for the last 12 years we have steadfastly assured the residents of Redfields and Sherwood Farms that no such thing would take place. In our earliest studies of the Redfields property, we tried to engineer our main entrance from Route 29. Engineers from Gloeckner and Osborne and The Cox Company studied the property 'exhaustively and concluded that there was no way to build a road from Teel Lane up over the railroad and Moore's Creek, across a significant area in excess of 25 percent slopes and onto the plateau of Redfields. They stated that the site and terrain would not permit a road that could meet VDOT requirements for curvatures and gradients. The amount of traffic that could be anticipated would require road. standards that could not be met. Reluctantly, we connected to the maze of roads that led to Redfields prior to the Fifth Street Extended improvements. Redfields Road was designed as an interior connector road within the subdivision. It was not designed and extra right of way was not provided for it to become a major county.--artery. The safety of our homeowners, their children, and pets would be severely compromised if such a road were ever able to be built. Over the years, in all of our discussions with the homeowners in Sherwood Farms; we have never proposed a vehicular connection. In fact, one of the advantages of the site plan before you is that it permanently closes an old 25 -foot right of way that did exist from Redfields through Sherwood Farms. A review of the historical file also shows that at every public hearing on the initial Redfields PRD rezoning, opposition was expressed for any connection of the Redfields.and Sherwood Farms subdivisions. In our original rezoning in 1989 -90 we proffered "No access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms subdivision ".. The Albemarle County Board.-of Supervisors and the Plan:=* g Commission unanimously approved the Redfields PRD and thatproffer. Interconnectiviiy is provided; for the residents by access. to the future Greenbelt trail system without creating a.busy thoroughfare with a dangerous terminus through the middle of a residential neighborhood. The requirement that aright of way be preserved in the middle of what will soon be a built out subdivision also creates a financial hardship. It removes. at least three potential home sites and seriously affects the market value. of dozens more. It also. negatively impacts the value of many existing homes in Redfields. For all of these reasons we ask that you remove this onerous requirement. Thank you `for your consideration of this request. Please give me a call if you have questions or desire additional information. e o ague, N Redfields evelopment Corporation