HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-14
I
I ,
!
,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FIN A L
NOVEMBER 14, 2007
LANE AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
I
:
,
3:30 P.M.
1.
2.
3.
Cc II to Order.
WDrk Session: Five Year Financial Plan.
. f^~ I '&. ,--- ,
._ _00_' .'"
(R~move from agenda)
{ III I \ ."t ^ 'L
\" -,
-.. U:~lo. ~
."'.
f. .:';
"'
,~_... ._.:^~
4. 5: 5 D.m. - Recess.
!
,
:
6:00 P.M.
5. Call to Order.
6. PIE dge of Allegiance.
7. Me ment of Silence.
8. Fr< m the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
9. Fr< m the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
10. COflsent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC H ARINGS:
11. PF; OJECT: SP-2006-0031. Glen Oaks Stream Crossina. PROPOSED: Fill in the floodplain of Limestone Creek
for a road crossing over the creek to provide access for residential development. LOCATION: Running Deer Drive
[Rl ute 808], approximately 1.1 miles from its intersection with Richmond Road [Route 250]. TAX MAP/PARCEL:
Ta Map 94, Parcels 15, 16, 16A. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
12. PROJECT: ZMA-2006- 016. Glenmore Section K2 Leake ProDer1'l. PROPOSED: Rezone 110.94 acres from
R.A - Rural Area zoning district which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5
uni~acre) to PRO - Planned Residential District - residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to
all( w for 110 dwelling units. This proposal is an expansion of the Glenmore PRO and does not include commercial
USl s. Proposed density is approx. 1 unit/acre. PROFFERS: Yes. LOCATION: 1.25 miles south of the intersection
of ~oute 250 East and Hacktown Road, North of the Rivanna River, west of Carroll Creek, and east of the
Development Area boundary. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 94, Parcel 16, 74, and 16A (portion therof) and Tax
Map 93A 1, Parcel 1. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
13. PRbJECT: SP-2007-0026. Crozet Station. PROPOSED: 30 residential units to be located above the existing
Cre zet Shopping Center buildings and a parking structure addition to the northeast corner of the site. LOCATION:
Crpzet Shopping Center, north of Three Notch'd Road(Route 240); approx. % mile east of its intersection with Rt.
811 . TAX MAP/PARCEL: 56A2-01-29. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
14. PROJECT: ZMA-2007-005. Avon Park II. PROPOSED: Rezone 5.17 acres from R-1 Residential (1 unit/acre) to
R-E Residential (6 units/acre) The proposal is to allow development of 31 townhouse and single family units.
PRpFFERS: Yes. LOCATION: Avon Street Extended, approx. 1,000 feet north of the intersection of Avon Street
Ext. and Route 20, south of existing Avon Court. TAX MAP/ PARCEL: Tax Map 90, Parcel 31. MAGISTERIAL
DI~ TRICT: Scottsville.
15. PRbJECT: ZMA-2007- 0012 Blue Ridae Cohousina. PROPOSED: Rezone 7.3 acres from RA -- Rural Areas:
agr cultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) to PRO Planned Residential District _
res dential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to include a maximum of 26 dwelling units, a
corpmunity center, and no commercial uses. PROFFERS: Yes. LOCATION: Approximately 300 yards from Three
Notched Road along Parkview Drive near the crossing of Parrot Branch Creek. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 57,
Parcel 67 A and a portion of Tax Map 56, Parcel 67B. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
16. From the Board: Committee Reports.
17. Adjourn to Tuesday, November 27,2007,12:00 noon, Room 235, Joint Meeting with Legislators.
II
II
I!
, I
I!
: !
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR INFORMATION:
10.1 Alternative Engineering Review Pilot Program Report.
10.2 Copy of letter dated October 30,2007, from Ronald L. Higgins, Manager of Zoning Administration, to Stephen T.
McLean, McLean- Faulconer, Inc., re: OFFICIAL DETERMINA nON OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS -- Tax Map 90B, Parcel A-11 (Property of the University of Virginia Foundation) Section 10.3.1. -
Scottsville Magisterial District.
II
I
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TENTATIVE
NOVEMBER 14, 2007
LANE AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
.
3:30 P.M.
1 . Call to Order.
2. Work Session: Five Year Financial Plan.
3. Discussion: Jefferson Institute for Lifelong Learning (JILL) at Albemarle High School, facility construction.
4. 5: 15 O.m. - Recess.
6:00 P.M.
5. Call to Order.
6. Pledge of Allegiance.
7. Moment of Silence.
8. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
9. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
10. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
11. PROJECT: SP-2006-0031. Glen Oaks Stream Crossina. PROPOSED: Fill in the floodplain of Limestone Creek
for a road crossing over the creek to provide access for residential development. LOCATION: Running Deer Drive
[Route 808], approximately 1.1 miles from its intersection with Richmond Road [Route 250]. TAX MAP/PARCEL:
Tax Map 94, Parcels 15, 16, 16A. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
12. PROJECT: ZMA-2006- 016. Glenmore Section K2. Leake Prooertv. PROPOSED: Rezone 110.94 acres from
RA - Rural Area zoning district which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit/acre) to PRO - Planned Residential District - residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to
allow for 110 dwelling units. This proposal is an expansion of the Glenmore PRO and does not include commercial
uses. Proposed density is approx. 1 unit/acre. PROFFERS: Yes. LOCATION: 1.25 miles south of the intersection
of Route 250 East and Hacktown Road, North of the Rivanna River, west of Carroll Creek, and east of the
Development Area boundary. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 94, Parcel 16, 74, and 16A (portion therof) and Tax
Map 93A1, Parcel 1. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
13. PROJECT: SP-2007-0026. Crozet Station. PROPOSED: 30 residential units to be located above the existing
Crozet Shopping Center buildings and a parking structure addition to the northeast corner of the site. LOCATION:
Crozet Shopping Center, north of Three Notch'd Road(Route 240); approx. % mile east of its intersection with Rt.
810. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 56A2-01-29. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
14. PROJECT: ZMA-2007-005. Avon Park II. PROPOSED: Rezone 5.17 acres from R-1 Residential (1 unit/acre) to
R-6 Residential (6 units/acre) The proposal is to allow development of 31 townhouse and single family units.
PROFFERS: Yes. LOCATION: Avon Street Extended, approx. 1,000 feet north of the intersection of Avon Street
Ext. and Route 20, south of existing Avon Court. TAX MAP/ PARCEL: Tax Map 90, Parcel 31. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Scottsville.
15. PROJECT: ZMA-2007- 0012. Blue Ridae Cohousina. PROPOSED: Rezone 7.3 acres from RA -- Rural Areas:
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) to PRO Planned Residential District _
residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to include a maximum of 26 dwelling units, a
community center, and no commercial uses. PROFFERS: Yes. LOCATION: Approximately 300 yards from Three
Notched Road along Parkview Drive near the crossing of Parrot Branch Creek. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 57,
Parcel 67 A and a portion of Tax Map 56, Parcel 67B. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of November 14, 2007
No "ember 19, 2007
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMEN
1. Call to Order.
. Meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m., by the
Chairman, Mr. Boyd. All BOS members were !
present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry I
, Davis, Ella Jordan, and Meagan Hoy.
2. Work Session: Five Year Financial Plan. County Executive/OMB: Pro( eed as directed.
. HELD.
. DIRECTED staff to check the VRS rates in the
latest VML Newsletter, to bring back how the
Governmental CPI compares to the projected
figure used by Albemarle County, and
DISCUSSED various assumptions in the 5 year
financial plan. Scheduled further discussion for
December 12, 2007.
4. Recess.
. At 5:37 p.m., the Board went into closed session
under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel
and staff regarding specific matters requiring
legal advice relating to an interjurisdictional
aQreement.
5. Call to Order.
. Meeting was called back to order at 6:08 p.m., by
the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
NonAgenda.
. Motion was immediately offered to certify the
Closed Session which passed by a vote of 6:0.
NonAgenda. Clerk: Forward copy of signe resolution to
. ADOPTED Resolution supporting YMCA facility. City of Charlottesville and yrv CA.
(Attachment 1)
8. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. County Executive's office: Re search issue
Ken Boyd: and draft letter for Chairman' signature.
. Suggested drafting letter from Board to State
Legislators requesting they consider limiting
interest percentage charged for pay day loans.
Consensus of Board to support.
9. From the Public: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
. Rosia Parker, member of Transformation
Ministries, First Baptist Church, a member of
IMPACT, asked the Board to include in its budget
for next year funds to address affordable housing
needs in the community.
. John Giuliano expressed concerns about an Amelia McCulley: Determine if tower violates
additional tower installed on John Adams County ordinance.
property in the County. Discussed potential
health concerns caused by radiation exposure to
cell towers. (Dennis Rooker asked staff to see if
the tower violates the County's Ordinance.)
. John Martin, a resident of Free Union, requested
that County staff be involved in the cost-sharing
negotiations between the City and County for
future water supply.
11. SP-2006-0031. Glen Oaks Stream Crossina. Clerk: Set out conditions of c pproval.
1
11
. APPROVED SP-2007 -0031, by a vote of 6:0, (Attachment 2)
subject to the four conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission and a 5th condition
added at the Board meetinQ.
12. ZMA-2006- 016. Glenmore Section K2. Leake Clerk: Set out applicant's pre ffers.
Property. (Attachment 3)
. APPROVED ZMA-2006-016, by a vote of 6:0, as
proffered dated November 14, 2007, signed
November 13, 2007, and the Application Plan dated
November 14,2007.
13. SP-2007-0026. Crozet Station. Clerk: Set out conditions of c pproval.
. APPROVED SP-2007-0026, by a vote of 6:0, (Attachment 2)
subject to the eight conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission and modified at the
Board meetinQ.
14. ZMA-2007 - 005. Avon Park II. Clerk: Set out applicant's pr( ffers.
. APPROVED ZMA-2007 -005, by a vote of 6:0, as (Attachment 4)
proffered dated November 2, 2007 and application
plan last revised October 19, 2007.
15. ZMA-2007 - 012. Blue Ridae Cohousina. Clerk: Set out applicant's pre ffers.
. APPROVED ZMA-2007-012, by a vote of 5:1, as (Attachment 5)
proffered dated November 14, 2007 and application
plan dated October 19, 2007 which reflects waiver
of building separation requirements of Section 19.8.
. APPROVED, by a vote of 5:1, the private street
request for Park View Drive, waivers of Sections 14-
410 H regarding curb/gutter requirements for Park
View Drive and waivers of Sections 14-422 A & 0
regarding the planting strip and sidewalk
requirements for Park View Drive.
. SET, by a vote of 6:0, public hearing on a request to Clerk: Advertise and schedul e public hearing
amend the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle on January 9th agenda.
County Service Authority to allow water and sewer
service on this orooertv for January 9,2008.
16. From the Board: Committee Reports.
Dennis Rooker:
. Provided Board members with copies of
materials he collected from various sessions at
I the recent VACo meeting.
Ken Boyd:
. Attended a session on Cool Counties at the
VACo meeting. He will forward to Mr. Tucker
materials on what other counties are doing.
(Dennis Rooker stated that he would be making a
motion to adopt a Cool Counties resolution at the
next Board meeting.)
Sally Thomas:
. Discussed City Council's November 19, 2007
meeting in which they will be discussing the
community's future water supply.
17. Adjourn to Tuesday, November 27,2007, 12:00
noon, Room 235, Joint Meeting with Legislators.
. The meetinQ was adiourned at 10:17 p.m.
ewj/mrh
Attachment 1 - YMCA Resolution
Attachment 2 - Conditions of Approval on Planning items
Attachment 3 - Proffers - ZMA-2006-016. Glenmore Section K2, Leake Property
2
Attachment 4 - Proffers - ZMA-2007-005. Avon Park II
Attachment 5 - Proffers - ZMA-2007 -012. Blue Ridge CoHousing
3
RESOLUTION ENDORSING
YMCA FACILITY
Attachment 1
BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby sup orts a YMCA
facility at either the Piedmont Virginia Community College or Mcintire Park site subject to an acceptable
agreement; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors intends to allocate funds from its
Capital Improvements Program (CIP) that could be spent on a facility at either location; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors looks forwa d to working
collaboratively and cooperatively with the City of Charlottesville and the YMCA in pursuan of this worthy
undertaking.
4
1 )
2)
3)
4)
5)
ttachment 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PROJECT: SP-2006-0031. Glen Oaks Stream Crossina.
The stream crossing shall be built in general accord with the plan titled "SP 06-031
Plan," revised "Aug. 01,2007," and prepared by Roudabush, Gale, & Associates, In .,
Any subdivision on the portion of the property designated as Rural Areas in the Co prehensive
Plan shall be designed in general accord with the plan titled Glenoaks, dated "8/1/0 ", and
prepared by "kg Associates." The development lots east of Limestone Creek and L t 26 shall be
developed as a Rural Preservation Development in accord with Section 10.3.3.3 of he Zoning
Ordinance, with Lot 26 as the preservation tract. As part of the same subdivision, th applicant
shall convey to the County a portion of Lot 10 (whose boundaries are approved by t e Parks and
Recreation department) for use as a greenway;
The dam shall allow for a continuation of the base flow in the stream; and
The following conditions shall be met prior to issuance of a grading permit to allow i stallation of
the stream crossing or submittal of the final subdivision plat, whichever comes first:
a) The applicant must obtain a map revision, letter of revision, or letter of ame dment as
required from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and c py the County
Engineer on all correspondence between the applicant and FEMA;
County approval of an erosion and sediment control plan for the stream cro sing;
County approval of the final lane configuration over the stream crossing wit the final
road plans;
Natural Resources Manager approval of a stream buffer mitigation plan in general accord
with the conceptual plan shown on the plan titled "SP 06-031 Application PI n," revised
"Aug. 01, 2007," and prepared by Roudabush, Gale, & Associates, Inc;
County approval of final design plans and hydrologic/hydraulic computation for the
stream crossing;
Army Corp of Engineers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, an~ other
necessary state and federal agency approvals must be obtained prior to iss~ance of
grading permits; and
Approval of the final design of the dam by the Department of Conservation nd
Recreation, as necessary.
Prior to final plat approval of the private road across the creek, there shall be a priv te road
maintenance agreement that includes provisions for maintenance, repair and future replacement
of the dam, when necessary, in a form acceptable to the County as approved by th County
Attorney. All costs of this maintenance or repair agreement shall be privately funde . The
landowner's private responsibility for dam maintenance or repair shall be stated in very deed
transferring ownership of the lots served by this crossing in a statement approved i form and
content by the County Attorney. The County shall not be responsible for any costs f the
maintenance, repair or future replacement of the private road or dam.
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
PROJECT: SP-2007-0026. Crozet Station.
1. Development shall be in general accord with the concept plan entitled, "Crozet Stati n, prepared
by Atwood Architects, Inc. dated May 23,2007 and last revised November 14,200 ", Sheet A/O
and Sheets SP1-SP5;
2. The final site plan shall not be approved until the applicant has provided evidence t at an
easement has been executed to provide inter-parcel access to the property to the est;
3. There shall be no disturbance of the stream buffer;
4. Affordable and moderately-priced housing shall be provided as follows:
A. Affordable housinq units. The Owner shall provide five (5) residential dwelli g units as
affordable housing for sale. The five (5) units shall be comprised of one (1) r more of the
following unit types: single-family attached housing or multi-family condomi iums. The
Owner or his successor in interest reserves the right to achieve the five (5) ffordable
5
units in a variety of ways, utilizing the above mentioned unit types alone or in combination
as outlined below. The first subdivision plat or site plan for the Property sh II designate
the five (5) lots or units, as applicable, subject to the terms and conditions 0 this
condition, that will be the affordable units as described herein. The Owner hall convey
the responsibility of constructing the affordable units to any subsequent pur haser of the
subject property. The current Owner or subsequent Owner shall create uni s affordable
to households with incomes less than eighty percent (80%) of the area me ian
income, such that housing costs consisting of principal, interest, real estate taxes and
homeowner's insurance (PITI) do not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gr ss household
income, provided, however, that in no event shall the selling price of such a ordable units
be more than sixty-five percent (65%) of the applicable Virginia Housing De elopment
Authority (VHDA) sales price/loan limits for VHDA's first-time homebuyer
programs, provided that the selling price shall not be required to be less th nOne
Hundred Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($190,400) at the beginni g of the
ninety (90) day identification and qualification period referenced below. Th Owner or his
successor in interest may provide down payment assistance in the form of econdary
financing to reduce the costs to the homebuyer, so that the resultant first m rtgage and
housing costs remain at, or below, the parameters described above. All fin ncial
programs or instruments described above must be acceptable to the primar mortgage
lender;
B. County Option for Cash In Lieu of Affordable Units. If at any time prior to th County's
approval of any preliminary site plan or subdivision plat for the subject prop rty which
includes one (1) or more for-sale affordable units, the Housing Office infor s the then-
current Owner/builder in writing that it may not have a qualified purchaser f r one or more
of the for-sale affordable dwelling units at the time that the then-current Ower/builder
expects the units to be completed, and that the County will instead accept cash
contribution to the County to support affordable housing programs in the a ount of
Nineteen Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($19,100) in lieu of each affordable unit, then
the then-current Owner/builder shall pay such cash contribution to the Cou ty prior to
obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the units that were originally planne to be
affordable units, and the then-current Owner/builder shall have the right to ell the units
without any restriction on sales price or income of the purchasers.
C. Work force housinQ units. The Owner shall provide twenty-five (25) residen ial dwelling
units for a sales price not to exceed three hundred thousand dollars ($300, 00) for the
first sale of each unit. The first subdivision plat or site plan for the Property hall
designate the twenty-five (25) lots or units, as applicable, subject to this co dition; and
D. Qualification period. All purchasers of for-sale affordable units shall be appr ved by the
Albemarle County Office of Housing or its designee. The Owner shall provi e the County
or its designee a period of ninety (90) days to identify and pre-qualify an eli ible
purchaser for the units. The ninety (90) day period shall commence upon ritten notice
from the Owner that the units will be available for sale. This notice shall no be given
more than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the anticipated receipt of the certificate
of occupancy. If the County or its designee does not provide a qualified pu chaser during
this ninety (90) day period, the Owner shall have the right to sell the units w thout any
restriction on sales price or income of purchaser(s); provided, however, tha any units
sold or leased without such restriction shall nevertheless be counted towar the number
of affordable units required to be provided pursuant to the terms of this con ition. If these
units are sold, this condition shall apply only to the first sale of each unit. N thing herein
shall preclude the then-current Owner/builder from working with the County Housing
Department prior to the start of the notification periods described herein in n effort to
identify qualifying purchasers for affordable units.
E. Inspection of records. The County shall have the right, upon reasonable notice and
subject to all applicable privacy laws, to periodically inspect the records of t e Owner or
any successors in interest for the purposes of assuring compliance with this condition.
6
5. Residential amenities such as an outdoor plaza, paved path to the greenway, or civ c green area
shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director as shown on the cone pt plan
entitled, "Crozet Station, prepared by Atwood Architects, Inc. dated May 23,2007 a d revised
October 29, 2007", Sheets SP2 and SP3;
6. Street trees shall be provided along the Route 240 frontage. The street trees shall eet the
minimum size, types of species, and spaced as determined by the County's Archite tural Review
Board;
7. The final site plan shall not be approved until the applicant has provided an access rea to the
greenway dedication in the north-west section of the property as shown on Sheet S 2 of the
Concept Plan entitled, "Crozet Station, prepared by Atwood Architects, Inc. dated ay 23,2007
and revised October 29, 2007"; and
8. Water quality and water quantity treatment shall be based on an assumed pre-exist ng cover of
twenty percent (20%) for the site.
7
II
Attachment 3
Original Proffer _X_
Amended Proffer
(Amendment # _)
PROFFER FORM
Date: November 14. 2007
ZMA # 2006-016
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) Tax Map 93 Parcels A1-1. A5-1 and Tax Map Parcel 94-74
and portions of Tax Map 94 Parcels 15. 16. 16A.
111 .73 Acres to be rezoned from
PRD/RA
to
PRO
The Owner hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors acts to rezone
the Property from the RA to the PRO zoning district as requested, the Owner shall develop the Property in
accord with the following proffered development conditions (each, a "Proffer," and collectively, the
"Proffers"), which the Owner acknowledges are reasonable, pursuant to Section 15.2-2303 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, and pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. If
rezoning application ZMA 2006-015 is denied, these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no
force and effect.
This Proffer Statement shall relate to the Application Plan entitled "Master Plan, Glenmore", dated
November 2, 1990, and prepared by Clower Associates, Inc., the Application Plan entitled "Glenmore
Planned Residential Development Application Plan for ZMA 99-016, dated April 12, 2000 and more
specifically the plan entitled, "Glenmore Section K-2" , dated June 15, 2007, last revised November 14,
2007, and prepared by Roudabush, Gale, and Associates, Inc.
1. The development of the Property shall be limited to those uses allowed by right under Section
19.3.1 (1), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and (11) and those uses allowed by special use permit under
Section 19.3.2(2), (4), (8), (9), (10) and (11) of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County,
Virginia (hereinafter referred to as the "Zoning Ordinance" and the "County") as those Sections
are in effect on November 14, 2007, copies of which are attached hereto. The residential
development on the Property shall not exceed one-hundred ten (110) single family units. Of the
one-hundred ten (110) single family dwelling units, seventy-six (76) single family dwelling
units are in addition to, and not counted as part of, the eight hundred thirteen (813) units
authorized in Glenmore PRO by ZMA 99-016; thirty-four (34) single family dwelling units are
counted as part of the the eight hundred thirteen (813) units authorized in Glenmore PRO by ZMA
99-016.
2. In order to establish a future public greenway trail for the County along the Rivanna River, within
one (1) year after the date of approval of ZMA 2006-1016, the Owner shall dedicate in fee simple
to the County for public use no less than 43.45 acres in greenway area, as shown on Attachment
A, entitled "Glenmore Greenway Trail, Final Exhibit," prepared by Roudabush, Gale, and
Associates, Inc. and dated June 18, 2007 (the "Greenway Trail Area"). Such Greenway Trail Area
may be increased as mutually agreed by the Owner and the County and includes the greenway
area originally intended to be included in the greenway pursuant to proffer no. 6 of "ZMA 79-16"
(such proffer correctly identified as proffer no. 6 of "ZMA 97-16) and the additional area
comprising a minimum of 14.98 acres proffered pursuant to this ZMA 2006-016.
a. Prior to dedication of the Greenway Trail Area to the County, no buildings shall be
constructed, or erected within the Greenway Trail Area without the consent of the County
and it shall be otherwise preserved in its natural state except for establishing pedestrian
8
and riding trails and general beautification including, but not limited to, the c earing of
underbrush, removal of dead trees and shrubs, and cleanup of the river.
b. Prior to dedication of the Greenway Trail Area to the County, the Owner ma grant
across the Greenway Trail Area utility easements, access easements to th Rivanna
River for residents of Glenmore and members and guests of the Glenmore Country Club
and may build riding trails or make similar uses of the area, provided that s ch utility and
access easements allow the County's use of the surface of the easement a ea to be used
as a greenway, including the establishment of signs, benches and other ac essory
improvements, and do not otherwise interfere with the County's future use f the
Greenway Trail Area as a greenway.
c. The Owner shall convey the Greenway Trail Area by Deed of Gift and Ease ent
Agreement. The Deed shall be accompanied by a subdivision plat depictin the
Greenway Trail Area and bearing a notation that the Greenway Trail Area i dedicated for
public use, subject to provisions and reservations contained within the Dee . If, at the
time of dedication, the Greenway Trail Area is not dedicated by an accomp nying
subdivision plat, the Owner shall pay the costs of surveying the Greenway rail Area,
preparing the subdivision plat or other depiction thereof acceptable to the 0 rector of
Community Development and the County Attorney, and preparing and reco ding the
Deed, and further provided that the Deed is in a form approved by the Cou ty Attorney.
d. After dedication, the Greenway Trail Area shall continue to be counted as 0 en space for
the purposes of the Glenmore Master Plan and required density.
3. To offset public expenditure on Capital Improvement Projects, the Owner shall cont ibute
sixteen-thousand five-hundred ninety dollars ($16,590) in cash for the purposes of f nding
transportation, public safety, school, parks and library improvements to offset public expenditure
on Capital Improvement Projects. The per lot cash contribution shall be paid to Alb marle County
prior to the issuance of a building permit for each lot.
4. To provide capital for Albemarle County's Affordable Housing Program, the Owner hall
contribute two-thousand nine-hundred fifty-two dollars ($2,952) in cash for each dw lling lot on
the Property to provide capital for Albemarle County's Affordable Housing Program. The per lot
cash contribution shall be paid to Albemarle County prior to the issuance of a buildi g permit for
each lot.
5. Beginning January 1, 2008, the amount of cash contribution required by Proffer nu ber 3 shall be
adjusted annually until paid, to reflect any increase or decrease for the preceding c lendar year in
the Comparative Cost Multiplier, Regional City Average, Southeast Average, Categ ry C:
Masonry Bearing Walls issued by Marshall Valuation Seryice (a/k/a Marshall & Swi ) (the "Index")
or the most applicable Marshall & Swift index determined by the County if Marshall Swift
ceases publication of the Index identified herein. In no event shall any cash contrib tion amount
be adjusted to a sum less than the amount initially established by these proffers. T e annual
adjustment shall be made by multiplying the proffered cash contribution amount for he preceding
year by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in th year
preceding the calendar year most recently ended, and the denominator of which sh II be the
Index as of December 1 in the preceding calendar year. For each cash contribution that is being
paid in increments, the unpaid incremental payments shall be correspondingly adju ted each
year.
6. In order to provide a higher level of Erosion and Sediment Control than is required y current
State and Local regulation, the Owner shall adopt construction procedures and pra tices that limit
the amount of disturbed area and provide enhanced protection for areas historically prone to
erosion. These procedures and practices shall include:
a. Limit construction activity such that not more than 30 acres of the project is isturbed at
any point in time. For the purposes of this proffer, disturbed areas will be d termined by
the Program Authority based on the active E&S plan with adjustments to in lude
additional areas of disturbance and exclude areas where permanent stabili ation has
been installed.
b. Utilize wire reinforced silt fence to control runoff from building construction.
9
c. Utilize permanent seed and matting to stabilize all slopes steeper than 3H:1 .
d. Modifications to the above may be granted by the Program Authority due to special
circumstances during review of the E&S plan.
-Signature Page Follows-
GLEN MORE ASSOCIATES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia limited partnership
BY: The Frank A. Kessler Declaration of Trust dated
November 18, 1996, as amended, General Partner
BY:
(SEAL)
Michael D. Comer, Successor Trustee
Date:
BY:
(SEAL)
Peggy B. Kessler, Successor Trustee
Date:
10
II
Attachment 4
Original Proffer L
PROFFER FORM
Date of Proffer Signature: November 2. 2007
ZMA # 2007-00005 Avon Park II
Tax Map 90 Parcel Number 31
5.17 Acres to be rezoned from R-1 to R-6
in accordance with the Application Plan of Terra Concepts, P.C.
dated April 30, 2007, last revised October 19, 2007)
Weather Hill Development, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, is the owner (the "Owner") of Tax
Map 90, Parcel 31 (the "Property") which is the subject of rezoning application ZMA 2007-00005 known
as "Avon Park II" (the "Project").
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby voluntarily
proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the Property, if rezoned with the offered
plans approved for development. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and
it is agreed that the conditions are reasonable.
1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Owner shall provide affordable housing equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the total residential
dwelling units within the Project in the form of for lease or for sale affordable dwelling units (the
"Affordable Dwelling Units" or "Affordable Units"). Each subdivision plat and site plan for land
within the Property shall designate the lots or units, as applicable, that will, subject to the terms
and conditions of this proffer, incorporate Affordable Units as described herein, and the aggregate
number of such lots or units designated for Affordable Units within each subdivision plat and site
plan shall constitute a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the lots in such subdivision plat or site
plan. .
In the event that the number of Affordable Dwelling Units to achieve 15% results in a fractional
unit, the Owner shall contribute cash to the County in a proportionate amount based on the
amount of $19,100. For example, if 15% equates to 4.5 Affordable Units, the Owner shall provide
4 Affordable Units pursuant to the terms described herein, and shall contribute cash to the County
in the amount of $9,550 be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for the first Affordable
Dwelling Unit.
A. The Affordable Dwelling Units shall be comprised of one or more of the following unit
types: single-family attached housing (townhouses), condominiums or apartments/flats. The
Owner or his successor in interest reserves the right to achieve the 15% Affordable Dwelling
Units in a variety of ways, utilizing the above mentioned unit types alone or in combination as
outlined below. The Owner shall convey the responsibility of constructing the affordable units to
any subsequent purchaser of the Property. The current Owner or subsequent Owner shall create
units affordable to households with incomes less than 80% of the area median family income (the
"Affordable Unit Qualifying Income"), such that housing costs consisting of principal, interest, real
estate taxes and homeowner's insurance (PITI) do not exceed 30% of the Affordable Unit
Qualifying Income; provided, however, that in no event shall the selling price of such Affordable
Units be more than sixty-five percent (65%) of the applicable Virginia Housing Development
Authority (VHDA) sales price/loan limits for VHDA's first-time homebuyer programs provided that
the selling price shall not be required to be less than One Hundred Ninety Thousand Four
Hundred Dollars ($190,400) at the beginning of the 90-day identification and qualification period
referenced below. The Owner or his successor in interest may at its option facilitate the provision
11
of down payment assistance loans to reduce the out-of-pocket cash requirement co ts to the
homebuyer, such as, but not limited to a "silent" second lien Deed of Trust, so that t e resultant
first mortgage and housing costs remain at or below the parameters described here n. All
financial programs or instruments described herein must be acceptable to the prim ry mortgage
lender. Any "silent" second lien Deed of Trust executed as part of this paragraph s all be
donated to the County of Albemarle or its designee to be used to address affordabl housing.
For purposes of calculating the price of the Affordable Dwelling Units, the value of eller-paid
closing costs shall be excluded from the selling price of such Affordable Dwelling U its.
i. For-Sale Affordable Units - All purchasers of for-sale Affordable Units
shall be approved by the Albemarle County Office of Housing or its designee. The wner shall
provide the County or its designee a period of ninety (90) days to identify and pre-q alifyan
eligible purchaser for the Affordable Units. The 90-day period shall commence upo written notice
from the Owner that the units will be available for sale. This notice shall not be give more than
120 days prior to the anticipated receipt of the certificate of occupancy. If the Count or its
designee does not provide a qualified purchaser during this ninety (90) day period, he
Owner shall have the right to sell the Unit(s) without any restriction on sales price 0 income of
purchaser(s); provided, however, that any Units(s) sold or leased without such restr ction shall
nevertheless be counted toward the number of Affordable Units required to be provi ed pursuant
to the terms of this proffer. If these Units are sold, this proffer shall apply only to the first sale of
each unit. Nothing herein shall preclude the then-current Owner/builder from worki g with the
County Housing Department prior to the start of the notification periods described h rein in an
effort to identify qualifying purchasers for Affordable Units.
ii. For-Rent Affordable Units
1. Rental Rates For-Lease Affordable Units The initial net re t for each
for-rent Affordable Unit when the Unit(s) is available for occupancy shall not exceed the then-
current and applicable maximum net rent as published by the County Housing Offic . In each
subsequent calendar year, the monthly net rent for each for-rent affordable unit ma be increased
up to three percent (3%). For purposes of this proffer statement, the term "net rent" eans that
the rent does not include tenant-paid utilities. The requirement that the rents for sue for-rent
Affordable Units may not exceed the maximum rents established in this paragraph A(ii)(1) shall
apply for a period of ten (10) years following the date the certificate of occupancy is issued by the
County for each for-rent Affordable Unit, or until the units are sold as affordable unit as defined
by the County's Affordable Housing Policy, whichever comes first (the "Affordable T rm").
2. Conveyance of Interest - All instruments conveying any int rest in the
for-rent affordable units during the Affordable Term shall contain language reciting t at such unit
is subject to the terms of this paragraph 1 A. In addition, all contracts pertaining to a conveyance
of any for-rent affordable unit, or any part thereof, during the Affordable Term shall ontain a
complete and full disclosure of the restrictions and controls established by this para raph 1 A(ii).
At least thirty (30) days prior to the conveyance of any interest in any for-rent afford ble unit
during the Affordable Term, the then-current owner shall notify the County in writing of the
conveyance and provide the name, address and telephone number of the potential rantee, and
state that the requirements of this paragraph 1A(ii) have been satisfied.
3. ReportinQ of Rental Rates - During the Affordable Term, within thirty (30)
days of each rental or lease term for each for-rent affordable unit, the then-current wner shall
provide to the Albemarle County Housing Office a copy of the rental or lease agree ent for each
such unit rented that shows the rental rate for such unit and the term of the rental 0 lease
agreement. In addition, during the Affordable Term, the then-current owner shall pr vide to the
County, if requested, any reports, copies of rental or lease agreements, or other dat pertaining
to rental rates as the County may reasonably require.
B. County Option for Cash In Lieu of Affordable Units. If at any time prior to th County's
approval of any preliminary site plan or subdivision plat for the subject property whi h includes
one or more for-sale Affordable Dwelling Units, the County's Housing Office informs the then-
current owner/builder in writing that it may not have a qualified purchaser for one or more of the
12
II
I
for-sale Affordable Dwelling Units at the time that the then-current owner/builder ex ects the units
to be completed, and that the County will instead accept a cash contribution to the County to
support affordable housing programs in the amount of Nineteen Thousand One Hur dred Dollars
($19,100) in lieu of each Affordable Unit(s), then the then-current owner/builder sha I pay such
cash contribution to the County prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the l nit(s) that
were originally planned to be Affordable Dwelling Units, and the then-current owner builder shall
have the right to sell the Unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of t e
purchaser(s). For the purposes of this proffer, such Affordable Dwelling Units shall be deemed to
have been provided when the subsequent owner/builder provides written notice to t le Albemarle
County Office of Housing or its designee that the Affordable Units(s) will be availabls for sale.
2. CASH PROFFER
A. The Owner shall contribute cash to the County in the following amounts for Each dwelling
unit constructed within the Property that is not an Affordable Dwelling Unit. The ca~ h contribution
shall be used to address the fiscal impacts of development on the County's public f cilities and
infrastructure (i.e., schools, public safety, libraries, parks and transportation) identifi 3d in the
County's Capital Improvements Program. The cash contributions shall be paid prio to issuance
of a building permit for the category of units described in this paragraph 2 in the foil wing
amounts:
i. Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($11,900) for each attached town
home/condominium unit that is not an Affordable Dwelling Unit
ii. Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($17,500) for each sin~ Ie family
detached dwelling unit.
iii. Zero Dollars ($0.00) for each Affordable Dwelling Unit
B. Annual Adjustment of Cash Proffers. Beginning January 1, 2008, the amou t of each
cash contribution required herein shall be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect an~ increase or
decrease for the preceding calendar year in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost In ex (the
"MSI"). In no event shall any cash contribution be adjusted to a sum less than the a l10unt initially
established by these proffers. The annual adjustment shall be made by multiplying he proffered
cash contribution amount for the preceding year by a fraction, the numerator of whil h shall be the
MSI as of December 1 in the year preceding the calendar year most recently ended, and the
denominator of which shall be the MSI as of December 1 in the preceding calendar year. For
each cash contribution that is being paid in increments, the unpaid incremental pay nents shall be
correspondingly adjusted each year.
3. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
A. The Owner shall, to the maximum extent practicable as determined by the ( ounty's
Program Authority, provide additional erosion and sediment controls to achieve a SE diment
removal rate of eighty percent (80%) for the Property. (As a reference, current regLlatory
structural measures achieve a 60% optimal removal rate).
[Signature Page Follows]
Weather Hill Development L.L.C.
By:
Marc C. Powell, Man ger
13
,
i
I
I
II
T
Attachment 5
Original Proffer L
PROFFER FORM
"Blue Ridge Cohousing"
Date of Proffer Signature: November 14, 2007
ZMA # 2007-00012
Tax Map Parcel- 56-67A and 56-67B (Portion)
6.15 Acres to be rezoned from RA to PRD
in accordance with the Application Plan of Blue Ridge Cohousing dated
June 25, 2007 and resubmitted and revised September 11, 2007 and October 1 ,2007
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby vol ntarily
proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned with thl offered
plans approved for development. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and
the Owner acknowledges that the conditions are reasonable.
1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Owner shall provide four (4) residential dwelling units as affordable housing for sale. The
four (4) units shall be comprised of one or more of the following unit types: single-fa llily attached
housing, single-family detached or multi-family condominiums. The Owner or his su cessor in
interest reserves the right to achieve the four (4) affordable units in a variety of way ,utilizing the
above mentioned unit types alone or in combination as outlined below. The first sub::livision plat
or site plan for the Property shall designate the four (4) lots or units, as applicable, t at will,
subject to the terms and conditions of this proffer, that will be the affordable units as described
herein. The Owner shall convey the responsibility of constructing the affordable uni s to any
subsequent purchaser of the subject property. The current Owner or subsequent 0\ ner shall
create units affordable to households with incomes less than eighty percent (80%) f the area
median income, such that housing costs consisting of principal, interest, real estate axes and
homeowner's insurance (PITI) do not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross hous hold income,
provided, however, that in no event shall the selling price of such affordable units be more than
sixty-five percent (65%) of the applicable Virginia Housing Development Authority (\ HDA) sales
price/loan limits for VHDA's first-time homebuyer programs provided that the selling price shall
not be required to be less than One Hundred Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Dolla s ($190,400)
at the beginning of the 90-day identification and qualification period referenced belo N. The
Owner or his successor in interest may provide down payment assistance in the for n of
secondary financing to reduce the costs to the homebuyer, so that the resultant first mortgage
and housing costs remain at, or below, the parameters described above. All financic I programs or
instruments described above must be acceptable to the primary mortgage lender.
A. For Sale Affordable Units. All purchasers of for-sale affordable units shall bE approved by
the Albemarle County Office of Housing or its designee. The Owner shall pr:lvide the
County or its designee a period of ninety (90) days to identify and pre-qualif an eligible
purchaser for the affordable units. The gO-day period shall commence upon written notice
from the Owner that the units will be available for sale. This notice shall not Je given
more than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the anticipated receipt of he certificate
of occupancy. If the County or its designee does not provide a qualified pur haser during
this ninety (90) day period, the Owner shall have the right to sell the units wi hout any
restriction on sales price or income of purchaser(s); provided, however, that any units
sold or leased without such restriction shall nevertheless be counted toward the number
of affordable units required to be provided pursuant to the terms of this profter. If these
14
units are sold, this proffer shall apply only to the first sale of each unit. Nothing herein
shall preclude the then-current Owner/builder from working with the County Housing
Department prior to the start of the notification periods described herein in an effort to
identify qualifying purchasers for affordable units.
The County shall have the right, upon reasonable notice and subject to all applicable
privacy laws, to periodically inspect the records of the Owner or any successors in
interest for the purposes of assuring compliance with this proffer.
B. County Option for Cash In Lieu of Affordable Units. If at any time prior to the County's
approval of any preliminary site plan or subdivision plat for the subject property which
includes one or more for-sale affordable units, the Housing Office informs the then-current
owner/builder in writing that it may not have a qualified purchaser for one or more of the for-
sale affordable dwelling units at the time that the then-current owner/builder expects the
units to be completed, and that the County will instead accept a cash contribution to the
County to support affordable housing programs in the amount of Nineteen Thousand One
Hundred Dollars ($19,100) in lieu of each affordable unit, then the then-current
owner/builder shall pay such cash contribution to the County prior to obtaining a certificate
of occupancy for the unit that were originally planned to be affordable units, and the then-
current owner/builder shall have the right to sell the units without any restriction on sales
price or income of the purchasers.
2. CASH PROFFER
The Owner or his successor in interest shall contribute a total of $286,200 cash to the County for
the purpose of mitigating impacts from this development. The cash contribution shall be used for
transportation improvements, schools, libraries, fire and rescue, parks or any other public use
serving Neighborhoods 4 & 5 as identified in the County's adopted capital improvements
program.
A. Contributions shall be payable as follows:
i. For new market rate attached townhome/condominium units: $11,900 each for
14 units payable prior to or at the time of issuance of the building permit for each
unit.
ii. For new market rate attached multifamily units: $12,400 each for 4 units payable
prior to or at the time of issuance of the building permit for each unit.
Iii For new market rate detached single family units: $17,SOO each for 4 units
payable prior to or at the time of issuance of the building permit for each unit.
B. Annual Adjustment of Cash Proffers. Beginning January 1, 2008, the amount of each
cash contribution required herein shall be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect any
increase or decrease for the preceding calendar year in the Comparative Cost Multiplier,
Regional City Average, Southeast Average, Category C: Masonry Bearing Walls issued
by Marshall Valuation Service (a/k/a Marshall & Swift) (the "Index") or the most applicable
Marshall & Swift index determined by the County if Marshall & Swift ceases publication of
the Index identified herein. In no event shall any cash contribution be adjusted to a sum
less than the amount initially established by these proffers. The annual adjustment shall
be made by multiplying the proffered cash contribution amount for the preceding year by
a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in the year
preceding the calendar year most recently ended, and the denominator of which shall be
the Index as of December 1 in the preceding calendar year. For each cash contribution
that is being paid in increments, the unpaid incremental payments shall be
correspondingly adjusted each year.
3. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
15
II I
RECEIVED AT BOS ME ~TING
I r Date: fI' 14 0 '1
Agenda Item II: ~ - W. ~ .
ClArk'S Initiafs:._iV1 ~I
Five Year Financial
Plan Review
"Develop a Comprehensive Funding
Strategy / Plan to Address the County's
Growing Needs"
Agenda
. Briefly Review Process
. Overview Results of Staff's Review
. Balanced 5 Year Plan
. A starting point for Board Review
. OMB Full Review of Plan Assumptions and
Results
. Board Discussion I Direction
I
1
II I
l .
Board Discussion / Direction
Questions?
. Given the current financial forecast, does the 5 Year
Financial Plan adequately address community needs
and the Board's desired direction?
. Does the Board agree with the goals established in the
development of the Plan?
. Does the Board agree with the revenue and expenditure
assumptions and the adjustments proposed to balance
the 5 year plan?
5 Year Financial Plan Process
1. Preliminary Board Direction
" Board Strategic Planning Retreat
" Joint Retreat with School Board
" Review of Revenue Alternatives
2. Staff Development of Balanced 5 Year Financial Plan
" Development of revenue and expenditure projections
" Preliminary review of current programs & services - process will continue in
the year ahead
" Balancing the plan to the greatest extent possible within Obligations, Board
Policy, Established Goals
3. Board Review and Approval of Balanced 5 Year Financial Plan
o Review and approval of assumptions
0 Consideration of Program & Service Levels
0 Direction on Board priorities
o Complete in December
2
i -~
II I
I
5 Year Financial Plan Process
. Assures focus on policy and long-term
. Creates Alignment
Strategic Plan-->5 Year Plan-->Annual Budget
. Identifies budget impact of Strategic priorities
and challenges on horizon
. Increases Board success in achieving its
priorities
. Provides broad direction for annual budget
process
5 Year Financial Plan Process
. Financial Planning Process - not next
year's budget or an adopted 5 year budget
. Based on the best information available as
of today
· Critical process to provide clear direction to
staff
. Balancing the Plan essential to establish
clear Board priorities
3
I ,
Result of Staffs Review
- A Starting Point for Board Review
. Goals established in development of plan
. Fund obligations & commitments
. Maintain core services
. Maintain competitive compensation
. Continue commitment to core public safety improvements
. Maintain commitment to capital program
· Maintain County's strong financial standing as reflected in
our AAA Bond Rating
· Maintain allocation of 60% of the increase in new local tax
revenue to the School Division
Result of Staffs Review
- A Starting Point for Board Review
. Revenues
. Overall
· 2.2% increase in year one, 5% average over 5 years
· Reflects downturn in housin~ market in first two years of plan
with slow recovery in years -5
. Real Estate
· -1 % reassessment in first year, modest increases over time
· Reduced new construction increases in first two years
. Other sources
· Includes new Emergency Medical Services fee revenue
· Reflects modest personal property and sales tax revenues in
year one, gradually increasing thereafter
· Reflects flat Federal and State Revenues over the 5 years
4
I I
Result of Staff s Review
- A Starting Point for Board Review
. Expenditures
. Overall
· 1.8% increase in year one; 5% average over 5 Years
. Reflects maintenance of core services
. Scales back some enhanced levels of service
. Increases
. Obligations & Commitments
. Fully meets projected 5 year obligations
. General Policy Commitments
. Maintains funding of School allocation formula
. Maintains commitment to competitive salaries
. Previous Board Goals and Direction
. Meets core public safety priorities
. Funds operating cost of committed capital projects
Staff Adjustments to Balance Plan
- A Starting Point for Board Review
. Expenditure Adjustments
. 16 frozen positions over the 5 years of the Plan
. 1 position eliminated
· Moves planned Pantops ambulance staffing out of the 5 Year Plan
· No funding of new initiatives for 5 years except core public safety
priorities
· Reduces market compensation increases by 1 % for 2 yrs (3.3% v. 4.3%)
· Department operational increases limited to 2%
· Assumes $350,000 in adjustments from reform and efficiency efforts _
additional review planned in year ahead
· Reduces capital transfer by 1 cent in years 2-5 of the Plan
. Revenue Adjustments
· Includes 1 cent tax increase in year 3 (FY11) of the Plan, assuming
revenues don't recover more quickly than projected
5
I I
Program & Service Review
. Overview
. Evaluation of current expenditures
· Program & Service delivery and value for dollars invested
. Core v. Enhanced levels of service
. Operational Efficiencies
. 10% target for multi-year approach
. What have we done?
. Departments submitted review of current operations
. Internal team performed initial review
· Some elements of the review are reflected in the Five Year Financial Plan
. Next steps
. Partner with Business Community to review budget process and
program/service review
. Program/service review becomes ongoing part of budget process
OMB Review
. Revenue Assumptions
. Expenditure Assumptions
. Results
6
,
Major Revenue Assumptions
. Tax rate
. Maintained at 68<1: in FY09-FY10
. Increased to 69<1: in FYll and out
. Real Estate
Reassessment New Construction
. 2008 - (1.0)% . 2008 - 2.4%
. 2009- 1.0% . 2009 - 2.5%
. 2010 - 2.0% . 2010 - 3.0%
. 2011- 3.0% . 2011-3.0%
. 2012 - 3.5% . 2012 - 3.0%
. 2013 - 4.0% . 2013 - 3.0%
. EMS Revenue Recovery starting in FY09
. Sales Tax flat in FY09, 4-5% in out years
. State and Federal revenues remain flat
Expenditure Assumptions
Obligations and Commitments
. Revenue sharing
· Major increase in FY10 ($3.4 M), smoothes out in subsequent
years
. Post Retirement Benefits (GASB 45)
. Use Health Fund's fund balance for FY08 and FY09
· Betnnin~ in FY10, fund from a combination of fund balance
an ongoing revenues
. Transfer to Comprehensive Services Act (CSA)
· 9-10% increases annually based on history and
new mental health mandate
. Regional Jail - 12% annual increase based on history
. ECC - 4-5% annual increase based on average
departmental increases
I
7
I
Expenditure Assumptions
General Policy - School Transfer
Expenditure Assumptions
General Policy - Capital Transfer
1.89
1.62
FY11 FY12 FY13
8
II ,
Expenditure Assumptions
General Policy
. Local Government Compensation
. Market Adjustments
. FY09 Market Study Recommendation - 4.35%
. Historical Market Increase - 3.75%
. Model: FY09 and FY10 - 3.35%
. Model: FY11-FY13-3.75%
. Merit - 0.7% annually
. Reclassifications/Other - 0.3% annually
. Increases $1.8 million in FY09 up to $2.9 million in FY13
. Department Operations and Capital Outlay
. Operations - 2% annually
. No capital outlay
. Slight decrease in FY09 up to $371,000 increase in FY13
. Agency Increases
. 4% annually
. Increases $530,000 in FY09 up to $630,000 in FY13
. Board Reserve - $300,000 per year
Expenditure Assumptions
Previous Goals / Directions
. Public Safety
. Four new police officers funded each year
. 12 firefighters starting in April 2009 for Pantops fire station
. 12 firefighters starting in March/April 2010 for East Ivy fire station
. No ambulance staffing included in five year plan
. Public Safety Training Facility - operating impacts begin in FY10
. Libraries
. Crozet Library operating impacts in FY11
. Northern Library operating impacts moved out of five year plan
. Other Capita/Impacts
. Access Albemarle
. Recycling Centers
. Crozet Area Growth Park
. Others
,
I
9
Expenditure Assumptions
Major Expenditure Reductions
. 16 Frozen Positions
. Positions frozen throughout five year plan
. Eliminated Housing Coordinator Position
. Other Reductions
. City I County Fire Contract in FY11
. Total Rewards
. Master Planning
. Vehicle Replacement FY10-12
. eCivis
. Program I Service Review
Summary of Changes
$ in millions
FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13
Obligations & Commitment, $1.0 $4.2 $1.0 $1.8 $2.2
General Policy 5.1 6.6 12.3 12.2 13.2
Previous Goals/Oirections 1.0 1.4 1.6 0.5 1.0
New Initiatives 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Expenditure Reductions (3.2) (0.2) (0.7) (0.1) 0.1
$4.0 $12.0 $14.3 $14.4 $16.5
10
Projected Revenues over Expenditures
Board Discussion / Direction
Questions?
· Given the current financial forecast, does the 5 Year
Financial Plan adequately address community needs
and the Board's desired direction?
· Does the Board agree with the goals established in the
development of the Plan?
· Does the Board agree with the revenue and expenditure
assumptions and the adjustments proposed to balance
the 5 year plan?
11
II I
. ' .
Board Discussion / Direction
. Goals?
. Fund obligations & commitments
. Maintain core services
. Maintain competitive compensation
· Continue commitment to core public safety improvements
· Maintain commitment to capital program
· Maintain County's strong financial standing as reflected in
our AAA Bond Rating
· Maintain School Division allocation
. Other critical goals?
Board Discussion / Direction
. Assumptions?
. Revenues
. Expenditures
. Adjustments?
· Frozen positions for 5 years
. No new initiatives for 5 years
. Reduction in compensation increases
. Reform and efficiency efforts
· Reduction in capital transfer
· 1 cent tax increase in year 3, assuming revenues don't
recover more quickly
12
I
Currently Frozen Positions
RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING
Date: II . lif . 0 l'
a-w.'j
Agenda Item #: . .
Clerk's Initials: 'm jJ
. Director of Management and Budget (beginning FY09)
. Organizational Development Manager
. Assistant County Attorney
. Tax Clerk Senior
. Finance Office Associate (beginning FY09)
. Animal Control Officer
. Civilian Patrol Assistant (Police Department)
. Police Investigator
. Eligibility Worker
. Mental Health & Substance Abuse Worker
. Senior Employment Services Worker
. Civil Engineer
. Planner
. Senior Planner
. Principal Planner
. Intake Support Specialist
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TI LE:
Five Year Fi ancial Plan
AGENDA DATE:
November 14, 2007
SUBJECT/P OPOSALlREQUEST:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
----
BACKGR UND:
Attached is the presentation from the recent Board of Supervisors strategic planning retreat regarding the 5 Year Financial
Plan. Staff's currently in the process of completing the revenue and expenditure forecasts and assumptions that will be used in
the plan for oard review. As the Board is aware, the significant downturn in the housing market will have a significant impact
on the reve ue picture this year. This will impact both the current fiscal year and the year ahead and is also reflected in the
financial pi n, with a slow recovery projected in years three through five of the plan. This information, as well as expenditure
forecasts, ill all be included in the 5 Year Financial Plan staff is finalizing for Wednesday's review and discussion. Staff has
also sched led an additional work session if needed in December to finalize the plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
For informa ion only.
ATTACHM NTS:
Attachment A - Five Year Financial Plan Presentation
I
Funding the County's Future Needs
-Five Year Financial Plan-
"Develop a Comprehensive Funding
Strategy/Plan to Address the County's
Growing Needs"
Revising the Financial
Planning/Budget Process
o What's changed?
o Benefit of changes?
o Focus of the 5 Year Financial Plan
Review
o Review schedule
I
1
I
I
What has changed?
o Greater focus on Board approval of
assumptions that drive budget over time
o More extensive review of expenditure
assumptions
o 5 Year Review moved from January to
November
o Requesting Board approval of balanced
5 Year Financial Plan
Benefits?
o Assures Policy and Long term focus
o Alignment
Strategic Plan-->S Year Plan-->Annual Budget
o Essential to achieve Board priorities
o Better identifies Strategic priorities and
challenges on horizon
o Clearer direction to staff overall
o Direction for annual budget process
,
2
I
Focus of Board review -
5 Year Revenue Assumptions
o Tax rates
o Property assessments
o Other Revenue Projections
o Alternative Revenue Sources
. EMS Billing/Revenue Recovery
. Proffer Policy and Impacts
. Service District Scenarios
. Stormwater Fees
Focus of Board review -
5 Year Expenditure Assumptions
D Mandates & Obligations
. CSA, Jail{ RWSA{ etc.
. City Revenue Sharing
D Financial policies
. 60/40 split of new revenues with Schools
. Capital funding allocation
. Market Salary Strategy
. Limit on operational increases
D Expenditure Priorities
. Police and Fire Rescue Coverage
. Master Plan Implementation
. Transportation and Transit Funding
. Other Strategic Plan priorities
I
I
3
Balancing Priorities & Growing
Demands
o Do our current funding allocations and
policies align with the growing
demands we face, goals you have set
and expectations of the public?
. Review current demands
. Review comparisons with other localities
regarding the levels of service provided
and cost
. Review current allocation and funding
policies
What's Ahead?
1. Review of Current County Spending
o Staff Review of Programs &. Services
o Board Review of assumptions, priorities
2. Clarifying Expenditure Priorities
o Board Strategic Planning Retreat
o Joint Retreat with School Board
3. Developing and Approving a Balanced
5 Year Financial Plan
o Review of Revenue Alternatives
o Board work sessions on plan
4. Annual Budget Process
o Based on 5 Year Financial Plan
o Capital Financing Plan
AU9-DeC
Seot-Oct
Oct-Dee
Jan-Aoril
,
4
I
I
Budget Reform - Revised Process
1. Greater Focus on Performance, Goals,
Indicators
2. Comprehensive review of current
programs and services
0 Identification of 'core' -vs- 'enhanced' services
0 Improvement in the way current programs or
services are delivered
0 Elimination or reduction in current programs and
services determined not to be a priority or which
have low service benefit per dollars spent
0 Operational Efficiencies
- -----.- --- ----~--
I
I
I
I
5
10
.
I'
Urban Development Areas (UDA) - ~15.2-2223.1, Code of Va.
1) Applicabilitv
By July 1, 2011, any county that adopted zoning and has either (i) a 1990-2000
population growth rate of 15% or more or (ii) a 2000 population of at least 20,000
persons and a 1990-2000 population growth rate of 5% or more is required to
incorporate one or more Urban Development Areas (UDA) in their comprehensive
plans.
a) 15% or more growth rate: Accomack, Albemarle, Amelia, Augusta, Bedford,
Botetourt, Brunswick, Buckingham, Caroline, Chesterfield, Craig, Culpeper,
Cumberland, Dinwiddie, Fairfax, Fluvanna, Franklin, Frederick, Gloucester,
Goochland, Greene, Greensville, Halifax, Hanover, Henrico, Isle of Wight, James
City, King George, King William, Loudoun, Louisa, Lunenburg, New Kent,
Northumberland, Orange, Powhatan, Prince George, Prince William, Richmond,
Rockingham, Spotsylvania, Stafford, Sussex, Warren, and York.
b) 20.000 population and a 5% growth rate: Amherst, Arlington, Campbell,
Fauquier, Mecklenburg, Montgomery, Page, Pittsylvania, Roanoke, Rockbridge,
Shenandoah, and Washington.
2) Reauirements for UDAs
a) Appropriate for higher density development due to:
(1) Proximity to transportation facilities;
(2) Availability of public or community water and sewer systems; or
(3) Proximity to a city, town or developed area.
b) Provide for commercial and residential densities that are appropriate for
reasonably compact development.
(1) Residential densities - 4 dwelling units per gross acre.
(2) Commercial densities - 0.4 floor area ratio per gross acre.
c) Sufficient size to meet projected residential and commercial growth for at
least 10 years and no more than 20 years.
(1) Based on official estimates and projections of the Weldon Cooper Center
for Public Service of the University of Virginia or other official
government sources.
(2) Growth may be phased within the UDA.
Virginia Association of Counties
1
June 7, 2007
, .. .
II
Urban Development Areas (UDA) - ~15.2-2223.1, Code of Va.
(7) Reduction of front and side yard building setbacks.
(8) Reduction of subdivision street widths and turning radii at subdivision
street intersections.
Virginia Association of Counties
3
June 7, 2007
NOVEMBER 14, 2007
CLOSED SESSION MOTION
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO CLOSED SESSION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2-3711(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
· UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL
COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC
MATTERS REQUIRING LEGAL ADVICE RELATING TO
AN INTERJURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENT.
II
Be it resolved that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will support a YMCA
facility at either the Piedmont Virginia Community College or McIntire Park site subject
to an acceptable agreement; and
Further resolved that the Board of Supervisors intends to allocate funds from our CIP that
could be spent either on a facility located at either location and further that the Board of
supervisors looks forward to working collaboratively and cooperatively with the City and
the YMCA in pursuant of this worthy undertaking.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Alternative Engineering Review Pilot Program
Report
AGENDA DATE: November 14, 2007
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Expedited Engineering Review of final plans
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X /
ATTACHMENTS: No /
REVIEWED BY:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Brooks
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
On September 13, 2006, the Board, at the recommendation of the Development Review Process Task Force, approved a two
year pilot program designed to simplify staff review and approval offinal engineering plans. To address concerns that the pilot
program have well-defined criteria, the review checklist was made very detailed, with a strict format of plan content and
certification. Additionally, it was agreed that six month updates would be provided to the Board throughout the pilot program to
verify it was working as planned. The pilot program was initiated on the County website on October 3,2006. The first six
month update was provided on April 4, 2007. This is the second update, one year since the program's inception.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal Four: Effectively Manage Growth and Development.
DISCUSSION:
This pilot program was originally proposed by staff as a way to improve consistency and reduce staff workload by reducing the
need for numerous resubmissions as applicants sought to meet requirements. For the development community, the benefit
of this program was seen as a way to reduce costs by reducing the time required to gain plan approval. As with the previous
review period, the development community has shown very little interest in this program. Below is a summary of submissions
for review;
Submissions for ex edited review
Submissions for re ular review
1S Six Month Period 10/3/2006-3/8/2007 2n Six Mont Period 3/9/2007-9/5/2007
3 3
241 220
In each case, County engineering review was completed within a week of submittal. Of the three plans reviewed in this period,
one was approved, an erosion control plan in which County engineering was the only approval authority. In the other two
cases, though County engineering review is complete, final approval waits on other agencies. Even for the previous six month
period, one of the 3 plans has yet to be approved for the same reason.
There have been no comments on the program this period. Previous comments can be seen on the website forum
(http://exprevprocess . bloQSPot. com/).
The board raised concerns in its previous discussions about compliance with regulations during inspection and construction in
addition to design. One plan has reached the construction stage. That is the first approved plan; Birchwood Place in Crozet.
There has been no measurable difference in the construction process, nor any plan related issues.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None estimated. While this process reduces review times, it is noted that the County has not charged separate fees for
engineering reviews. Thus, while it may cost the County more to have a plan r~ceive three or four reviews, no additional fee is
paid by the applicant for those reviews. Whether additional fees should' be charged will be discussed as part of a
comprehensive study of development fees anticipated to come before the Board soon.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This is an informational update and no action is needed. The next update will be provided in March 2008.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
40] McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Pho e (434) 296-5832
Fax (43 ) 972-4126
Mr. Stephen T. McLean
c/o cLean - Faulconer, Inc.
503 Faulconer Drive, Suite 5
Ch rlottesville, VA 22903
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIG TS--
Tax Map 90B, Parcel A-11 (Property of the University of Virginia Foundation)
Sc ttsville Magisterial District
r Mr. McLean:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-n ted
pro erty. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determin tion that
Tax Map 90B, Parcel A-11 has four (4) theoretical development rights. The ba is for this
det rmination follows.
Our records indicate Tax Map 90B, Parcel A-11 contains 10.00 acres and no wellings.
The property is within the Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District. The most r cent
rec rded instrument for this property is recorded in Deed Book 2712, page 32 .
analysis begins with a plat of record, in Deed Book 573, page 242, recor ed April
22, 975. The plat shows three lots: Lot 11 (4.16 acres); Lot 12 (1.89 acres), nd; Lot
13 ( .56 acres) in Block A of Marshall Manors along with a proposed street kn wn as
Rev Ridge Road. This is also the most recent instrument for this parcel reco ded prior
to t e adoption of the Zonrng Ordinance, December 1 a, 1980. This deed conv yed land
that is now Tax Map 90B, Parcel A-11. This deed established current Tax ap 90B,
Par el A-11 as three parcels of record with two (2), one (1) and one (1)
dev lopment rights, respectively, for a combined total of four (4) develo
rig ts.
De d Book 752, page 250, dated November 22, 1982, conveyed Lot 11 (4.16 cres),
Lot 2 (1.89 acres) and Lot 13 (3.56 acres) from Forrest R. & Reva B. Marsha I,
hus and and wife, to John W. Kluge. The property is described as being the s me as
was shown on the plat recorded by Deed Book 573, page 242. This transacti n had
no ffect on the parcels.
Dee Book 824, page 63, dated December 10, 1984, conveyed the same thre lots
des ribed above from John W. & Patricia M. Kluge, husband and wife to JWK
I:\DE T\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\Determinations of Parcel\2007\90B-A-11, 002007- 1
028 U a Foundation.doc
Pro erties, Inc. The property is described as being the same as was conveyeq by Deed
Bo k 752, page 250. This transaction had no effect on the parcels.
De d Book 1154, page 679, dated May 21, 1991, records an Ordinance of thel
Alb marle County Board of Supervisors which vacated the portion of the plat ~howing
Lot 11, 12 & 13, Block A in Marshall Manor Subdivision along with the restric~ed street,
Re a Ridge Road. The property then became one parcel of land owned by th~ owners
of I ts 11, 12 & 13 and that portion of the Reva Ridge Road that "lies totally within the
bo ndaries of those lots", that being JWK Properties, Inc. This transaction n~sulted in
the current Tax Map 90B, Parcel A-11 with a total of 10 acres, retaining the four (4)
co bined development rights of the original parcels.
De d Book 2029, page 237, dated January 8, 2001, conveyed 15.26 acres, w~ich
incl ded the three lots and the Reva Ridge Road right-of-way from the plat vaq;ated May
21, 1991, from JWK Properties, Inc. to the University of Virginia Real Estate
Fo ndation. The property is described as being the same as was conveyed by Deed
Bo k 824, page 63, plus an area of boundary overlap. This transaction had rtIo effect
on he parcels.
d Book 2712, page 325, dated March 22, 2004, conveyed a number of properties
fro the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation to the University of Virginia
Fo ndation, including the property described as being "400 Reva Ridge Road'l which is
the same as was conveyed by Deed Book 2029, page 237. This transaction nad no
eff ct on the parcels.
Th parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable
reg lations can be met. These development rights may only be utilized within the
bounds of the original parcel with which they are associated. These developm~nt rights
are heoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots contain,ng less
tha twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development
righ lots, the parcel may create as many smaller parcels containing a minimum of
twe ty-one acres as it has land to make.
If Y u are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within ~hirty days
of t e date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15f2-2311 of
the ode of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shalll be final
and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator
and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the groun~s for the
app al. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee lof $120.
The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this! letter.
If Y u have any questions, please contact me.
~-/~
~~...
o aid L. Higgins, AI P
Ma ager of Zoning Administration
Co y: Gay Carver, Real Estate Supervisor
~a Jordan, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
I:\DE T\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\Determinations of Parcel\2007\90B-A-11.WOD 2007- 2
028 U a Foundation.doc
148
"
"
90-14A
.----_.../'
./
/
33D
!
",I
!{
(fl
"':
i/
&1
j
!
i
33
103-1E
32A
29
Scale
100 200 300
Albemarle County
Tax Map:
0908
Feel
Note: This map is (or display purposes only
and shows parcels as 0(12131/2006.
See Map Book Introduction for additional details.
Marshall Manor
, I
1
,_-~.L._
- ~;:_. \
-4'C'..:::::.-----------..-- ~;""'_"'JO_.co.. -'~._
._'-._-...,-..,...~.-;:'"-
-' ----...-..-.
.~-=-"
ON~ ..APt.~
CLRVE
OAT A
6ZI..30
UIIIIS
"
'.....71
10 In Tl
I ... "_'
t ,......
I .......H.
. 12.1J'11~'
, '0""'00'
, ""U'".
7 It"". uO'-
I 1.....11..
· 1'.",1'''.
10 J1"2"I1'
II 17"U'II"
1% ".20....
II I.........
" 20''''1,.
IS 1"17'".
I' ,.." 2_'
17 """'II"
11110.'1' '7"
I!.l.-"'JI'U',
20j ...00....
21 't",o' 00'
zzl n'17'cO.
2' 7'It'ZO'
n ".00'00'
H 51"2'''''.'
U ...It....
27 "-n' 0'"
211 45.00' ......
:ztj ,'],',,-
Jet :t"t5' n"
...
111.11
n.'1
u,n
U.U
St...
IUIII:
nll.'O
"".00 i
HII.OO
2111.00 j
n.."
11.00 I
It. DO
'".00
'01.00
......
......
...... 1
Ill. "
.... ..'
12 ,'11',,-
II ,"..,,,.
n 7.01'01"
n 1".00'"''
II 70.~I'U.
.7 ".OS' ".
U 21""'1"
.. 2''''''17.
'0 . "10' ","
10
11. \
n. 0
u. 0
n. 0
ISl7.27
".00
".0'
".00
21."
".n
1".00
sn.OO
ltt.OO
cU.OO
711..0
,,,, '0
"..O't
,.. .O't
",.00
,,,.00
,OS.OO
.U.GO
4".00
'OS.GO
US.OO
U!l.OO
tl.'1 1
.~.,.. :
4.1& .&c.
A
@
JO, Z
, I. .
n. I
n.n
.....
In.I'
1 112.00
5 211.a
I
o
I
LI......
'~. .0.
..f<59"O'I""
Il.
I U.
1%,
101.
121.
@
--
-.
I...., '.
't( II' ".".
'2 S.O" ,."
'I 11."']1-
"117"11' U. t
illS '.22' S,"
" to.~O'Q.G- I
lIlT IU'Il'u1
.. n.I':i'l)~-
., 10-'" U' 1
501'5"00'00'
~I 1"'1 Z' 11I01
ulu.u'zo'
I Hlu-",,',,"!
'HI'."'''-r
5'\ S-'" 113''' I
H! ,.,,' 57' ,
~.!"t..":
I 511 "11' t.' I
I UI ,'~" )1":
: rlOl ZI.'4'U' J
zll.n
US.JI
9.89
~
"I.n!
111.1\ I
....U I
SO.OO ,
so.n!
so. 00 j
151.00 '
~O. GO :
SO.OQ.. :
50..00 !
I ZO.:' I l
72::1.., :
721.11 !
1001."
'30.
....0
...~
121. 1
2U."
Z.II.Ac
n. 0 117.U
10.11' 10.1'
U.IO IOJ.II
ISO. I' 217.10
71.' '".011I
U.O II'.II
I ~7. 0 I '00. II
I''t. S 210.21
.....1 ST.ll
11.5127.11
(6l
'--'
'"
/
~
-
.
::0
[TJ
~
~::o
Q
G)
{T1
. I~
_ - - 6:) 30 E
5 2
"'0
1I.~1 21. I I 51.U
....0 i !t. ,I \1."
'0.00 58.t ~ 11..73
so. 00 I 20.7 I ,,2t
"1T.1l 1 II.. i 1tl.0I
nu.OO I so. II 100.00
on
....
..
'"
'"'
r
r
'"'
'"
'"
;.
2.), 4c
o
till! . ~:
7 I.. ~., :
N
..
~""'o
'0
, '"
',"- oS
......."..,.. ~
""".}oJ""''' ".
...0 ~...." ~..r
~..:t... ~
...
:'1'.0' .
120.71
:I;
1.~ Ac..
A2A.~ 35 VI
,.. &6- o.
OIlNERS APPRnv AI
nlls s.olJlSI. IS IIIIDE I1lJ 1ltE :ouOT OF 1'l![ .uUIIED ~. ""'0.1. AI
All IDMS AID STIttTS. " ~T "EY (,\ISl.T DEOICATEQ. .....E 1(JO'f 1'Dm(tED rot Blenl
i .._f .. ~. .....J-/....;,... --:::r t.. C ~ ~ ~-<-..: .~:..:;.
COONTY PlA""ING CO'..HSSICN I JlCAllO OF SlJP'O-RV;~
~ IN. 1"..... ~ si (J"..<'~ ;i.~.......
~1'411'S ,- IIO,SJ fI ~/1~'j;~
. STATE CF VIRGINIA
I. Io4ARGARET LUSH. . I()T ARY PUlLIC ,.. n. no,
lIWDJID. 00 cUTIn TUT ST R.N4RSHAl..L 'IIIQ:Sl..... IS 11.0 Tto
.. '.lIDl" 1I1lI. lUll. DlTt . ~ 1, "" ua ~ TlE SME JUe
IlIE II Mf STall .lfarwIO. . . ~
'IYOIIII)EJ Nt' IUD Tits %'tlt C T gF ~ II1\. .,. CDenQIDI orU!.S .t."Ill :
~...~ I '.f.
I
. iT~TE CF VIRGINIA
I. ~T L. ~~USH. I I()TARY PI.llL!C... n! Jr.
110I("... DO em." lU FCJlREST R. MARSHALL JR. & OA VII;
MARSHA.L.,l...... IMU If JIMO TO T1I( FOI(mI" W'Ht!t ~II" GUt (If
rEI. 7.1t1l w ~ DIU TM( SofM:.,. Nt ,_ 1fT snTi: "'FOCf.~"IO.
IIYfll*DE1 I<< IIMI nlls ZN Ill' Of artll 1171.. '" CDltIUIOI [II',ltS ""I
1'111... /';~ I! I
(
@
'---- / ~\;
-1::-" ~ ,o~
..~ '?o~ ':".~f: ~, ~'\
() ....... '':"'~.'' of. S
':_-:~;.~. yO..../.--:.~
.~~-~..:' :1'/ \
~, /t: .
~~~~..
""o~Vo
"'~O
.. ....
..... ...
.......
i
I ....,f>00
'" \,,0'
(.
,....
~
'"
o
~.
@
(.
~
'0
'i
I
!
;..
'f.
1.458 "c.
<
"'-o,,~
.0
o
00 ^ ~,
~tJ~ '2.8"
~
1J'~
~
\>
I, !
) ~
I.r.
......
~c9,s1
<.00
~YIl9 'J
.".,.
6~A9
.0 '"
4:~co
Q:;~.
/ ~~<^'
/ I
I
I
....
'I~
.9
, ~~61AI
~
@)
\~
~.~
.."'.
'-"0
-ol.\c
<J '
..o"'~
,.'
SUBDIV S ION
PLAT
OF
u
,I
It
.",
;' ~~:{~l
'. __ ki ,.,.&9 ~".
"l:!.",I~ .
c.9.!of>.-..-.:' . \
Is~'2"'j:..~
ti :!rO 2
/'
r 46 At
<,-..
J".I",. ~.s
J..
/ ~..,.~
/' ~
/..
.OJ
MARSH Cl.L L
MANORS
.. p..
r:'
,:~(8
OC'(...
€I\...
--r60 O~.:OO""
~ .
'"
"'N
:\~
fOe.
.,;
\
!Z.&c
o
~r;O.O
NEAR
ALBEMAR E
CHARLOTTESVILLE
..,
.(1~
"'''
.... <0
."'"
" '"
;;.
//
I/~
"v t'lI
COUNTY,
VIRGINIA
z.JS~
-EB. 7, /974
R VISED FEB.26./975
~:
.......
~
1 ~1
q~ .
l.4'.to:
. aT
'-1!l!f.
/.
,/ ....
/' '1"-":"
1",.0\ ~
/" -/00'
.n'>
100
SC AL (" .
I
I
I
I
.<
"
~ ;
mAl TDCT (DrUla 17.._
....... ~ snu.a If' 10 "n.
===-=:IUITU tift. 1lA1", tLIDUT.
.""
IN
fE.ET
! ~ 0 00
,1" t
,.,.,G\J
.,..r"\Gl'41
~..~t.T1fO~
,." Jo
" /~
., c-
is I.!. ,. ":;1. oil. ~\
u COif NO. .f
54-11.3 roll 655 ~
\~.~'I'] (01 78 .
":~fJl.l.."""""
~
....., ,0000
-?
./'" -
-:~~.
~ :~.~~.
.~
-:J:'l.:
See atta chedftl'Sr.riction s
and Lots II, '12-{fand 13,
lots in M~rshall Manors~~~lll be restricted
0;s-quaL'-e-f'eet-ui"- 1. -rn-':' "'~--: :::'-. :: 1. v ~ ~ 'u.L ~ CL.l. ~
I
I
i
'....-..
... _.'
.. ~;~~'~~l,~f;~~:jp ad
fa
pertain ing
Block A. ...
,..........
by de.~d
c-
WILL/AI" S. ROUDABUSH. JR. a ;);:'-so-I::-
CERTlFI D LAND SURVEYORS
. .:;~.
'. .
P 07-26 CROZET STATION - MODIFIED LANGUAGE FOR CONDITION #1 REGARDI G THE
ATE OF THE CONCEPT PLAN AND CONDITION #4 REGARDING WORK FORCE H USING
1. Development shall be in general accord with the concept plan entitled, "Crozet Station
repared by Atwood Architects, Inc. dated May 23,2007 and last revised November 14, 007",
heet AlO and Sheets SP1- SP5.
. Affordable and work force housing shall be provided as follows:
. Work force housinq units. The Owner shall provide twenty-five (25) residential dwelli 9
nits for a sales price not to exceed three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) for the fir t sale of
ach unit. The first subdivision plat or site plan for the Property shall designate the twent -five
25) lots or units, as applicable, subject to this condition.
D. Qualification period. All purchasers of for-sale affordable units shall be approved by the
Ibemarle County Office of Housing or its designee. The Owner shall provide the Count or its
esignee a period of ninety (90) days to identify and pre-qualify an eligible purchaser for he units.
he 90-day period shall commence upon written notice from the Owner that the units will be
vailable for sale. This notice shall not be given more than one hundred twenty (120) da s prior
o the anticipated receipt of the certificate of occupancy. If the County or its designee do s not
rovide a qualified purchaser during this ninety (90) day period, the Owner shall have the right to
ell the units without any restriction on sales price or income of purchaser(s); provided, h wever,
hat any units sold or leased without such restriction shall nevertheless be counted towar the
umber of affordable units required to be provided pursuant to the terms of this condition If
hese units are sold, this condition shall apply only to the first sale of each unit. Nothing erein
hall preclude the then-current Owner/builder from working with the County Housing Dep rtment
prior to the start of the notification periods described herein in an effort to identify qualifyi g
purchasers for affordable units.
RECEIVED A. 80S MEFTING
Date: I-I -0
Agenda Item ,:
Clerk's Initials'
'-
'"-
~
SP 2007-026
Crozet Station
Land Use - Master Plan
"""".:'-'''10-'1
_"'b"":-'CH)
.,.'....:0..["''1
-"."'''.
Proposal
30 residential units above the existing
Crozet Shopping Center buildings and a
parking structure addition to the northeast
corner of the site in the Community of
Crozet.
1
~
1!=- =-
~
I "::'
... ......
, --
Other Issues
Improvements to Route 240 - VDOT
feels that improvements are not needed
with this development, but may be
needed in the future. The County
Engineer would like a left turn lane to be
provided with this development rather
than later because of safety concerns.
Applicant has included note on plan
providing for improvements as would be
requested by VDOT.
Issues Resolved
. Access easement recorded to provide
interconnection to east
. Plan shows no impact to the stream buffer
. Internal amenities shown on plan
. Stormwater management provisions are
acceptable to County Engineer
. Condition 6. addresses utilities and
landscaping across frontage on Rt. 240
Other Issues (Cont'd.)
. Planning Commission recommends a
condition that assures affordable housing
shall be provided in keeping with the
County's affordable housing policy and all
of the additional housing shall be work
force housing. Condition 4. is the standard
language for affordable housing and also
includes conditions for moderately priced
housing ($235,000).
2
I
I,
. ..
Other Issues (Cont'd.) Recommendation
. The applicant's intention is to provide work force . The Planning Commission has
housing priced at $300,000. The applicant also recommended approval of Special Use
does not want a condition that purchasers be Permit 2007-26 with conditions that
qualified by the housing office. address the issues it identified at its public
. As the County does not have a policy on hearing. Such conditions have been
moderately priced or work force housing the provided in the Executive Summary and
applicant's intention is acceptable to the Director as modified tonight.
of Housing.
. A revised Condition 4. is provided.
3
I ,
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA lIIrLE:
SP 07 - 26 rozet Station
AGENDA DATE:
November 14, 2007
SUBJECTI ROPOSALlREQUEST:
Request to dd residential use in a C-1 commercial
district and parking structure addition to the
northeast c ner of the site.
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
STAFF CO TACTtS):
Cilimberg, ~ f-hols, Grant
ATTACHMENTS: YES
LEGAL RE IEW: NO
BACKGRO JND:
On Octobe ~6, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Crozet Station special use permit
request. Th Commission passed by a vote of 5:1 recommendation for approval of the special use permit with
conditions i: ~d with the expectation that the applicant would be able to work out all of the outstanding issues before the
Board mee i ~g.
DISCUSSIC N:
The followir is the current status of issues discussed at the October 16th Planning Commission public hearing:
. 1. An ccess easement has been recorded over which interconnection will be provided to the adjacent property.
2. ShE ~ts SP-3 and SP-4 of the plans (See Attachment I) show that there is no impact to the stream buffer.
3. IntE nal amenities are shown on sheets SP 2 and SP-3 of the plans (See Attachment I).
4. Co ~ition 4 addresses the provisions of affordable housing.
5. Re plution is still needed on the level of improvements needed to Rt. 240. The applicant plans to meet with
VD T prior to the Board public hearing to work on a resolution of this outstanding issue. The resolution of this
ma ~r will need to be shown on the concept plan referenced in Condition #1 below.
6. Pro isions for stormwater management are acceptable to the County Engineer.
7. Co ~ition 6 addresses utility and landscape concerns across the frontage of the site.
While Condi ion 4 addresses the affordable housing aspects of this special use permit request and is typical of similar
language th t has been used for proffers relating to affordable housing, the Chief of Housing has again expressed
concerns rE arding the administration of this condition as it regards Section B. of Condition #2. below (County Option
for Cash In ieu of Affordable Units). However, the Board has approved recent rezoning requests with similar
language fc r proffers relating to this provision.
RECOMME ~DATIONS:
The Plannir Commission recommended approval of Special Use Permit 2007-26 with conditions as modified to
address the ~xpectations of the Planning Commission in its action:
1. Developr ~nt shall be in general accord with the concept plan entitled, "Crozet Station, prepared by Atwood
Architects, I c. dated May 23, 2007 and revised October 29, 2007", Sheet NO and Sheets SP1 - SP5.
2. The final ite plan shall not be approved until the applicant has provided evidence that an easement has been executed
to provide ir er-parcel access to the property to the east.
. There sh "be no disturbance of the stream buffer.
4. Affordab e and moderately-priced housing shall be provided as follows:
A. Aff rdable housina units. The Owner shall provide five (5) residential dwelling units as affordable housing for sale.
The fiVE (5) units shall be comprised of one or more of the following unit types: single-family attached housing or multi-
family c ndominiums. The Owner or his successor in interest reserves the right to achieve the five (5) affordable units
1
I
I I
E. Inso ction of records. The County shall have the right, upon reasonable notice and subject to all applicable privacy
. laws, to ~riodically inspect the records of the Owner or any successors in interest for the purposes of assuring
complian e with this condition.
5. Resident I amenities such as an outdoor plaza, paved path to the greenway, or civic green area shall be provided, to
the satisfac ipn of the Planning Director as shown on the concept plan entitled, "Crozet Station, prepared by Atwood
Architects, I c. dated May 23,2007 and revised October 29,2007", Sheets SP2 and SP3.
6. Street trE s shall be provided along the Route 240 frontage. The street trees shall meet the minimum size, types of
species, an spaced as determined by the County's Architectural Review Board.
7. The final ite plan shall not be approved until the applicant has provided an access area to the greenway dedication in
the north-w ~t section of the property as shown on Sheet SP 2 of the Concept Plan entitled, "Crozet Station, prepared
by Atwood chitects, Inc. dated May 23,2007 and revised October 29,2007".
8. Water qu lity and water quantity treatment shall be based on an assumed pre-existing cover of 20% for the site.
ATTACHM NTS:
Attachment I: Application Plan dated May 23,2007, revised October 29,2007
.
.
I
3
.
.
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Pone 434 296-5832
Fax 434 972-4012
o tober 26, 2007
G egory Solis - Atwood Architects
215 5th Street, SW, Suite 100
C arlottesville, V A 22903
R SP2007-00026 Crozet Station
Tax Map 56A2, Parcel 29
D ar Mr. Solis:
e Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 16, 2007, recommended approval
a vote of 5: 1 of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
ase note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development shall be in general accord with the concept plan entitled, "Crozet Station, prepared
by Atwood Architects, Inc. dated May 23, 2007".
2. The final site plan shall not be approved until the applicant has provided evidence that an easement has
been executed to provide inter-parcel access to the property to the east.
3. There shall be no disturbance of the stream buffer.
4. Affordable housing shall be provided in keeping with the County's affordable housing policy and all of the
additional housing shall be workforce housing. (This item must be addressed prior to the Board of
Supervisors' meeting because it isn't known how the applicant intends to accomplish provision of
affordable units.)
5. Residential amenities such as an outdoor plaza, paved path to the greenway, or civic green area shall be
provided, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
6. Street trees along Route 240 shall be provided as shown on the concept plan.
7. The final site plan shall not be approved until the applicant has provided an access area to the greenway
dedication in the north-west section of the property.
8. Water quality and water quantity treatment shall be based on an assumed pre-existing cover of20% for the
site.
.
.
.
I
1
P ease be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition nd receive
p blic comment at their meeting on November 14,2007.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do I ot hesitate to
c( ntact me at (434) 296-5832.
S ncerely,
C audette Grant
P anner
Planning Division
C D/SM
C Crozet Shopping Center LLC POBox 129 Crozet, VA 22932
.
.
.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Pro osal: SP 07 - 26 Crozet Station
ing Commission Public Hearing:
Owners: Crozet Shopping Center, LLC (Sandra
Eve on)
3.2 acres
TMP TM: 56A2 Part 1 P: 01-29
Loc tion: Crozet Shopping Center, north of
Thre Notch'd Road (Route 240); approx. % mile
east f its intersection with Rt. 810. (Attachments
A & )
Magi terial District: White Hall
Prop sal: 30 residential units to be located
abov the existing Crozet Shopping Center
buildi gs and a parking structure addition to the
north ast corner of the site.
DA ( evelopment Area) Community of Crozet
Char cter of Property: Developed with mixed
com ercial uses and adjacent to historic
reso rces; the site slopes down to a stream in
rear f the property.
Fact rs Favorable:
This proposal provides mixed-use to
downtown Crozet as recommended in the
Master Plan.
2 This proposal meets most of the
principles of the Neighborhood Model
including pedestrian orientation (on-site),
buildings and spaces of human scale,
relegated parking (for the new section),
interconnections, affordability,
redevelopment and centers.
1
Staff: Claudette Grant
Board of Supervisors Hearing: November 14,
2007
Applicant: Crozet Shopping Center, LLC
(Sandra Everton) with Gregory Solis, Atwood
Arch itects
Special Use Permit for: residential use in a C-1
commercial district and a parking structure
addition to the northeast corner of the site.
By-right use: C-1 Commercial (retail sales and
seryice uses; and residential use by special use
permit (15 units/acre)
Conditions: Yes EC: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 30
Compo Plan Designation: Community of Crozet:
Downtown, CT 6- Urban Core
Use of Surrounding Properties: Commercial,
residential, library, emergency/rescue station,
and railroad tracks.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. It is not yet known whether an
interconnection to the east can be made.
2. The stream buffer is not clearly
delineated on the plan. It appears that
development is shown in a portion of the
stream buffer and the stream buffer must
be preserved.
3. Internal amenities have not been
included in the plan.
4. Provisions for affordable housing have
not been established.
5. Resolution is needed on the level of
improvements needed to Rt. 240.
6. Provisions for stormwater mana ement
Crozet Station
PC Public Hearing 10/16/07
are needed.
7. Utility and landscape conflicts have not
been resolved across the frontage to
ensure that street trees can be provided.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff cannot recommend approval of the special use permit until it is clear that
the elements shown on the plan can be accomplished, amenities for residents are identified, it is clear
how affordable housing will be provided, and it is clear what level of improvement (if any) will be
needed for Rt. 240.
If the Planning Commission believes it can recommend approval at this time, staff recommends that
the following items become conditions of approval:
1. Development shall be in general accord with the concept plan entitled, "Crozet Station, prepared
by Atwood Architects, Inc. dated May 23,2007".
2. The final site plan shall not be approved until the applicant has provided evidence that an
easement has been executed to provide inter-parcel access to the property to the east.
3. There shall be no disturbance of the stream buffer.
4. Affordable housing shall be provided in keeping with the County's affordable housing policy. (This
item must be addressed prior to the Board of Supervisors' meeting because it isn't known how the
applicant intends to accomplish provision of affordable units.)
5. Residential amenities such as an outdoor plaza, paved path to the greenway, or civic green area
shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
6. Street trees along Route 240 shall be provided as shown on the concept plan.
7. The final site plan shall not be approved until the applicant has provided an access area to the
greenway dedication in the north-west section of the property.
8. Water quality and water quantity treatment shall be based on an assumed pre-existing cover of
20% for the site.
Wording of these conditions may change prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Staff notes that,
if workable stormwater management concepts are not provided in advance of Board of Superyisors'
action and if widening of Rt. 240 for right and left turn lanes is needed, the plan may not be able to be
accomplished as shown.
2
Crozet Station
PC Public Hearing 10/16/07
.
STA F PERSON:
PLA NING COMMISSION:
BOA D OF SUPERVISORS:
SP2 07-026: CROZET STATION
Claudette Grant
October 16, 2007
November 14,2007
Petit on:
PRO ECT: SP 2007-00026 Crozet Station
PRO OSED: 30 residential units to be located above the existing Crozet Shopping Center buildings
and parking structure addition to the northeast corner of the site.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: C-1 Commercial- retail sales and service uses; and
resid ntial use by special use permit (15 units/ acre)
SEC ION: 18.22.2.2.6 uses permitted the R15 Zoning District (15 units/acre) and 18.22.2.2.9
Parki g Structure
COM REHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community of Crozet; designated CT 6 Urban
Core, which allows for a mix of commercial, office, retail, and other uses along with residential uses
up to 18 units an acre and up to 36 units an acre in a mixed used setting, according to the Crozet
Mast r Plan.
ENT NCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOC TION: Crozet Shopping Center, north of Three Notch'd Road (Route 240); approx. }4 mile
east f its intersection with Rt. 810
TAX AP/PARCEL: 56A2-01-29
MAG STERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
Char cter of the Area and Ad'oinin ro erties:
The roposal involves a portion of Downtown Crozet that includes the Downtown businesses and
an ar a that contributes to the current character of Downtown Crozet. The buildings located on the
site v ry in age and architecture, with some buildings in need of renovation.
.
West of the site across Route 810 is the Dairy Queen/gas station, which is a site that was
redev loped in 2000. Across Rt. 240 from the Crozet Station project area is the Crozet Library. The
railro d tracks separate this portion of Downtown from the Square and Barnes Lumber. The site to
the e st has an approved site plan for one three-story office building totaling 19,500 square feet
and a one-story bank of 3,090 square feet. Behind the Crozet Station properties is a creek and
wood d area that separates the site from the residents in the Wayland Park subdivision. Also
locat d adjacent to the site is the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad.
S ecifics of Pro osal:
The s te is currently developed with a mix of commercial uses. The applicant proposes to add 30
units n top of the existing commercial buildings and a parking structure to the rear of the property.
Interc nnections are also proposed to adjacent properties on both sides of the site.
.
Back round:
A pre application work session with the Planning Commission was held on May 30, 2006 in order to
get th public involved in providing input on redevelopment of the site and to reyiew the applicant's
intent or the site with Crozet Master Plan recommendations. During the pre-application work
sessi n, the Commission discussed possible demolition of contributing structures to the possible
future historic district in order for new development to occur. Generally, the Commission felt that
there hould be a major effort toward preservation of the buildings in the area proposed for
redev lopment. The Commission also felt that the proposed mix of residential and commercial/retail
uses as appropriate. The Commission suggested reorientation of the portion of the site that
contai s the existing IGA and large parking area towards Route 240. Relegation of parking on the
easte portion of the property was also suggested as well as incorporation of the green area to the
3
Crozet Station
PC Public Hearing 10/16/07
rest of the site and the provision of additional information regarding the relationship of residential
units with urban open space or amenities.
Since the work session, the applicant decided to split the redevelopment of the shopping center into
three phases and apply for a special use permit for residential uses in a commercial district as
phase one. A work session with the Planning Commission was also held on August 28, 2007 in
order for the Commission to provide guidance on design and layout, mixture of housing types and
affordability, and scale of buildings. (See attachment C) During the worksession staff asked the
following questions (shown in bold italics), which are followed by the Commission's response:
Does the Planning Commission find the design and layout of the site appropriate,
particularly as it relates to relegated parking?
Most members believed that parking is appropriately relegated on the site with the parking
garage at the rear.
Should there be a mixture of types within this development and a provision of affordable
units?
The unit types proposed is acceptable and the Planning Commission noted that the applicant
said that more than 15% would be affordable.
Is the height and massing of the buildings appropriate?
The height and massing of the buildings is appropriate. The Planning Commission did not
agree with the ARB recommendations for 2-story buildings for retaining views of the
mountains. The Planning Commission said that the perspectives that had the support of the
community were the ones that should be used.
Applicant's Justification for the Reauest:
The applicant believes that providing a residential component to this shopping center will help to
reyitalize it.
Plannina and Zonina Historv:
The buildings were built in 1967, and the property was zoned commercial business prior to 1980.
Over the last 25 to 30 years a variety of zoning clearances, site plans, and subdivisions have
occurred on the site for various business uses located there.
Comprehensive Plan:
Crozet Station is located in Downtown Crozet, which is one of the major themes of importance in
the Crozet Master Plan. The following is an analysis and additional details regarding this project
and its relation to the Crozet Master Plan:
Crozet Master Plan:
Crozet Station is located in Downtown Crozet and one of the major themes of the Master Plan is the
importance of Downtown. Downtown is a distinct place-type in Crozet and is intended to exhibit
greater density and formal design than a NeighborhoodNillage or Hamlet. It is the commercial "hub"
for Crozet. Downtown historically has been Crozet's "district-wide" focal point for cultural and
commercial activities. It is the largest place-type in Crozet (approximately equal in area to three
neighborhoods). Its core, where the neighborhood centers coalesce, exhibits the greatest degree of
mixing, density, and intensity of development in Crozet. Downtown is the largest and most
important place-type in Crozet, and the Master Plan indicates that implementation efforts should
focus on the redevelopment of this area.
4
Crozet Station
PC Public Hearing 10/16/07
.
.
.
The rozet Station properties are designated CT 6 Urban Core. The range of land uses
reco mended for CT 6 is very open, but expected to be primarily commercial in character.
Resi ntial building types may include apartment buildings, row houses, townhouses, accessory
units, live work units and apartments over non-residential uses. Suggested net densities are up to
18 u i s an acre and up to 36 units an acre, if in a mixed-use setting. A range of non-residential
uses re intended for Downtown, including office, all retail services, and civic support. Table 1 and
Tabl 2 from the Crozet Master Plan are included to provide the full range of design guidelines and
land es for Downtown Crozet. (See Attachment E)
For p rposes of the Master Plan, the Community of Crozet is considered as three geographic
secto in which future development and" redevelopment projects are focused. They are the
Dow own, the area west of Crozet Avenue and the area east of Crozet Avenue. Applicable
state ents from the Crozet Master Plan for the Downtown Crozet are below.
ster Plan recommends initial development in the Downtown area should emphasize the
tion of the sidewalk system (per the recommendations of the Anhold Crozet Downtown
Ik and Parking Study of 2001), placement of the new library on Crozet Avenue, and creation
irst two blocks of Main Street. Current County initiatives underway include the library project,
Ik improvements, purchase of a property for Main Street, and exploring solutions to
ater management and parking in Downtown, and discussing pedestrian crossings with the
Agui
busin
curre
prope
const
Devel
future
prog r
ng principle of the Crozet Master Plan is that Crozet values the contributions of locally grown
s in providing both jobs and enhanced quality of life for residents. The Crozet Station 'site
Iy contains a substantial number of local businesses. Any development proposal on the
y should be structured in a manner that does not displace those businesses during
ction and allows them to remain viable following any new construction. The Business
pment Facilitator has been working with the applicant on how this may be addressed in
evelopment plans for the properties and has noted that a residential component to the
may help keep costs lower for existing businesses, with any new construction projects.
Speci i recommendations and tasks identified in the Master Plan for Downtown include the
follow g:
a Allow mixed-use, infill development in support of downtown.
a Implement sidewalk plan (per Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study)
a Construct the new library on the west side of Crozet Avenue near Mountainside.
a Convert current library (depot) to civic center function, perhaps as a museum.
a Construct Main Street by building the first segment from Crozet Avenue to the Barnes
Lumber property. (This will take trucks off "the Square.")
a Develop guidelines for renovating historic structures and for new buildings (scale, materials,
setbacks), and initiate establishment of a Historic District.
a Encourage development in blocks adjacent to downtown core.
a Create bike lanes to and in downtown.
a Create downtown community green at "the Square."
a Develop signage for greenway trails.
a Create a pedestrian railroad crossing in downtown core (below or aboye grade).
a Explore alternatives to current underpass at Crozet Avenue.
a s opportunities arise for redevelopment of the lumber yard, focus on a mixed-use form that
mphasizes employment.
nfrastructure Map from the Crozet Master Plan: The Green Infrastructure Map identifies
sed greenway running behind the Crozet Station properties along Parrot Branch.
Crozet Station
PC Public Hearing 10/16/07
Principles of the Neighborhood Model -- Conformity with the Neighborhood Model is assessed
below.
Pedestrian
Orientation
Neighborhood
Friendly Streets
and Paths
Interconnected
Streets and
Transportation
Networks
Parks and Open
Space
Neighborhood
Centers
Buildings and
Spaces of Human
Scale
6
A sidewalk exists across the .front of the site, adjacent to Route 240. The
applicant proposes sidewalks adjacent to the two access ways for the site.
A pedestrian way is also shown at the rear of the site that will eventually
connect to phases two and three. There is also an expectation that there
will be provisions for pedestrian safety, such as crosswalks that are internal
and external to the site. Full redevelopment of the site would result in
buildings being located closer to Route 240. Since no redevelopment is
ro osed for the existin arkin lot staff believes this rinci Ie is met.
While street trees are shown on the plan, questions remain about whether
they can be planted. This principle is not met.
Near the northwest corner of the property there is a vehicle and pedestrian
way shown that is to continue across phases two and three. This would
serve as an interconnection for the site. There is also an interconnection
shown on the eastern portion of the site. The adjacent property owner to
the east has recently voiced concern with staff regarding the eastern
interconnection. The adjacent property owner is concerned that traffic flow
in this portion of the site could be problematic if this interconnection is
depicted as the main entry into the shopping center because this
interconnection 'is located near a bank and drive-thru. This interconnection
is shown on the approved site plan for the adjacent site. Staff feels the
interconnection on this site is very important. This principle is met;
however, if the connection is not made, relocating the connection would
require an amendment to the site plan for the adjacent property where
construction is now taking place. Also it would require redesign of the
ro osed Ian. An executed easement will need to be rovided.
As previously mentioned in this report, during the pre-application work
session in May 2006, the Planning Commission had an expectation for the
incorporation of open space/amenities for the site. The applicant has not
provided any park and open space amenities. Staff suggests parks and
open space include the Greenway (terminus), commons, or a plaza
amenity, where commercial activity is on the ground floor. There is also a
required 100-foot stream buffer along the rear property lines and
opportunities to provide greenway connections both parallel to Parrot
Creek or across to connect the neighborhoods north of Downtown as
recommended in the Crozet Master Plan. With the adjacent approved site
plan, parks staff received a greenway dedication for a strip of land that runs
east-west on property behind the subject site. In order to access the
greenway from this site there is a need for this property owner to provide
an access point to the dedicated greenway near the north-west portion of
the site. The details or specifics of this access area will need to be
determined rior to the Board of Su ervisors meetin .
This property is located in Downtown Crozet, which is intended to be a
center for several neighborhoods and a central place in Crozet. This
rinci Ie is met.
The Master Plan recommends 2-4 stories from main level and up to 5
stories by exception for Downtown Crozet. The applicant is proposing two
and three story buildings with a full roof. Although the Architectural Review
Board ARB) ex res sed a reference 10r one additional sto on the
Crozet Station
PC Public Hearing 10/16/07
.
Rei gated Parking
Mix ure of Uses
Mix ure of Housing
Typ sand
Aft rdability
.
western portion of the building in order to protect the mountain views, the
Planning Commission felt the massing and height of the buildings as
ro osed b the a licant are a ro riate. This rinci Ie is met.
Parking is not relegated in the portion of the property that is adjacent to
Route 240. However, structured parking provides relegation, so all new
parking is proposed to be relegated. The existing parking on the site is not
ideal, but staff believes that the proposed layout, does preserve the
opportunity for redevelopment of a commercial area on Three Notch'd
Road.
This project is proposing a mix of both residential and commercial uses.
This principle is met.
The applicant proposes only one typeof housing: multifamily; however,
single-family residential uses are nearby. Provisions for affordable housing
haye not been shown on the plan or provided by the applicant. Based on
prior actions of the Board of Supervisors for affordable units where a
special use permit for residential use has been requested, the proposal
would be expected to meet the affordable housing policy goals. The
applicant has indicated that the apartments will be affordable, but there has
been no commitment as et to rovidin affordable units.
The applicant has indicated that the existing commercial buildings would
remain on the site and that the residential buildings would be built above
the existing buildings. The applicant has also indicated that the existing
buildings would be renovated with the addition of space. This principle is
met.
The site is sloping in some locations. However, the majority of the additions
to the site will occur above the existing buildings with exception of the
arkin structure. This rinci Ie is met.
The project is located entirely with in the Community of Crozet and the
nearest boundary with the Rural Area is north of Downtown at the Crozet
Elementary School northern property boundary. This principle is not
a licable.
Croze Densi Table:
Since he Crozet Master Plan is so open with regard to uses and level of density in the Downtown,
staff i not concerned with the uses proposed or the residential densities. The parameters
establ shed during the build-out analysis completed by staff for Crozet are a helpful tg9.1 :i,J;l
(EWalutil1:gthe.approprii;ite level of residential development in Downtown.
Acres
3.2
CMP Unit Ranges Suggested
CT6 acres- Min Max
Crozet Station
Units Net Density
30 11.72
Net Acres'
2.56
0.64
12
23
"Net acreage us d is 80% of gross acreage. -CT 6 areas were expected to have more non-residential than
residential so Dnly 25% Df net acreage is used tD calculate expected residential units.
staff. om e ^t:
Staff. lI'aad~s each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
.
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issues upon a finding by
the 80 rd of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
prope Y,
7
Crozet Station
PC Public Hearing 10/16/07
The proposed residential use and parking structure are not expected to have detrimental impacts
on the adjacent properties. This property as well as the surrounding property varies in commercial
and residential uses. The proposed residential use and parking structure are consistent with the
recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan for the Downtown Crozet area.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The existing site is commercial in use. There will be an addition of residential units over the existing
commercial uses and a new parking structure will be added to the site. Staff believes that the
residential use will provide a change for the site, although there are some residential uses located
in the Yicinity. The parking structure is appropriate for the commercial aspect of the site. The visual
character of the district will be somewhat different than it currently is, but it will not be detrimental to
the area, but rather an enhancement to have a residential component to the downtown area.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The C-1 commercial district allows Residential- R-15 and stand alone parking and parking
structures by special use permit (Section 22.2.2). The intent of the C-1 district is to permit selected
retail sales, service and public use establishments which are primarily oriented to central business
concentrations. C-1 districts are intended for urban area, communities and villages. Allowing the
residential and parking structure uses in this area will add an element of mixed uses to Downtown
Crozet that are in keeping with the recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Allowing the proposed uses should be a relatively low impact to the existing commercial uses
already on the property. Adding the residential use and parking structure will enhance the
downtown character, the Crozet Master Plan calls for. The impact of these uses is therefore viewed
as compatible with the commercial uses allowed in the C-1 District.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.1.41 PARKING LOTS AND PARKING STRUCTURES states that "A site plan
shall be required for each parking lot and parking structure, unless the requirement is
waived as provided in section 32.2.2." A waiver has not been requested. A site plan will be
expected.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through the special
use permit process which assures that uses approved by special use permit are appropriate in the
location requested.
There are four issues which should be resolved prior to approval of the special use permit. In all
four cases the applicant has been requested to make changes. The first has to do with stormwater
management. The County Engineer has said that the conceptual plan gives no details regarding
intended treatment of water quality and quantity. Staff recommends that the applicant provide water
quality and quantity treatment based on an assumed pre-existing cover of 20% for the site, which is
a higher standard than can be required at the site plan stage but is viewed as necessary for water
quality.
The second issue has to do with improvements to Route 240. Left turn lanes are needed on Route
240 or a warrant study should be performed with projected traffic at build out to establish the
minimum required improvements. Staff cannot require this, at the site plan stage but believes it to
be a necessary improvement for safety.
The third issue relates to an access easement needed from the adjoining owner. This plan shows
8
Crozet Station
PC Public Hearing 10/16/07
.
aba donment of an existing entrance and establishment of a new interparcel connection with
prop rty owned by others (TM 56A2-1-30). While the applicant has verbally indicated that they have
obtai ed an easement from the adjacent property owner, staff has not seen one. Staff suggests we
recei e a copy of written permission for the interparcel connection at this time. If permission for the
inter arcel connection does not get granted, it could be considered a significant change from the
appr yal, warranting an amendment to the special use permit.
urth issue relates to stream buffer disturbance. The plan appears to show a travel way in the
buffer. No disturbance of the buffer is recommended and this issue needs to be clarified
Arch tectural Review Board Issues:
As p viously mentioned the Design Planner has identified a problem related to landscaping along
Rout 240. Easements along the entrance corridor (EC) frontage are not clearly shown. The plan
inclu es planting along a portion of the EC frontage, which could be difficult to provide if there is not
enou h room in this portion of the site. Although the applicant would prefer to handle this issue
durin site plan review, staff recommends:
a. The planting requirements along the EC frontage should be determined with the
SP. This should not wait until site plan review.
b. The frontage planting should meet the EC Guidelines.
c. The planting area should be increased as necessary to coordinate with utilities.
r indication of utility locations would facilitate the resolution of this issue.
.
Sum
Staff as identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. T is proposal provides mixed-use to downtown Crozet as recommended in the Master Plan.
2. T e proposal meets most of the principles of the Neighborhood Model including pedestrian
ori ntation (on-site), buildings and spaces of human scale, relegated parking (for the new
se tion), interconnections, affordability, redevelopment and centers.
Staff as identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. It is not yet known whether an interconnection to the east can be made.
2. T e stream buffer is not clearly delineated on the plan. It appears that development is shown in
a ortion of the stream buffer and the stream buffer must be preserved.
3. In ernal amenities have not been included in the plan.
4. P ovisions for affordable housing have not been established.
5. R solution is needed on the level of improvements needed to Rt. 240.
6. P ovisions for stormwater management are needed.
7. U i1ity and landscape conflicts have not been resolved across the frontage to ensure that street
tr es can be provided.
Reco mended Action:
Staff c nnot recommend approval of the special use permit until it is clear that the elements shown
on the Ian can be accomplished, amenities for residents are identified, it is clear how affordable
housin will be provided, and it is clear what level of improvement (if any) will be needed for Rt.
240.
.
If the Panning Commission believes it can recommend approyal at this time, staff recommends that
the foil wing items become conditions of approval:
Crozet Station
PC Public Hearing 10/16/07
1. Development shall be in general accord with the concept plan entitled, "Crozet Station,
prepared by Atwood Architects, Inc. dated May 23,2007".
2. The final site plan shall not be approved until the applicant has provided evidence that an
easement has been executed to provide inter-parcel access to the property to the east.
3. There shall be no disturbance of the stream buffer.
4. Affordable housing shall be provided in keeping with the County's affordable housing policy.
(This item must be addressed prior to the Board of Supervisors' meeting because it isn't
known how the applicant intends to accomplish provision of affordable units.)
5. Residential amenities such as an outdoor plaza, paved path to the greenway, or civic green
area shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
6. Street trees along Route 240 shall be provided as shown on the concept plan.
7. The final site plan shall not be approved until the applicant has provided an access area to
the greenway dedication in the north-west section of the property.
8. Water quality and water quantity treatment shall be based on an assumed pre-existing cover
of 20% for the site.
Wording of these conditions may change prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Staff notes
that, if workable stormwater management concepts are not provided in advance of Board of
Supervisors' action and if widening of Rt. 240 for right and left turn lanes is needed, the plan may
not be able to be accomplished as shown.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Tax Map
Attachment B - Vicinity Map
Attachment C - Action Memo from the August 28, 2007 Planning Commission meeting
Attachment 0 - Proposed Plan dated May 23, 2007
Attachment E - Tables 1 and 2 from the Crozet Master Plan
10
Crozet Station
PC Public Hearing 10/16/07
.
----------.-------
.
~~
\
-\.
.
I 10' Contour
!-~
I /"-V Roads
I ~ c=J Driveways
c=J Buildings
Streams
;6. Water Body
c=J Parcels
Parcel of Interest
~
-
I:
~
5
.s::
l;j
=
-
-
~
812007-\0\9
/ \ \
Crozet Station
rv~
~
j~
4~ :'\
r-------..
~
o ~
Q
_ ~r1t;;0 m
. T'>-~~. <ili~
L~.\ '
--c
~
L
, ' g ~
~T~;
I~'" ~, ~
/
"'~'
-
,-
U
./. ....~. ~"" ' ~
" ~ "7-' ~.~
~~~," CZ~.
'~-J~-1-29~~
~ ,,~)/ ..' 'f(J
~ ~~':':~TmR~ ~- ~ \
~\:"r\ I' ' S
\
,/,,",
I.
, ~
i r/X ~ "lJ .
li9f\'
~~ \~i ~ J LplJ,\ -y . - '"
17,/;Q ~\ttM<.~ ~ ~~ '"
) ~~ ....- , ,/ ~ '!:D ;.,." " ./~. ~ ,J~ G
r .....~. ..~.~,J. -- j ~
r~
~ ; \ /;/~. e.&; ~ .' oK' ~T~~ (\--0
/J'~ r ' ~..,=.~ r:r~~ /7. ~,D--"7
~ 'J-lr.- '"I V-' V i \
P0~ . ~~r----r0 1\1 I j1~ .... l II i
~~'~~ t--Yrx:~~~~ f'~,~
~ ~(;1~\ ~
~ ~~~v, J(~-
~../,_., ;~~. ;~V~\:"-
~ !. . ~ -~, )'"'".....h~. /'J Roads c=J Parcels
'\/7 T~\ ~ ~
y :7 ~-/ ITTe- :::A~/' Streams _ Parcel of Interest
. - \
::..- - _ ~IJl~)~ 1~,lllKl ~r J ,",' '~; -..:; ~.W~~r Body \ A
=
...
=
~
5
.::
~
=
...
...
-<
--v
.
.
.
5. The applicant should expect to make cash proffers in accordance with the Board's policy direction for
iall non-affordable units.
S-2007 -00026 Crozet Station
P OPOSED: 30 residential units to be located above the existing Crozet Shopping Center buildings and
a arking structure addition to the northeast corner of the site.
Z NING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: C-1 Commercial - retail sales and service uses; and
re idential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre)
S ~TION: 18.22.2.2.6 uses permitted the R15 Zoning District (15 units/acre) and 18.22.2.2.9 Parking
St cture
C MPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community of Crozet; designated CT 6 Urban Core,
w ch allows for a mix of commercial, office, retail, and other uses along with residential uses up to 18
u its an acre and up to 36 units an acre in a mixed used setting, according to the Crozet Master Plan.
E 1TRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
L ATION: Crozet Shopping Center, north of Three Notch'd Road(Route 240); approx. % mile east of its
int rsection with Rt. 810
T MAP/PARCEL: 56A2-01-29
M ISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
(C ~udette Grant)
In umma ,a work session on SP-2007-00026 Crozet Station was held by the Planning Commission.
In power point presentation, staff reviewed the applicant's proposal. The Commission reviewed and
dis 'ussed the proposal, answered the questions posed by staff and made comments and suggestions.
Th I applicant made a presentation. Public comment was taken. No formal action was taken.
I
Planning Commission made the following comments about SP-2007-00026 Crozet Station:
1. 'ost members believe that parking is appropriately relegated on the site with the parking garage
It the rear.
2. ,he unit types proposed are acceptable and the PC noted that the applicant said that more
~an 15% would be affordable.
3. ~e height and massing of the buildings is appropriate. The PC did not agree with the ARB
,commendations for 2-story buildings for retaining views of the mountains. The
>IC said that the perspectives that had the support of the community were the ones
~at should be used.
4. Irhpacts of the residential units should be met with SP conditions.
Old Business
Ms. 10seph asked if there was any old business.
The November 6 Planning Commission meeting previously scheduled on Election Day was
cancelled.
The ~ being no further old business, the meeting proceeded.
New Business
Ms <l>seph asked if there was any new business.
,
Mr. Strucko asked the Commission to support retention of the porch on the Cocina del Sol
' restaurant and the barbershop in a road widening project on Crozet Ave. because of the historic
nature of the building. He said that the staff was pushing the owner to get rid of the porch
because it is in the public right-of-way and that the reason for the road location was to preserye a
tree. The Planning Commission supported Mr. Strucko's suggestion to save the porch on Crozet's
barbershop and Cocina del Sol restaurant and asked staff to take their suggestion into
consideration.
ALB MARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 28, 2007
FIN 4 ACTION MEMO
8
Attachment C
~
.....
I::
~
e
..cl
~
~
...
.....
<
.....
to)
'i:
.....
.!!!
o
-0
'" '"
(.) .~
~ ~
(i) ~
c: '"
2l ~
co,
~ .~ cO
>-",,,,
.Q.oCij
~ ~~
5 en
~~
.!ll E
~~
g~
'" e
(; '"
.0 (I) ...:
'" '" '"
0l0l-
'0) Jg ffi
Z's;: 0
"'Ul.l!l
ffi g'E
:5-e.g
e 0_
.~~ 5
~.~~
~ -=E
en t:~1O
S g; 0
W -g 3l;;;
~ ~~~
...J .~ :g ~
W Q)~.-
:::..e
C ~.~ ~
- ~ Q) m
::;) 0, E III
11'\ &: '" E ~
'-'~~8~
Z 0 ~~~
C) ~ c.!!! E
_...~==co
CJ)~'E..:g>
o :;:~""
~C~~~
-0 ~
C ~~
Z 'l52l
<( "i~~"""":'
'0 ~ E ~
CJ) lil~.g ~
W ~~-o$
a. 1iimg~
S E -e .E
>- -g~.ll1O
I- co ffi~~
~ en 'Q) ~
W 19~~~
o .~~o ~
<( EO",=
...J 10 ti ~ .;
"'0 _
a. ~~~ ~
CtI c:: ..J::
~ g ~ ~'i
W .llilal~
N 8,-g~~ 5
Oca~;.mro
ftJ C .- c: "6
LI. ~._ '0 "" 2l '"
'" ~ <Ii E ~
- l'l.~ e '"
: -C s~';~
>< O~~31;
_ 0", u lll2
0:: ~ :;:'E l3 ~
L- ~ 2l g ~x
.- O.!llo~e
<( .c ~ liliii 2:
Ill:: .---oe",
.::: .... :E! c: ~ VJ
C) E ~ -00;
""Q)2l~~0l
~ en:;:) U
wz'6'331~
I- <l: ()::J_
CJ)
<(
::E
.
.
u~
~-g ~~
.~ ~ c: Q) .~
E U) .- > ....
'C ~ as ~ fJl..;
0. 0 .~ 1.;) c 5.i
~ ~ c: 0 co "0
.!bgJ,E2"-ij:;
s~~~~~
-g.~~€~m
: ~.!B ~.!B_
cU:::~ ~g
~~;B~.~
'm c: ~ c 5 ~~
E g ~ 'g.8 m
mm~-!l:J
=t;o~--g
~~Q)s-;-!!:!
~o~~:ffio
5 0: t/J -- ~ .~
E~~~~E
"0 0 ro -- .5 as
ffi:;:o; <Ii E'E
:E~~~~~
~2l-';l'l(;~
~~g~~;
.!2aig..~E-5
co."": c: <:n ~ L...
E;ij~~;.~
~go~]j?;
2l""-",'" 0
~ :E ij5 ;i .5 ~
~,~5~elll
:0 ~:CQ)o.(ij
'2~~gg.n;
8~V)~.~~
~ ~ 'm @ ~ ~
c{~(ijra~5
-
Q)
E
n:I
J:
~
~
10
M
-0
'"
'"
.;;
!
"t"'"
0)
Q.
>.
I-
0)
(J
nl
c::
C
o
E
C
~
0)
c
W
...J
OJ
<(
t-
-0
'" '"
o .~
~ E
:;: ~
o
~ 5l
2l ~
"Eo,
E .~ ai
.Q~~
~~~
wE ::J
.?;-'"
.~ E
~ ~
",-g
~:
:;: '"
~ 0. .
'" >- '"
c::~
2l~ :>
~&jo
8. ~ ~
g.~:B
CJ)'OE
1";: ~"O
~'r>E ffi
;. '" '"
I~rj~
~~
e c:
2l~ ,
~.~ .~
~,:-g
g.~~
en :> '"
~ :;
~ 0
c m ~
:E:~E
~-gcU')
F ~ ~B
~2~~~
~~Q)Q)~
Q) ._ ~ .- c:
~ ~ ~.~ ~
8 ~ '" ~ '"
Q)~g>a.E
~ ~:s; fJ-,g
.?;o
E
(ijJ2
.c~t
~ ~ .~
\- ~ >.
M~~~
t;~ni~.
- ~ ,~ g. ~
Ql~8"',"5
W.g ,~ ~ * ~
V~ a. :J "C
~'"
,!l! E
~ ~
",-g
'" '"
'~ lG
~ 0. .
~~*
2l ,!l1 :>
~~'l5
8. ~ ~
g.~1S
en'l5E
(ij ~~
o-g~ 0 m;
.~ ~ :g :: Q) E 5
E8.~.~~~>'
"'~>-S!:5Ci;~
€m~~o ~-g .
~ :g Q) en Q) 5: Q) ~
cQ)Z~EO><u
'0 ~ en : ~ ~ ~ ~
a.~~.~t::~(lJ~
n; ';: '" 0 "" E '-E
o en Q) Ih a.'S: ctI
.g ~ E &s g-:e ~~
:J ctI "C (I) ctI ctI,....
o/l .
B.~ '0
~~ ~
~~al
~ n; '"
o~~
~a~~
g '~~ &i
",,,,-oE
~ ,~ ~ g-
(l)omdi
~~c3~
.?;o
E
~i
.cffi"O>
- j ~.~
C"") \- ~ >.
I- 2 >-=
(J c: Q; .!!1
:::-2l1O~.
~~'~UJ-g
III 0 E '" "5
c2:.gvi,'!!
~~~~~
'l5~
~'"
'" >
.~ ctI en
~~~
=~o
'i ~ ~
- >-:>
,!:; - x
~JgE
~~al
o .- .1::::
::t ~,~
C
o
+::
u
~ C
l!! ::J
<LL
C
o
+::
1\iQ.
- 'i:
0) (J
C 1/1
0) 0)
c>C
~
o e
E :;:
g .9
.?;o ~
is -0
.~~ 0
.-~:: "8
moo
:J~-E
'" 0 0
~~~ai
~ ~.~ *
e
:;: e
.9 "':;:
c .g.9
:;: ~ ~
o '" 0
a Ci;a
g '" e '"
.9~ ~fi
Q).-"C1::
;S.9gR
a 0 of: g..
~ ~ ~ en .
~cQ-g,$.$
o ~.O) 5 Ej
,.... ctI C N 0
e
:;:
o
'E
:;:
o
a
g
.9
'"
:5
'l5
<f.
C? cO
o ~
c:
~ L::o
E~~~
:;: 0 ",'
O'-UlO)
!:~2~
ctI .e; c.-
B o' ~ ~
Q) C"C 0
,s,gge
Cig-EE>.
~~g ~:~
U')cU~~t5
~ ~ .~ ~ ~
~ m
.9 m
"'-0
'" 0
- 0
'Ot
~~
o.c
10 Ol
~~
19 lX
.9 m
",-0
:5 g
at
~2
0'"
100l
g~
m ai
~ ~
'"
="8
'l5 0
:z~
+ .0
~'"
~'~
NZ
a;
E
'"
I
g
.9
'"
:5
'l5
<f.
o
10
.9 cO
o.~
:::> '"
Q)
E
'"
I
g
.9
'"
,s
'l5
~
o
'" cO
o ~
'"
Q)
E
..
I
n;
B
'"
:5
-
o
~
o
"t cO
o ~
N '"
1/1
.9-
~
0) 1/1
1/1 C
~ 0
'tJ+::
C'!!!
nl 0)
...JIX:
1/1
0)
1/1
~
'tJ
C
nl
...J
.,.
oS! iJj ~
. E :::J
~~~
o!l :i t.!S
'" -0 ~ E
'tn N co .5
-o~-gcJ
cn-;ctI~
~ ~ ~-ci
......~::Jco
-ci ~ ~ ~.~
~~~g.~
Ol
c:
E
co '"
~ '"
.9 ~
0.:>
:>-0
'"
<3 x
'" 'E
~ to
~ ,~
~ <3
.9~
o.:i
:::>-0
Ol
~E
E m
0.'"
::J '"
:>
J-g
.!!1 x
=!E
-0 e
co .-
~ <3
.9~
0.:>
:::>-0
'l5
<f.
~
~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~
~ ~ 4J .9
00"'0 en
~~-g~
~ ,- Ul C
s~~~
1~~~
~ ~ ~~
~ '"
.g1!f~
~ffi~
-= E X
ad ~ ~ 'E
'" -0 0.
M C'\I co .~
u~-gcJ
U5 ~ CO ~
~ ~ ~-ri
~~6~0)
~!-EB:E
~.g~g-~
Ol
e
E
CO Q)
~ '"
12 ~
0.::J
::J-o
'"
<3 x
.!!1'E
-ci ctI
N ,~
~ <3
.9~
o.:i
:::>-0
~
'en 0
ffi~
-0 .-
_ e
'" ::J
~,....
'" e
-0 '"
'~ :
:;:~
o '"
~~~
'" 0 ()
> e '"
(Ii
()
'"
?i
';:
::J
10
'i
10
C"i
\- . ~ Q)
~E~
.!!1~~
o/l =! t.-
'" -0 ~ E
'(;j~ ~ ~.~
"'0 0 c: 0
en ~ co ~
cJ :::J ~ ~
ctlu;en"C
"':Q):JCX)
:J X ,g,.... [J)
U~C:.9~
~-a~g.i
'"
'"
:j
","0
... c:
J2~
N.....
UJ 0
-J c:
tIl:2
~g.
~ ~
CJ)~
iU
+::
C
0)
'tJ
1/1 >.
0)....
IX: 'ii)
.... C
0) 0)
ZC
>.
....
'iij
C
0)
C
~ '"
o Ol
o '"
'" ~
, '"
'" >
010
'" ()
a,o
>-
'" E
LL :>
~ .~
o X
10 '"
N E
0'"
COOl
~
E '"
::l >
E 8
:~ 0
E-
LL E
CJ) ~
g 'x
~ ~
~
o
o
~ '"
aig-
N Ci;
'00 >
:Q 8
Eo
::J-
,~ ~
,!:; E
E 'x
o '"
Z E
~
0",
'<t 0>
. '"
'" ~
Ol'"
'" >
Ci; 8
>-
'" 0
LL'E
en ::J
g .~
o x
. '"
~ E
~ '"
o Ol
g. ~
~8
~:Q
'" E
LL ::J
~ :~
OX
10 '"
N E
c:> '"
CO ~
E~
~ 8
:~ 0
E-
LL E
(/) ::J
o .~
g ~
~ E
E
:>
E
'x
'"
E
<3
"'<l:
oZ
~ '"
10 Ol
~~
'" >
~ 8
"'-
010
~
~~
, '"
'" ~
Ol'"
~ E>
'" t.l
>-
'" 0
LL'E
(/) :>
o E
g 'x
~~
~ '"
o Ol
o '"
'" ~
" '"
'" >
~8
~~
'" E
LL :>
(/) 'E
gx
10 '"
N E
~
nl
~
<(
0)
Cl
nl
~
0)
.... >
o 0
...JO
Ci;
a;
,~
Ci;
0.
E
E
'x
'"
::;:
0-.
00
100
~~
N "
~
~~
,~ ~
ctI '1:
E.9
E '"
.g9-
~~-
'C;~ .
~ Q) ,~
~o.
~1ii2l
~@~
~
~
'"
.~
Ci;
0.
E
'E
'x
'"
::;:
ci ~ ,
00
100
~~
N "
e
n;
E
Eal
o >
~~
~ii
S~
;;@
C?~
Lqc:
~ '"
~
'"
E
.~
0.
E
E
'x
'"
::;:
@
~ 2
~~~
,5 ~ E g
~ '<: E ""
oR.!!!
E 1ii 13 ~
.g~~~
$ ~ ~ 0.--;-
'g.92g~g,
cnQ)g-~:c
~~~~3
N en Q) e>..Q
@~
tlG
c '[:
'" 0
eCii
'n; (1')
E.;,
E .
.g~
Ul Q) -:-
.~ ~ g
_ _ 0.
'" '" '"
~ ~ ~
~ '" '"
0-,
00
100
'0
~N
N"
Ci;
a;
E
'~
0.
E
'E
'x
'"
::;:
o ~,
00
100
'0
g",
Nil
2
'"
.~
Ci;
0.
E
E
'x
'"
::;:
~
->-
:ii.o
.~ $
ctI '[:
E.9
E '"
.g~
'" g;
,~ Q)-:-
~ - c:
~mg
~t;~
~@~
0.,
c c
100
''<t
~N
Nil
*
E
'C:
&.
E
E
'x
~
0",
00
100
g~
N II
e
'n;
E
Eal
o >
J::~
,~ ~
B~
;;@
c? 2='
If.!c
~ '"
<l:
Z
<l:
Z
@>-
.0
t'"
C ,~
'" ~
o
e-
,- '"
"'",
E '
10
E .
.g~
(I) Q) .
'g ~.2
.-::0.
~~~
~ '" '"
~
'"
~
Ci;
0.
E
'E
'x
'"
::;:
ci - ,
00
100
g~
N II
Ci;
Q)
.~
Ci;
0.
E
E
'x
'"
::;:
0".
00
100
g~
N II
~
- >-
:ii.o
.5 ~
CO '[:
E.9
E '"
o~
ol=-'
'" g;
,~ Q) -:-
~ - e
~$~
If.!~g.
~@)~
1/1
C
o
'ii)
C
0)
E
i5
~
(J
.2
a:1
Cl
C
32
::J
a:1
....
o 1/1
0)....
Cl~
C .~
nl 0)
IX:::I:
0)
~
::J
iU 1/1
+:: 0
nlU
Q.C
ooW
enQ)= ~J!j
S~~ Qi.Q
>- ~. ~
~..Q@ Xo
"'0:J~.- a~
:J ~ :::l Q)
11 lB 2l -0, ~
Q)o~J!j~-g
~ a5 ~ ~~ cu
!~~~8~
en ,.... >- Ul ..- '"'
~~g.~g.g
~1d]l5~
,>-
.!!1 Q)'m ~ E rJi
:!~~ o~o
~~@ .c~-
~Q)Q. ~E~
.Q~Q) .9"C~
g~~ .><~E
.!g~~~xE
~ 0>;,.: Q).g~8
'" c<i '" E , . '"
g. ;,.: ';' ~ ~ ~ 5
ffi~g.~~.!~
~ ]l ~ ]l8 ,~ 15
E
::J
E
'2
~
~~~ g~
~~l) Q)-
~~~\ ><~
:> ..", ~o.~
~~Q. :JQ)
g ~ ~ "C_~
Q)o~J!j~-g
~a1c:'-!~~ct1
[~~~8~
~ ~ ~~ ~~
~.Qgl9~~
~~~lG>.9
,>-
~~]! ~E'
J2-=~ :::Jco~
l!!~@ ,g~.Q
~~o. i~~
.g~B Bh-gm
c: 0 X )( m E
Q)oQ)19.92xE
~~~5i.g~8
~~'~~Q)~.:L~
(/J,....>..~0)00
e:;:g.i5,'!!:;:'"
~..Qc.!9oQ>J9
~Jll'llGO.2:o
~
II
.Q
~
E~
:J';":
E II
'x 0
co:;:;
::;: ~
~q:
~ ..
II ii
,2 0
~~
E E
::J :>
.~ .~
CO .~
::;:::;:
j~
II ii
~ .Q
~m
E E
,~ E
~ :~
::;:::;:
E
:>
E
';:
~
~
"
o
~
E\'!
::J~
E II
'x 0
ctI:;:;
::;: ~
E
::J
E
';:
~
Q) 'co <Ii
~g~ g
~~@) ~~
~ ~ a. 'E 5
o ~~
13 ~ 2l "":;:
ffi-8~J!jEB
~~~ffi(ij-g
'[ ~ ,f!1 ~ '~ -=
Ul ,.... >..~ Q) 0
:ii~g.~~~
~ ~ ~ ]l 8~
>-
0.
o
e
~
>-
.0
~
::J
'"
o
ocw1
e ..
"'~
J2~
!~
(/) '"
c:'!
~
II
,Q
~
E~
'E t=
'x 0
cu:;:;
::;: ~
~~
II 11
g .Q
",-
~ '"
E E
::J ::J
.~ E
x ,-
ctI ,~
::;:::;:
<l:
Z
E
::J
E
';:
~
<l:
Z
>-
0.
o
c:
'"
()
>-
.0
'"
"
'"
o
OM
c:
"'~
12~
1ti~
0._
en '"
~
"
,Q
~
E\'!
::J~
E II
'x 0
'" '';:>
::;: ~
E
::J
E
';:
~
"'''' 'S.!!i
~~g ~.Q
-.-e ~-t
~~@ Xo
~~.- -!~
..Q ::J a. :::J Q)
g~~ "O~~
.!g~E~-g
.!!1 '" ~ "'~ '"
[c1E!~8~
~ ~ ~~ ~~
~.Qg!9~~
~~rllG>.9
~
"
o
""
~
E~
:::J~
E II
'x 0
co+=-
::;: ~
...
III
l!!
Ci)
:;:,
.r::
el
'Qi 0
:I;:;;
ell1l
c~
.- .r::
'0...
='0
~ .-
l1)~
>.
Q.
o
C
nl
o
0)
0)
~
I-
'"
Ol
JlJ
.;;
-0
e
'"
'"
Ol
'"
t:
o
()
~
to
E '
'r: ~
0. 0
~
~
:;
()
.~~
,~o
~-oc:
I- '" .-
O$~
SE~
- ~ '"
- '" 0
ZLLo.
'" ,
Ol'"
JS!J5
:S:!9
-0 0.
e 2l
'" ()
'" '"
Ol",
Jg:Q
82
>-,'!!
~~
E '
.- '"
0:0
~8
_0
"''''
N _
eo>
O~
0) ~
Q. t") .
>'::J~:5
I- tIl Q tIl
+'~~~
o '" 1;; ~
;-I8l~&
Cl
C
'tJCl
_ C
::J:E
a:1OO
o!l
'"
()
o
0.
vi
-0
to
~
o
o
-0
'"
'" ,
~ ~
~ e
<l:,g!
gf
o
~
vi
1::
'"
~,
g ~
-0 :ii
gf~
-0",
l'l ~
.:( 8.
ci.
o
o
en
-0
e
'"
'"
-0
'"
~
<l:
0:
o
'"
en
e
Ol
'(jj
'" .
-0 '"
()
'" e
@l,g!
~~~
c: '" ()
:;: '" ~
.!llto~
g:g,uf
E::J-o
E e '"
,~ ,g ~
~-'"
o!l
'"
()
(;
0.
<Ii
-0
to
~
o
o
-0
vi
-0 a)
~ g
<l:,g!
-0
e
'"
1:: ~
'" c:
~'"
OLL
0-0
a e
. '"
"'",
-0 U
'" ~
~ 0
<l:o.
'0:
0.0
o 0
"'-
en(/)
<l:
Z
c:
Ol
'iii
'" .
-0 2l
'" e
.Ql ~
tg1~o!l
~~~
'" ~ 0
- ~ a.
c: '" '
o C'lcn
E:>-o
EO",
8~~
o!l
'"
~
o
0.
vi
1::
~
o
o
"0
vi
~ a;
l'l g
~~
0)~8
Q. _ 0
>.:!l '"
I-eoi
o~
0) , ~
Cl"" ,
.s ::J~:5
C tIl Q tIl
o ~ ~ <;:
~ '" CI) ~
It- 8l~&
E
:>
E
'x
'"
E
b
N
.;,
E
:>
E
'x
'"
E
Ln
~
o
CxJ
o
E
:>
E
'x
'"
E
b
'"
.;,
E
:>
E
'x
'"
E
b
N
.;,
E
::J
E
'x
'"
E
Ln
~
o
<l:
Z
E
:>
E
'x
'"
E
b
'"
.;,
E
::J
E
x
'"
E
b
~
10
1/1
~
(J
nl
.0
....
0)
00
0)
:E
00
\:'
en
"E
co
-0
C
co
U5
c
OJ
'iji
Q)
o
Q)
Q)
L-
U5
o
Z
I-
,
I-
o
o
()
Z
-0
C
co
'"
~~
c: E
~ .~
Ol:>
~ ~
'" ()
->. ~
C ~
5 g-
o c:
'" '"
:5=
€ a,
0:5
- '"
.l!l ~
",.l!l
'" '"
_Ol
'i-lg
,Q f/J
10 '"
Eal
.e'g
,!: 2
~.!:;
,'!! ~
:ii '"
~~
0.0.
0.'"
:> >
(/J '00
~ c:
'" '"
='"
o '"
-00.
ffi 8
"'0
ffi~
-5~
~~
'" '"
Eiij
~ro
';;' E
c: ~
~,'!!
E c:
o '"
~j
J12:
,- ::J
:5 '"
.~ Ci;
-'"
-go
",-0
e ~
E~
~~
.5 u
~gf
,~ ~
~!~
C:'
'"
0::
""
.* 8
'" '"
'" '"
5. ,E
EQ;
0:'2
o :>
'" Ol
~~
.E
~~
8 ~
'l5a
?a;
.~ ~
E e
E'6
80
'" Ol
:5~
c: 0
.- N
~~
c:_
"'-
"5 0
.g ,Q
~!9
$ ~
~~
-g ~
'" .-
_-0
e c:
'" '"
['E
51 ~
~~
-0 '"
~ ~
:>-0
:; '"
- '"
0::
- 0
",-
-0 '"
'S :2
0l::J
_ Ol
~ '"
'" '"
c: '"
~$
'" ~
~ ~
-0 0
'" '"
-gm
'" c:
'E12
.- 0.
,~ Q)
c ,~
5: ~
~"i
'00 a.
:ii 8
':iio
5.~
<Ii 8 l-
eO.
~ ~B
'" :> ()
~ 8~
~ ~',a
~ ~ ~
a. ~:2-E
~ ~ j ~
~:5-gB
c: 'O.!2.g
'~ -
co ~ 0 ~
-c a.'E~
"0 "C Q) 0
c: .! E Q)
: g-~3
1:: "0 Q) ctI
co co > c:
13 ~~~
-0 - Q) ~
~ ~:5 '>
~ n: 5 ~
"0 <v '; Q)
~ ~.2 ~
~ ~ ~ ~
.9 ~ai'E
&~~
~ ~ g
I- ~ ()
~
c
.9
'S
u.
~
Q)
a.
L-
a
:5
ro
S
~
o
ro
c
o
'0,
Q)
0:::
Q)
..c
I-
N
a.
e.
E
(/)
'c
co
.0
L-
~
~
Q)
z
Q)
:5
.....
o
c
o
o
'x
Q)
...J
Q)
-0
'5
<.9
(/)
Q)
o
n
~
a.
en
Q)
en
-0
c
co
t
o
a.
Q)
0:::
Q)
>
'iji
c
Q)
..c
Q)
L-
a.
E
o
()
E
(/)
'c
co
.0
L-
~
~
Q)
z
Q'
I
()
.!c!i
ro
<.9
,
:e
o
C
ai
-0
o
:2:
-0
o
a
..c
L-
a
.0
..c
OJ
'ijj
Z
Q)
..c
I-
(/)
Q)
~
:::>
a
(f)
-0
~
c:
::;
~
....
=
~
e
.c
CJ
~
....
....
<
r----r---
U
.\:
-
III
...9
~~
5~,;
E .!
go~ 2
o l!. .
~~f
~ ~ ~
~ u 0
Ei@
g!!~
"2:...,;C11
=ll
h"2
2 ".
l!! := III
. d!
~ 0 .
~ N ~
;:: ~ 1Ii.l'j i:~
:J~~'~='~ ~~
~~~~~~~f.~
=i~~18~~!
~82~~H~~
-o1l3.~:~.8:X:~'~
"~~E_~;g]>~J!!~ Ii
',:j,gfu2ti~~~ri~
;,-'~ ~ 0. ~ ~
~S':'I~'J ~51li~
I~> "0 III 0) . :I .c III
'.::'i-ci:2~~g:.yj~
I;=..~.u>_~
~=1 ~"O~'6;l~
I~ . ~ 5 Ii "8 ,; ~ 0
'I'. ~]~SHil~
~ ~'E~.!4i~~~.'g
;; !~!~'~~~l
I:
en ~
w 0
a. 'E
~ ~
wE
()
<(
..J
a.
~
w
en
~
c
z oeIw ~
c:( ~~~=gai~'~
...J I ~hHH~;
tu j l~!~18~~~
NO !2 ~fiHh~i"
~, ~1Il.ca!!€@l3i
0:: S !51~~~~=~i
o ~ ~U.i~ ~H.ll
'Cf%H ~ ~~
O~~"1i 0:00
O:~~1~1a ~~;~
~II~HUUH
..c ca:::J &. IS .)( 0
~~~~~~B~~i...~
.- :ill "'E ~ ,;.0 1>1 II ts
Q)&1-g.!!1i.~'E~~
~fUot'G-!,g~.g~l!!
~~
O~
!'l~
"i m i ~
.~ ~ ~ ~
! ~ ~ i
~ ~ ~ !!
:f ~ 5.~
!
-
>
.
vi ~ rn
~lj.; ~ ~i
~ ~ 'G . 8 @U)
o~:i~~~;
=:~~n,g~-g
P::>:i "2 E:;!'j ~
~~lJ!!,;~d~
!:5!~~calll1ig
~=~!;g~~~~
WB:.c cnillll1i..2.ca
-
.!!
E
CO
f-~
. "
. .
].~~c~~
~l~ih
I ,,~ '" Ii '5 If"-;
~:i~';~~~~
1~;~&~,5]8
e~:t~&~g~
. 'I: i.. c C'III III III
~ j j l~ 1 ~ i
",,'Iii -g,u
jg~~S ~~
~ '5 5 ~ g li ~ [~
=~~~~~~il
~;'~~~1l~~;;
~e~1ii~~~.~
i vi" c"" l!.8 . E E
= 8l.E l!!~~;~.2 iii
5 i ~ .B ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I
~
.,
~
N III
W ll:
...I :::l
aI '0
<( C
~ .5
::l
~
~
E
E
~
III
~
~ a)":.:J.
~l'~
,~8 i
~t~
!~~'g
~81Illt!
Hh
'g
& .1
o ~
~~-~.
]i~
c:J ~
~ ~ ~
"~~
. ,
;{~
'i
~ : ~
d~ .
,~(:3 g
] ~'~ ~
c ~ ~c Iii
~~Ui
l!.HH
'"
~
~
<('2
~. ~
~ ~
.~
jf:J
8~
~
~a)"~
<iTs
I~ i
, .lI 0
~ g. ~
~~~~
i~~~
;(I ~ ~
.~
~ . ~
'q ~
.~~ 3
]t~
c:l~
~".~
" ~ 8
B-1'
~- ~
~;:
~t
~.~
::; '"
z 0
o~
t~
'"
m
~~
=~
H
.~
~:J
8'~
~.3
;g1'E
~8 ~
'E K 0
h~
~o~.~
III . .c
i;P
<I)~I~
&
~
III g>
Q) :2
.~ '3
Cl ell
CI) :!
fti c
.8 i
~ &!
"8
]
g
~
1i
'5
n
o ~ ~
~~~
::::::Iii.!!!
lH
HI
'~
~
. -
,~~ ~
~~~
;g~~
.il~~
~ !L~
00'
~
5
. -
.~ ~ ~
t~~
~'Q ~
~~i
~~f
N
~i
, E
2~
~5
~ g
:~
~!
~ :
H
. e
ON
~~
g-i
2 .~
::;~
~"8
E~
~ :
I ~
ON
0-
:z:S
..
'"
!
~
~
.
~
~
~
"0
::>
!
~
~
S
~
,
o.
010
~
g
~
N
~.~
, E
2.g
l
~ 8
~i~
~Ie~
:::lii.!!!
of '~ 'E
!~~
381
g-i
~ .~
..e1:l
H
~~
e ,;
H
. e
ON
0-
IS
.~
o
~ <;
~ 0 ...:
~~ ~
li~
.il~~
~~~
o8l
"
Z
"
Z
..
'"
!
I
~
S
~
,
o.
o ill
~
~
:z:
~
::>
1
~
1i
~
n
o~
sf
'c Ie
::>.
~ .~
H
38
g
~
N
~ '"
~,g
, E
a.g
'"
C
';;.
..,
o
...J
3
~
i i
:& &
..l . >
~:!61.><
=~-o~
~ 8~i~-
0:= III 0 II:
if''E i! e
~;~!j
o fi !! B ~
i j'~
.B _ &.;
= J: . >:1
~i~ii
- ... II O2
~ <; ~o'''.
;~ ~ ~ ~
~~i!~
e> fi ! ~ e
~
.
-gll.
~~ ::1
.- = ! :it
]l~-e
'js~~
~. ~ B ~
p~~
,,'nt
~ ~
." 0
fi!
l~~
]~~
l~~
;~8
~~~
I ~
] ~
i~1i.><
:I: !!! . i5 ~
m_J i t~
~f E f ~
~;:!~!
" Ii ~ B !
f i~
] _ ~1ii
H~I~
~ a ~af~.
11I2 ii.Si 'E
~]1;5
& i '~ ~ 1
1
=~
!~1~
~~~~
>~~e
...J 1Il.1ll 0
Z at'" '1ii
~~~~
b] ! 8
~ ~
~!
~~
"Bg
-J:t:!
~~~
~i~
U)lIi=C
go ~
J:! J!
:g ..
I~~i~
'iii ! ~ c_:8
58~i'...r
~i'~ ~ ~
~~i~i
(!) Ii e 8 e
=
u
~
.
III
~
0:
~~
~ :.i
i~.~
p~
~:.~ ~
it~~=
~11i
:3o.e~
. ~ :~
.~f,~~~~ ~
!iij.~~a..~~
~~~~~h~
~~~:~~~l
i:g.~~~~i
~s ~~c..!! Q.Y:
!~i.[g~~1
_ Ei5
.S! ~ ~.~ If !l.~
~8~~~~~qi
"'" 8 >. III '[i !:i C ~
~e~;'~~j=
~~81~.e'liicn~
!8_=~ll~&
Slii~ii2!.;6c
!!fjiili
~~
~~
E~ ,~
~~~
~u._~
1lI~~
i ~~
ilh
I~
ii~-
e !l ~
N~~~
a..~1f.c
~~ ~~
:3 ~ ~~
u u
III~E~cnB ~
'g E'f~~'5 _ ~
~m~~~'~~1
~U1ictl:8=c
en.~ gH~~':
siJ3-g g.~ 5 ~
Z-~il~""~
=~~g,.~8"!l
3!~ti~'il
i"
~<
~,g
...0
a..(
::;.: ~
~~~
>- ~ .
u..o
t~
~!i
00
J~~
S ~ "
~ lL.i
~~~
8 0 .
- ,
~li
'! .~
~~
tl.~
. . !I
" ' .
~~~
CL..: .f
~D C
~ ~i
1:
o
0.
0.
~
III
';;
i3
'"
u
";;
i3
"B
g
~
I-
"8
]
~
"
'f
f
"0
o
.~ g'~! ~
i '8:~_~ ~
1II~.~CI(f III
~ en."!l - j
hd.
oc.cU)~
~ ~~~~
~ 'K~~ g
i a.i .,- iii
:~~~~l
~1imjh
:; fi:=. 5.g]
e>i~~uCII
Jlg~~~
i~~~~~
"5~lii~
..
5,
~
~
"
B
i
en
"
z
..
~
!
j
u
-g
~
o
41:8
,~ 8
o~
..~
OD
i~
~~
1~
,,=
~~~ g
41 '8:~~il
~~!~s~
.~:~ii~
~~~~.~ !
~~Hi2
~~~~.~;
,,= 8"_~~
..
5
.
~
'i!
"
"8
ii
en
.
o
.
u
.
~
..
u
;!
.
"
~
.
~
"
..
o
i
en
"
dJ:8
. ~
- B
o~
..~
o~
Q2-
!w
~~
,,!j'
~~
..
5
J
o
I
en
"
, ..
.~ 1
o.
.
..~
~~
~'G
~~
1~
,,=
if
"
<
z
.
cr
~
z
o
~
u
..
>=
u
..
5
!
~
"
..
o
0"
~
en
<
z
..
~
j
u
g"
ii
en
g
cL~
~~
..~
0.0
~~
. .
~~
g~
~:S
C
o
~
~
..,
w
m
5
'"
"ii
'C
;;
~
..,
.5
oi
.~
'0
E
o
;
0(
.
2;
~
~ c
~g
-E8
h
C!)_~
[16
~O
~i
~ -~
J~
g~
~.:'I
,~1
~ 0
",:!
.
,
~
E
5
.
o
.
. .
- .
. ~
~ i
to.
~~
oi!
- .
o ~
H
~~
:fa
"
z
.... ~j
~~~~
0_ E .
E 8'00
E 1i a. B
8U)t(;~
~~!~t
~~eiw
IlE!!l:2-i
5~g!!:
"T
i j .~~
'g .! ~ t:
!l!~m
;j~~
i~~~
~ ~ ~ ~
a8~~
<
z
;!
~
~~~j
.~ !'~~
!!~~~
1Ilj3.IlICl
!~~~
;- g'~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
(!)88~
l
:<
..
.
~
Ui
afg
,~
o~
i 9
l5~
"0
~~~
i~~:~
.0 1:1 0 '/3
~ ~ ~ ~ .
"..~~~
>.~~~il
ii~15~
:i'E~i"
e;iD~:l:
<
z
-~~;
g>-~~
E ~.~ ~
8~~5~
~~.!~t
~i~~~
~! ~Il
<
z
=
~ j.~i
E.!~"
!~~~
UI &-5 .
~~~j
~~~-g
~S~~
_.~
~ j'~
o 0 .
.~~~i
ac~:
N &. ~ ~
titl:<i
~i~~
tJ39li
~
,:!
..
.
~
Ui
=5
Ba
~ ~
~ ~
,,1;'
. 0
i i II
e ~ Jij
a.~~~ N
~ ~.~ ~ CL.
O"'CI ::J e.
~!~:4i
~~~~~ ~
~~~:!8 'c
~!~!& .e
~
~
z
"
,6
<>
~~~
i~~~ *
l~i ~~
5""U)=~ '5
>.~~~il 8
;c::ra~ 'x
$~-e'~~ Q)
(;m~~~ ...J
Q'
:c
u
~
(ij
<;>
'e
o
t:.
:2
. ;;
."!:H
~~l~
S~*5~
~i!j!
~ ~ l~ t ~
e>wcn!a.. ~
"0
o
o
.c
is
.0
.c
Ol
"0;
Z
"
.c
I-
I!!
~
..
~
u
'C
'"
0(
Q)
Q)
(/)),;
B~
..
~~
CUJ
GlO
8'~
all(/)
IIl<:
~~
~o
~
.
~ :i
iJj
~
::>
o
Cf)
~~
. ~
E':;
Eli
B .
~oE
.~
g'l
~E
l~
i!
8c
! ~
.s:; '3
" 0-
o2!
. u
~i
-g fi
g~
~~
"'~
!I.
I!
....
~."
, .
.."
~ .~
.,,~
o.
.0
~a:
~ .
u >
~J
E !
i!'~
i~
~~
tlE
.J/!
~'i
. E
.,;,-
o .
."
~ ~
~!
.E g.
"'~
~~
.-0
.!!! ~
00
."
~.fi
~ <Ii
~~
[1
g .5
u."
~ .~
1-.
Gi~
e ~
00
~~
~~
EO
~l
.n
.5:0
t~
-5.s:
'~d
E"
~.~
ON
],!
Eli
. 0
ji
~ .
~t
, E
~!
. 0
~ ~
~g-
~o
~~
~~
0<;
i~
-g 'S
. "
-c .
!i! :a
i~
.~ i
iiiG
~ 0
~l
E .
0.2:
O.
~~
g~
~ 5
',ijU
!~
"
!~
n
~.2.
] .~
'5..5
O~
i'l
0."
~j
l~
_ 0
. .
= ~ i
:;oE
~~~
U~l
~~o
.
.
.
TO:
<<
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax (434) 972-4012
MEMORANDUM
Gregory Solis
215 5th Street, SW, Suite 100
Charlottesville, Va 22903
Claudette Grant C C5
September 11, 2007
SP2007 -00026 Crozet Station - REVISED LETTER
On August 28,2007, the Albemarle County Planning Commission reviewed the above-noted item in a work
se sion. Attached please find the section of the official action memo for this meeting describing the
dis ussion and direction provided by the Commission on this item.
If Y u have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832.
SP-2007-00026 Crozet Station
PROPOSED: 30 residential units to be located above the existing Crozet Shopping Center buildings and
a parking structure addition to the northeast corner of the site.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: C-1 Commercial - retail sales and service uses; and
residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre)
SECTION: 18.22.2.2.6 uses permitted the R15 Zoning District (15 units/acre) and 18.22.2.2.9 Parking
Structure
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USEIDENSITY: Community of Crozet; designated CT 6 Urban Core,
which allows for a mix of commercial, office, retail, and other uses along with residential uses up to 18
units an acre and up to 36 units an acre in a mixed used setting, according to the Crozet Master Plan.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Crozet Shopping Center, north of Three Notch'd Road(Route 240); approx. '% mile east of its
intersection with Rt. 810
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 56A2-01-29
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
(Claudette Grant)
In summary, a work session on SP-2007-00026 Crozet Station was held by the Planning Commission.
In a power point presentation, staff reviewed the applicant's proposal. The Commission reviewed and
discussed the proposal, answered the questions posed by staff and made comments and suggestions.
The applicant made a presentation. Public comment was taken. No formal action was taken.
The Planning Commission made the following comments about SP-2007-00026 Crozet Station:
1. Most members believe that parking is appropriately relegated on the site with the parking garage
at the rear.
2. The unit types proposed are acceptable and the PC noted that the applicant said that more
than 15% would be affordable.
3. The height and massing of the buildings is appropriate. The PC did not agree with the ARB
recommendations for 2-story buildings for retaining views of the mountains. The
PC said that the perspectives that had the support of the community were the ones
that should be used.
4. Impacts of the residential units should be met with SP conditions.
.
.
.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPM~N!
STAFF REPORT '
Pr posal: SP 07 - 26 Crozet Station
PI nning Commission Work Session:
Au ust 28, 2007
o ners: Crozet Shopping Center, LLC
(S ndra Everton)
Staff: Claudette Grant
Board of Supervisors Hearing: November
14, 2007
Applicant: Crozet Shopping Center! LLC
(Sandra Everton) with Gregory Soli~, Atwood
Architects
Special Use Permit for: residentialluse in a
C-1 commercial district and a parking
structure addition to the northeast c~rner of
the site.
By-right use: C-1 Commercial (ret~i1 sales
and service uses; and residential us~ by
special use permit (15 units/acre) ,
Ac eage: 3.2 acres
Lo ation: Crozet Shopping Center, north of
Thr e Notch'd Road (Route 240); approx. %
mil east of its intersection with Rt. 810.
(AU chments A & B)
Ma isterial District: White Hall
Conditions: No EC: Yes
Pr posal: 30 residential units to be located Requested # of Dwelling Units: 3~
ab e the existing Crozet Shopping Center
buil ings and a parking structure addition to
the northeast corner of the site.
DA (Development Area) Community of Compo Plan Designation: Commu~ity of
Cro et Crozet: Downtown, CT 6- Urban Co e
Ch racter of Property: Developed with Use of Surrounding Properties:
mix d commercial uses and historic Commercial, residential, library,
res urces; the site slopes down to a stream emergencylrescue station, and railrqad
in r ar of the properties. tracks.
RE OMMENDATION: Provide guidance to applicant and staff.
Crozet Station
PC Work Session 8/28/07
1
r
.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
Claudette Grant
August 28, 2007
Work Session - Crozet Station
S e ifics of Pro osal:
The site is currently developed with a mix of commercial uses. The applicant approached staff in
200 for some preliminary feedback regarding possible redevelopment of properties in Downtown
Cro et. At that time staff advised the applicant that a pre-application work session early on would
be eneficial to review the Crozet Master Plan recommendations for Downtown with the
Co mission and to get the public involved in providing input on redevelopment of the site. A pre-
appl cation work session with the Planning Commission was held on May 30, 2006. Since the work
ses ion, the applicant decided to split the redevelopment of the shopping center into three phases
and pply for a special use permit for residential uses in a commercial district as phase one.
.
Peti ion:
PR JECT: SP 2007-00026 Crozet Station
PR POSED: 30 residential units to be located above the existing Crozet Shopping Center buildings
and parking structure addition to the northeast corner of the site.
ZO ING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: C-1 Commercial- retail sales and service uses; and
resi ential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre)
SEC ION: 18.22.2.2.6 uses permitted the R15 Zoning District (15 units/acre) and 18.22.2.2.9
Par ing Structure
CO PREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USEIDENSITY: Community of Crozet; designated CT 6 Urban
Cor , which allows for a mix of commercial, office, retail, and other uses along with residential uses
up t 18 units an acre and up to 36 units an acre in a mixed used setting, according to the Crozet
Mas er Plan.
ENT NCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOC TION: Crozet Shopping Center, north of Three Notch'd Road (Route 240); approx. X mile
east of its intersection with Rt. 810
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 56A2-01-29
MA ISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
round:
On ay 30, 2006, the Planning Commission held a pre-application worksession on this project.
(See Attachments C & D) Several questions were posed and discussed during the worksession. At
the orksession, the Commission reviewed and discussed the proposal with staff and the applicant,
took ublic comment, and responded to the preliminary questions posed by staff.
Wha has chan ed?
After the pre-application work session in May, 2006, the applicant decided to reduce the area of his
requ st and only redevelop a portion of the shopping center. His current request reduces the
num er of residential units to 30 from 72. The square footage of commercial uses also decreased
from 2,000 square feet to 28,059 square feet. The applicant and staff met several times after the
work ession and as a result the applicant decided to request a special use permit for residential
uses in a C-1 (Commercial zoning district) and for a parking structure.
.
Com rehensive Plan:
Croz t Station is located in Downtown Crozet, which is one of the major themes of importance in
the rozet Master Plan. Analysis and additional details regarding this project and its relation to the
Croz t Master Plan can be found on pages 3 and 4 of Attachment C.
Crozet Station
PC Work Session 8/28/07
2
rn
.
Pri <:iples of the Neighborhood Model -- Conformity with the Neighborhood Model is assessed
belo .
Ne $hborhood
Fri !ndly Streets
an ! Paths
Int rconnected
Str ,ets and
Tra ' sportation
Ne orks
Pa ~s and Open
Sp ce
.
Nei hborhood
Ce ers
Sui (iings and
Sp ees of Human
Sc Ie
Mix ure of Uses
Mix ure of Housing
Typs and
Aft tdability
Red velopment
.
Site planning that
Resects Terrain
The plan does not clearly depict pedestrian orientation on the site. A
sidewalk is shown at the front of the site, adjacent to Route 240, and a
pedestrian way is shown at the rear of the site. Site development would be
expected to include sidewalks along the adjacent roadways as well as an
internal system of pedestrian connections to parking, buildings and to
ad'oinin ro erties.
While street trees are shown on the plan, there is also an expectation that
there will be provisions for pedestrian safety, such as crosswalks that are
internal and external to the site. In addition, streetscape furniture and
enhancements would be expected such as benches, and trash
rece tacles.
Near the northwest corner of the property there is a vehicle and pedestrian
way shown that is to continue across phases two and three. This would
serve as an interconnection for the site. There is also an interconnection
shown on the eastern ortion of the site.
The applicant has not provided any park and open space amenities. Staff
suggests parks and open space include the Greenway (terminus),
commons, square where commercial character is on the ground floor,
greens, and plazas. There is also a required 1 DO-foot stream buffer along
the rear property lines and opportunities to provide greenway connections
both parallel to Parrot Creek or across to connect the neighborhoods north
of Downtown.
This property is located in Downtown Crozet, intended to be a center for
several nei hborhoods and a central lace in Crozet.
The applicant has submitted building schemes which show a variety of
one, two and three story additions to the existing building. The Architectural
Review Board (ARB) has expressed a preference for 1 additional story on
the western portion of the building in order to protect the mountain views.
The Master Plan recommends 2-4 stories from main level and up to 5
stories b exce tion for Downtown Crozet.
Parking is not relegated in the portion of the property that is adjacent to
Route 240. This principle is not fully met. There is additional discussion
re ardin this later in the re ort.
This project is proposing a mix of both residential and commercial uses.
This principle is met.
The applicant proposes only apartments/multifamily. The proposal would
be expected to meet the affordable housing policy goals. The applicant has
indicted that the apartments will be affordable, but there has been no
commitment as et to rovidin affordable units.
The applicant has indicated that the existing commercial buildings would
remain on the site and that the residential buildings would be built above
the existing buildings. The applicant has also indicated that the existing
buildin s would be renovated with the addition of s ace.
The site is sloping in some locations. However, the majority of the additions
to the site will occur above the existing buildings with exception of the
arkin structure.
Crozet Station
PC Work Session 8/28/07
3
.
.
.
! I
CIE r Boundaries
wit the Rural
ArE as
The project is located entirely with in the Community of Crozet and ~he
nearest boundary with the Rural Area is north of Downtown at the Crozet
Elementary School northern property boundary.
Disc i.Jssion:
The bllowing describes issues mentioned in the staff report for the original pre-application work
sess ipn, followed by the Commission's feedback on the issues. (See also Attachments C & D) The
revi~ d information submitted by the applicant follows in bold:
Historic Preservation
Should contributing structures to possible future historic district be demolished for new
development?
Generally, the Commission felt that there should be a major effort toward preservation of the
buildings in the area proposed for redevelopment. If the buildings could not be saved, a
"tribute" to the buildings should be provided. The intent was to maintain the "feel of historic
downtown" and its charm. If they could be preserved, the buildings from Crozet Pizza to the
corner should be the main focus. The design of the old train depot is a type of design that
might be worth emulating as part of this project. The most important part of the project
visually is the buildings and areas along Three Notch'd Road. What is behind those
buildings is not of as much concern. Staff is expected to work with VDOT to try to minimize
widening of Three Notch'd Road in order to retain the look and feel of the existing block.
The existing buildings related with this SP request are not considered historic.
Mix of Uses & Residential Densitv
Is the mix of residential and commercial/retail uses appropriate?
Generally, the Commission felt that the mix of residential and commercial/retail uses was
appropriate with the increased amount of 56,000 square feet if they keep affordable
residential units in the mix.
Applicant proposes to provide 28,059 square feet of commercial space and 30
residential units. The proposal would be expected to meet the County's affordable
housing policy goals.
Desian and Lavout
What features of the design and layout does the Planning Commission find appropriate?
What would the Planning Commission suggest to improve the layout and design?
The Commission suggested that the part of the project containing the existing IGA and the
large parking area be addressed to reorient the buildings differently towards Route 240.
The applicant needs to work on better solutions to relegate the parking on the eastern
portion of the property, particularly at the grocery store, and to provide a buffer. The
topography of the site was noted as a concern to have to be dealt with. The western end of
the project should be kept looking "Crozetish". If this moves forward, details should be
provided to show how the green area relates to the rest of the site. If there are residential
units information on urban open space or amenities should be provided as well as an
interconnection to the east.
Crozet Station
PC Work: Session 8/28/07
4
.
The revised plan dated May 23, 2007 (See Attachment E) shows a parki g lot adjacent
to Route 240. The existing buildings are located to the rear of the par ing area. The
lack of relegated parking remains an issue.
Que tions for the Commission Based on This Submittal:
Doe the Planning Commission find the design and layout of the site appropria e,
part cularly as it relates to relegated parking?
As ~ntioned in the previous staff report, the Crozet Master Plan does not suggest a y specific
desi in or layout for redevelopment of this property. The proposed plan shows parkin adjacent to
Rou Ell 240. At the pre-application worksession, the Commission mentioned the impo ance of
prov (jjing relegated parking on this site. Rather than site new buildings closer to the s reet, the
appl 4ant is proposing to use the existing parking lot and add residential units to the e isting
stru ~ure. A parking garage located in the north east corner of the site is also propos d. One
alterative would be to provide the residential units in the location of the existing park ng area,
c10s t to the street, so the residential units would have a relationship to the street an provide
park r!Ig below the units. The downside to this suggestion would be that the commerci I buildings
woul . no longer have a well defined street presence, and staff believes that the prop sed layout,
whil Inot ideal, does preserve the opportunity for redevelopment of a commercial are on Three
Notc 'd.
.
es and Affordabilit
d there be a mixture of types within this development and a provision of affordable
?
This ~ a relatively small development at 30 apartment units. There is not a mixture of housing types
withi I this residential development. There is an expectation that at least 15% afforda Ie housing
units be provided. The applicant has explained that the apartments will be affordable; however, as
yet n commitment has been made towards affordable housing.
Seal ! of Buildin s
Is th height and massing of the buildings appropriate?
The pplicant provided proposed building schemes that show variations of additional ,2 and 3
story ~all buildings to the ARB. When the ARB reviewed the proposal, they expressed concern
abou !the potential loss of mountain views depending on the height of the proposed u its. At the
ARB 'eeting on April 2, 2007 the ARB stated preference for 1 additional story rather han 2 or 3
additi nal stories. The ARB also expressed a preference for the proposed massing of the building
to be Ipwer in height on the west end/portion of the building to preserve the expansive view of the
Blue idge Mountains. The ARB was satisfied with the building height on the eastern ide of the
prop $ed building addition being an additional 2 or 3 stories tall. Does the Planning C mmission
agre Iwith the ARB's recommendation?
.
Othe 'Issues
The II>plicant still has a variety of more detailed issues to be resolved, such as engin ering and
ARB ' mments. VDOT also has concerns regarding ingress and egress to the site. T e applicant
is aw re of all of the concerns from staff review. However, the applicant and staff wou d like
Crozet Station
PC Work Session 8/28/07
5
.
.
.
i
dire ion from the Commission regarding the issues provided in this report before further submittals
are ade.
A TT CHMENTS
Atta hment A - Tax Map
Atta hment B - Vicinity Map
Atta hment C - May 30, 2006 Staff Report
Atta hment D - Action Memo from the May 30, 2006 Planning Commission meeting
Atta hment E - Proposed Plan dated May 23, 2007
Atta hment F - ARB comments dated April 24, 2007
Crozet Station
PC Work Session 8/28/07
6
.
.
.
~
<:::::
<
-
=
~
e
-=
Cj
cu
-
-
<
~ ~-----
------------_._--~-_. ----
------------------------
---~-
'"
---~~
"-
o
I
~ 10' Contour
/'V Roads
c=J Driveways
c=J Buildings
Streams
.. Water Body
c=J Parcels /
Parcel of Int:rest
.
.
.
I
I
Sl2007.\O~9
/ \ \
Crozet Station
..~
~ I
'"=/
. \
--r------.J
1\ 1:\.. .' "v1 ~ r \::
r- \: 1 0 r( '~~~~ .... IT I '.,
~ I- ~ - Ef~ .
l/
/ v(J / U
~~cY! ---, ~ .~/\
.
O;I~R "fa -. .. \
/
(
K~
J-- v<
1\0~ 0 )1 ~I
~~. rji L'P"~:;~ ~ o::J - .
VI~~~~ LV Q \, ~.,1 ~
r~ ) ~(S ~. \00, /~/ ,)
/ ~ ~ ~~ I~ '" -" -/ ~
- ~ rr11i ~~ / ~ ;~ 1
)~~~. ~y.,~;~:p~~~ "~~~'" '~,)
~ )~~~rf ~~\ ~H $' ".*' ~ \l~
~ ~~.~. ~k.l !illl '~B'l /1 / . Jrty;fl
~ ~ ~ Q)( ~...~ ~,rt- /:C- '" / ~ 1 \
a ~ ~ ~~J---.--I)/ --1- ~ -. 1683 \
== 1\ . '" ~ ~ /I-.,.L ^'" ~ . I J".
~fK7 \3~...~ ~i'~J~ . . ~
~~ /. / ~..~ ! ~/~ ~ --j
. ~"k ":'h -.l /V Roads D Parcel1
/- \ ~1it~ ~ D Streams _ Parcel,of Interest
~~ - I 11J:li 4lIL \VI B d
~~: - 'I ~.~ \.) ~ ( , l--.J "'~,r ." ,~ate~ 0 y
!
.
.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Prop sal: Crozet Station
ing Commission Work Session:
Staff: Rebecca Ragsdale
Recommendation: Provide direction to staff
and applicant on conformity with the Crozet
Master Plan and other discussion topics
outlined.
Applicant: Bill Atwood, Atwood Architects
Own rs: Old Towne Shops LLC; Crozet
Sho ping Center LLC; Virginia Telephone &
Tele raph Co. (Sandy Everton)
Acr age: Approximately 8 acres
TMP Tax Map 56A 1, Section 1, Parcel 65;
Tax ap 056A2, Section 1, Parcels 27, 28,
28A, 28B, 28C, 29
By-r ght use: C-1 Commercial (retail sales
and ervice uses; and residential use by
spe ial use permit (15 units/ acre)
Req est: 72 residential units &
App oximately 42,000 square feet of
com ercial use
Pro osal: New multifamily apartment
buil ings and residential over commercial;
red velopment of the site to include new
co mercia I and retail buildings.
Ch racter of Property: Developed with
mix d commercial uses and historic
res urces; the site slopes down to a stream
in r ar of the properties.
Pre-Application Submittal
Proffers: No
Magisterial District: White Hall
DA X
RA
Compo Plan Designation: Community of
Crozet: Downtown, CT 6- Urban Core
Use of Surrounding Properties:
Commercial, residential, library,
emergency/rescue station, and railroad
tracks.
Attachment C
Crozei Siaiion Pre-application
"I' \;dr,,-l/ c.:ccc:inn t;/1n/0f1
1
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
Rebecca Ragsdale
May 30, 2006
Pre-application Work Session -Crozet Station
Specifies of Proposal:
The applicant approached staff several months ago for some preliminary feedback regarding
possible redevelopment of properties in Downtown Crozet. Staff advised that a pre-application
work session early on would be beneficial to review the Crozet Master Plan recommendations
for Downtown with the Commission and to get the public involved in providing input on
redevelopment of the site.
The proposal is very conceptual at this point. The applicant has provided a sketch plan and two
architectural renderings. (Attachment F ) The sketch plan illustrates a layout that divides the
property into three sections from the intersection at Crozet Avenue eastward. The concept
includes a series of connected buildings fronting along Route 240 from the intersection, with a
break, then a smaller building. A larger building is proposed perpendicular to Route 240 at the
western edge of the shopping center property. Commercial square footage totals approximately
42,000 with this concept and some residential units would potentially be located over the
commercial space, including retail but not entire defined at this point. Along the rear of the
properties, four residential buildings are proposed with approximately 72 residential units
considered. Buildings are proposed to be 3-story would be 3-stories. Surface parking is shown
on the sketch plan and total about 280 parking spaces.
Bv-riaht Use of the Property
The property is zoned C1 Commercial which allows retail and service establishments and
administrative/professional office uses. Architectural Review Board and site plan approval
would be required prior to developing under the C1 Zoning. Residential uses in keeping with
R15 Zoning are permitted by special use permit. The Commercial zoning district requires front
setbacks of 30 feet from the right-of-way with no side or rear setbacks except where the
property abuts residential. There are no requirements for the applicant to retain the existing
historic buildings on the property and they could be removed with a demolition permit.
Character of the Area and Adioinina properties:
The proposal involves a substantial portion of Downtown Crozet that includes more than half the
Downtown businesses and an area that contributes to the current character of Downtown
Crozet. The buildings located on the site vary in age and architecture with some buildings in
somewhat dilapidated condition.
West of the site across Route 810 is the Dairy Queen/gas station, which is a site that was
redeveloped in 2000 by the applicant for Crozet Station. Across Rt. 240 from the Crozet Station
project area is the Crozet Library. The railroad tracks separate this portion of Downtown from
the Square and Barnes Lumber. The site to the east is currently wooded, but there is a site plan
and special use permit under review for construction of a one three-story office building totaling
19,500 square feet and a one-story bank of 3,090 square feet. Behind the Crozet Station
properties is a creek and wooded area that separates the site from the residents in the Wayland
Park subdivision. Also located adjacent to the site is the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad.
Crazel Staiion Pre-application
2
.. Cl'lr',tnC
.
aster Plan:
tation is located in Downtown Crozet and one of the major themes of the Master Plan is
the imp rtance of Downtown. Downtown is a distinct place-type in Crozet and is intended to
exhibit reater density and formal design than a NeighborhoodNillage or Hamlet. It is the
comme cial"hub" for Crozet. Downtown historically has been Crozet's "district-wide" focal point
for cultu al and commercial activities. It is the largest place-type in Crozet (approximately equal
in area 0 three neighborhoods). Its core, where the neighborhood centers coalesce, exhibits the
greates degree of mixing, density, and intensity of development in Crozet. Downtown is the
largest nd most important place-type in Crozet, and the Master Plan indicates that
implem ntation efforts should focus on the redevelopment of this area.
The Cr zet Station properties are designated CT 6 Urban Core. The range of land uses
recom ended for CT 6 is very open, but expected to be primarily commercial in character.
Reside tial building types may include apartment buildings, row houses, townhouses,
access ry units, live work units and apartments over non-residential uses. Suggested net
densiti s are up to 18 units an acre and up to 36 units an acre if in a mixed use setting. A range
of non- esidential uses are intended for Downtown, including office, all retail services, and civic
support Table 1 and Table 2 from the Crozet Master Plan are included to provide the full range
of desi n guidelines and land uses for Downtown Crozet.
For pur oses of the Master Plan, the Community of Crozet is considered as three geographic
. sectors in which future development and redevelopment projects are focused. They are the
Downt wn, the area west of Crozet Avenue and the area east of Crozet Avenue. Applicable
statem nts from the Crozet Master Plan for the Downtown Crozet are below.
The M ster Plan recommends initial development in the Downtown area should emphasize the
comple ion of the sidewalk system (per the recommendations of the Anhold Crozet Downtown
Sidew Ik and Parking Study of 2001), placement of the new library on Crozet Avenue, and
creatio of the first two blocks of Main Street. Current County initiatives underway include the
library roject, sidewalk improvements, purchase of a property for Main Street, and exploring
solutio s to stormwater management and parking in Downtown, and discussing pedestrian
crossin s with the railroad.
A guidi g principle of the Crozet Master Plan is that Crozet values the contributions of locally
grown usiness in providing both jobs and enhanced quality of life for residents. The Crozet
Station site currently contains a substantial number of local businesses. Any development
propos I on the property should be structured in a manner that does not displace those
busine ses during construction and allows them to remain viable following any new
constr ction. The Business Development Facilitator has been working with the applicant on
how th s may be addressed in future development plans for the properties and has noted that a
reside tial component to the program may help keep costs lower for existing businesses, with
any ne construction projects.
Specific recommendations and tasks identified in the Master Plan for Downtown include the
followi g:
. 0 Allow mixed-use, infill deyelopment in support of downtown.
o Implement sidewalk plan (per Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study)
o Construct the new library on the west side of Crozet Avenue near Mountainside.
o Convert current library (depot) to civic center function, perhaps as a museum.
'::rCJzel ~:,tallcn Pre--aJ)pll,::..aUun
3
o Construct Main Street by building the first segment from Crozet Avenue to the Barnes
Lumber property. (This will take trucks off "the Square.")
o Develop guidelines for renovating historic structures and for new buildings (scale,
materials, setbacks), and initiate establishment of a Historic District.
o Encourage development in blocks adjacent to downtown core.
o Create bike lanes to and in downtown.
o Create downtown community green at "the Square."
o Develop signage for greenway trails.
o Create a pedestrian railroad crossing in downtown core (below or above grade).
o Explore alternatives to current underpass at Crozet Avenue.
o As opportunities arise for redevelopment of the lumber yard, focus on a mixed-use form
that emphasizes employment.
Green Infrastructure Map: The Green Infrastructure Map identifies a proposed
greenway running behind the Crozet Station properties along Parrot Branch.
Principles of the Neighborhood Model -- Conformity with the Neighborhood Model is
assessed below. The proposal is still very conceptual at this stage of development so an
eyaluation of some principles cannot be made at this time. With such an important piece of
Crozet that would be redeveloped and expectations that it be the most formal in urban design,
any rezoning submitted should pay special attention to these principles of the Neighborhood
Model and exceed them.
Pedestrian The concept plan does not provide these details. Site development
Orientation would be expected to include sidewalks along the adjacent road ways
as well as an internal system of pedestrian connections to parking and
buildings.
Neighborhood Street sections have not been determined but would be expected to
Friendly Streets provide street trees and provisions for pedestrian safety. In addition,
and Paths streetscape furniture and enhancements would be expected such as
bike racks, benches, and trash receptacles as identified in the Anhold
Study.
Interconnected The project has not shown an interconnection to the adjoining property
Streets and to the east and that should be provided. The layout shows entrances
Transportation into the property from Rt. 810 and Rt. 240. The internal travelway
Networks system must be improved to provide better connections in parking
areas.
Parks and Open Suggested parks and open space include the' Greenway (terminus),
Space commons, square where commercial character is on the ground floor,
greens, and plazas. There is also a required 1 DO-foot stream buffer
along the rear property lines and opportunities to provide greenway
connections both parallel to Parrot Creek or across to connect the
neighborhoods north of Downtown.
Neighborhood This property is located in Downtown Crozet, intended to be a center
Centers for several neiohborhoods and a central place in Crozet.
Buildings and Architectural elevations submitted by the applicant are provided and
Spaces of Human show three stOry buildinqs. The Master Plan recommends 2-4 stories
Crozei Staiion Pre-applicaiion
n,...... \I,J;-...I~ C"~~"'Ir-..n c,'...~n/tl{;
4
( )
I
! I
from main level and up to 5 stories by exception for Downtown Crozet.
Parking is relegated in some portions of the site on the concept plan but
not for the shopping center parcel where the largest parking area is
located up to Route 240. The information demonstrates that this
principle is not fully met. The applicant should also work to determine if
on-street parkino may be possible.
This project is proposing a mix of both residential and commercial uses
and appears to meet this principle.
Scale
Releg~ted Parking
Mixtu e of Uses
The applicant proposes only apartments/multifamily. The proposal
would be expected to meet the affordable housing policy goals.
Mixtu e of Housing
Types and
Aftor( abilitv
Rede, elopment
All buildings on the property would be demolished with this proposal.
The applicant has not indicated what the intended phasing of
redevelopment might be for the properties but ideally it would be
phased to allow business retention.
Site Panning that
RespE cts Terrain
The site is sloping in some locations and there is opportunity to work
with the existing grades. This would be evaluated on future plans.
.
Clear Boundaries
with tne Rural
Areas
The project is located entirely with in the Community of Crozet and the
nearest boundary with the Rural Area is north of Downtown at the
Crozet Elementary School northern property boundary.
ImDacts
If a rez bning is submitted for the Crozet Station properties, they would be expected to mitigate
impact associated with the proposed development. The County's Community Facilities Plan, in
conjun tion with the Capital Improvements Program identifies the need for libraries, schools,
park, p Jblic safety and transportation improvements in Crozet. A list of projects for Crozet was
identifil d in the Master Plan based on whether projects would be public (ClP) or privately
funded The CIP items below are at various stages of funding or programming.
.
CIP items recommended by the Crozet Master Plan:
. New library
. Henley Middle School renovation
· Additional High School capacity
. New Crozet Elementary School
. St. George's Avenue sidewalk
. Downtown sidewalk/streetscape
· Railroad Avenue sidewalk
. Design of road projects related to various Neighborhood Master Plans
. Street lamp Program
. Road Construction Revenue Sharing for traffic calming measures
Items in the Crozet Master Plan recommended for private sector fundingl
publiclprivate collaboration:
. Downtown Park (Main Street)
. Greenway development
. Main Street at Crozet Avenue
. Bike/pedestrian improvements in developing neighborhoods
ClOzel Station Pie-application
5
Environmental- A 100-foot stream buffer from Parrot Branch, which is located along the rear of
the property, must be kept free of encroachment by the proposed development.
Cultural, and Historic -The Master Plan includes a summary of Crozet's history: "The
community of Crozet began as a whistle stop on the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad in 1876
that was established at the request of the Miller Manual Labor School (the Miller School), which
had been founded a year earlier. It was named for Colonel B. Claudius Crozet (1789-1864), a
French born civil engineer and artillery officer under Napoleon who is best remembered as the
chief engineer for the seventeen mile long railroad tunnel through the Blue Ridge Mountains.
Since its inception, it has functioned as a distinct settlement with a unique history of agriculture,
small business enterprises, and a dynamic civic spirit. Crozet in particular was known for its fruit
industry, and in the 1930's it lead the state in the production of Albemarle Pippin and Winesap
apples. It also was known as the Peach Capital of Virginia. With the arrival of Acme Visible
Records and Morton Foods (ConAgra) in the 1950's, year-round employment was available to
balance the area's seasonal economy. The Master Plan draws on these unique traits in the
creation of a place that is distinctly 'Crozet'."
Historic resources that relate to this history of Crozet are included within the project area for
Crozet Station. The Design Planner has consulted with the Department of Historic resources
and offers the following table that lists the properties included in the Crozet Station proposal,
together with some Department of Historic Resources information on the properties relative to a
potential historic district in Crozet.
TMP (Street #) Name DHR Survey # Evaluation
56A 1-1-0-65. (5798) Crozet Coooeraqe 2086 Contributino
56A1-1-0-65 (5794) Crozet Pizza 2095 Contributing
56A 1-1-0-65 (5792) Olive Treel 2085 Contributing
Hairdresser
(5790) Jarman's Gap Not surveyed n/a
Restaurant
56A 1-1-0-65 Fruit Growers Coop 2084 Contributing
56A2-1-0-27 and Minda's
(5786, 5784) Clothinq
56A2-1-0-28B Not surveyed n/a
(5782)
56A2-1-0-28 (5778) Not surveyed nla
56A2-1-0-28 (5774) Not surveyed n/a
56A2-1-0-29 IGA Shopping Not surveyed n/a
Center
Streets -During the Crozet Master Plan, traffic was analyzed and forecasts under two scenarios
were modeled: The trend under by-right build out and the road network fully in place as
recommended by the Master Plan. VDOT has commented preliminarily and has indicated the
following:
Cl"Ozet Station Pre-application
nr- \1.1_..1. C'........ro;..-.'''' t:!')(j/nr-.
6
( )
o traffic study should be conducted to determine the full impacts of the proposed
evelopment; ,
o ull frontage improvements would be required to include widening of Route 240,
nstalling curb and gutter and sidewalks, and consolidation of entrances;
o ull frontage improvements would be required providing a left turn lane on Route 810,
nstalling curb and gutter and sidewalks, and consolidation of entrances
ot an impact that can be evaluated at the schematic level, as this concept is at this
stage. taff would recommend that additional traffic study would be needed to include current
traffic d ta and to account for roads that have not yet been built such as Main Street. The scope
would e determined with a rezoning. Excessive widening of Route 240 is not recommended.
School - The development is expected to generate approximately 14 students broken down
as folio s: 9 elementary school students, 3 middle school students, and 2 high school students.
These tudents would attend Crozet Elementary School, which is above capacity based on
summe 2005 estimates; Henley Middle School, which was below capacity based on the
summe 2005 estimates; and Western Albemarle High School, which was at capacity based on
estimat s.
Fire, R scue, Police -The Crozet Volunteer Fire Station and the Western Albemarle Rescue
Station provide fire and rescue services to the area. The planned Ivy Area Station will also
augme t services provide by the existing fire and rescue stations in Crozet. Albemarle County
. 5th Stre t Office Building houses the County's Police Department, although the police patrol all
areas the County. Current policy of police services recommends an average response time of
10 min tes for all Development Areas. To this end, police satellite offices are recommended
within service sector to help achieve these desired response times to all police emergency
calls. T e possibility of an additional fire/rescue/police station is under consideration for the area
in 2012.
Utilitie - Albemarle County Service Authority indicates that water and sewer service is
availab e to serve the site. Water lines were recently upgraded in Crozet and no service issues
haye b en identified with this conceptual redevelopment proposal.
PLAN ING COMMISSION DISCUSSION TOPICS:
Shoul contributing structures to possible future historic district be demolished for new
deve/o ment?
Preservation
Staffb Iieves that the intent during the Crozet Master Plan was to retain historic buildings that
contrib te to a potential historic district and give Crozet its character. However, the applicant
has in icated that the buildings are in poor condition and it is not feasible to incorporate them
into a r development project for the site. There is nothing to prohibit property owners from
demoli hing buildings if they choose to do so. This will be a reoccurring issue as projects come
forwar in Downtown Crozet. The historic district recommendations should be considered in the
conte with other goals of the plan to revitalize Downtown Crozet.
.
The D sign Planner has offered the following comments with regard to historic resources and
archite ture:
1=-:;"C>7et ~-1lal!on FJre-Cii.J!~llicaiion
7
The loss of the "contributing" commercial buildings listed above could eliminate the
possibility of establishing a historic district in Crozet. These commercial buildings
stand at the physical core of the town and they represent some of the most important
history of Crozet. The demolition of these structures will result in a tangible loss.
If the proposal is approved and the buildings are demolished, even if the historic
district is lost, the scale and character of the replacement buildings will have a strong
impact on the downtown. Based on the sketches provided, it appears that the scale of
the new development will be significantly larger than that of the existing buildings. The
proposed scale is not in keeping with the existing character.
,
The site is located in on an Entrance Corridor so the ARB would review approve the
architectural details of the proposal.
Staff asks the Commission to advise whether demolition of historic structures in the Downtown
would be appropriate for this proposal.
Mix of Uses & Residential Density
Is the mix of residential and commercial/retail uses appropriate?
Since the Crozet Master Plan is so open with regard to uses and level of density in the
Downtown, staff is not concerned with the uses proposed or the residential densities. The
parameters established during the build-out analysis completed by staff for Crozet are a helpful
tool in evaluating the appropriate level of residential development in Downtown. The 72 units
proposed with this project do exceed the number of units in the Downtown using the same
mathematical approach used in the build-out analysis. Staff is not concerned with the number of
units exceeding this limit but more concerned about how they compare with the mix of uses for
the project. The residential component of the project equates to about 108,000 square feet
(1,500 x 72) which is over twice the area devoted to retail/commercial uses. Staff believes that,
without a more substantial ratio of commercial to residential use, the vitality of Downtown as a
center will be compromised.
CMP Unit Ranges
Su ested
Acres
Net
Acres.
CT6
acres'"
Min Max
Crozet Station
Net
Units Densit
Crozet Station
8
6.40
1.60
29
58
72
11.25
Total
*Net acreage used is 80% of gross acreage. "'CT 6 areas were expected to have more non-residential than
residential so only 25% of net acreage is used to calculate expected residential units.
Staff is concerned that, as proposed with approximately 42,000 square feet of non-residential
square footage, the project does not bring any additional commercial or employment
opportunities to Downtown Crozet. It includes even less commercial square footage than what
currently exists, which is approximately 49,000.
DesiQn and Layout
Craze1 Station Pre-application
.-_,.-, ", _; f""~__..,_.... C-I~;,ril(\c:.
8
~
.
.
IT
What features of the design and layout does the Planning Commission find appropriate?
What would the Planning Commission suggest to improve the layout and design?
The Crozet Master Plan does not suggest any specific design or layout for redevelopment of
this property. Illustrations prepared as part of the Master Plan process showed infill along Route
240 in front of the Great Value Shopping Center. This is consistent with the recommendation of
a Downtown Historic District, retaining buildings that are contributing to the potential district.
The Anhold Downtown Parking and Sidewalk study showed the property up to the shopping
center divided into two blocks with a central urban greenspace and parking behind four new
buildings along Three Notched Road. (Attachment E) The Anhold study is not an adopted plan
but represents a design scenario consistent with the Master Plan.
The east/west organization of downtown Crozet that exists in conjunction with the early railroad
alignment and the position of Route 240 along a ridge line, as described in the Master Plan,
along with the shape of the property are factors relevant to the layout proposed by the applicant.
Staff believes that several modifications to the design and layout are desirable and offers the
following comments for the Planning Commission's discussion:
o The arrangement of the two groups of commercial buildings with orientation to Route
240 is desirable.
o The residential buildings toward the rear lack a relationship to one another. The
placement of these buildings along the edge may be appropriate, but a more
coordinated approach to how they relate to one another is needed. Additionally, the
topography would allow for parking to be provided on the lower level of these buildings.
Staff is concerned that residential uses without designated parking areas associated with
the residential buildings would not be a viable approach to residential development. An
effort to provide parking in the lower level of these buildings should be pursued.
o The larger commercial building (supermarket building) should be reoriented to better
address Three Notched Road and relegate parking. Further, the supermarket building in
this location dissects the site, creating a barrier between the two areas.
o The internal circulation network lacks a hierarchy. The Crozet Master plan suggests that
this area may redevelop further and utilize parking structures. The network of travelways
needs to not only provide access to parking, but reflect an ability for future
redevelopment to occur. Staff recommends looking at the area and providing a streett
travelway network that is more linear. For instance, the travelway connection between
the supermarket building and the residential building shown along the edge should be
more centralized. As shown, this is the only connection from the eastern half to the
western half. It is aligned toward the northern edge of the property. Please consider how
motorists and pedestrians will move between the eastern half and western half of the
site.
o On-street parking should be evaluated for use along Three Notched Road. On-street
parking should be utilized in front of retail.
o The distribution of surface parking seems to be skewed to the eastern half of the site,
though a greater concentration of development is illustrated on the western half.
o In order to integrate this development with the rest of downtown Crozet, an at-grade or
elevating crosswalk should be evaluated to provide pedestrian access across the
railway.
o A connection through the "Green Area" to connect into the neighborhoods to the north
should be studied. This connection would lead to an ability to access these
neighborhoods and Crozet Elementary, thereby creating an alternative to Crozet
Avenue.
C:'~ozel Sic (10:'1 F; re-appHca tiC)i"i
9
,-,r" ; ,'. :._.,.'._ C.-r....';r".,.--. r.,I'~/nl(;(.:
o This site and its constraints may be a good candidate for innovative stormwater
management practices. The applicant has not indicated yet indicated how stormwater
will be addressed.
o If such an extensive use of cupolas is desired, they should be functional. Added stories
should include usable space.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Commission review the conceptual proposal with a focus on what
was intended in the Crozet Master Plan for this portion of Downtown, along with public input,
and provide the applicant and staff guidance on the direction this redevelopment proposal
should take based on discussion topics that preceded. A "finer-grained" approach to pedestrian
facilities and circulation, access, parking, how residential buildings meet the street and how their
vehicular access is provided will be necessary as this review moves forward.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Crozet Master Plan-Place- Type and Built Infrastructure Map
B. Crozet Master Plan- Table 1 Place Types and Design Guidelines
C. Crozet Master Plan- Table 2 Land Use & Place Types
D. Crozet Station Location Map-Aerial Photo
E. Crozet Station Location Map-Zoning
F. Crozet Station Concept Plan & Sketches
G. Anhold Study schematics for the Crozet Station properties
Crozet Staiion Pre-application
PI: Wmk .c;pssion 5/30106
10
Ms. McCulley asked if it would be possible for the Commission to adopt a resolution or a policy statement
that says that. If the Commission wants to consistently apply that in every case they could not get much
clea than that. She felt that may be more appropriate than putting it into the ordinance.
Mr. amptner said that the Commission could probably given an indication that these applications won't
get avorable review, but if someone submits a complete application they are required to process it all the
way through to approval or denial.
Ms. Higgins asked even if it is in the ordinance if there is an outstanding violation it is either suspended or
in s me way cannot proceed until it is resolved.
Mr. Kamptner replied that they were not allowed to stop the processing of an a[Jplication. They could
tha k the General Assembly. Looking at it just from the enforcement standpoint the number of violations
that they process compared with the nUrnber of violators who come down to get the permit approval is
pro ably 50 to 1 of the violators who don't have something that needs to come through the process. This
is a factor that the Commission can consider with a special use permit.
Edgerton noted that he thought that site plans were not allowed to be taken into consideration if there
violations.
Kamptner replied that they have dealt with site plans by imposing conditions at the preliminary site
approval that requires them to come into compliance within a certain period of time. Often it can be
ker than the formal enforcement process assuming that they meet the deadlines that are imposed.
Ms Joseph opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present to speak regarding this
ap lication. There being no one, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mo ion: Ms. Higgins moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, to approve ZTA-2006-002, Civil Penalties.
motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Ms' Joseph stated that ZT A-2006-002, Civil Penalties would go before the Board of Supervisors on July 5
wit Ci' recommendation for approval.
Work S't.:'!ssion:
Cr zet Station Pr~,-application Work Session
PROPOSAL: Con ceptual redevelopment proposal for approximately 42,000 square feet of commercial
us sand 72 residential units that would likely require a rezoning of approximately 8 acres from C-1
Co mercial (retail sales and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to
N D Neighborhood Model District (residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and
ustrial uses).
OFFERS: No
ISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USEIDENSITY: Crozet Master Plan designates CT 6 (Urban
re) in Downtown Crozet. CT 6
TRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
CATION: Community of Crozet, north side of Three Notched Road from Route 240/Crozet Avenue to'
th Crozet Shopping Center.
T X MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 56A 1, Section 1, Parcel 65; Tax Map 056A2, Section 1, Parcels 27, 28,
28 ,28B,28C, 29
M GISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
S AFF: Rebecca Ragsdale
Pr sent for the applicant was the owner of the property, Sandra Everton and Bill Atwood, architect.
P blic comment was taken from the following residents of Crozet: Barbara Westbrook, Mike Marshall and
Gorge Novey. Several concerns raised were: lighting concerns from adjoining residences, keeoing the
A BEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 30, 2006
'''''In'nlTTen 1111\11=?1=:. ?nnR
Attachment D,
. ric nature of Crazet, adequacy of parking, traffic congestion and preserving the view of the
]i'tains.
In umma ,the Planning Commission held a pre-application work session on Crozet Station to provide
dir ction and guidance on several topic areas and questions to guide discussion. The Commission
rev'ewed and discussed the proposal with staff and the applicant, took public comment, and then
res onded to the preliminary questions posed by staff. The Commission provided the following feedback
on he issues mentioned in the staff report as follows:
His oric Preservation
Sh uld contributing structures to possible future historic district be demolished for new development?
Ge erally, the Commission felt that there should be a major effort toward preseryation of the buildings in
the area proposed for redevelopment. If the buildings could not be saved, a "tribute" to the buildings
sho Id be provided. The intent was to maintain the "feel of historic downtown" and its charm. If they
cou d be preserved, the buildings ftom Crozet Pizza to the corner should be the main focus. The design
of t e old train depot is a type of design that might be worth emulating as part of this project. The most
imp rtant part of the project visually is the buildings and areas along Three Notch'd Road. What is
beh nd th'ose buildings is not of as much concern. Staff is expected to work with VDOT to try to minimize
wid ning of Three Notch'd Road in order to retain the look and feel of the existing block.
Mix of Uses & Residential Densit
Is t e mix of residential and commercial/retail uses appropriate?
Ge erally, the Commission felt that the mix of residential and commercial/retail uses was appropriate with
the ncreased amount of 56,000 square feet if they keep affordable residential units in the mix.
Wh t features of the design and layout does the Planning Commission find appropriate? What would the
Pia ning Commission suggest to improve the layout and design?
The Commission suggested that the part of the project containing the existing IGA and the Ij211 ge parking
are be addressed to reorient the buildings differently towards Route 240. The applicant >needs to work
on etter solutions to relegate the parking on the eastern portion of the property, particularly at the
gro ery store, and to provide a buffer. The topography of the site was noted as a concern to have to be
deal with. The western end of the project should be kept looking "Crozetish". If this moves forward
det ils should be provided to show how the green area relates to the rest of the site. If there ar~
resi entia I units information on urban open space or amenities should be provided as well as an
inte connection to the east
Old Business:
Ms. Joseph asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting moved on to the next
item
New Business:
Ms. oseph asked if there was any new business.
The Commission received a letter from Thomas Temple Allan that talked about fill going in next to a
gua d rail. Mr. Edgerton was concerned that the guard rail is going to go away. The Commission asked
staff to follow up on this and the possibility this also involves putting a bridge across a tributary of Ivy
Cre k.
ALB MARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 30,2006
25
_I 1r"l1lo "I"-"T'"r-~ II '''Ie..,a '")nne::
il /) J .,,,, .' .
, ' Jr." '. ,/1'-'': " '"If .~
. 'i.-.'~ ....,'..," ....-Y"'-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 Mcintire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Pho e 434)296-5832
Fax (434 972-4012
Apri 24, 2007
Bill twood
A tw od Architects
215 lh Street, SW, Suite 100
Char ottesville, VA 22903
RE: Crozet Station - Work Session
(,
Dear Mr. Atwood:
The lbemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on April 2, 2007, held a work session to
revie the preliminary proposal on Crozet Station to redevelop parcels on Route 240, east of Route 810 in
Croz 1. The ARB had the following comments for the applicant's benefit prior to submitting formal
appli ations to the County:
.
· he ARB preferred the two-story scheme over the three-story buildings.
· e amount of white shown on the first scheme (with red brick) was not objectionable.
· he scheme needs to retain the mountain view.
· e red brick was preferred over the second scheme that showed primarily tan structures.
· lile joined buildings could be agreeable, the proposed massing would be more appropriate on the east
e d of the lot (toward Charlottesville), with shorter buildings on the west end to preserve the expansive
v ew ofthe Blue Ridge Mountains.
· T e opening to the rear in the second (tan) scheme was helpful in breaking down the scale of the buildings.
T ere was discussion that the passage(s) could be roofed over with the introduction of terraces on the
s cond floor.
· T e continuous ridgeline linking all of the buildings creates too big of a mass.
· S owing the entire site development is important to understand grades, relative heights of proposed
b ildings, and overall integration of the site.
· e development should appear balanced, but symmetry is not a necessity.
· void the theme park look.
· T e sign band area should be considered and planned as an integral element in the overall design, in
p oportion and scale with the building.
Attachment F
You may submit your application for continued ARB review at your earliest convenience. Application forms,
checklists and schedules are available on-line at www.albemarle.org/planning.
Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above are required. Include updated ARB revision dates on
each drawing. Please provide a memo including detailed responses indicating how each comment has been
addressed. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also.
Highlighting the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval.
Ifyol.l have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
I -
'//W~VL-i/I' )1it0U~~tA,ftZ,A./l
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
MMM/aer
Cc: Rebecca Ragsdale
File
Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
SP 2006-00031
. Fill in the floodplain of Limestone Creek for a road to provide access to
residential development.
. Replaces an existing dam and open culvert with a new dam and box culvert.
Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
SP 2006-00031
"~'I"'" . _c ).,;~..,
'" .' t ....., .~.vr.n. .~\.. ..--0...- I~ .
">~, >\\~~~';o:J1 .,.:
- (. "GI.n'Oiiks'$tre.m, rosslng
'. "0 <')/<\
-f~'
'.1.._.'
~ ...~
)
1
Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
sr 2006-0003]
Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
SP 2006-00031
Glen Oaks -""--
o lIOO 1,000 2,OOOF.. ~
.. .n..... ....,._..~. ~~'."_~~ ...t.. j '_.:""_~ IMIUlIlds
; E~~;~~~}~~~;~~~~:~~~::~;:~~;:~t~~~"-- _. ,- :::~.n (1~y"rl
Glen o.ks J.
0"'" T
I; ::;;:='~::':::~"::;;C.:.-.:;.~. -. I
........ .........._..4...................0.............._......~..
.. .. -...,.. .. ".. .. . ,"d "_.ho _.. .. ... "'''' ....... .d.
::;:::: :.::;.:;~";;z.~..:::~:..-:..:;=.""..." ...-.. ".10.'.
~; \NItIr,ds
"] FloodlMin(1QO..y..-)
-
Forellal Soils
_ Kfo.ROM:>QOS I
8~:'~cJ
2
Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
SP 2006-00031
Previous Rural
Preservation
Development
proposal.
21 lots
adjacent to
Running
Deer
subdivision
\\~
I:. '~::~~
~:;,.~--
Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
SP 2006-00031
3
Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
SP 2006-00031
..,; '\
,
~ '
.' '
.,..~~,.,;/
, '
Applicant's current proposal
Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
SP 2006-00031
~q,
J
.-:-'
The Village
of Rlvanna
~,-Y\ .~
~07 \ ,j/
4
Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
SP 2006-00031
EXISTING - CULVERTS
td~. ~
~-'
( "
-., -< ,
'-(....I\.Jj \
IlIItIr leleJ on
POND t~.J,:':
(.
'( .
'('
\~,
~
(-
\. "
" '-,
" '1._
, .
'-'I
"', ...~
--_ttf- _:..---.._--_ _"':.-;',":... ... ........
--
'-...
" "
270
r-----
Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
SP 2006-00031
5
Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
SP 2006-00031
Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
SP 2006-00031
25 SCALE EXHIBIT SHOWING CONCEPTUAL DAM AND CUL VERJS
(/2 APPROX'rO rt.TION EXIST. "r\
" 100 YEAR LOOD PLAIN (; i7\
' PROPOSE. FLOOD PLAIN 'r;
-leItlllZl '~
POND AlrU <I zoa; , "
EJev.>214.91 ({\
j'~
. \
".-.{.:!l :\
, \
\
"
,~-..,...,
6
Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
SP 2006-00031
'-~';";"J
,
____r__
100 SCALE EXHIBIT SHOtfIM>
OISTIIIlED AIEJ. IN S1IlEAII Bt.FFER
MIJ PROPtJSED
STIEAN Bt.FFER II1TIGA TION AJlEA
Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
SP 2006-00031
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Special Use Permit 2006.{)0031 with the following conditions:
1) The stream crossing shall be built in general accord with the plan tilled "SP 06-031 Application Plan," revised "Aug. 01.
2007," and prepared by Roudabush, Gale. & Associates. Inc.
2} Any subdivision on the portion of the property desIgnated as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan shall be designed
in general accord with the plan titled Glenoaks. dated "8/1/07", and prepared by "kg Associates," The development lots
east of Limestone Creek and Lot 26 shall be developed as a Rural Preservation Development in accord with section
10.3.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, with Lot 26 as the preservallon tract. As part of the same subdiVision. the applicant
shall convey to the County a portion of Lot 10 (whose boundaries are approved by the Parks and Recreation department)
for use as a greenway.
3) The dam shall allow for a contlnuallon of the base fiow in the stream.
4} The following conditions shall be met pnor to issuance of a grading permit to allow installation of the stream crossing
or submittal of the final subdivision plat, whichever comes first:
a) The applicant must obtain a map reviSion. letter of revision. or letter of amendment as required from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and copy the County Engineer on all correspondence between the
applicant and FEMA.
b) County approval of an erosion and sediment control plan for the stream crossing.
c} County approval of the final lane configuration over the stream crossing With the final road plans.
d) Natural Resources Manager approval of a stream buffer mitigation plan in general accord with the conceptual
plan shown on the plan titled "SP 06-031 Application Plan," revised "Aug. 01, 2007," and prepared by Roudabush,
Gale, & Associates, Inc.
e) County approval of final design plans and hydrologic/hydraulic computatIons for the stream crossing.
f) Army Corp of Engineers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and other necessary state and federal
agency approvals must be obtained prior to issuance of grading permits.
g} Approval of the final design of the dam by the Department of Conservation and Recreallon, as necessary.
7
.
.
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4012
August 29, 2007
Michael Barnes
PO Box 5207
Charlottesville, VA 22905
RE: SP2006-00031 Glen Oaks
Tax Map 94, Parcels 15, 16, 16A
Dear Mr. Barnes:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 21,2007, recommended approval
of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors,
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1) The stream crossing shall be built in general accord with the plan titled "SP 06-031 Application Plan,"
revised "Aug. 01, 2007," and prepared by Roudabush, Gale, & Associates, Inc.
2) Any subdivision on the portion of the property designated as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan
shall be designed in general accord with the plan titled Glenoaks, dated "8/1/07", and prepared by "kg
Associates." The development lots east of Limestone Creek and Lot 26 shall be developed as a Rural
Preservation Development in accord with section 10.3.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, with Lot 26 as the
preservation tract. As part of the same subdivision, the applicant shall convey to the County a portion
of Lot 10 (whose boundaries are approved by the Parks and Recreation department) for use as a
greenway.
3) The dam shall allow for a continuation of the base flow in the stream.
4) The following conditions shall be met prior to issuance of a grading permit to allow installation of the
stream crossing or submittal of the final subdivision plat, whichever comes first:
a) The applicant must obtain a map revision, letter of revision, or letter of amendment as required
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and copy the County Engineer on
all correspondence between the applicant and FEMA.
b) County approval of an erosion and sediment control plan for the stream crossing.
c) County approval of the final lane configuration over the stream crossing with the final road
plans.
d) Natural Resources Manager approval of a stream buffer mitigation plan in general accord with
the conceptual plan shown on the plan titled "SP 06-031 Application Plan," revised "Aug, 0 1,
2007," and prepared by Roudabush, Gale, & Associates, Inc.
e) County approval of final design plans and hydrologic/hydraulic computations for the stream
crossing,
14":<. I
Glen Oaks SP07-31
August 29,2007
f) Army Corp of Engineers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and other necessary
state and federal agency approvals must be obtained prior to issuance of grading permits.
g) Approval of the final design of the dam by the Department of Conservation and Recreation, as
necessary.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review at their meeting on
November 14,2007
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,
Scott Clark
Planner
Planning Division
SCISM
Cc: Glenmore Associates Limited Partnership
PO Box 5207
Charlottesville, V A 22905
Ella Carey
Glenn Brooks
Steve Allshouse
Jr. .:; "}
D) _J f-,-
.
.
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Staff: Scott Clark
Crossing
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
AUQust 21, 2007 November 14,2007
Ownerls: Glenmore Associates Limited Applicant: Glenmore Associates Limited
Partnership Partnership
Acreage: 499,12 acres Special Use Permit: 30,3,05,2,1 (2), which
permits water related uses such as boat
docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries,
culverts and river crossings of transmission
lines of all types.
TMP: Tax Map 94, Parcels 15, 16, 16A Existing Zoning and By-right use: RA -- Rural
Location: Off Running Deer Drive [Route 808], Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
approximately 1,1 miles from its intersection with residential density (0,5 unit/acre); FH Flood
Richmond Road [Route 250]. Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection
from flooding
Magisterial District: Scottsville Conditions: Yes
RA (Rural Areas) Requested # of Dwelling Units: 0 for requested
use; 24 in related subdivisions, of which 15 would
need the requested stream crossing
Proposal: Fill in the floodplain of Limestone Creek Comprehensive Plan Designation:
for a road crossing over the creek to provide access Rural Areas
for residential development.
Character of Property: The property includes Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential
deciduous and evergreen woodlands, floodplains development, agriculture, and open-space 1
along the Rivanna River, the stream valley of conservation I
Limestone Creek, a large pond along the creek,
open pastures, and wetlands,
Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable:
1, The proposed stream crossing would not 1, The County does not typically encourage
increase the 1 OO-year floodplain elevation, floodplain crossings for the purpose of creating
2. Permitting this crossing would allow the development lots. However, in this case the
property to be developed in a manner property would be developed with or without
(partially using the Rural Preservation the crossing, With the crossing, environmental
Development option) that would avoid the resources over all are better protected.
anticipated groundwater impacts on the 2. Creation of a private road crossing over a dam
adjacent Running Deer subdivision while might lead to future requests for County
keeping a large area of the property in a ownership or management of the crossing if
conservation easement (the preservation the landowners cannot afford necessary
tracts of the Rural Preservation maintenance.
Development),
3, The proposed subdivision related to the
crossing would include a donation to the
County of a greenway corridor shown in the
Comprehensive Plan,
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit with conditions,
'ReS _""':J
Petition:
PROPOSED: Fill in the floodplain of Limestone Creek for a road crossing over the creek to provide access for
residential development.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre); FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding
SECTION: 30.3,05.2.1(2), which permits water related uses such as boat docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries,
culverts and river crossings of transmission lines of all types,
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USEIDENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCA TION: Running Deer Drive [Route 808], approximately 1.1 miles from its intersection with Richmond Road
[Route 250].
TAX MAPIPARCEL: Tax Map 94, Parcels 15, 16, 16A
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
Character of the Area:
The property lies in the Rural Areas adjacent to the boundary between the southwestern edge of the Rivanna
Village development area and the Rural Areas. Properties to the northwest are mostly smaller residential lots,
while the Rural Areas to the east and south are made up oflarge forested and open parcels transected by the wide
floodplain of the Rivanna River.
Specifics of the Proposal:
The current proposal is for a stream crossing over an existing dam to allow access to proposed development on the
east side of Limestone Creek. The applicants proposed two possible crossing locations (the dam or another
existing crossing upstream). Staffhas determined that the dam crossing is preferable, as it would avoid impacts on
a neighboring property under a conservation easement, and would provide greater opportunities for impact
management and for stream restoration below the dam.
The existing dam has an open culvert crossed by a wooden bridge. A narrow dirt road crosses the dam, which is in
poor repair. Two collapsed metal pipes are located east of the open culvert.
The proposal would replace the current dam with a new dam, and the open culvert with a 12-by-l0-foot box
culvert. The new dam would be wider, to accommodate the access road to the proposed Rural Preservation
Development. (Exact details ofthe dam and road designs would be reviewed by Engineering staffbefore site work
could begin.)
The applicants have proposed a stream-buffer mitigation plan that would provide for reforestation of an area equal
to the estimated 47,800 square feet of buffer disturbance required for dam construction, The proposed location
mitigation area is located just downstream ofthe site. Any variation in the location or size of the mitigation area
would require written approval by the Natural Resources Manager.
Typically, staff would not recommend approval of a stream crossing to access more development. However,
given the previous denial of SUB 06-046, the remaining options are either to permit the crossing to access
some lots on the east side of Limestone Creek, or to accept that the applicants can develop by-right without
Planning Commission approval in a form that puts 20 lots on the west side of Limestone Creek, much like the
denied RPD (see the Planning and Zoning History section of this report), The latter option would not address
the Commission's concerns regarding groundwater.
The applicants have demonstrated (see Attachment D) that they can develop a total of24 lots on this property
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
z
~6~
.
without need for a special use permit. They are willing to accept conditions of approval on the special use
permit limiting them to that same total of 24 development lots.
The stream-crossing permit application included a proposed development layout that would have had the
same number oflots across the whole property, in a conventional form, Staff comments on the application
stated that it would be preferable for the lots accessed by the crossing to be included in a Rural Preservation
Development.
In response, the applicants have proposed the layout shown in Attachment E. This layout would use a series of
boundaiy adjustments and subdivisions to combine conventional development (Lots 1 through 9) with a Rural
Preservation Development (lots 11 through 25), The conventional development would also create Lot 10 (a
parcel of approximately 40 acres to be held by the Glenmore Homeowners' Association for unspecified future
recreational uses), The Rural Preservation Development, with the development lots located on the east side of
Limestone Creek, would contain IS development lots, The preservation tract would contain approximately
268 acres.
Finally, and importantly for the County's recreational needs, a 100-foot-wide parcel along the Rivanna River
would be deeded to the County for extension of the trail shown in the Greenway Plan. This lot would be
divided out of Lot 10 ( described above). This greenway parcel would be created as a "non-development lot"
as defined in the Zoning Administrator's determination of February 13,2007 (see Attachment F),
The RPD would include 15 development lots and one preservation tract. The applicants have stated that they
would place the preservation tract under an easement that would not permit dwellings (typically, RPD
preservation tracts have the right for one dwelling).
. Thus 27 lots would be created, only 24 of which could have dwellings,
Plannin!! and Zonin!! Historv:
On May 30, 2006, the Planning Commission denied approval of a preliminary plat for a Rural Preservation
Development (SUB 2006-046) on a portion of this property with 19 development lots and 1 preservation tract.
The remainder of the property was proposed for 11 conventional lots, Staff had recommended approval of the
RPD, as it met the design standards for RPDs contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The major issue in the denial
was a potential problem with groundwater availability. The proposed development lots were adjacent to the
Running Deer subdivision, which has experienced groundwater supply problems.
On July 5, 2006, the applicants appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors, At that
meeting, the Board deferred action on the appeal with the applicants' agreement, so that the applicants could
resubmit another plan that would potentially avoid the concerns identified by the Planning Commission,
On December 12,2006, the Planning Commission held a work session on the current stream-crossing request (s('('
Attachment C for the staff report for the work session).
Conformitv with the Comprehensive Plan:
.
This proposal has a complex relationship with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, some of which conflict.
The proposal and staff's comments on it are the result of attempts to protect important resources in a situation
where the Commission's expectations regarding one goal (groundwater protection) have led the applicants
and staff to find alternative approaches to other meeting other goals (avoidance of habitat fragmentation,
protection of wetlands and floodplains, and reduction of residential-development impacts in the Rural Areas),
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
...-
.3"~DS 'J
Policv Relationshio to Policv Reactions/Miti!!ation
Groundwater This proposal is intended to avoid Places new lots farther from existing lots in
Supply Protection depleting the supply for existing residential Running Deer that are experiencing
development. groundwater supply problems,
Reducing Rural This proposal would pennit residential The proposal would pennit less than the
Residential development in the Rural Areas, theoretical total development potential (3 I
Development lots), The 24 proposed lots are arranged to !
reduce resource impacts (partly in a
clustered development), and to avoid
groundwater impacts, but also to achieve i
relatively large lots sizes desired by the
applicants,
Greenway The proposal would support this goal by
Planning including the donation of a stretch of
green way trail identified in the Greenway
Plan,
Surface Water The proposal would allow a floodplain The alternative is by-right development that
Protection crossing utilizing an existing dam to access could be achieved without legislative review
development, with the consequent impacts, and that would fail to meet the groundwater-
protection goal identified by the Planning
Commission, Surface-water impacts of the
crossing would be managed by conditions of
the special use permit.
Soecial Use Permit Review
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon aflnding by the Board of
Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
County engineering and water-resources staff have reviewed the applicant's proposal, and concur with the
applicant's conclusion that the replacement ofthe existing dam (with open culvert, wooden bridge, and 48-inch
metal pipes) with a new dam (including the 12-by-1 O-foot box culvert), and the placement offill for this stream
crossing and road improvements, will not result in an increase in the 100-year flood elevation and will not
detrimentally affect adjacent properties.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
This stream crossing would not significantly change the stream valley, as it would replace an existing dam with a
somewhat larger dam in the same location.
The residential development that would be accessed by the proposed stream crossing would change the character
of the district. However, the same level of development could occur, and could have more detrimental impacts,
without the proposed crossing. At the December 12, 2006 work session, the Planning Commission stated that it
preferred a Rural Preservation Development accessed by the proposed crossing to a by-right development that
would not require the crossing,
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Residential development is not in harmony with the stated purposes ofthe RA zoning district as listed in section
10,1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
10,1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
This district (hereafter referred to as RA) is hereby created and may hereafter be established by
amendment of the zoning map for the following purposes: (Amended 11-8-89)
-Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
4'&:b' u
.
.
.
[I
-Water supply protection;
-Limited service delivery to the rural areas,' and
-Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. (Amended 11-8-89)
Residential development not related to bona fide agriculturallforestal use shall be encouraged to
locate in the urban area, communities and villages as designated in the comprehensive plan where
services and utilities are available and where such development will not conflict with the
agriculturallforestal or other rural objective. Where development does occur, rural residents
should expect to receive a lower level of service delivery than will be provided to residential
developments in designated growth areas, In relation to residential development,
agriculturallforestal activities shall be regulated only to the extent necessary to protect public
health and safety, (Added 11-8- 89; Amended 10-3-01)
In regard to agricultural preservation, this district is intended to preserve the county's active farms
and best agricultural and forestal lands by providing lot areas designed to insure the continued
availability of such lands for preferential land use tax assessment in order to enhance the economy,
and maintain employment and lifestyle opportunities, In addition, the continuation and
establishment of agriculture and agriculturally-related uses will be encouraged, and landowners
will be encouraged to employ Virginia State Water Control Board best management practices,
(Amended 11-8- 89)
However, residential development is a permitted use in that district, and the choices in this case are to
subdivide this land as a Rural Preservation Development or as a conventional subdivision, The RPD option
would better support the purpose and intent of the ordinance,
Compared to by-right subdivision, protection of the preservation tract under a conservation easement (as the
preservation tract of an RPD) would support the intent of the Rural Areas zoning district to conserve "natural,
scenic, and historic resource," and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance "[t]o provide for the preservation of
agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment."
Dedication of the greenway segment discussed above would support the Zoning Ordinance's intent to
facilitate the provision of parks and recreational facilities.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Residential development is a by-right use in the Rural Areas. Although such development conflicts with
agricultural, forestal, and conservation uses, this request would not increase the achievable level of
development on the site,
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no supplemental regulations in section 5.0 for this use,
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Fifteen of the development lots in the proposed development would be accessed over the proposed dam. Section
14-41 O(F) ofthe Subdivision Ordinance requires subdivisions to have road access that is not obstructed by a 25-
year storm, The roadway on top of the proposed dam would be above the level ofthe 50-year storm, and so would
meet this standard.
The Natural Resources Manager has found that the applicant's proposed stream-buffer mitigation plan is sufficient
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
5
.,...., ",< -1
~lj~-')
to offset the buffer disturbances created by construction of the dam.
Dam safety is regulated by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (OCR). Staff recommends a
condition of approval that would require the applicants to show that they have OCR approval of the final dam
design before beginning site work.
Engineering staff has pointed out that public costs could result if landowners in the proposed subdivision could
not afford the costs of maintenance and possible liabilities for the future dam and road crossing. Such a situation
could lead to requests for public management or ownership of the facility.
PRIV A TE ROADS REQUEST
As permitted by section 14-234(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant is requesting that the Planning
Commission approve the use of private roads in the subdivision whose proposed lots are shown conceptually in
Attachment E. This section of the ordinance states that applicants may apply for private roads before submitting
the preliminary subdivision plat. In this case, because the proposed stream crossing is tied to a subdivision that
would need private roads, the applicant wishes to secure the private road approval at the same time as the special
use permit for that crossing.
At the December 12, 2006, work session, the Commission agreed (during discussion of the adjacent Leake
rezoning) to the following points of the applicant's proposed plan for access:
. The Leake and Glen Oaks developments should be accessed through the Glenmore private road system
. A single road to access both the Leake development and the Glen Oaks lots on the west side of Limestone
Creek is preferable to separate roads for the two developments.
. Developing Glen Oaks as an RPD with a floodplain crossing of Limestone Creek is preferable to by-right
development without the crossing.
Staff Comment
The applicant has requested authorization of private streets in the Glen Oaks subdivision under Section 14-232(A)
and 14-234, The justification sites 14-323(A)(1)(b) and 14-232(A)(3),
In order to approve this request, the Commission must be able to find one ofthe criteria provided in Section 14-
232(A). It is current development staff's opinion that this request can be found to meet the standard of 14-
233(A)(3), General Welfare, if the Board of Supervisors agrees that Glen Oaks is best served by a streets that
connects to the existing road network in Glenmore,
14-232 When private streets in rural areas may be authorized.
A private street may be authorized in the rural areas under the following circumstances, provided
that the findings required by section 14-234(C) are made:
14-232(A)(l)(b). Environmental impacts including, but not limited to, erosion and
sedimentation, stormwater runoff, surface water pollution, loss of tree cover and/or the loss of indigenous
vegetation resulting from a public street, which would be substantially greater than that of a private street in
the same alignment, based upon evidence submitted by the subdivider and reviewed by the county engineer
and other qualified staff.
14-232(A)(3), General welfare. One or more private streets may be authorized if the general
welfare, as opposed to the proprietary interest of the subdivider, would be better served by the construction
of one or more private streets than by the construction of public streets,
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
6
B:>S '6
.
.
.
GI n Oaks as proposed would be served by an extension ofthe private street network that was established with the
or ginal and subsequent approvals of Glenmore, Serving this subdivision with public streets would mean (1)
co verting the road system through Glenmore to public streets, which has not been proposed, or (2) connecting
GI n Oaks to the public road system through the Running Deer subdivision, which would add to the traffic
impacts on a substandard road, and which was not the Planning Commission's preferred solution at the December
12 2006, work session,
Se tion 14-234(B) states that, absent compelling circumstances, private streets should not cross over dams,
H wever, in this case there is a compelling circumstance that would make a private road over a dam appropriate,
T e dam crossing is necessary in order to make possible a Rural Preservation Development that would conserve a
la ge portion of the property while avoiding anticipated groundwater impacts on the existing Running Dee.
su division, Without the crossing, the property would be developed as a by-right subdivision that would not create
a reservation tract, and that would have greater groundwater impacts on Running Deer,
T e Commission must also find that the provisions of Section 14-234(C)(1-5) are met. Those standards are
in luded below, with staff comment.
14-234(C). The agent and the commission may authorize one or more private streets in a subdivision ifit
finds that one or more of the circumstances described in sections 14-232 or 14-233 exist and it
determines that:
1, The private street will be adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonably expected to be
generated by the subdivision.
The adequacy of the road design would be ensured through Engineering staff review of road plans for the
subdivision, In addition, a recommended condition of approval for the stream crossing permit states that
the applicant must secure "County approval ofthe final lane configuration over the stream crossing with
the final road plans."
2, The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in the approximate location of the
proposed private street;
The Comprehensive Plan does not recommend a public road in this area.
3, Thefee of the private street will be owned by the owner of each lot abutting the right-o.fway thereofor
by an association composed of the owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in either case to any
easement for the benefit of all lots served by the street;
In discussions with staff, the applicant has stated that this road would be owned by an association of the
owners of lots in the subdivision,
4, Except where required by the commission to serve a specific public purpose, the private street will not
serve through traffic nor intersect the state highway system in more than one location;
The proposed road (running over the dam and into the RPD portion of Glen Oaks) would not serve
through traffic, as it would end within the boundaries of the RPD and not connect to another property. It
would not intersect the state highway system at all.
And
S 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
P 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
7
0-
'Q {^..~." \
a~r,"..,.J
5, If applicable, the private street has been approved in accordance with section 30,3, flood hazard
overlay district, of the zoning ordinance and other applicable law,
Approval of the current special use permit request for a stream crossing would constitute approval under
Section 30.3, Flood Hazard Overlay, of the Zoning Ordinance.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
I, The proposed stream crossing would not increase the I OO-year floodplain elevation.
2, Permitting this crossing would allow the property to be developed in a manner (partially using the Rural
Preservation Development option) that would avoid the anticipated groundwater impacts on the adjacent
Running Deer subdivision while keeping a large area of the property in a conservation easement.
3. The proposed subdivision related to the crossing would include a donation to the County of a green way
corridor shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
I, The County does not typically encourage floodplain crossings for the purpose of creating development
lots. However, in this case the property would be developed with or without the crossing. With the
crossing, environmental resources over all are better protected.
2, Creation of a private road crossing over a dam might lead to future requests for County ownership 0,
management of the crossing if the landowners cannot afford necessary maintenance.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit 2006-00031
under the following conditions:
1) The stream crossing shall be built in general accord with the plan titled "SP 06-031 Application Plan," revised
"Aug, 01,2007," and prepared by Roudabush, Gale, & Associates, Inc.
2) Any subdivision on the portion of the property designated as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan shall be
designed in general accord with the plan titled Glenoaks, dated "8/1/07", and prepared by "kg Associates." The
development lots east of Limestone Creek and Lot 26 shall be developed as a Rural Preservation Development
in accord with section 10.3.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, with Lot 26 as the preservation tract. As part of the
same subdivision, the applicant shall convey to the County a portion of Lot 10 (whose boundaries are approved
by the Parks and Recreation department) for use as a greenway,
3) There shall be no land disturbing activity or removal of vegetation within the stream buffer, exclusive of the
dam, except as required for mitigation.
4) The dam shall allow for a continuation of the base flow in the stream,
5) The following conditions shall be met prior to issuance of a grading permit to allow installation of the stream
crossing or submittal of the final subdivision plat, whichever comes first:
a) The applicant must obtain a map revision, letter of revision, or letter of amendment as required frcl;'l"..
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and copy the County Engineer on all correspondenct
between the applicant and FEMA.
b) County approval of an erosion and sediment control plan for the stream crossing.
c) County approval of the final lane configuration over the stream crossing with the final road plans.
d) Natural Resources Manager approval ofa stream buffer mitigation plan in general accord with the
conceptual plan shown on the plan titled "SP 06-031 Application Plan," revised "Aug. 01, 2007," and
prepared by Roudabush, Gale, & Associates, Inc.
e) County approval of final design plans and hydrologic/hydraulic computations for the stream crossing,
f) Army Corp of Engineers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and other necessary state and
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
8
'?:t{j\D
.
.
.
- -Ii
federal agency approvals must be obtained prior to issuance of grading permits.
g) Approval of the final design of the dam by the Department of Conservation and Recreation, as necessary.
Staff also recommends that the Commission make the necessary findings under Section 14-23 4( C)( 1-5) and
approve the applicant's private roads request for the Glen Oaks subdivision,
A TT ACHMENTS
A. Location Map
B. Detail Map
C. Staff Report from December 12,2006 Planning Commission Work Session
D, By-right Subdivision Layout
E, RPD Layout Plan
F, Official Zoning Determination - creation of new non-development special lots
G. SP 06-031 Application Plan
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
9 ~:~ \ \
I Attachment A
j
i
1
/"
',Ii' '~\. "
. / I
~~... ..:
.~~
-~~-,.,
~.,
....' !' 1-"" '.....
LL. "
..J -1'
I
-~,',...,_.. --
~;
LJ--.-
f' --,.;-, -.
\5\
I
I
-~
I
\-
-:;
,. '1':
-,/
':;\
/
-c .
/':'
:.(!A
,..,.,...,
t
III i
--_.._--~~
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
10
-~'2.{:' .:: ) I L
.
I"
._1/ ,-
.,- ',; :, '. l~:., f''-
.~~)2,OO~,-O.31 !
Glen'Oaks,S~ream jrQSSing
,I' ,
/ iS28!
li
I:,
i.-\
":::'~---'-.::...' <.
C) J
,1'1
'(
, ;
l:
.
,-
I.
1
1 : ~
, '
,,'
"
IN
!A
..
.
;-- =~-
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
,,- --
'V
,______.u__.
Attachment B
- I
I
-!
11
\\C ; \':
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE STAFF REPORT SUMMARY I Attachment C I
Project Name: Staff: Scott Clark
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
Planning Commission Work Session: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
December 12, 2006 Not scheduled
Owners: Glenmore Associates Limited Applicant: Glenmore Associates Limited
Partnership Partnership
Acreage: 499.12 acres Special Use Permit for: A crossing of
Limestone Creek, under section 30.3.05.2.1(2),
which permits water related uses such as boat
docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries, culverts
and river crossings of transmission lines of all
types.
TMP: Tax Map 94, Parcels 15, 16, 16A Conditions: To be determined
Location: Running Deer Drive [Route 808],
approximately 1.1 miles from its intersection with
Richmond Road rRoute 2501.
Existing Zoning and By-right use: RA Rural Magisterial District: Scottsville
Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre); FH Flood
Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection
from
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 24 DA RA X
Proposal: Fill in the floodplain of Limestone Comprehensive Plan Designation: RA - Rural
Creek for a road crossing over the creek to provide Areas: preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
access for residential development. open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre); Parks and
Greenwavs: parks; greenways; playgrounds;
pedestrian and bicycle paths
Character of Property: The property includes Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential
deciduous and evergreen woodlands, floodplains development, agriculture, and open-space
along the Rivanna River, the stream valley of conservation
Limestone Creek, a large pond along the creek,
open pastures, and wetlands.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Commission to affirm staffs fmdings on using
the RPD approach on this site; design ofthe proposed RPD; and the range of uses to be permitted
on Lot 10, or provide alternate direction.
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
12
'."') ;", "'. ') \ L1
\7-'
.
.
.
II
Petition:
PROJECT: SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PROPOSED: Fill in the floodplain of Limestone Creek for a road crossing over the creek to provide access for
residential development.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0,5 unit/acre); FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding
SECTION: 30.3.05.2.1(2), which permits water related uses such as boat docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries,
culverts and river crossings of transmission lines of all types.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USEIDENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (,5 unit/ acre)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCA TION: Running Deer Drive [Route 808], approximately 1.1 miles from its intersection with Richmond Road
[Route 250].
TAX MAPIPARCEL: Tax Map 94, Parcels 15, 16, 16A
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
Character of the Area:
The property lies in the Rural Areas adjacent to the boundary between the southwestern edge of the Rivanna
Village development area and the Rural Areas. Properties to the northwest are mostly smaller residential lots,
while the Rural Areas to the east and south are made up of large forested and open parcels transected by the
wide floodplain of the Rivanna River.
Plannin!! and Zonin!! Historv:
On May 30, 2006, the Planning Commission denied approval of a preliminary plat for a Rural Preservation
Development (SUB 2006-046; see Attachment C) on a portion of this property with 19 development lots and
1 preservation tract. The remainder of the property was proposed for 11 conventional lots, Staff had
recommended approval of the RPD, as it met the design standards for RPDs contained in the Zoning
Ordinance (see the proposed layout in Attachment D). The major issue in the denial was a potential problem
with groundwater availability. The proposed development lots were adjacent to the Running Deer subdivision,
which has experienced groundwater supply problems.
On July 5, 2006, the applicants appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors. At
that meeting, the Board deferred action on the appeal with the applicants' agreement, so that the applicants
could resubmit another plan that would potentially avoid the concerns identified by the Planning Commission,
Specifics of the Proposal:
The current proposal is for a stream crossing over an existing dam to allow access to proposed development
on the east side of Limestone Creek. The applicants proposed two possible crossing locations (the dam or
another existing crossing upstream). Staffhas determined that the dam crossing is preferable, as it would
avoid impacts on a neighboring property under a conservation easement, and would provide greater
opportunities for impact management and for stream restoration below the dam. Specifics of the stream
crossing proposal will be reviewed by staff and discussed at a public hearing to be scheduled later,
The current plan shows the residential development connecting to the private roads within the Rivanna
Village development area. Under this concept, the proposed lots must be considered in the total traffic impact
of development in Glenmore, including the proposed rezonings to be discussed in the work session following
this one. However, as the current proposal for the Rural Area property could be accessed either from Running
Deer Drive or the Glenmore road system, this work session will focus on the form of development to be
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
13
/"
'i5D~.) '\..-ij
accessed by the stream crossing. Overall road-access and traffic issues in Glenmore and on Running Deer
Drive will be discussed in detail in the following work session on the Leake rezoning.
The proposed stream crossing would be necessary for this proposal no matter where road access came from,
and the crossing site could be accessed either from Running Deer or from within Glenmore. The focus of this
work session will be on whether approval of the stream-crossing request is justified based on the design of the
proposed development.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan:
This proposal has a complex relationship with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, some of which conflict.
The proposal and staff s comments on it are the result of attempts to protect important resources in a situation
where the Commission's expectations regarding one goal (groundwater protection) have led the applicants
and staff to find alternative approaches to other meeting other goals (avoidance of habitat fragmentation,
protection of wetlands and floodplains, and reduction of residential-development impacts in the Rural Areas).
Policy Relationship to Policy Reactions/Miti!!ation
Groundwater This proposal is intended to avoid Places new lots farther from existing lots in
Supply Protection depleting the supply for existing residential Running Deer that are experiencing
develooment. groundwater suoolv oroblems.
Reducing Rural This proposal would permit residential The proposal would permit less than the
Residential development in the Rural Areas, theoretical total development potential (31
Development lots), The 24 proposed lots are arranged to
reduce resource impacts (partly in a
clustered development), and to avoid
groundwater impacts, but also to achieve
relatively large lots sizes desired by the
applicants,
Greenway The proposal would support this goal by
Planning including the donation of a stretch of
greenway trail identified in the Greenway
Plan,
Surface Water The proposal would allow a floodplain The alternative is by-right development that
Protection crossing utilizing an existing dam to access could be achieved without legislative review
development, with the consequent impacts, and that would fail to meet the groundwater-
protection goal identified by the Planning
Commission, Surface-water impacts of the
crossing would be managed by conditions of
the special use permit.
Proposed Use
Typically, staff would not recommend approval ofa stream crossing to access more development. However,
given the previous denial of SUB 06-046, the remaining options are either to permit the crossing to access
some lots on the east side of Limestone Creek, or to accept that the applicants can develop by-right without
Planning Commission approval in a form that puts 20 lots on the west side of Limestone Creek (much like the
denied RPD). The latter option would not address the Commission's concerns regarding groundwater.
The applicants have demonstrated (see Attachment E) that they can develop a total of24 lots on this property
without need for a special use permit. They are willing to accept conditions of approval on the special use
permit limiting them to that same total of 24 development lots.
The stream-crossing permit application included a proposed development layout that would have had the
same number of lots across the whole property, in a conventional form. Staff comments on the application
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
14
--::? i' <C. \ t ,'>
i-.~:j)"""') \.1/
.
sated that it would be preferable for the lots accessed by the crossing to be included in a Rural Preservation
evelopment.
I response, the applicants have proposed the layout show in Attachment D, This layout would use a series of
oundary adjustments and subdivisions to combine conventional development (Lots 1 through 10) with a
ural Preservation Development (remainder ofproperty)--see Attachment F for the applicants' description of
t is process, The conventional development would create 9 lots, plus the 89.6-acre Lot 10 (an open-space
r creational parcel to be held by the Glenmore Homeowners' Association, with deed restrictions preventing
wellings ).
inally, and importantly for the County's recreational needs, a 100-foot-wide parcel along the Rivanna River
ould be deeded to the County for extension of the trail shown in the Greenway Plan. However, as this lot
ould not meet basic lot requirements (area, frontage, building site, etc.), it is not yet clear how it could
c eated; Zoning and Current Development staff will provide more input as the review of the special use permit
c ntinues. If the lot can be created, then the applicants would donate the area for the trail. If it could not, they
ave stated that they are not willing to create an access easement over the preservation tract; this would mean
t at further development of the greenway along the Rivanna would be blocked.
S affwill address the design standards in section 10.3.3.2 individually:
hus 27 lots would be created, only 24 of which could have dwellings,
he RPD would include 15 development lots and one preservation tract. The applicants have stated that they
ould place the preservation tract under an easement that would not permit dwellings (typically, RPD
p eservation tracts have the right for one dwelling).
.
Standards
e rural preservation development option is intended to encourage more effictive land usage in
t rms of the goals and objectives for the rural areas as set forth in the comprehensive plan than can
b achieved under conventional development. To this end, application for rural preservation
d velopment shall be reviewed for:
a Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
b Water supply protection; and/or
c, Conservation of natural, scenic or historic resources,
ore specifically, in accordance with design standards of the comprehensive plan and where deemed
r asonably practical by the commission:
d Development lots shall not encroach into prime, important or unique agricultural or forestal soils as the
s me shall be shown on the most recent published maps of the United StatesDepartment of Agricultural Soil
onservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service;
.
S gnificant areas of this property are in soils rated as prime or locally important, and it would be difficult to
fi d sufficient buildable areas for the lots that did not include those soils. The current proposal would impact
t ese soils in approximately the same extent as the previously proposed RPD, SUB 06-046. The impacts to
t ese soils could be reduced somewhat if the development lots were smaller. However, the applicants have
st ted that their designs are more focused on resource conservation than on agricultural productivity.
e, Development lots shall not encroach into areas of critical slope or flood plain and shall be situated as far
a possible from public drinking water supply tributaries and public drinking water supply impoundments;
S 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
P 8/21/07 -- 80S 11/14/2007
15
.~c~:) \ or}
The proposal places the majority of the critical slopes and floodplains on the property in the preservation tract.
However, a stream crossing in the floodplain would be necessary to access the development lots. This
property is not in a Water Supply Protection Area.
f Development lots shall be so situated and arranged as to preserve historic and scenic settings deemed to be
of importance to the general public and natural resource areas whether such features are on the parcel to be
developed or adjacent to such parcel;
The proposed preservation tract would include natural-resource areas identified as important in the
Comprehensive Plan, including floodplains; critical slopes; wetland; stream valleys; and connected forest
blocks. The proposed development lots would intrude into the forest block at the north end of the RPD, but at
staffs request the applicants have kept the lots at least 500 feet from the property boundary, in an attempt to
maintain a viable habitat corridor. The parcel adjacent to that boundary is under a conservation easement held
by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
g. Development lots shall be confined to one area of the parcel and shall be situated so that no portion of the
rural preservation tract shall intrude between any development lots;
Development lots are confined to one area of the property.
h. All development lots shall have access restricted to an internal street in accordance with Chapter 14 of the
Code of Albemarle;
The proposal meets this standard.
i, Nothing stated herein shall be deemed to obligate the commission to approve a rural preservation
development upon finding in a particular case that such proposal does not forward the purposes of rural
preservation development as set forth hereinabove and that the public purpose to be served would be equally
or better served by conventional development,
Staff would find that this RPD would better meet the purposes of Rural Preservation Development if the
development lots were smaller, thus allowing more area to be included in the conservation easement.
However, the lots are within the size range permitted in section 10.3.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance (a six-acre
average), and the preservation tract would be approximately 218 acres as proposed, which is larger than the
preservation tracts of many approved RPDs, The applicants have stated that they are not willing to pursue the
RPD option with smaller lots,
Also, the current proposal (Attachment D) shows a preservation tract in three distinct pieces-west of
Limestone Creek and adjacent to the Running Deer subdivision; between Limestone Creek and the RPD
development lots; and east of the development lots. The feature that divides these three pieces is the
northeastern extension of Lot 10 (that portion east of Limestone Creek and adjacent to Lot 18).
Staff would support a preservation tract that wraps around the north end of the proposed development lots, as
this would help to capture some of the most important resources (forest connections and steep slopes adjacent
to floodplains).
But, while this preservation tract is large enough for significant resource protection, it complicates future
resource management by fragmenting the preservation tract. For conservation purposes, it would be simpler
and more effective to have one contiguous tract to manage. The applicant's position is that the protection
afforded by deed restrictions on Lot 10 would be equivalent to those under the preservation-tract easement.
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- 80S 11/14/2007
16
Bo::) \<6
.
.
.
Iso, Current Development staff has stated that the preservation tract for this RPD could not be approved
nder section 14-406 of the County Code, which states in part: "Remnants shall not be created by the
ubdivision ofland," The term "remnant" means any lot, other than one established as a non-building lot,
hich does not meet the minimum lot requirements of this chapter and the zoning ordinance.
ne possible solution to address this would be to have a single larger preservation tract that included the
pplicants' desired trail system, rather than a preservation tract and a separate "open-space" parcel. However,
t is would require confirmation by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority that trails for this purpose
ould be permitted on the preservation tract; this would likely depend on the design of the proposed trails.
therwise a layout in which the preservation tract connected across Limestone Creek and Lot 10 would be
referable.
uestion for the Commission: Is the applicant's current proposal for an RPD on the east side of
imestone Creek the preferred approach for residential development on the site?
he applicants have demonstrated that they can achieve 24 lots in a conventional subdivision without any
s ecial use permits. That subdivision would place twenty lots adjacent to the Running Deer subdivision, and
ould create the same groundwater concerns as the previously rejected RPD. Placing some lots on the east
s.de of Limestone Creek helps to avoid that groundwater conflict, but requires a special use permit for a
s ream crossing, Staff feels that if that permit is to be granted, it is most appropriate to use the RPD approach
t reduce the natural-resource impacts of the permitted development.
uestion for the Commission: Does the proposed RPD design meet the Commission's expectations under
t e ordinance's design standards?
iven the analysis above, staff finds that the arrangement of the development lots meets the standards set out
i section 10.3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the preservation tract design could be arranged to
etter connect resources under easement, and is not approvable in its current proposed form. Staff would
r commend that the applicants return with a design with a single contiguous preservation tract. The
a plicant's suggested approach-using deed restrictions on Lot 10-is an alternative approach intended to
a complish the intent of section 10.3.3,2.
he applicant has proposed putting Lot 10 under deed restrictions that would prohibit the construction of
d ellings, as well as other appropriate restrictions. However, the parcel would be used as an amenity for
r sidents largely from the adjacent Development Area. The only proposed use at the moment is for trails, but
t e applicant has stated that they might consider a future application for a clubhouse on the site. In the RA
z ning district, such a clubhouse would require a special use permit under section 10.2.2.2 (Clubs, lodges,
c vic, patriotic, fraternal) or section 10.2.2.4 (Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities).
uestion for the Commission: What types of activities other than trails should be allowed on Lot 10?
s a forested parcel used for trails and other low-impact recreation without built infrastructure, Lot 10 would
b largely indistinguishable from many rural parcels under conservation easement, especially given that it
ould not have a dwelling (which many smaller parcels under easement are permitted to have). However,
a dition of buildings and other facilities begins to blur the hard edge between the Development Areas and
R ral Areas, and changes the character of the parcel. Staff feels that it would be most appropriate to limit uses
o this parcel to trail use and similar activities that do not require structures.
2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
17
-w.. ""' ""C'
LX)"') ~ (
Recommendation
Staff requests that the Commission to affirm staffs findings on using the RPD approach on this site; design of
the proposed RPD; and the range of uses to be permitted on Lot 10, or provide alternate direction.
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
18
'J' 4. ? t
pC>J L.. .
.
I Attachment D I
\
\
.. \ .
u .
.'"
~/"
/"
ti //,,'2
II +, ,.;,-,
,/ ')' ",'f/ 2
I J...... '.
i r~t ,
i ;;' \
\."..~i :: +tw__z ,'.
<", \, I. ' ""',. ---.,---':',
" ,: ',2 "
\,: 'oi:_. 2 "",
I ~~
"
,
"
,-,21
~ ","'..
Leakel Glen Oaks
:x: Properties
\
~
I'
r,
^' I
1: inch equal! 500 feet
I
1- ,
'--
\
'\
.~~,lJ-
. t\
,,:\ L__._,
)" \
I\,\
\ + \
.'
..,~ \
", \
\
....-.- -,-- ---.- ---,
I
I
I
I
I
I .
i
I
I
I
.,
I
I
I
i
,,' "j
+ I
+' ,
I
I
+ j'
-~------- - - -.- - ..... -
~~~
u
21
i
>---
I
~
I
I,
..
I
,
I
I
I
,
,
\.... "''d:''''';''''''
.
"
"Y(t
.'
,I
"
,.
, ,
,
,.'
,:'
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_iJ
.
'l,.~-:."~O!,'1.'"
.
S 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
P 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
'-:J" ') c' \
\:>l
19
I Attachment E I
~
~
pr~pared by kg ASSOci~te$ I )( I
811107 <
\
-\
\
Emergency
AcceSif)
Rural
Preservation
Tract
/
Glenmore
HOA Common
Area Parcel
\
...-~"""'>t>t
~~
Future County
Greenway Trail
/
I
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
20
r~l<) c. ~'
.
I Attachment F I
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum Revised from 1-18-07
To:
From:
Division:
Date:
Subject:
Interested Parties
Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator
Zoning and Current Development
February 13, 2007
Official Zoning Determination - creation of new non-development special
lots
.
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an official written zoning determination regarding the
applicability of the zoning district and general regulations to the creation of new special non-
development lots, These lots shall be limited to those created for the following uses: greenways, road
or railroad rights-of-way, central wells and septic systems, stormwater management facilities, public
utilities and cemeteries, The majority of these lots are primarily used for public purposes (such as with
roads and greenways) or for utilities (such as with central well or septic), It is my determination that
these special purpose lots are not lots for the applicability of the zoning district and general regulations
provided that (and as long as) their use is restricted to the non-development use for which they were
created. This zoning determination relates to the lot requirements and does not extend to use or area
and bulk regulations relating to structures located upon these lots, Use of the property and location of
structures on these lots is still subject to applicable zoning regulations.
In our recent comprehensive amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance, provision was made for these
lots, We plan to codify this determination with a zoning text amendment in the near future. These lots
are the same as "non-building lot" as defined in Section 14-106 of the Subdivision Ordinance as follows:
Non-building lot: The term "non-building lot" means a lot intended for the following uses: wells,
septic systems (including conventional drain fields), stormwater management facilities, open space,
common area, or pre-existing cemetery, but which does not contain a building site, and need not have a
development right assigned,
.
In the analysis to formulate this decision, I have considered the purposes and intent of both the
County's comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance (as set forth in Section 1) and find this decision
to be consistent with them. With regards to the creation of greenways, this decision encourages and
allows the dedication of land for public purposes which might not otherwise be done due to regulatory
conflicts or the loss of rights (such as in the RA with development rights). Greenways and greenway
parcels are similar to public road rights-of-way in several respects, By this decision, greenway parcels
and other non-development special lots may be created without the use of development rights and
without the lot requirements for building site, minimum lot size, frontage and the like. New greenway
parcels may be added to existing greenway parcels to extend the greenway system in much the same
way that right-of-way dedications are done for public roads.
There are also scenarios in which existing special-purpose lots may be reduced in area or eliminated
entirely through boundary line adjustments or the like. For example, an existing railroad right-of-way
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- 80S 11/14/2007
21
\3:c~ 2.3
which is being abandoned and is no longer in active use, may be added in whole or in part to adjoining
properties. In the case of subdivision improvements such as well lots which may be abandoned and
added to adjoining properties, research will need to be conducted to determine if amendment to the
original subdivision plat is necessary and what form of approval that must take. This approval is subject
to compliance with zoning regulations.
For any new or revised non-development special lot which is shown on a plat, the plat must clearly state
the following:
Lot X is for the express purpose of (an existing cemetery, railroad right-of-way, a new
well lot or a green way or the like). It does not constitute a development lot under the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance; therefore, future use shall be limited to this purpose without further
County approval.
By this decision, the area and bulk regulations such as minimum size, frontage and the like are not
applicable to special non-development lots. In addition, the general regulations requiring a building site
and related utility (well and septic) approvals are also not applicable to special non-development lots. In
the Rural Areas, a development right is not required for the creation of a special non-building lot. This
memorandum is not a determination that existing special non-building lots do or do not have
development rights,
This special-purpose lot shall be limited to that area which is necessary for its express purpose and
shall not be made arbitrarily larger for future purposes. We are particularly concerned about situations
in which the express purpose may no longer be necessary and a future conversion use (for
development) is proposed. If that occurs, additional County approval is required and may include
combining this lot with adjoining property.
If questions arise in the administration of this decision, this decision will be revised to provide
clarification.
Cc: Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney
Mark Graham, Director of Community Development
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation
Rick Carter, Attorney at Law
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
22
''&;:, Z~
Co-'
W(X)'HSf1I1't'OI1OI:l@O:lNI lIVW3 - ~_ XV~ -llOilO'll8'Kl> 3NOHd
'W. ilOlll2 V1NIE>l:l,^ '3Il1llS31101WH:l -llVOlI 0113:>UNOW 1>16 ~
. BS;S~ ElON/S VINIDtJlA DNIAtJElS '
NOI.J. VtJOdtJOO "'/VNOISSEldOtJd V
Sf:/3NNY7d DNY7 DNI1' Sf:/O.A3/U:lnS 'Sf:/33NIIDN3
'JNI 'SHlVIJOSSV 2fl HlVD 'HSngycmo~
(t) ....~
Z o.
Q ~I
~ ~~
a: ~B
-
=
~
e
.c
Cj
~
-
-
<
~7
~ ~I
~ ~i
~ ~~
~ U~
o ~ c(
rJ)
cJi
lJ.J
I-
a
<
-.J
'G:
a:
lJ.J
<
lJ.J
C!:l
0-
'"
3',
~
0::0::
~~
>-...>-
c:"..'"
. '"
~~~
I >- en
:z:~~
.......... ~ ........'"
>ten
+ ~~~
0 0 -,'"
0 2: ~~~
0 >-k
I- en :::>
~ ....ena>
II ~ i!:~",
~~~~
~ ~ Qo';Ultt1
Lu"--J<::
(!) >-"'...
"0("0(2:......
~ ~ -Jl.J04:
::P""1t-t~
t.J-.J......::s:
-..IQ..'-ilU
! ~~8~
"'::.
~~8~
>., a: 0:: "'>-
4.J ~ -.J::loo-"'O;Z:
'r-! ~lS>-\l!
c: ~ ~~~~
'r-!
lJ ~~~
::iE i!i. ~~
'r-! ~~~~
:::::. a:
E o-Ja?~
......-.l5::E:
(J) ~~t;!~
!!~~
~ ~
.....:z~~~~ ~ a:~ffi~
>-en",>-o.. "'~"""'W=>'LO!i!
::l"C Lufb~ ::H!~~~"'" S~~ oq:
~;:;~~~~~~~~~~~~
:j~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~?-..Ii!:~~a:~2:~~"C~~
Lu6s;i2::Zl'a~~-c>--~~~~
W ~-~~~Sj~~~i~~~
~ 'i~~~~:a:~~-:~f:3l.L:.i>-
o ~~~~~~U)~~~~~~~
2: ti5[~~ .~en~~~~~~
~ a:o.....~~ffia:~lU~~~>--O
.... w..:c: "'l(<ql.!)w.....a: "'C......~
o !1s~':!'g1E~!1sCS"'':!';;;!~~
~ ~~~~~i~~~~~~u~
~ ::ltW-.J"C<qU)::E: oq..... W-.l
<qa:~ffi:zLu"'CI-a:lU:za:-..I-..I
~t.JozOC(~~80~>-~~~
E ~~~~lS~~~~~~~~~
~ ~~;~~~~~"""Sl.J~~~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W .l.Lo<q~~~~~~~~~5
~ MO~~~~o~~~~~~~
~ c~~~~~~~-~~~~z
~ g~~~~~~~~o 8~~
~ ~~~~~a~~~~~i!:~~
'''It...JLL'''t l,)'O( ~ !'uQ..l.!J
~ o~LLl.!Jffi LL~~~X'O(~
U)< ~~O~LL~~O~~~~~~
~o ~~Q:~O Cl~~~=-:
~~~~iij~~~~R: .S:~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~8~
~ w~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~i~~~
i
~
"
".
"'"'
z >:>
0><",
~ "''''
~ "'~
"'"
tM u:..::
~ ~~~
~ .....
0. 0
,. "''''
"'15
...51
i:l"
~
~
G;
~
0:
11'
~ ~
~ ~
:: '.
~ ~
~ l.t.i
~r--.:fg8
~~~::
..~~~~~
~~C;~-:-:
Clt3o.:0~~
~
G;
~
11'
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
.... "'..
~r--.jr.o
m~;;;:ci
""'\nu)Q..
~ ~:d: ~
!i::,Itl~~
~l.Ijci:!'l: .
Cli3o.:G~
f" "......"...
,., ...................
,,' ...................
,.' ...................
". .,.,.........,....'
,., ..................
.,. ..................
.". ............,...,.
'" .'.'..,....'......
.", ......,...,.......
'" ......,...........
." ..................
" ...........<......
" ..,...,.....,.,...
" ....,.............
" ..................
,.. ................
" .....'..,...,...
'.. .........,...,.,.
" ......,.........
., .....,........
, ......
00.
~~$:
o~.
~~~
~ti;~
1j .
00'
~~~
~:~
~~i
~O;O;
1j "
0:
~~i
~~~
~~~
~~~
Cl ~i~
~ t;~~
- ~~tb
~ clIJ.
~ ~~~
c CI::~r--.
~ ~ Si~~
~ ill <J....\!l
~ 8~~
~ ~~~
~ ~~lQ
~ ~~~
Q!il.l..f.n
~ ~i!l~
~ ~~~
~ ~~~
~ ~~~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ it
~
~
YlNIOH,^ 'AJ.Nnoo ~a&'1Y
.133HS t:l3^OO
(S>lVON3'~) E->1 NOI.1~3S
NVld NOI.lV::>nddV l.EO-90 dS
<.!:l
;Z:;Z:
............
~<l:
Cl-J
::co.
C/)C)
Cl
hCl
.....-J
COl!..
......
::C;Z:
x......
Lu
-J
Lu-J
-J .....
<l:l!..
<:..J
C/)~
Lu
o;z:
l!1
"""'-f
.' ~,o:.~;"-f
~,frf-
./
r
,
\ A:;;~
/Jfl.J...~
~.~ ~~
-'",'"
/\J'~~
"
'.,
Cl ~
Z
Lu
t!)
Lu
-J ~o ~ffi o~.
l!:~ ~~ ~;:;.
"tl I~~
~g ~~ /J)~U:
~~ "'~ ~Jr~
~O; ~~....
1j~ 1j g
~ ~~ ..
g~
~~ ~. . i
Ul ~~ ...: ~ ~~" n
z -- " ~ ~~~
~QQ Q ~~ It- ;; ~~g ~~
~~Qi.'! ~ '"
~~~ ~ ~L :="::1 ~ l:' ~~ ~
~~~ z
1li!E '0 ~ ~ ~g
~1li~ i! ~~~~ ~~ ~ I~ b! ~~ w. ~
frl~ ~ ~~. ~ oq~" 0 ~~~ lrl ~:: ;;; ---u'
a..u..... "".....,'" ~" '" ~o C
(J)-J~ ;i ~;., ,.' '" ~ ~~~ ~~ ... 1-41-- i ~I
-qC):!:.:x.... ~ ~ Ss .. ,"on
~~~~i~~ ~ . -
~~ ~ ~~ S! g:~ .. ..~
" ~c oj,
ffi~~ i'J. .~ ...~ Ii:.. ;:: ~ ~~~ ~ ~" a:
> ... I ~ I .. ~ ~
"" ~... ~~~
0.. ~ ~ii
::: ~...~
~i
\
~ 'i
--
.-...,
~~
~~
11'
~
Q
>'
'"
;!
co'"
_0:
~~
11''''
~
Q
>'
'"
;!
~I'> i
~..,
."'t
i '
~
~
u
c
~
c,
~
\::'
~
~
"'
~~
"'Sl
~'"
~'"
~'"
"''"
"''''
GJ'"
~~
"'"
~~
<'>0:
t;i~~ ~I~
....- 1.,
~3~ s:;o~
a.. I!~'"'
~ ~8~
~~ ~
~$~ a:
~~~
'" '"
~g~
"'~
~/.'
/).,/
'-;r.t"" )
/-"" ,J
! ,Y-
. ,-
,_/_l/,/
/-' /'
,l/'
-~ .
/
o
S~ ~
~ '" a:
~~c~
...,,:!jg
~~ ~
~! ~
"
"
...
..
~~~~
~a: ~
~mg~
~5~:
~ji~
~~~~
t--~~c
uoo(~
"
----,
U~
"
j
>:
::
~
~
:\
~
~RJ
~~
~:::!
(
-,---.
;\
~ '.
'''i
i '
.-
~
~
'"
~
'"
....
~
~
>'
~~ ~
;~ ~
~ ;
Sl
Cl:
~ ~
~~ ~
.....co
3: <:
o~ 0
:J::.q: .....
CI'lLuO....
I-g:~~
~CI'lo~
.....<:~.....
~.....Cl:~
Lu.q:Cl..Cl:
Lu~~~
::;;!.q:.q:~
&lffi CO
CO ~
o~ .q:
~I- ~
CI'l ....
..... CI'l
Cl
.-
I-q
"'w
<(>
wex:
W
;;'"
~UJ
llJ
q
2q
",I-
01 UJ
o ex:
~<(
;;:;'
:.:
'" W
"'2w
o ex:
<Xl:O:u
01:0:
010-,
~u-'
, a
llJUJex:
.:r:ex:
ql-<(
u
2'"
....0'"-
ex:a
EaLL:2;
qaa
ex:UJ....
0>->-
u2u
w<<UJ
ex:ex:'"
",ex:
a w
"'UJ>-
<<<Xl2
....
2-J
"'-Jw
-J....:r:
0-"'>-
",,,,a
a"'....
UJ
2uex:
"'uw
a<<w
:r: q
"''''
UJ'"
"'22
'" ....
w"'2
u 2
uq::.
<e;(:<:CI:: .
<< q
>- :r:",
WClf-a
<::Lul-lcr:
w2'"
",a 2
CI::CllJJO
Lu::z:::z:a
~-q:l--t(!)
LuCO...J::Z:
<( ....
'" >-ex:
:2:Luf-CI:
NCOCI::-q:
I- UJ,"-
"'-Jo..
f-o..!..,Joa
'>(:1--4a:::z:
LuJr::Q...q
u
....
>-
fu
'"
~
'"
'"
-J
-J
~
W
>-
~
....
0::
0..
2:
a
a:>
2
a
"C
I-
"C
o
lJJ
I-
I---j
Cf)
..
o
o
",G
~'"
b~
-J .
...
,
,
l
\,
~
"
~
CJ
Z
~
...
"
'"
'"
...
~
lL
...
~
~
...
l
j
/'
"
1
.q
a:> 2
;;<(
'"
",I-
>-q
a-J
-J
'"
"'w
2 ex:
.... <(
q
::. >-
-J2
uw
:Z:O:
....0-
a
.-J
qw
",>
Ow
ex: a
:.:w
w<Xl
w
ex: 0
ul-
-Jw
-Jex:ex:
o<(w
ex: '"
ex: .w
<<a'"
u'"
aq
'"-ex::z
a <<
:.:
>-UJex:
"'UJw
wex:>-
>tu<<
'"'
2-'
"'-Ju
00....
:r:ex:-J
"'ex: <Xl
<<::.
"'uO-
I-
0,"->-
-Jaa:>
~
G;
~
11'
~ ~
~ ~
U) ~
~ .
.... '"
~r--.j~8
~~;;;:~~
"'I;lOCIlQ.Q..
~~t:~g:
!i::iQ;j~~~
~~~~~~
w
a:>
\ ~
',~ r
..i.....
-'
-'
....
'"'
'"
il!
'"
-J
~
0::
\g
>-
:z
....
'"
>-
a
-J
w
2:
!Q~
~'"
~~
11''''
..
'"
Q
>'
'"
;!
i
H 'Ii
..
[j
~
:g
~
:::
~
~
ri
Ili
a\
~
ijj
i
u u
'" '"
L L
.......
g
~
~ g ~
i ~ ~ ~
... g ~ .. !
~ :c5"W~i><
~~:~~g ~
~ ;/ !i ~ 'It - Q,~
i-will!!'!
~""~C>-~~D
"'Zl!li-~I
ia~ ~~;
Co) W l1.. i1 i _
U) U) U':I U) U) U) U) en
............ w w
iiiiiii~
!
I
I
I
I
oj rri
~
i!i
'"
c c
00
'" m
> >
~ ~
~~~
o"'~
~-'
~ ~-
ftl<lOO
.....,CI::-l-J
Clc.:cc
t=.....'....-....
m
to
i!i
e
~
lil
~
'iT)
I
~
u
'<l:
ill
~
~ ~
<0
'"
t::.
UUUlJ
<[ <<:t <:{ <:{
~~~ffi
r-...Il1OI\.J
.......lI)O
to (l) 1O ""'"
"'~'"
...
en
w
a..
~
z
:J
...,
"'t
01
C\J
u
<(
a:>
LO
01
...
...
>-
a:
!
::E
;:)
(J)
U)
a:
<C
'"
c:
a
:z
...,
"'t
"'t
;~
~~
~:
@~
ct~
~i
12
i'!i
i
~
El
ri
~
~
ri
I
\;?
<(
>t
'"-
o
w
u
'"
0..
'"
15
0..
a
'<l:
Lu
Cl:
.q:
-J
'<l:
....
a
....
>-
:r:
'"
....
ex:
'"
>-
a
-J
.: ::oiiii
,---
WOO'Hsnsvonoll@O~NI lM'l3 - ~_ XV~ - 9l2O-u.&-K:l> 3NOHd
~. ~ V1NIElIlII\ '3Tl1I\S3.1101lMl:> - CI't'OY 01l3OLlNOW .~6 ~
. 9gB ~ 30NIS \l'INID~I/I DN//I~3S '
NOI.L\I'~Ocl~OO '1\1'NOISS3~O~cI \I'
SI:J3NNY1d ONY1 ON"" SI:JOA3/\l:JnS 'SI:J33NIEJN3
'JNI 'SH.LVIJOSSV ~ H'lVD 'HS[UlVanO~
!P~
Q ~I
~ ~~
a: ~8
!!~~
'WINIDI:t'^ 'AJ.NflOO ~
a:
w
..
~ ~
!!I
Ii:
[\
'Ej \
I
~ Iii .. I
I ~ ~ r:
~
:"Il
.l33HS 1:I3^OO
(S>lVON3'E>) E->1 NOI.l:::>3S
NVld NOI.lV:::>nddV I.EO-90 dS
)j
() I I
\ ( jg"_J-"'.:::..r,,_~/J I
/J""",~
, (I _---____. I
1 ...........___ ,./
--..-...------.------"""---.-----
eO
6
Q9/
oe~~
'"
tjj
g:.~~
~l::e: .....
~~::....::~
~g3r:.s
Ci:~~~~
~~~fi1:
~~Q:lcxi~
:1ii:S~c:ic:ci
~~~ c:i
"'S:::
~
o
I, // _/ - /-
.......
,-
./
(T)
I-
UJ
UJ
I
en
o
l-
I
U
I-
<C
::E
",Li
....<<<
SgJ
-.I ,
"
,;
o
CXJLi
....<<<
g~
"
ls3lll' /
/~ \Q~
5~
lO
,I
"Li
....<<<
i--l!l
c....
..,r-,
lO
)
I
'"
~
~~~
~L>..l._...... ~
tj~~.~S
~~~ci.~
~g~~:
ti';Q...:t: 0'\
Q...~c.aa:i0)
~c5~c::icti
),,;:!-l.~ c::i.
~~~
~
i
/
/
/
,
j
t.J
l.O~
C\/lrJ
i-~
Cl C>
-J '
l:8
CIJ
I
/
I
I
if!'" ~~S'
",;::i!i - ~
~ ~~Q!5i~a
:l ~\I~ ' . '
~ li~i~i
aI~ lIicQCl:i
c:i<;:;iQ
,................
, I
,
I
/
_ "r - -
--/-----~s~1~~i~" \ '>,
- ..//~:~:\
..--.-.--.--..-.'-.--.--.-----" r~'::\ '
/./ ~A,il\
// '1,;.c~~" //
r;,~v-~ \..O~~/''''''/
~~~
~t~
~,..,t
0;;,
/
~z
wO
w'- -
0"'-
///"~
.-0
zeD
Z""
""",
~
_.._d_.._.__..----.. - . \\
\.
\.
\.
\,
\,
\,
\.
\.
\.
........ \
...... ...............~<:9//: \.
.......... ......... OS'c> "'?' / \
............... .............. /6' .'/';. \.
""=""~ ~ - \.\
Ill.:
,---,...._------
\-:-
r
.. n~ YlNIOl::l,^- 'AJ.Nnoo 3'"1WWalllV It!
~ .l33HS H3^OO 0:
III (
~ 8 ~ ~
::l
(S>lVON31E>) €->1 NOI.l~3S z
~ !!l
:l NVld NOI.lV~l1ddV ~€O-90 dS II
..,
SBisntfj .mo~ "N' NIJ9HY' "N L
'"
).>-
l'IIOO'HSnllVQnol:l@O~NI lM'f:l- ~1>f:tIo XV~ - !lOilO-U&K:t 3NOHd
~. ilO8l2 V1NlmllA '311IAS3.UOlllVHO - 0V0ll 0ll3:llI.N0W .~6 ~ .. ,~
. .. 11 B I 30 N I S V I N lID tJ 1/1 ID N 1/1 tJ 3 S . ~ ~I
NOI.LVtJO<:ltJOO "'/VNOISS3=10tJ<:I V iii-,"
Sl:/3NNV7d ONV7 ON'II'Sl:/OA3/\l:/nS 'Sl:/33NIE:JN3 Ili Ii
'JNI 'S3.LVIJOSSV 2g 31VD 'HSnHVanO~ 0:;;
,; .~
fr
"
~
-<~
'",';!,
-~~
J,r:'
>
T
/l
~ Q~
~O
/30!
o
o
,
\ i .t
\' I
I, <
,," r}
, ,
t{ i j
.'0 ill
I X
I 1\
f / \
/ '
/
\\
,
\
/
)
~/
. J'
i
,;
,/
i
~/
~
>~
t~
nw-
t::"~;:::-
lOll!; ~~~
j !!'.!!'.!!'.
~~~il!~~~
~ii~~~~
r:;:jc::ic;:j
l
~
'1
"'B"'~
i/
d
,
" ~
I)
. ~
~
\
\
\
i
~
\. ....;;;
OlW
..,..
5~
...
\
\
~ \
.~~ ;
.~X
\
F)
))
i ~~~
\, ~,~' ~~'~
~~~ ~
i ~
"\
\
,
,
,
\---
\'\
\
\,
\
,
'~
\
\
'~""-'""''-'l.'\.,,\..,.
C\J
I-
W
W
x
en
o
l-
X
U
I-
<C
::E
'"
/,'"\
/ '""
",.;>.
It\U
.., ..
g~
...
~'"J.;.,....,\-""",
\
\\
"
""
~..
CT) ~t\:
~ ~:c:i.
'" '"
C') ~~~
':i: ,,~~
~ kc;ci
~c:i
::-....
~;;i~
~~i
~~~
~~~
~ ~
~
<../
<.>
\,0\ ~c..
1\)~
'~
<i~~\
WOO'HSnBVOOOl:l@O~NI lM'l3 - ~_ X\'~ -!lI2O'.u.&-?I:lo 3NOHd
d. iDli2 V1NIel:t1A '311IAS3l101llVH:) - OVOY 011301lNOW . ~6 ~
~ IHUH 30NIS VINIfDlJ/A DN/AlJ3S '
W NOI.J.VlJOcllJOO .,VNOISS3dOlJcI V
SI::l3NNY7d aNY7 aNV SI::lOA3/\l::lns 'SI::l33NIEJN3
'JNJ 'S3.L VIJOSSV ~ aWD 'HSilavOOO}I
~~~
Q~i
I-u
.,
~~
,-;
\ ~:!ff/) ~
l?(AM._-r~w/p ~
lQW~ ~~~r; 6~W '
~ sUr ~'1/ 1f' I '
'------L ~ J,,' I
/ - ~ :,~I ~ !
~~ ..,~ '"I)I'\' ji
.,-6,-),) ~ \ I i
. . - -:;~i<:..)'j ~C \ / I
~'J'- '-~ L--. I
-- /"
, I
( I
(' I
( I
~C<J s~~ (
, <: ~aO) (' !
en <:........ 1>''"~ " 0 "'\J I
83~ :;.~ ~, ,&\ i
<: Q CJ ~~;:; (, I
~CJ<::::J C ,t:ncjpua !
~ I-- <::::J <::::J ('1 ,j 0' ?i
~3 c: ~ flllx cuM vet: -/.
<::::J 0;> / _______
-J ct: ltj Q w>-: '/., C l'
"<;( en ...... ~i!2( , l' rv
~~<::::J '~~~ 1
~ % ~~. "~Cij ~" '
Q g [ a:; ~~> ~!?oJ j)
Q """ cq ~:;;\... ~ '" )1
"<;( t:.~ffi~~/: ~n "rcy j);
~~ ': "II "oj k'I'i> l' _"IIr I
o!~ ( ~'r / \ '_
:;c-gr'. kV I
co;"" ,r'c )' ~
~/~;Y1. ; / "\ ,Jj / ill
I~".a: ;N,' 10 ,\ J if
I~l" ---.:J ,'I" ) / I
f-" -' ,
'~ 'j, ",t !
0QCV~~~ >::;?? > ,/ / !
,~.P~ <'!I~ /..... // .Ii: il
jj c32. ~ :....
,.I D.c / /'fY ~ / I
~ ~( i
06: 9 , · I
C' _~ ,. J I
~ /
/,<'1,
· ~~'f'(~
G~ ~I ~~\
1
~/
1........../)
\..../,-___1'-_)'- ~/"-..J
"=-
'".
~:c ~
.
~
-
~
;
~
~
\
.
\
\
.
~
CI.)
~
~
~
U
I
CJ
~
~
CI.)
~
><
~
, /f'f:-j~~
~(.-)',-" '-- '7 \
. 0,j - \. ' I I:
. j'-/ l.' I'
~ ,> ' (~' II:
rr- I I,
'-'- , Ii:
~ '. Ir
:5 & II
U h C<l <: 5~~ Q 121
~ ~ ~ ~ j ~~ >'0 ~! g
~ ~~cr i~~ r HC1J
:~~~ ~ Bill
I--t <::::J~ 0 ,,:
t- -J ct: lLJ ''-.. Q -
en "<;( en' ~~ ~
- lLJ <::::J ~ ~\)'(
I--t >.::: >- Q ",oj:>
>< <::::J <::::J
Lw [act: ci
l!:l Q a Q cO
<: "<;(-,
I--t
3:::
o
::r::
en
t-
I--t
en
I--t
::r::
><
Lw
Lw
-J
~ ~
U
en
LO
C\J
,J
)J
,)-/
)'
1___'/ /
, <It
/
<It
o
r-
(\J
/.
:' I
):
, /
~
~; i ~ ~
;\
1\\\ 1\
\
: \
... . Am : \
'" .,,,.. \
....,'.,
IT;
~
m
"
II
1:2
'-l.
-J
Lu
~ 0-;; .
l- .
r(J
~ ~!
~
--.J
iIillliil-Alli
!IlJtli,
~ I ~
!
~
""I
WmE -~13
..~. ...
l'
~I
~
~
.
il
ocrSle-Jl:J
"''''''
~.3<
..:lac
".. .
"",,,
i
,:'1'
j
}
,;
0. .
: ,f
, ,
il..J
I];;
~
,:::L
.:~
~g3~
].~~
I....
YlNleI::I~ 'AJ.Nnoo 3"1WWaB'lY
~
,\
iB~
~ (J
I i $ ,
i 0
~
.133HS ~3^OO
S.l181HX3 ~va
(S)tVON3'E>) E;-)t NOI.103S
NV1d NOl.lVOnddV ~€O-90 dS
a:
>>l
::E to.
i 1Il
!!l
Ii:
....Am
..
l~
...../
.... Am
iiEH9 [/Ioj
""'^" I
\ll
!Z'
CI.) ~ <i
~n
rT" . <
~ Cl~
> ~~
~. >-
~ )-<
U~~
~~
I ;;2\!:!
a~
~ ~~
-< <~
~~
L.... N!z
5: ~~
~ ~~
U ~;-
Z ~~
O~p
U ;(<i
_ F
~~
~
::"III
won:
EE'EaE
"""
2.' 862 I
J
~~~~ ~
Z{252 8
01'682 ~
Ol'lllZ !
1)S'9llG -
\ll
>-.
CI.) ~ ~
~~~
~~~
~b~
>~~
H-<
:J ~Cl
U <i~
t~
I ~~
~8~
Ilia
<>-
~~
L.... N Z
L" C; ~
~~~
~~~
U~-
-l_
=> - .
Z\.l~
Xifi
O~p
Q-l
Ux<
_ F
N\.l
~<
>-
~
21:r9lZ
i
00'9Il2
22LLZ
~....~
...."'U
tic-
"':z-
cnffi......
~~~
t.J~~
12:...2:
~ 8
00' 992
Ql>-[B2
~9S2
'iI>'682
1;:682
~
[l',52
.O'2lX
..'"
g'nG< ~
:z '
~~~
tic-
'" -
J,~-J
~~~
U:kl;J
~<Qj~
Q
"'"
6I>'86G
d'goc
SlJ!;OE
~
\
.
\
\
.
~
, ;
~8a;
l1.l(\j~
,. "-
..9::~.<;Y
c..........;:.:
~-b.~
~""'l:Lu
hC<l...".
a en ~ ;::;
<: ........ h::; "<;(
~ Gs"<;(-J
~ -JQ
~ <:Q
a <::::JCJ8
........<::::J<::::J
-J f-o-J a
2~<::::J-JlJ... ~
Q -J ct: lLJ
I" ""l:: en
'-'-J 'lLJ <::::J
U ><:: >- Q
<: <::::J <::::J
o cr:: <::::J ct:
U&aQ
l!:l "<;( -,
<:
I--t
3:::
o
::r::
en
:/
II ,J
"r'
,J
",t
I
I~
t-
I--t
en
I--t
::r::
><
Lw . ---- .. .
Lw
-J
~
U
en
LO
C\J
.
~
II
ZMA 2006 - 016 Leake - Addition to Glenmore
PRD
~~
---
l~
Rt. 250
Livengood Parcel
_Leake Parcel
11 0 Lots
Current Glenmore
Boundary
1
II
K2 - Leake
A
Built Form
).
1
Glen _
IluroI _
/:
Connection to Running Deer Drive -
Emergency Access Only
'.' \-."
<c,<c,<:J
<:J.
).~(.:/
2
II
Recommendation from October 3 I ,
2007 Planning Commission Public
Hearing
· Applicant should provide cash proffers/cash for
affordable units for all new lots involved in the
rezoning, not just the lots that are currently outside
of the Glenmore PRD
· A pedestrian connection should be shown and
provided to complete a path system along
Farringdon, Carroll Creek Road and Piper Way
· Paths should be provided along the side of the street
where the most lots are located
Changes to Application Plan Received
I 1/14/07
Revised Application Plan:
· Shows paths recommended by Planning
Commission in both locations
· Provides pavement standards for the paths
· Contains a note added to Application Plan:
"Construction traffic shall not take access
through Running Deer Drive"
3
II
Application Plan Dated November 14, 2007
Note Concerning Construction
Traffic On Application Plan
Cul-de-sac lots where the IfIJnJfllUm frontage shall be 35 feet,
j 1 Lots tflat do not front on a road or street Sl18]} be 8cceSSet
a pr j vate access easement
Flag Lots shiJJJ be permltted.
3 The maximum tJuiJd2'ng helght shaJj bE: 35 feet
EqiJestrian/Walking trajls shaJJ be constructeo to ttle Class a-Type 1 standal
shown in tne Albemarle County Des1gn Standaros Manual.
rr Paved walking paths and tral}s snaJJ be constructeO to the Class A-Type 15
Sf/Oli" jf) ttlt: AlbeRidrle County Design St.andaros Manua].
Construction trafIJe 5hajJ';;;;;~take ae~~;;-~;;;~g~ Runnlnq Deer:~~::"0
I 6,
\
'"
SITE DATA:
TAX MAP 94 PARCEL 15:
ZONED RA
OWNER:
GLENMORE ASSOCI A TES dMITED PARTNER:
F. D. 80X 5207
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va, 22905
DB. 1672 0 405
DB, 18930300
TAX MAP qd PARfFI fFiA-
nWNF="p
4
, I
Changes to 11/7/07 Proffers Received
I 1/14/07
Proffers now contain:
· Cash in amount of $16,590 per lot to mitigate
impacts (based on credit for additional 15 acres of
greenway land proffered to County as requested by
Parks and Recreation)
· Cash in amount of $2,952 per lot to contribute to
affordable housing elsewhere in the County
· Erosion and Sediment Control measures greater
than required by ordinance
Greenway Specifics
r~
~~.----
11..-1'&..U,,_
'lJI.!'~"=, - -..-
GLENMORE
GREENWA Y TRAIL
FINAL EXHIBIT
JUNE /8.2007
Existing Greenway Proffer in Glenmore - 100 feet from Rivann
River. An existing path exists outside of this area. New area
contains existing path.
5
.. I'
Calculations for Cash proffer and
Affordable Housing proffer
· Value of I 5 acres of greenway - $100,000
· (( I lOx $17,500) - $100,000)/1 10 =
$16,590/lot.
· Affordable Housing = 110 x I 5% = 16.5
rounded to 17
(17 x $19,100)/110 = $2,952/lot.
Recommendation
· The applicant has made all changes requested by
staff and the Planning Commission.
· While the proffers and plan are acceptable for
Board action, they were finalized today and, thus,
are just being seen by the Board.
· If the BOS desires to act on this proposal tonight,
staff can recommend approval of ZMA 06-1 6
with Proffers dated November 14, 2007 signed
November 13, 2007 and the Application Plan
dated November 14,2007.
6
"
RECEIVED AT 80S MEETING
Date: //-/</-117
I~
Agenda Item ,:
Clerk's 'nit!MgiIllill prnffp.r
Amended Proffer
~!
(Amendment # )
PROFFER FORM
Date: November 14, 2007
ZMA # 2006-016
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s)
Tax Map 93 Parcels AI-I, A5-1 and Tax Map Parcel 94-74
and portions of Tax Map 94 Parcels 15, 16, 16A.
111. 73
Acres to be rezoned from PRDIRA
to
PRD
The Owner hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors acts to
rezone the Property from the RA to the PRD zoning district as requested, the Owner shall
develop the Property in accord with the following proffered development conditions (each, a
"Proffer," and collectively, the "Proffers"), which the Owner acknowledges are reasonable,
pursuant to Section 15.2-2303 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and pursuant to
Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. If rezoning application ZMA 2006-
015 is denied, these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no force and effect.
This Proffer Statement shall relate to the Application Plan entitled "Master Plan, Glenmore",
dated November 2, 1990, and prepared by Clower Associates, Inc., the Application Plan entitled
"Glenmore Planned Residential Development Application Plan for ZMA 99-016, dated April 12,
2000 and more specifically the plan entitled, "Glenmore Section K-2", dated June 15,2007, last
revised November 14,2007, and prepared by Roudabush, Gale, and Associates, Inc.
1. The development of the Property shall be limited to those uses allowed by right under
Section 19.3.1 (1), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and (11) and those uses allowed by special
use permit under Section 19.3.2(2), (4), (8), (9), (10) and (11) of the Zoning Ordinance of
Albemarle County, Virginia (hereinafter referred to as the "Zoning Ordinance" and the
"County") as those Sections are in effect on November 14,2007, copies of which are
attached hereto. The residential development on the Property shall not exceed one-
hundred ten (110) single family units. Of the one-hundred ten (110) single family
dwelling units, seventy-six (76) single family dwelling units are in addition to, and not
counted as part of, the eight hundred thirteen (813) units authorized in Glenmore PRD by
ZMA 99-016; thirty-four (34) single family dwelling units are counted as part of the the
eight hundred thirteen (813) units authorized in Glenmore PRD by ZMA 99-016.
2. In order to establish a future public greenway trail for the County along the Rivanna
River, within one (1) year after the date of approval ofZMA 2006-1016, the Owner shall
1
I I
~
dedicate in fee simple to the County for public use no less than 43.45 acres in greenway
area, as shown on Attachment A, entitled "Glenmore Greenway Trail, Final Exhibit,"
prepared by Roudabush, Gale, and Associates, Inc. and dated June 18, 2007 (the
"Greenway Trail Area"). Such Greenway Trail Area may be increased as mutually agreed
by the Owner and the County and includes the greenway area originally intended to be
included in the greenway pursuant to proffer no. 6 of "ZMA 79-16" (such proffer
correctly identified as proffer no. 6 of "ZMA 97-16) and the additional area comprising a
minimum of 14.98 acres proffered pursuant to this ZMA 2006-016.
A. Prior to dedication of the Greenway Trail Area to the County, no buildings shall
be constructed, or erected within the Greenway Trail Area without the consent of
the County and it shall be otherwise preserved in its natural state except for
establishing pedestrian and riding trails and general beautification including, but
not limited to, the clearing of underbrush, removal of dead trees and shrubs, and
cleanup of the river.
B. Prior to dedication of the Greenway Trail Area to the County, the Owner may
grant across the Greenway Trail Area utility easements, access easements to the
Rivanna River for residents of Glenmore and members and guests of the
Glenmore Country Club and may build riding trails or make similar uses of the
area, provided that such utility and access easements allow the County's use of
the surface of the easement area to be used as a greenway, including the
establishment of signs, benches and other accessory improvements, and do not
otherwise interfere with the County's future use of the Greenway Trail Area as a
greenway.
C. The Owner shall convey the Greenway Trail Area by Deed of Gift and Easement
Agreement. The Deed shall be accompanied by a subdivision plat depicting the
Greenway Trail Area and bearing a notation that the Greenway Trail Area is
dedicated for public use, subject to provisions and reservations contained within
the Deed. If, at the time of dedication, the Greenway Trail Area is not dedicated
by an accompanying subdivision plat, the Owner shall pay the costs of surveying
the Greenway Trail Area, preparing the subdivision plat or other depiction thereof
acceptable to the Director of Community Development and the County Attorney,
and preparing and recording the Deed, and further provided that the Deed is in a
form approved by the County Attorney.
D. After dedication, the Greenway Trail Area shall continue to be counted as open
space for the purposes of the Glenmore Master Plan and required density.
3. To offset public expenditure on Capital Improvement Projects, the Owner shall contribute
sixteen-thousand five-hundred ninety dollars ($16,590) in cash for the purposes of
funding transportation, public safety, school, parks and library improvements to offset
public expenditure on Capital Improvement Projects. The per lot cash contribution shall
be paid to Albemarle County prior to the issuance of a building permit for each lot.
4. To provide capital for Albemarle County's Affordable Housing Program, the Owner shall
contribute two-thousand nine-hundred fifty-two dollars ($2,952) in cash for each
dwelling lot on the Property to provide capital for Albemarle County's Affordable
2
I
,
Housing Program. The per lot cash contribution shall be paid to Albemarle =::ounty prior
to the issuance of a building permit for each lot.
5. Beginning January 1,2008, the amount of cash contribution required by Pro fer number 3
shall be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect any increase or decrease for t Ie preceding
calendar year in the Comparative Cost Multiplier, Regional City Average, S mtheast
Average, Category C: Masonry Bearing Walls issued by Marshall Valuation Service
(alk/a Marshall & Swift) (the "Index") or the most applicable Marshall & Sv ift index
determined by the County if Marshall & Swift ceases publication of the Index identified
herein. In no event shall any cash contribution amount be adjusted to a sum less than the
amount initially established by these proffers. The annual adjustment shall 1 e made by
multiplying the proffered cash contribution amount for the preceding year b a fraction,
the numerator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in the year prec ding the
calendar year most recently ended, and the denominator of which shall be th Index as of
December 1 in the preceding calendar year. For each cash contribution that. s being paid
in increments, the unpaid incremental payments shall be correspondingly ad usted each
year.
6. In order to provide a higher level of Erosion and Sediment Control than is required by
current State and Local regulation, the Owner shall adopt construction proce:lures and
practices that limit the amount of disturbed area and provide enhanced prote tion for
areas historically prone to erosion, These procedures and practices shall inc ude:
A. Limit construction activity such that not more than 30 acres of the pr )ject is
disturbed at any point in time. For the purposes of this proffer, distu bed areas
will be determined by the Program Authority based on the active E& S plan with
adjustments to include additional areas of disturbance and exclude ar ::as where
permanent stabilization has been installed.
B. Utilize wire reinforced silt fence to control runoff from building construction.
C. Utilize permanent seed and matting to stabilize all slopes steeper thaI 3H: 1 V.
D. Modifications to the above may be granted by the Program Authorit) due to
special circumstances during review of the E&S plan.
-Signature Page Follows-
3
\4855 2,2
GLENMORE ASSOCIATES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia limited partnership
BY: The Frank A Kessler D
November 18, 199
ONWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA
ICOUNTY OF ~~
, to wit:
ore going instrument was acknowledged before me this l:, day of November, 2 07, by
ael D. Comer, Successor Trustee under The Frank A Kessler Declaration ofTru t dated
mber 18, 1996, as amended, General Partner of Glenmore Associates Limited P ership.
~o~_op iYL~
otary PublIc
My Commission Expires: I - ~ J - Ql OJ 0
My Notary Registration No.: C> I 'f ~Q
ONWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA
ICOUNTY OF ~orrr::JJ.e...
, to wit:
oregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1:::' day of November, 2 07, by
B. Kessler, Successor Trustee under The Frank A. Kessler Declaration of Trust dated
mber 18, 1996, as amended, General Partner of Glenmore Associates Limited P ership.
~~ _~ Oll~
otary Public I
My Commission Expires: \ - 0 l- "Q)DlD
My Notary Registration No.: 4- 5~
4
IlENDA D.
Notary
CommonweoIih 'VI~1nIO
11..
MrCommIIIIon Jon 31, 2010
Sections:
I
i
I
ALBEMARLE COUNTY COnE
CHAPTER 18
ZONING
SECTION 19
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - PRD
19.1
19.2
19.3
19.3.1
19.3.2
19.4
19.5
19.6
INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
APPLICATION
PERMITTED USES
BY RIGHT
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
MINIMUM AREA REQUIRED FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICT
MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE AND
RECREATIONAL USES
RECREATIONAL AREA REQUIREMENTS
HEIGHT REGULATIONS
BUILDING SEPARATION
SETBACK AND YARD REGULATIONS
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS
SIGN REGULATIONS
19.6.2
19.7
19.8
19.9
19.10
19.11
19.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
I
PRD districts may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map in accordanJe with
the provisions set forth generally for PD districts in sections 8.0 and 33,0, and with densitles and
in locations in accordance with the comprehensive plan,
The PRD is intended to encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the Slte and
toward impact on the surrounding area in land development. More specifically, the RD is
intended to promote economical and efficient land use, an improved level of am nities,
appropriate and harmonious physical development, and creative design consistent with t e 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 p~oses
and uses ancillary thereto. Open space may serve such varied uses as recreation, protec ion of
are~s, sensitive to development, buffering between dissimilar uses and preservation of agric ltural
oc~ty. I
While a PRD approach is recommended for developments of any density, it is recommenced 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 t such
densities generally requires careful planning with respect to impact. (Amended 8-14-85)
19.2 APPLICATION
i
Notwithstanding the requirements and provisions of section 8,0, planned development di tricts,
generally, where certain planned community (PC) or residential planned neighborhood RPN)
districts have been established prior to the adoption of this ordinance, such districts sl all be
considered to have been established as PRD districts under this ordinance and shall be so
designated on the zoning map.
18-19-1
I
Zoning Supplement #30, J r-13.04
I
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
19.3 PERMITTED USES
19.3.1 BY RIGHT
The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations f this
ordinance:
] , Detached single-family dwellings,
2. Semi-detached and attached single-family dwellings such as duplexes, tri lexes,
quadraplexes, townhouses, atrium houses and patio houses provided that den ity is
maintained, and provided further that buildings are located so that each unit could be provided
with a lot meeting all other requirements for detached single-family dwellings except j r side
yards at the common wall.
3, Multiple-family dwellings,
4. (Repealed 9-2-8])
5, Parks, playgrounds, community centers and noncommercial recreational and cultural fa ilities
such as tennis courts, swimming pools, game rooms, libraries and the like,
6, Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles,
lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local servi e and
owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collectior lines,
pumping stations, and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County ~ ervice
Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and entra]
sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and al other
applicable law. (Amended 5-]2-93)
7, Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, (ffices,
parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal a~ encies
(reference 31.2,5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, tre tment
facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Wat rand
Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12), (Amended] 1-1-89)
8, Temporary construction uses (reference 5,1.18).
9. Accessory uses and structures including home occupation, Class A (reference 5,2) and 5 orage
buildings,
] O. Homes for developmentally disabled persons (reference 5,1.7).
] ]. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision ~ lat.
(Added ]0-9-02)
12. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40), (Added 10-13-0
(~20-]9.3,], ]2-10-80; 9-2-8]; ] ]-]-89; 5-]2-93; Ord, 02-]8(6), ]0-9-02; Ord, 04-]8(2),10-13-04)
19.3.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit, provided that no separate
application shall be required for any such use as shall be included in the original PRD re oning
petition:
] 8- ] 9-2
Zoning Supplement #30, I -13-04
I
I
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
1. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5,1.06),
2. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5,9),
3. Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or similar institution (re{erence
5,1.13), !
I
4. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transtiSSion
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange c nters;
microwave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurte ances
(reference 5,1.12),
5, Home occupation, Class B (reference 5,2).
6, Churches, (Added 9-2-81)
7, Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4,12, 5,1.41), (Added 11-7-84;
Amended 2-5-03)
8, Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16), (Added 9-13-89)
9. Professional offices. (Added 6-8-94)
10. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5,1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
( retren~
11. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
5,1.42), (Added 6-8-05)
(920-19.3,2,12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-7-84; 9-13-89; 6-8-94; Ord. 03-18(1), 2-5-03; Ord, 04-18(2),10-113-04;
Ord, 05-18(7), 6-8-05)
!
19.4 RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
19.5,1
The gross and net residential densities permitted in any PRD district shall be shown n the
approved application plan therefor, which shall be binding upon its approval. The overal gross
density so approved shall be determined by the board of supervisors with reference 0 the
comprehensive plan, but shall, in no event, exceed thirty-five (35) dwelling units per ac e. In
addition, the bonus and cluster provisions of this ordinance shall be inapplicable to an PRD
except as herein otherwise expressly provided. i
I
I
I
I
Minimum area required for the establishment of a PRD district shall be three (3) acres, I
Additional area may be added to an established PRD district if it adjoins and forms a~ogical
addition to the approved development. The procedure for an addition shall be the same if an
original application were filed, and all requirements shall apply except the minimum a reage
requirement of section 19.5,1, I
I
19.5 MINIMUM AREA REQUIRED FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICT
19,5.2
19.6 MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL USE
19,6,1 Not less than twenty-five (25) percent of the area devoted to residential use within any PRI shall
be in common open space except as hereinafter expressly provided, (Amended 9-13-89)
18-19-3
I
!
I
I
I
Zoning Supplement #36,16-8-05
!
I
I
I
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
19.6.2 RECREATIONAL AREA REQUIREMENTS
See section 4,16 for recreation requirements. (Amended 3-5-86)
19,6.3 In the case of any proposed PRD having a total gross area of not less than three hundre (300)
acres and a gross residential density of not more than two (2) dwelling units per acre, the bard of
supervisors may waive the provision of common open space and recreation area as herei above
required provided that not less than thirty-five (35) percent of the gross area of such proposed
PRD shall be devoted solely to agriculture, For purposes of this section only, the term "( evoted
solely to agriculture" shall be deemed to include not more than one dwelling unit, which shall be
included in the determination of the gross density of the PRD.
19.7 HEIGHT REGULATIONS
Except as otherwise provided in section 4,10, structures may be erected to a height not to xceed
sixty-five (65) feet; provided that any structure exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height shal be set
back from any street right-of-way or single-family residential or agricultural district; in add tion to
minimum yard requirements, a distance of not less than two (2) feet for each one (1) foot of height
in excess of thirty-five (35) feet. (Amended 9- 9-92)
19.8 BUILDING SEPARATION
Except as otherwise provided in section 4,11.3, whether or not located on the same parce , there
shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet between main structures, This provision shall not a ply to
structures built to a common wall, (Amended 1-1-83)
19.9 SETBACK AND YARD REGULATIONS
19,9,1 Structures to be located on the outer perimeter ofa PRD district shall conform to the setba k and
yard regulations of the adjoining district.
19.9,2 Within the PRD district, the board of supervisors shall establish minimum setback an yard
requirements at time of establishment of such district.
19.10 MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS
Off-street parking and loading space requirements shall be in accordance with section 4.12;
provided that the board of supervisors may vary or waive such requirements at ti ne of
establishment of a PRD district.
19.11 SIGN REGULATIONS
Sign regulations shall be as prescribed in section 4.15.
18-19-4
Zoning Supplement #36. 6-8-05
[-
.......'"
~::::!Ciia
O~;t~
~~GS~
~~~lJJ
Q)~~~
te ~
~
~
~
Z
::t:
~
~
~
~ ~ i ~
tJ ~ ~ I
; ~i~ ai @
. ~ I ~
~ IE!~, ""
. ~~~ "'I~ ~
~ I I~ ~ III
"'C "Ii!I ~ I:!
i ie~ ~~ i
~ ~!! :~ ~
.......... l!l."
~ iii i~ ~
~ I
~ .'
.
:.. . +l
::/ ~
ill .
\
&~
<?l~
q\~~,
/'
~.
/
f'
.~
/'
,r"
.~~~
J~
.t:'v'v
#r::J
r={"
j:
f
f
f
.
.
.
11-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4012
November 7,2007
Michael Barnes
PO Box 5207
Charlottesville, VA 22905
RE: ZMA2006-000l6 Glenmore Leake (Sign # 31, 32, 44, 69)
Tax Map 94, Parcel 16, 74, and l6A (portion thereot) and Tax Map 93Al, Parcell
Dear Mr. Barnes:
On October 30,2007, the Albemarle County Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend
denial by a vote of5:2 of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. This recommendation of
denial was based on the following staff recommendations:
· The applicant shall meet the Board's cash proffer and affordable housing expectations for 110
residential units.
· The plan shall be amended to show a complete pedestrian connection along Farringdon, Carroll
Creek Road and Piper Way.
· The applicant shall coordinate asphalt pathway locations so that they are placed on the same side
of the street as a majority of the residences;
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on NOVEMBER 14, 2007. 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. Therefore any new or additional information
regarding your application, including final proffers if applicable, must be submitted to our office at least
twenty-three (23) days prior to your scheduled hearing date, which is October 23, 2007. Please review the
attached proffer policy established by the Board of Supervisors on December 7,2005,
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,
~lJ- K tJuJ/J
Elaine Echols, ACIP
Principal Planner
Planning Division
Cc: Glenmore Associates Limited Partnership
PO Box 5207
Charlottesville, V A 22905
Robert D & Carolyn S Livengood
1192 Ashton Road
Keswick Va 22947
Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
Glenn Brooks
II
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ENDA TITLE:
ZMA 06-16 Glenmore Leake Expansion
AGENDA DATE:
November 14,2007
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to rezone approximately 112 acres of Tax
Map Parcels 94-74, 93A5-1 and portions of 93A 1-1,
94-15, 16, and 16A from RA to PRD with proffers
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTtS):
Cilimberg, Echols
ATTACHMENTS: YES
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
BACKGROUND:
On August 21,2007 and then on October 30,2007, the Planning Commission held public hearings on the Leake rezoning.
The second public hearing was conducted to correct an advertising error, At the August 21,2007 meeting, the Planning
Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: (1) The applicant shall meet the Board's cash proffer
and affordable housing expectations for 110 residential units; (2) the applicant shall coordinate asphalt pathway locations
so that they are placed on the same side of the street as a majority of the residences; (3) the plan shall be amended to
show a complete pedestrian connection along Farringdon, Carroll Creek Road and Piper Way; and (4) the applicant
provides a minimum greenway area dedication in a proffer.
In proffers submitted for the October 30 Commission public hearing, the applicant had only responded to the minimum
greenway area dedication and not the other items requested by the Commission, Accordingly, the Commission
recommended denial of the rezoning because the proposal did not meet the Board's cash proffer and affordable housing
.ectations for 110 residential units, an asphalt pathway was not on the side of the street with the majority of the
idences, and because the plan had not been amended to show a complete pedestrian connection along Farringdon,
Carroll Creek Road and Piper Way,
Attachment I contains the action memo of the Commission from October 30,2007. Attachment II is the staff report
reviewed by the Planning Commission with the plan and proffers submitted for the public hearing,
DISCUSSION:
Since the Planning Commission's October 30 meeting, the applicant has modified the proffers to respond to some of
the County Attorney comments related to the form, but not the substance of the proffers, No substantive change has
been made to the proffers to address impacts of the lots involved in the rezoning, Although proffers for the area of the
greenway have been made, the proffers now reference a deed of dedication for which there may be outstanding
issues,
The applicant also continues to proffer cash to address impacts and affordable housing needs on only 76 of the 110 units
proposed in the rezoning, Thirty-four of the units could be built in part of the area under review for the rezoning under the
existing Glenmore PRD zoning, The applicant believes that the redesign for the 34 units is more sensitive to the natural
resources on the site than what could be done under the existing zoning. He has also said that he could do more units
under the existing zoning, Because he is reducing the number of units in the area and providing a more thoughtful design,
he believes credit should be given for the 34 units.
While there may be an improved condition resulting from this rezoning's proposed layout as compared to what can be
done under current zoning, on both August 21 and October 3D, the Commission did not feel it warranted a credit against
the expected offsets to public facility impacts of the project as laid out in the cash proffer policy.
With the application plan, no change has been made to address either the location of the asphalt pathway on the
Development Area side of the development where the rezoned lots will be or to make a complete pedestrian
.ection along Farringdon, Carroll Creek Road and Piper Way.
Attachment III contains the updated proffers and Attachment IV is the Application Plan,
As staff was reviewing the proposed proffers, a new issue was raised relative to the higher standard of erosion and
sediment control and stormwater management with recently approved rezonings such as Hollymead Town Center
Areas A1 and A2 and Biscuit Run, Staff has been considering whether the Leake development warrants a greater
level of water resource protection than is currently required through existing regulations, Discussions with the
applicant began late last week, Due to the fact that this issue has only been raised recently, it is not addressed in the
applicant's proffers, Between now and the Board's public hearing, staff and the applicant will work to answer the
question, Modified proffers related to water resource protection may be provided prior to the Board's public hearing,
RECOMMENDATIONS:
As the recommendation of the Planning Commission has not been fully addressed, staff cannot recommend approval of
ZMA 06-16 Glenmore - Leake Addition with the current proffers (Attachment III) and the application plan (Attachment IV)
for the following reasons:
. For 34 of the 110 residential units, impacts to public facilities that would result have not been adequately
addressed either through the provision of the standard cash proffer specified in the County's Cash Proffer
policy or otherwise through cash, land or in-kind improvements,
. The County's affordable housing policy has not been met for 34 of the 110 residential units,
. The applicant is not showing a complete pedestrian connection along Farringdon, Carroll Creek Road and
Piper Way on the Application Plan or through proffers,
. The applicant has not placed the asphalt path which is to function as a sidewalk on Carroll Creek Road on the
side of the road where a majority of the residences will be,
. The conditions for dedication of the greenway, now included in the proffers, are still under review as they
reference a deed of dedication for which there may be outstanding issues,
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT I:
ATTACHMENT II:
ATTACHMENT III:
ATTACHMENT IV:
Planning Commission Action Memo for October 30, 2007
Summary Staff Report dated October 30,2007 with attached staff report dated August 21,2007
Proffers signed November 6, 2007
Application Plan dated August 8,2007
II
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Revised 11-5-07
.
Project Name: ZMA 05-16: Glenmore Staff: Elaine K, Echols, AICP
Expansion: Leake
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
October 30, 2007 November 13, 2007
Owners: Glenmore Associates Applicant: Glenmore Associates represented by
Michael Barnes and Don Franco
Acreage: 111,73 acres Rezone from: RA and PRO (Glenmore) to PRO
Planned Residential Development - Glenmore
TMP: Leake: 94-16, 93a1-1, 94-74, 94-16A By-right use: 10 residential units
(portion), 93A5-5, 94-16 (portion) and 94-15
(portion)
Location: Southeast of existing Glenmore
Development and southwest of Running Deer
Subdivision
Magisterial District: Scottsville Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Add lots and acreage to Glenrnore Requested # of Dwelling Units: 110
PRO and approval of waivers
DA (Development Area): Village of Rivanna Compo Plan Designation: Neighborhood Density
Residential (3 - 6 units/ac)
Character of Property: The property lies west of Use of Surrounding Properties: Pastureland on
a ridge that defines the Development Area at the Glen Oaks property to the east. To the west are
eastern boundary of Glenmore, Adjacent to the the 3rd, 4th, and 5th fairways of the Glenmore golf
ridge is a relatively flat and open field. Away from course, with residences beyond. The northern edge
the ridge, the property slopes east toward Carroll of the property is shared with residential uses
Creek with four distinct valleys encroaching into served by Running Deer Lane and Farringdon
the slope, Each valley drains toward Carroll Road (within Glenmore).
Creek, but none contain a stream,
Reason for a Re-hearing: Staff and the Previous PC Recommendation and Changes
applicant discovered a discrepancy in the parcels from August 21, 2007 Public Hearing:
included in the legal advertisement on October 12 Approval of 110 dwelling units subject to the
when finalizing the proffer language, Portions of following conditions being met before Board action:
Parcels 16 and 15 were not advertised in the 1, The applicant shall meet the Board's cash
legal ad for the August 21 public hearing, Also, proffer and affordable housing expectations
one of the parcels had been subdivided since the for 110 residential units,
original application and its new tax map number 2. The plan shall be amended to show a
had not been included in the advertisement. complete pedestrian connection along
Farringdon, Carroll Creek Road and Piper
Way,
3, The applicant provides a minimum
greenway area dedication in a proffer.
The current plan provides for cash proffers on only
a portion of the 110 dwellings, an incomplete
pedestrian connection along Farringdon, Carroll
Creek Road and Piper Way, and an exhibit with the
proffers showing an area of approximately 15 acres
for dedication.
Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable:
1, The proposal provides for developme:J 1, The applicant's proffers do not fully address this
within the County's designated _ development's capital impacts as expected by
.
.
Development Areas.
2. The addition completes a vehicular loop
(Carroll Creek Rd. to Piper Way) within
Glenmore,
3. The applicant proposed an extensive
series of paths through the open space
and has offered to dedicate approximately
15 acres to the Coun .
Discussion: The applicant has updated his proffers and addressed the concerns for a commitment to a
land area for the greenway. Regarding the offer to provide cash proffers for only 76 units, the applicant
believes that the value of a more sensitive design for the environmental features on the east side of
Carroll Creek justifies the proposal. Without the new design for the 34 units, more units could be done
by-right with less sensitivity to the resources. While there may be an improved condition resulting from
this rezoning's proposed layout as compared to what can be done under current zoning, on August 21,
the Commission did not feel it warranted a credit against the expected offsets to public facility impacts of
the project as laid out in the cash proffer policy,
the Board for this type of development. The
applicant proposes to provide cash proffers for
up to 76 of the 110 lots for which the application
plan is being amended.
2. The plan fails to complete the pedestrian facility
associated with a vehicular loop.
Regarding provision of a pedestrian loop connecting Farringdon, Carroll Creek Road, and Piper Way,
the applicant believes that the Glenmore Homeowner's Association would prefer to have the money to
then decide how it should be spent for pedestrian improvements. The Homeowner's Association mayor
may not use the money for this loop.
Regarding provision of acreage for the greenway, staff beUeves that the exhibit and acreage shown on
the exhibit is sufficient to ensure thatthe Count receives a usable reenwa .
Recommendation: Staff sees no change in circumstance since the Commission's action at its August
21 public hearing and only recommends approval subject to the appli,cant fully meeting the conditions
identified by the commission at that hearing:
1, The applicant shall meet the Board's cash proffer and affordable housing expectations for 110
residential units.
2, The plan shall be amended to show a complete pedestrian connection along Farringdon, Carroll
Creek Road and Piper Way,
3. The applicant provides a minimum greenway area dedication in a proffer.
Staff also recommends approval of the waivers for critical slopes, private streets, curb, gutter, sidewalk,
and lantin strips which were considered at tile Au ust 21 public hearin ,
Attachment II
2
.
.
.
I
attac . ent
Augus 29, 2007
/bhan Le/#er-
froM f'c 8-.z/ -Of
Micha I Barnes
PO B x 5207
CharI ttesville, VA 22905
RE: ZMA2006-000l5 Glenmore Livengood (Sign # 26, 30)
TAX MAP/P ARCEL: Tax Map 80, Parcel 48 and Tax Map 94, Parcell
ZMA2006-000l6 Glenmore Leake (Sign # 31,32,44,69)
Tax Map 94, Parcel 16, 74, and l6A (portion thereof) and Tax Map 93Al, Parcell
r. Barnes:
The A bemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 21,2007, recommended approval of the
above- oted petitions to the Board of Supervisors,
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
in ZMA2006-000l5 Glenmore Liven ood
he applicant shall meet the Board's cash proffer and affordable housing expectations for 43 residential
nits.
2, The applicant coordinates asphalt pathway locations so that they are placed on the same side of the street
as residences and do not switch to the opposite side of the road between existing and proposed portions of
Glenmore.
3. The applicant provides a minimum greenway area dedication in a proffer.
in ZMA2006- 016 Glenmore Leake
rior to the Board of Supervisors hearing the applicant will enter into an agreement with the Glenmore
omeowner Association on all issues discussed and be reduced into writing by counsel.
2 . e applicant shall meet the Board's cash proffer and affordable housing expectations for 110 residential
nits.
e plan shall be amended to show a complete pedestrian connection along Farringdon, Carroll Creek
oad and Piper Way.
Please e advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review ZMA2006-00015 Livengood on
Oetobe 10,2007 and ZMA2006-00016 Leake on November 14,2007.
Go to n xt attachment
Return 0 exec summary
If you s ould have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me at ( 34) 296-5832,
Sincere y,
Attachment II
http://
.albemarle.org/uploadlimages/Forms Center/Departments/Board of Suoervis... 1011 0/2007 3
attachment
Sean Dougherty
Planner
Planning Division
Attachment II
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms _ Center/Departments/Board _ oC Supervis... 10/1 0/2007 4
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
. ZMA 06-15: Glenmore Expansion: Livengood
ZMA 06 -16 Glenmore Expansion: Leake
SEAN DOUGHERTY
AUGUST 21, 2007
Forward: The Leake and Livengood Expansions at Glenmore are reviewed in one report. Although
each property has its own character and externalities, they are both expansions of the same PRO,
When initially rezoned, Glenmore came with numerous proffers, some of which have been fulfilled,
and some of which are still being managed and will be furthered through these proposed rezonings.
This report reviews the details of each project individually and concludes with a combined analysis of
waivers and proffers,
Attachment A is the Location Map; Attachment B is the Livengood Application Plan; Attachment C
is the Leake Application Plan; Attachment C is Proffers (covering both rezonings); Attachment D is
an analysis of requested waivers, Attachment E is the Glenmore Masterplan; Attachment F is the
October 2006 Action Memo; Attachment G is the December Action Memo.
PROPOSALS
.
Livengood: Add 32.24 acres to the existing Glenmore PRD
The applicant has proposed a layout and density, similar to what exists in Glenmore close to Rivanna
Village. At the edge of the subject property (along Pendowner Lane), the applicant has proposed lot
sizes similar to that which exist on Pendower. Beyond Pend ower, the applicant proposes smaller lots
and a large central green, The applicant has also reserved an area that may be used for a future
entrance to Glenmore through the Rivanna Village area. The applicant is extending the trail system
that exists in Glenmore around this new addition and providing atleast one connection to the bridle
trail from the subject property, The applicant is proposing to provide an asphalt path on one side of
the roads proposed on the subject property. In order to not provide the required street section
(including sidewalks, curb and gutter and planting strips), the applicant has requested a waiver of
hose portions of the subdivision ordinance, A critical slopes waiver request has been recommended
wor approval for a ,53 acre area of the parcel.
Leake: Add 110.94 acres to existing Glenmore PRD.
nitially, the applicant proposed that the Leake property would be developed similar to the large lot
sections of Glenmore with 86 houses on ] ] 0 acres. The Commission asked the applicant to work to
'ncrease the density, The applicant has responded by proposing that a portion of the property be
~eveloped with smaller, cottage-style lots (as in portions of Glenmore) to achieve a higher density.
Irhe applicant is proposing to provide walking paths on one side of the through-roads within the
subject property only, In conjunction, the applicant has submitted a waiver request to waive the
portions of the subdivision ordinance that would require an urban section. A critical slopes waiver
equest showing disturbance of 4,6 acres or 4% of the Leake property, has been recommended for
lipproval.
BACKGROUND
Glenmore's existing PRO allows for 813 units. The additions of Leake and Livengood would increase
hat total to no more than 9]6. The applicant is proposing the addition of no more than ]03 units with
~pdated proffers.
.
Attachment II
b
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
Glenmore was approved in 1990 to contain a maximum of750 single family homes on 1141.38 acres.
In 1994,8.028 acres and eight dwelling units were added to the existing PRO, In 1997,6,6 acres were
added and 11.04 acres were added in 1998, increasing the maximum units allowed to 775. The most
recent rezoning in Glenmore was approved in May of2000. This rezoning added 38 acres and
brought the total number of units allowed in Glenmore to 813. Currently 763 lots are platted in
Glenmore. Work sessions were held on both requests on October 17, and December 12,2006.
A public hearing on the Livengood request was held on June 5, 2007 and ended in deferral. At that
point, the applicant had not adequately responded to the Board of Supervisor's desired per unit
proffer amount needed to address the project's impacts, Also, a few issues, such as stormwater
management, additional greenway dedication, and street section standards, remained unaddressed at
that time,
One detail discussed with the Planning Commission at the prior work sessions that staff neglected to
identify at the June 5 hearing was the lack of a pedestrian connection between Livengood and
Rivanna Village. This was a staff oversight that still needs to be addressed The Commission indicated
that a connection between Rivanna Village and Glenmore was critical.
LIVENGOOD
Work Session One: The Commission concurred that it was the applicant's choice to either move
forward with the current Comprehensive Plan or to wait for the Village of Rivanna Master Plan. The
Commission was asked if the proposed density of 1.3 units per acre was appropriate and if the subject
property should relate more to Glenmore or Rivanna Village or be an extension of the Glenmore
pattern, The majority opinion of the Planning Commission was that Pendower Lane should keep the
same form and be an extension or a continuation of Glenmore, The Commission concurred that it
would be appropriate for rest of the property to achieve a higher density, Finally, the Commission
indicated that they needed to see the applicant's response to direction given regarding the form and
layout of the applicant's proposal to determine ifthe existing street standards for Glenmore (rural
with ditches) or the current Subdivision Ordinance standard (curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street trees)
should be used,
Work Session Two: Based on the variety of guidance and feedback from the first work session, the
applicant proposed four different approaches to developing this property for the second work session.
The Commission discussed positive aspects of the various proposals, The Commission agreed that it
would not be appropriate to provide direct vehicular access to the proposed Rivanna Village project
(in a location available to the applicant) because it would involve impacts to critical slopes, an
intermittent stream, and a long and circuitous road alignment, The Commission felt that a stub out for
future connection to Rivanna Village through another property not under the developer's control
could allow for additional access and potentially a second gate in the future. For the interim, the
Commission indicated that a pedestrian connection needed to be made.
La
.
.
.
Summary - Applicant's Response to Work Session Guidance
The applicant proposes lots and density similar to Glenmore across the entire property. The applicant
proposes a common green measuring approximately 175x375' (1.5 acres). The applicant proposes to
use the existing Glenmore street standards, including paved walking paths on one side of the road,
throughout this proposed expansion, In keeping with the Commission's direction, the applicant has
proposed an area where future connection for emergency access or a secondary entrance to Glenmore
could be provided. However, the applicant has not provided a pedestrian connection to Rivanna
Village, The applicant has justified the lack of connection based on changes to the Rivanna Village
Plan, security concerns, and has commented that he feels the potential for a future connection (that
would include pedestrian facilities) suffices to address the Commission's direction on the matter.
Though an absolute consensus was not determined through a vote or formal summary from the
Commission regarding the matter, staff believes the Commission indicated that the applicant should
make a pedestrian connection to Rivanna Village in conjunction with the rezoning.
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
he Land Use Plan shows that the subject property is located in the V iIlage of Rivanna and is
esignated as Neighborhood Density Residential, which supports residential uses (3-6 units/acre) and
upporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses,
pecific Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the Village or Rivanna that apply to this area are
s follows:
ransportation
Provide interconnections between existing development and areas to be developed in
he Village of Rivanna,
he applicant proposes an addition to the Glenmore PRD and with no additional vehicular
onnections, After reviewing the traffic study and performing some trip generation calculations, the
ounty Engineer has determined that the additional trips generated within Glenmore from the Leake
s well as Livengood, development on the adjacent Glen Oaks property, do not necessitate the need
or an additional entrance to Glenmore. Further, potential interconnections are constrained by
hallenging topography and other existing conditions, such as the Running Deer subdivision and
ivanna River. The applicant has reserved an area for a future connection to Rivanna Village. The
pplicant has not proposed any alternative pedestrian connection to Rivanna Village. Currently an
i tervening parcel prohibits the applicant from making a vehicular connection, however, at the second
ork session, the Commission concluded that in lieu of a vehicular connection, a pedestrian
onnection to Rivanna Village would increase the functionality and walkability of both
eighborhoods, Staff believes the applicant has not fully responded to this Comprehensive Plan goal.
Provide for pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the Village,
he applicant would prefer to extend the existing approach for pedestrian and bicycle access within
lenmore to this proposal. That is, these facilities would be provided in the form of paved paths,
ridal trails, and golf course paths, rather than sidewalks. Given the existing context and extensive
stem of pedestrian and bicycle facilitks, staff finds that an extension of this system appears
propriate. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the subdivision ordinance requirement for
rb, gutter, sidewalks, and planting strips, As a substitution, the applicant proposes to provide an
phalt path on one side of the new roads planned on the Livengood parcel.
Attachment II
1
Staff notes that the lack of sidewalks and walking paths in some existing portions of Glenmore has
generated considerable concern among the existing residents there. Commission members urged the
applicant to work with the Glenmore residents and homeowners association to determine how the
existing roads - some of which serve a greater number of vehicles and pedestrians - may be
improved, given the additional vehicle trips the proposed expansion to Glenmore would create. To
that end, the applicant has said he has worked with the homeowners association and has offered to
contribute money to the association that can be used to improve or connect existing or proposed
pedestrian facilities or calm traffic, but has not proffered to do so. As the roads in Glenmore are
privately controlled and maintained, staff believes a private agreement would allow the Glenmore
residents construct facilities that work to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety. A proffer would
provide the County with the assurance this would happened.
. Upgrade Route 250 East to improve traffic safety and circulation in the area, Many of
the necessary improvements are described in the Route 250 East Corridor Study.
A final plan and budget for the improvement of Route 250 has not been considered or approved by
the County. However, the additional vehicles from this development will contribute additional trips to
Route 250. The share ofthis development's impact to Route 250 is minimal. Staff believes that a
portion of the applicant's cash proffer contribution could be used to address the impact of this new
development on Route 250 once a plan is in place for its improvement.
Internal Transportation Network
The traffic study indicates the connection of Carroll Creek Road between Piper Way and Farringdon
Road works to split vehicle trips generated from Leake and Glen Oaks. This connection also
facilitates additional and alternative routes to existing residential areas.
A traffic signal proffered to be installed at the intersection of Route 250 and Glenmore Way has not
met warrants. Once the warrants are met, the signal will be installed by the applicant.
Monticello Viewshed
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that improvements in the Village should be designed to:
. Minimize the visual impact adjacent to historic properties and sites including Monticello and the
Southwest Mountain Historic District,
Visual impact of the new development on the Monticello Viewshed will be minimal. The property
lies on the opposite side of Glenmore from Monticello near a section of Glenmore not visible from
Monticello, Due to the distance, topography, and existing tree cover, this Comprehensive Plan goal
applies less to this property. Staff believes this goal is addressed.
Land Use
Areas shown as Neighborhood Density:
. Should continue to be developed at a density of 3 -. 6 dwellings per acre,
The applicant is proposing a density of 1.3 units per acre. This is significantly less than the density
range prescribed by this designation, All developed portions of Glenmore, which contain the
Neighborhood Density designation, fall short of the density goal. The Commission has previously
indicated that Glenmore is an area where this Comprehensive Plan goal is somewhat less critical
~
given its location, concerns from existing residents, and the nature of the existing context of the
Glenmore community.
. Open Space Plan
In the Open Space Plan, this area is primarily shown as wooded. A small portion of Carroll Creek
contains sensitive soils. The Open Space Plan identifies sensitive soils that are restricted by flooding
and wetness as they are not buildable. The applicant's proposal respects a 100' foot buffer along
Carroll Creek, The applicant's has relocated proposed sewer alignments to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer. The applicant's proposal does not negatively impact the Open Space Plan,
Conformity with the Neighborhood Model
Pedestrian
Orientation
.
eighborhood
riendly Streets and
aths
nterconnected
treets and
ransportation
etworks
arks and Open
pace
ei hborhood
.
The applicant is proposing a rural cross section with a walking trail on one side of
the roads proposed in the Livengood addition. The applicant also proposes to extend
the bridle trail, which runs along the perimeter if Glenmore to be extended around
the proposed addition, The applicant has not proposed any type of connection into
Rivanna Village. At the last work session, the Commission determined that no
vehicular interconnection needs to be made between the two neighborhoods with
this rezoning, but it was the consensus that a pedestrian connection should be
provided and an area reserved for a future connection. An area has been reserved for
future secondary access. No alternative connection to Rivanna Village has been
made by the applicant. Given the applicant's association with the Rivanna Village
project, this detail should not be difficult to remedy prior to the Board hearing this
re uest.
The applicant proposes to use the existing road standards found in Glenmore which
include rural road cross sections, ditches, multipurpose trails along some roadways,
and bridle trails and walking paths through open spaces, The applicant proposes this
path on only one side of the street in the Livengood Parcel. This may be appropriate
for the Commission, however, the applicant has lined the open space common green
side of the street with the walking path and not the side of the street that contains
residences. This walking path would require school children, elderly, and the like,
to cross the street from residences to access the sidewalk, only to be adjacent to an
open common area, In this area, it seems some treatment along the edge of the
common area is appropriate, However, it is more important to place the sidewalk
adjacent to homes. Staff believes the applicant should move the sidewalk to the
other side of the street, at a minimum. Outside ofthe proposed rezoning, the
Glenmore pedestrian system walking path is located on the north side of Ferndown
Lane. Inside the Livengood Parcel, the applicant shows the path switching to the
southern side of the street. For a number of reasons, including a needless crossing
over an intersection, where a single street crossing can be made, the path should be
moved to the same side of the street as the existing path.
An opportunity for a future connection has been provided, In lieu of a vehicular
connection being made with the rezoning, the Commission has expressed a desire
for a very usable connection between Glenmore and Rivanna Village to be made,
No connection to Rivanna Villa e is ro osed b the a licant.
The applicant's provision of a large and usable common green addresses this aspect
of the neighborhood Model. Including the green, the applicant is providing a total of
12.69 acres or 39% ofland i.n 0 en s ace includin a ve usable een,
The a licant is not rovidin a edestrian connection to Rivanna Villa e, which
Attachment II
q
Centers
Building and Spaces
of Human Scale
Mixture of Housing
Types and
Affordability Uses
Site Planning that
Respects Terrain
Clear Boundaries
with the Rural
Areas
will serve as the center ofthe entire Village ofRivanna development area. The
Glenmore Club is not within convenient walking distance, but will serve as a
neighborhood center for those who utilize the facility. The common green will serve
as a center to the residential housin ro osed to surround it.
The proposal is for single-family-detached residential in an expansion of Glenmore.
This rinci Ie of the Nei hborhood Model is less a licable in this ro osal.
The applicant is providing one housing type. The applicant would like to address
the Board's affordable housing goal by contributing to the County's affordable
housing fund at the appropriate amount for the number of units proposed,
The applicant has worked with the terrain and applied for a critical slopes waiver
covering ,53 acres contained in several lots are likely to be partially disturbed. Staff
recommends a rovin the waiver,
This parcel lies atleast a half mile from the edge of the Village ofRivanna
development area.
Staff Comment:
The following principles do not apply: mix of uses, redevelopment, and relegated parking.
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district
Planned Residential Development (PRO) zoning was established to permit a variety of densities and
layout with shared open space. The applicant's proposal conforms to the proposed zoning district.
The applicant's provision of a common green and other open space equals 12,69 acres or 39% of the
PRO. PRO's require at least 25% shared common area.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Water and sewer service is adequate to serve the development. The sewage treatment plant associated
with the Glenmore development is adequately sized to accommodate additional dwelling units, The
East Rivanna Fire Station provides emergency service. Additional capacity at Stone Robinson
elementary exists. The Board cash proffer expectation, once met by the applicant, is designed to
address the capital impacts of new development.
Anticipated impact on natural, cultural. and historic resources
The most significant resource on the property is Carroll Creek, the only perennial stream adjacent to
the parcel. The applicant is respecting a 100-foot buffer adjacent to Carroll Creek. The property
contains no other known and / or identified resources.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties
The proposal expands an existing PRO toward the proposed Rivanna Village and Route 250
generally. A collection of seven relatively small existing lots is bounded by this development. The
expansion of the Glenmore trail system around these proposed new lots will be routed adjacent to two
parcels lying directly beside the proposed PRO, The impacts from the proposed expansion does not
appear to significantly impact adjacent parcels.
Public need and iustification for the change
The initial rezoning to PRO at Glenmore provided a greenway dedication to Albemarle County that
included a strip of land 100' wide along the Rivanna River (See also Proffer 6 discussion below). The
Parks and Recreation Department has indicated that a larger dedication of land would work to reduce
10
.
.
.
the size and impact of stream crossings by construc;,ting those fixtures further back from the river's
edge, Staff has worked with Parks and Recreation, the County Attorney's office and the applicant to
finalize a larger dedication, consisting of approximately 15 acres along the river. The applicant has
formed a proffer to provide that larger dedication, but has not provided a minimum acreage. An
exhibit showing the additional dedication has been received by staff, but the proffer clarifies that the
dedication will be only in general accord with the exhibit. Staff believes the applicant should commit
to providing a minimum acreage with the proffer, The additional land would provide a better trail
alignment and public land in excess of that initially proffered with the Glenmore PRO,
LEAKE
Work Session One: For the initial work session, the applicant proposed 86 residential units, The
Commission recommended that the applicant increase the number of units proposed, Due to the
existence of swales and challenging terrain, it was recognized that the development potential of this
parcel was significantly impacted.
Work Session Two: The applicant proposed a plan for up to 110 lots, increasing density from .78 to
1 dwelling unit per acre. At the second work session, the Commission indicated that access to Glen
Oaks should be provided through Glenmore. Because Glenmore does not support interconnectivity
from adjacent land, the Commission did not feel it was appropriate to subject the existing residents of
Running Deer Drive to traffic associated with Glenmore. Further, it was determined that that access to
Leake and Glen Oaks may be shared by a single road in order to decrease impacts from additional
impervious area that a second road would create.
Summary - Applicant's Response to Work Session Guidance:
The applicant proposes a density increase from the initial work session and has proposed that Leake
and Glen Oaks take access from Glenmore and not Running Deer Drive. The applicant has proposed a
road that is aligned on the development area boundary to serve both Leake (DA) and Glen Oaks
(RA),
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
he Land Use Plan shows that the subject property is located in Village of Rivanna and is designated
s Neighborhood Density Residential, which supports residential uses (3-6 units/acre) and supporting
ses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses,
pecific Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the Village or Rivanna that apply to this area are
s follows:
ransportation
Provide interconnections between existing development and areas to be developed in
he Village of Rivanna.
he applicant proposes an addition to the Glenmore PRD and with no additional vehicular
onnections, After reviewing the traffic study and performing some trip generation calculations, the
Attachment II
11
County Engineer has determined that the additional trips generated within Glenmore from the Leake
as well as Livengood proposals, and from the adjacent Glen Oaks property, do not necessitate the
need for an additional entrance to Glenmore. Because the property lies adjacent to the Rural Areas
and due to challenging topographic conditions, no connections from this property to the Rural Areas
is guided by the Comprehensive Plan, A connection to Glen Oaks is made from this property.
· Provide for pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the Village.
I
The applicant is showing an asphalt path along through roads on the Leake property and is providing
trails that tie the proposal into the existing trail system at Glenmore, Given the existing context and
extensive system of pedestrian and bridle facilities, staff finds that an extension of this system appears
appropriate,
In one area, between the existing developed portion of Glenmore closest to the Leake property, the
applicant has not proposed the connection of ~xisting and proposed paths, The applicant has indicated
that his proposed cash contribution to the Glenmore Homeowners Association would cover this break
in the system. Given the importance of a complete pedestrian system on the larger loop within the
Glenmore PRD, staff believes this connection should be provided with the rezoning.
. Upgrade Route 250 East to improve traffic safety and circulation in the area, Many of
the necessary improvements are described in the Route 250 East Corridor Study,
A final plan and budget for the improvement of Route 250 has not been considered or approved by
the County, As discussed in the Livengood review, a portion ofthe applicant's cash proffer
contribution could be used to address the impact ofthis new development on Route 250 once a plan is
in place for its improvement.
Transportation - Internal Network
The Leake addition proposes a complete loop connecting Piper Way with Carroll Creek Road and
Farringdon Road, This provides the potential for future residents of the Leake parcel and Glen Oaks
with two routes to the exit, working to split impacts on existing roads. This also improves the overall
circulation network within Glenmore.
A traffic signal proffered to be installed at the intersection of Route 250 and Glenmore Way has not
met warrants, Once the warrants are met, the signal will be installed by the applicant.
Monticello Viewshed
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that improvements in the Village should be designed to:
. Minimize the visual impact adjacent to historic properties and sites including Monticello and the
Southwest Mountain Historic DistJ'ict.
Visual impact of the new development on the Monticello Viewshed will be minimal. Like Livengood,
the Leake property lies on the opposite side of Glenmore from Monticello near a section of Glenmore
not visible from Monticello. Due to the distance, topography, and existing tree cover, this
Comprehensive Plan goal applies less to this property. Staff believes this goal is addressed.
Land Use
Areas shown as Neighborhood Density
. Should continue to be developed at a density of 3 - 6 dwellings per acre,
17_
.
.
.
The applicant is proposing a density of 1 unit per acre, This is significantly less than the density range
prescribed by this designation. All developed portions of Glenmore, which contain the Neighborhood
Density designation, fall short of the density goal. The Commission has previously indicated that the
Leake property is less developable given the topography. Glenmore is an area where this
Comprehensive Plan goal is somewhat less critical given its location, concerns from existing
residents, and the nature of the existing context of the Glenmore community.
Conformity with the Neighborhood Model
Pedestrian
Orientation
Neighborhood
Friendly Streets and
Paths
Interconnected
Streets and
ransportation
etworks
arks and Open
pace
eighborhood
enters
uilding and Spaces
f Human Scale
ixture of Housing
ypes and
ffordability Uses
ite Planning that
espects Terrain
The applicant proposes an asphalt path on one side of the through roads, Cul-de-
sacs do not have a dedicated pedestrian facility, but each lot has excellent access to
walking paths that connect through swales to the existing Glenmore trail system,
Staff believes this approach is acceptable, However, the application plan does not
show the complete connection of new and proposed pedestrian facilities associated
with the new 100 connection,
The applicant proposes to use the existing road standards found in Glenmore which
include rural road cross sections, ditches, multipurpose trails along some roadways,
and bridle trails and walking paths through open spaces. The applicant proposes this
path on only one side of the street on through roads, Staff believes this is
appropriate so long as some the applicant provides a complete pedestrian
connection between existin and ro osed ortions of Glenmore,
The applicant is proposing to complete a large vehicular loop that will serve large
portions of the Glenmore neighborhood and provide more residences with
alternative travel routes, The pedestrian path associated with this loop road needs to
be com leted between existin Glenmore and the Leake ex ansion,
The applicant proposes 46 of III acres be provided in open space, The Glenmore
playing fields, pathways, club and size of lots provides sufficient open space and
recreation amenities,
The Glenmore club is the closest neighborhood center,
The proposal is for single-family-detached residential in an expansion of Glenmore,
This rinci Ie of the Nei hborhood Model is less a licable in this ro osal.
The applicant is providing one housing type. The applicant would like to address
the Board's affordable housing goal by contributing to the County's affordable
housing fund at the appropriate amount for the number of units proposed.
The applicant has worked with the terrain and applied for a critical slopes waiver
for of 4.6 acres or 4% of the Leake property an area contained in several lots are
likel to be artiall disturbed. Staff recommends a rovin the waiver.
Attachment II
.t1
\3
Clear Boundaries The Rural Areas bound the subject property on one side, The applicant proposes
with the Rural that a road define the edge of the Rural Areas. This road will serve the Development
Areas Areas on one side that Glen Oaks, in the Rural Areas, on the other side. At the
December work session, the Commission indicated that to minimize impacts
impervious cover, and provide access to these pending developments, only one road
should be constructed.
Clear Boundaries This parcel lies at least a half mile from the edge of the V illage of Rivanna
with the Rural development area,
Areas
The following principles do not apply: mix of uses, redevelopment, and relegated parking.
Staff Comment:
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district
Planned Residential Development (PRD) zoning was established to permit a variety of densities and
layout with shared open space. The applicant's proposal conforms to the proposed zoning district.
The applicant's provision of open space equals 46 acres or 41% of the PRD, PRD's require at least
25% shared common area.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Water and sewer service is adequate to serve the development. The sewage treatment plant associated
with the Glenmore development is adequately sized to accommodate additional dwelling units. The
East Rivanna Fire Station provides emergency service, Capacity for additional capacity at Stone
Robinson elementary exists. The Board cash proffer expectation, once met by the applicant, is
designed to address the capital impacts of new development.
Anticipated impact on natural. cultural. and historic resources
The applicant is providing a 100 foot buffer along Carroll Creek and avoiding a majority of the
critical slopes that exist on the subject property.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding: properties
The proposal expands an existing PRD toward the edge of the Development Area, The adjacent Rural
Areas is proposed as the Glenmore Subdivision. The impact of the Leake expansion will be similar to
those from existing Glenmore residents, The traffic study indicated that these impacts are adequately
addressed with the existing roads,
Public need and iustification for the change
Additional greenway dedication, once finalized, would increase overall public recreation area and
provide a better trail alignment.
PROFFERS - LEAKE AND LIVENGOOD
The applicant was asked to update the existing Glenmore proffers, given that the initial Glenmore
proffers were accepted in 1992, Because each request is to expand the existing PRD, the updated
proffers address both rezoning requests. The existing proffers are included to illustrate what has been
satisfied, The applicant will update the proffers (eliminate those that are satisfied) prior to the Board
acting on them. Between the Livengood and Leake proposal, 103 units will be added to the Glenmore
PRD, taking the total units permitted from 813 to 916. 50 lots are permitted within the existing PRD
and not yet constructed, The applicant proposes that development within Glenmore be subject to the
JI-p
existing proffers until 813 are constructed. The remaining 103 lots will be subject to the proffers as
they are amended through this rezoning.
. Proffer 1 establishes what uses are permitted in the PRD and a total number of units permitted.
Proffer 2 is a proffer for a school site, The Board resolved that this proffer was satisfied when the
Rivanna Village rezoning provided a public park instead of a school site. This proffer has been
satisfied.
Proffer 3 is a proffer for six acres for construction of a fire station, This proffer has been satisfied.
Proffer 4 reflects the existing per unit cash contribution for proffers covering the existing units
permitted in Glenmore with the existing zoning, Proffer 14, reflecting the Board's desire for cash to
address the impacts of development, shall apply to all units above the existing permitted cap (813), up
to the new permitted total of 916.
Proffer 5 is a proffer for water and sewer facilities to serve Glenmore. Capacity exists in the system
that has been constructed to support Glenmore. This proffer has been satisfied.
Proffer 6 is an updated greenway proffer. The initial proffer committed to a 100 - foot wide strip of
land along the Rivanna River. The new proffer provides a larger land area so that impacts from and
scale of stream crossings can be minimized. The proffer identifies a deed, which staff has reviewed
and is in order, However, the proffer does not list a minimum acreage to be dedicated only and
exhibit with which the proffer commits to be in general accord, Staff believes a minimum acreage
commitment is needed.
.
Proffer 7 maintains access to a number of lots that existed prior to the establishment of Glenmore.
Proffer 8 is a commitment to signalize the intersection of Glenmore Way and Route 250 once the
Iwarrants are met. The warrants for that signal have not been met and the signal is not yet required.
Proffer 9 is a clause that sought to obtain money to offset impacts of the development had the
~pplicant not followed through on several of the larger proffers, such as donation of land for a fire
~tation or construction of the sewage treatment plant at Glenmore. As these projects are finalized,
he proffer has been satisfied.
Proffer 10 is a statement that the development shall be in general accord with the application plan,
Proffer 11 regards the maintenance of private roads and private drives serving two lots. The
ubdivision ordinance has been updated and now covers shared driveways and similar facilities, This
proffer has been satisfied.
Proffer 12 regards the employment of a security officer for security purposes. This proffer is
atisfied.
~roffer 13 clarified that Section 41 of Glenmore would be provided access from the Glenmore private
oad system (and not an outside facility). This proffer has been satisfied.
roffer 14 clarifies that all approved units (813) are subject to the previous cash proffer and that all
ew units (up to 103) are subject to proffer 14, This is a combined cash proffer to address the impact
.
Attachment II
/~
J5
of development and the Board's affordable housing goal. The applicant is proffering to provide a cash
contribution toward affordable housing instead of building it in Livengood and Leake. The Chief of
Housing has accepted this as reasonable given the location of the rezoning and the private nature of
Glenmore and homeowners fees associated with roads, landscaping, and maintenance. However, the
Board has indicated that when using this option, all proposed dwelling units shall be subject to the
cash proffer expectation to address the impacts of development. While this has not been clear to the
applicant based on prior discussions with staff, this proffer needs to be adjusted to include all the
units,
Proffer 15 is a proffer indicating the cash proffer amount shall be adjusted annually, in keeping with
BOS direction.
Glenmore - Combined Livengood and Leake Cash Impact Summary
As noted above, the applicant is proffering to contribute cash in lieu of providing actual affordable
housing. Therefore, all 103 units above the current unit cap (813) are subject to the Board's
expectation for cash proffers to address impacts. The applicant has combined his cash proffer to
address affordable housing and impacts into one figure that would be applied to each unit.
The applicant's combined affordable housing and capital impact cash proffer is $16,762 and is
proposed for all 103 units. This totals $1,726,486,
By comparison, the County's proffer expectation would be as follows:
103 X 15 % (affordable) :;: 15 units
15 units X $19,100 :;: $286,500 (affordable housing)
103 X $17,5000 (cash impact)
TOTAL
:;: $1,802.500 (impact proffer)
$2,089,000
The applicant has fallen short of the cash proffer expectation. Because the plat for the greenway
dedication is not complete, Staff does not know the final acreage of that potential dedication, but that
land, though in floodplain, would qualify for a credit to the $2.089,000 expectation for capital impacts
cash proffer,
WAIVERS - LEAKE AND LIVENGOOD
The applicant has submitted requests for a number of waivers. (See Attachment E for a complete
review of the requested waivers.) First, the applicant has requested a critical slopes waiver covering
.53 acres for Livengood and 4.6 acres for Leake. Staff recommends approving both critical slopes
waivers.
The applicant has also requested to continue the private streets that exist in Glenmore on the proposed
additions to the PRD. Given the existing system is private and well maintained, staff recommends
approving private streets for both rezonings.
The applicant has requested to waive four sections of the subdivision ordinance in order to extend the
existing street sections and character of Glenmore into these proposed expansions. They are as
follows:
Jlo
.
.
.
· Curb and gutter (14-410.1): No objection, This will provide consistency with the existing
Glenmore.
· Sidewalk Waiver (14-422 E): No objection. A paved trail will be provided along the
primary roadways.
· Planting Strip Waiver (14-422 F): No objection. A rural section is supported,
LIVENGOOD SUMMARY
Factors Favorable to this reauest
The applicant has reserved area for a future vehicular connectivity option
The applicant has provided roughly 1,5 acres of shared and usable open space in the form of a
,",ommon green and an additional 11 acres in common area,
The applicant proposes a larger dedication of greenway than the existing Glenmore proffers (more
~etail needs to be supplied by the applicant regarding the greenway acreage amount).
Factors Unfavorable to this reauest
The plan provides no alternative connection to Rivanna Village.
The applicant's proffer to address this development's capital impact is lower than the amount
~xpected by the Board for this type of development.
Coordination of pathway orientation and alignment should be made.
The proposed private agreement for sidewalk and road improvements in Glenmore does not provide
he same assurances as a proffer.
IVENGOOD RECOMMENDATION:
Staff does not recommend approval unless the applicant makes commitments as follows:
· provides, at a minimum, a pedestrian connection to Rivanna Village
· meets the Board's cash proffer expectation for residential development
· coordinates asphalt pathway locations so that they are placed on same side of the street as
residences and do not switch to the opposite side of the road between existing and proposed
portions of Glenmore.
· provides guarantee of the provision of cash to the Glenmore Homeowners Association to
address pedestrian safety concerns,
· provides a minimum greenway area dedication in a proffer.
LEAKE SUMMARY
actors Favorable to this reauest
The addition completes a vehicular loop (Carroll Creek Rd, to Piper Way) within Glenmore
The applicant proposed an extensive series of paths through the open space,
actors Unfavorable to this reauest
The applicant's proffer to address this development's capital impacts is lower than the amount
jxpected by the Board for this type of development.
The plan fails to complete the pedestrian facility associated with a vehicular loop
Attachment II
{7
LEAKE RECOMMENDATION:
Staff does not recommend approval unless the applicant makes commitments as follows:
. meets the Board's cash proffer expectation for residential development
. amends the plan to show a complete pedestrian connection along Farringdon, Carroll Creek
Road and Piper Way.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Location Map
B. Livengood Application Plan
C. Leake Application Plan
D, Poffers
E. Waivers
F. Glenmore Masterplan
G. October Action Memo
H. December Action Memo
1<:(
r
"
I
,
.
-
.
T
f--- I, \ ~t ~_7 \ ~ \.L..ll
~ Attachment A .( ZMA~20061001'511f/ZMA 2006-0~ 6 "'(\~
;... - \..,~ -- I r ,,~~ \ ~../\ \...D
p.~ _-./~~ ~//
, '--Il~\! ~~~
~ ' I' v::._, {I, f/\ 1111'11~:..:
KjV I' ,~ ~,~ ~
Ifl b"~ . I ~~ ~
JtNf~~ (j ~ I -: f'l . Liveng ~od._ /
~nL ~, D "i\ J<S,j
Wd\ 'fV~ ~ r l.d . "~
: ./P- :K. Y I"J. 1\/ J::-, ~ KX II q". '.
~,~., A/~' '~~ ~\ '" I
~\". ~ ~, t~x ~ ~_..z , ~,~ ~ "'~ <
, \\ Vi\~>",,~\\~~~ /~ ~ _ _
I .~;,~., '~.r II),~_,:~~,/-~ -~~~ T ~li\)J ~~, ___
ii',. ~ j "~ ~ ~ /~ ~L'"W~
."""....\( " ......,/ ~ :r:r.. \ " "!l ~~ !1:'n r---.
'~ \\IlV~ ~ " ~ ~ ''''"'l ~ _~
\ \~~ ~~~, ~ ~ V
1 :I \'\Hv r:~ ~ \ cf~
- iJ 'l '(7 ~ 1.~: ~\\ 0')" ~, , r--...
II 't\" If_~ /1 }k\L'<. ~~~~)- V',:. Ir~ . .~(
, J .~. ~~~ ,.,,~, '/ JJJ'"
r """\~\ '\~ ili~~~J ~/) \/! ~!Leake
) 1;, " t'y>i\ " -.l,- ~
'\j:'~; \,~' I... "-.1"\ --1.7 ' I ~~
>" \,.... "" 'IL "f I
~. ........\X'l I I /
't!" / ,.., v.. '7 r \ .
/"f",~:" ~ t \
~, ''''',,, '-'-~~ \
'. .~ jl; \
/ '. .-'.'.. , \
'y I>", ///~:~. ".... t; ~?i't;~ ;':''-CC;\-'1
/I\/;;~~J ,,'. ", ';'. ~l !
I ,/' \
- (
I I~// ~
1--
, i
1
I
./
)
\,,,(
/ '"
"-
/"t,\
I
Attachment II
I'
" I
Ii"'",::; '::.0;;:-,
~, /....,.. ?~----w.;,., Bot III
jl- ;,::~~:~ :~~~,~~~:o:~~. _ Ii;' rr .,
';
'.
o 350' 70G
Feei.
1.400
.
r:
o
?:I
~ "
"'51
~ I
;1
S
.
.
1'1
=:5i
m, f!.:'
00.'
u
~
~:
ii"
;;ei
U',
..~.
..
~
:.
~ Q~~7~ZMAtI..-
QLENUOAI!
lIEC110N ....
,/
II ~~. ~I c=Iml ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, JNC.'A (;I
il ~B ;1 __;~I ~~:~~=,,~~& ('J
!!I "C. :I .-11 liE] .."""N. VI,..,NIA .,NC. r... ~ -
tI II ......M~NX~~
~[]II
REZONING PLAN
~cauN1'V.~
WOQ'HSIlEMJIlOl:IOo:N 1M'a - ~XV:l'lll2O'~ aNOHd
~' ZOlIlZYINDIft ~.IJYOO 0TI30UH0rII"~8 ~
. IIl1tJ ~ iilONlfl VINI/Dtll/I /DNI/ltliilfl
NOI.LVtlOdtlOO "lVNOlflfliilJOtld V
St43NNYld ONYI ONV St4OA:l1\t4nS 'St433NIE)N3
'~NI 'saLVDOSSV 1fI tiIVO 'HSfiavafiOll
I~
~
~~~
....N11lW1I\ 'A.1NtIOO iI"IWW6IliI1V
8~
.1.33HS l:I3AOO
C3>1v:n) ~->I NOI.103S
NV1d NOUVOnddV 9 J.()-9() VWZ
.~...
u
...
=
Q,l
S
..Cl
C.l
=
.....
.....
~
~ ~
II JU.udlqJEUV
.
.
.
I
Attaclunent E
LEAKE
Critical Slopes and Location of Structures and Improvements (4.2 and 4.2.3):
The critical slope areas impacted by this development are not identified in the County Open
Space Plan as "Major and Locally Important Stream Valleys and Adjacent Critical Slopes". Two
of the slope areas are adjacent to but are not within the water resources protection stream buffer
along Carroll Creek, The waiver request adequately addresses the concerns stated in section 18-
4.2 of the Code with the applicant's latest revisions to the Erosion Control plan.
As provided in section 4.2.5.b.2 of the Code the commission may modify or waive any
requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon finding that:
Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or
other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer, the
requirements of section 4,2 would effictively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of
the property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent proper ties.
Such modification or waiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, sqfety or
welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties, or be contrary
to sound engineering practices; or (Added 11-15-89)
Denial of the request for the areas of "critical slopes" impacted by the sanitary sewer
extension would restrict the ability to provide public sewer to this development.
As provided in section 4,2.5,b,3 of the Code the commission may modify or waive any
requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon finding that:
Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import
than would be served by strict application of section 4.2. (Added 11-15-89)
The number oflots could be reduced to minimize or avoid impacts to "critical slope"
from the grading for the homes and site improvements. However, this will negatively
impact the ability to achieve the densities desired by the Comprehensive Plan within our
Development Areas,
Street ReQuirell!ent Waiye~s
Private Street Waiver(14-233,A): No objection. Provides consistency with the existing
Glenmore,
Curb & Gutter Waiver(l4-410J): No objection. Provides consistency with the existing
Glenmore,
Sidewalk Waiver(14-422 E): No objection, Paved trail will be provided along the primary
roadways,
Planting Strip Waiver( 14-422 F):
No objection since a rural section is supported,
Attachment II
21
........ []
"'-- -A~ _.____JMI.......~ I
__~...~tII
.. .".. .0"". ",''',..'''' ."'''''.... r:;a
.... IlIO'...lflllO"UIOIll """'O'...~"II"" " RJ
IIMIWIN'W aJiIfttiI"'I OIW~ -..-..-. - -
'JNI 'mLYJ:lOSSV l' II1V!) 'HSIl1
u 1Hl".M:M/ "'If:llAtI:JAU-rHL!II1fk:-N:lI:I'\lU1dJflt I' IJllt .tJ
---- -,-,-'-'-'-'-
.-v...._._- ,- - .,-., -
..,---- -,
...___ V-___
...__..._ . _ ~ ___W
... -....... - ~-----~--~---------
...__...-~- ' , , ,
~~
~
....
=
~
...... -. -- - Cc;:IlOClOOOClOQOOOODOQc:;IO 5
-=
~
~
....
....
<
~
....
=
~
S
-=
~
~
....
-
<
- ;<:.:_-::-.;, ,/ _J ///--\\1. / <::~~ 'r" '~
.- ((~}f~/! ( ,,/>-,>;<-;.>,'~ -(-~ fit 1/JIlIl-~-))l~1 ~VVJ :' , C~~
.-;, )/::'J~J I // /) /r/'/III") '; .__ \_~~~). V / \ 3:
'// '(/(.- '/ //II/-;'l~("'''--...\'' \~~JJ!/I \------.
'// '/ _~\C_'i ,', ,I ,'(I '\',T....~
/J .. / :J(~~j'\ '- ;::::::::::-' ~;;;;-- j ,\ ,'.' \; ~
/j/;// I ~._J '))l\'\~~~?-=.:.;-/ ~I/"~r ,',", i" ,..\ ./ \ ~
/ I J./ .:-=. )Jt- ,":. - - /' / ----~-/'," ".,:.:H,' 1 ' '\;' ,
~'d;3~~t~,~ ~~~,t;!:~ ':.~~\/ ~ '~/-~-_\'~\.,~~
J;- /~~, ,}I f::>-;-:.- );J-"~ 11(([1.//.1 I :f,-.....\\\L );, 'i,i:", ) \\\
/ (C:~(4f%f~ ~~~<.~(~~~ ~~I(/ -~:-i_'j)_\:;t!.~~-'1".v." .1' 'J)\ ~ ' {'
(~~~~,,~~t'~~1,1,\\(' )).' ill:.0-~~ ~
~~~~ I/>~& ( ~\f ((":-::----- ) bJ \ ) (L-~ -- /. ~'''') ~ ~-)t~ "" "-
~f1ffi~)\~~~ 12~~~J ~ /;.,' '~~~ ~ ~ ' ' ,~
\( I "~(r\) --/,';\ \\\:{ / \ "~~\\\\l -~- - ~. v-/, />>.l' ,i( A . '1:.: '1fIf: ~,.J~ ;l: '~l> ~
^,~~ -:~~li\\~,>~~~~';--'.~?<:(j~i/ "', ':;~~," ~ i' ,~ ,
,,' " 11. j I " ~ I ( ~~:~~',:~ ~ ( i\r ,~~~:;," ~ . \ ~~..- 'Ay~~ I / ~ l~j ,'\;1 ' ~
",:\ ( c ~ / ,......... /j ..... I >() !\ ~'''-)~-~ ~._) t. / ( ~ '/3--. - l1j'NI ~
~ I':'" \ '.... "".~J .-/ /-=-,j l~( k$.~...' 1./J
",ti.' · '" ~-- - .... ". ~ .'.\ \ I \
~>f '.:-~" .... .:',,' .,' Jt?,J;v',,- ~ ~~ ~r: '~I\ ~ . 3>i') f\ P \ ,\~
"'"-'!"'~., ,"'i", . ':, :_. J' ~ ~~ _ · '-B/)j//,1Jr: Z II ___ \ ) )~~}
..~.~ (~> _J.. , ~, =:y:~ \,!\, ~~. ~ ,. .t i\ {l :li{ I. '<fli ,!\r~'t ~'(J
,/ ,~~\'~~-"'" I ilffX: ".I , ~ .. c~.. E.C:lh~~I' ( I
t ", ~~ ~ ~// ,'J[~r ""-.' )F). ~~ b, " .
o -~:- ''/ ;.1' - .-' 7"h I . ...: " ~:,~.. ~~ --::"i ~~, ffiJ?J 1\
I) ... \.... ~ ;.G 'VTI ' ~ - l.\" .. ~,-::: '':'''' IIV
j' ~~"'~ . ~ --,:,,' ~ ,\' V-.J.;d V" ih {v.;
<~ . .. _ .:'i'_:t-"::~:I-~~ ;1, I . .. "''''', ~ v -~ /T-' : (\ \ i L
"'. x ~ "'\" '" I' .).:\ Yl / -\;;')1 () 'I' . ~
..........$/1 " - I r I" \ I '. ''''.:t ~ ~ -' ' ,
~ '~~ -~~ ~ ' "~i "~ ~ ~~, ~ p~ ~>'l:. .'" \
~~ \ ~,>~~ J' ~~,tyr '~'~@_~~o--~ ~\~
'\\ '1 "', o~ ~ ,'II ffLD: - - \ r,:J N;~:;;' ~ j. II~ :" ;"..
....:. II "\,. ;iSJ.I\- / "" ~ /'-j, ~0~;'; ~ -a '. ~
::~:::: '-)~:_, ~ /~ )'P:'-~ . ~..~ " ~.
.11 .::'":"1 ...~ ~~ -- kC , ~ - . tr-', '~\~ t:.-tJ),; 'L .,~ ~ ~}II\t' " 'I!
..,-... \ ;,\/'fl.:",~ .. ~ -M...J'::::j Y!lil ) f! 1\ \. ~
.....n ~i;t)..V\ --.::; . :A~ - :\. 'L..- ,~ \'S ~~ i!
''''\':I~ '~?-,.~}' /r U ~ "'~!<. !:-J ,\8,( _..~" ~"':~ ~,. ~11 ;- ,(l.{ ~~ 1\ ~'i\
'H..n )l;.(J W 1'-1 ;4lI ~ "\,~j ~\.~ ,..~~~. ~ '-\..-1\. r~"-.. ;\' I,
' ,'.N!: \ L r'~"" ~:'''''~''~ -'~ ~ '", , '- \>> ...,'. ,If. ~ \
c?~,;:=~~rf; ;~t- ," ;~~,~~~~~~-:-:~~~;'" ~~l '\1
); // /'//:- ,-'- ';'", [('; , ~~ '~ ~r v r;7/ 9 h~-,;\)-f, ~~ ~ />:~ -' ~,\\
__ c _.- _~', '-/ ~ _ ~~ )..< ~~j') /J l'l; 1;&- 1.'\ i ~' ~ir' ~i ~(("! 01.' \l." \ \
.' ~ ''11(./ '[il T":' ~.J, " "-1"",,, ~~)// '., It/) ''::~\, · / L4 c"\;0
. :as \ --/- l ~ ~ (/~~ ") ~ '1':;'1~ 1_, ~:;~~':.~~ '~~ \1:-.. )(,6.~$:::::." 11.~""r.j1'"
--', J '//,..:; L"... . I"l 'lt1 /L -~ ~" . r;::;; '-.J "-' ----
___ ) ,/ \.....-"'"~ ""'~ .... .... 'i; ~ /-.1~ (~ 7~:;.,c.. ~,\._?( 't //I.i . ~--
-] ( u c~) // "":~::.t'" ~'~~ ..7;': ,::/'" ~~__ x' . ~ l-J ~-I/ ~~:ft~:j, Wj~0-..:- - ", ..~ .0/ l
\ '-""_j/' j ( , 1 ~. -=Y I "". ~'. _:.; ~ - ~ (/1 ~"I~' """,:J<: '/j, - . /\/
i'0)'" (_r,-5~Jr:~/~~).!..I~;:.C;-- f! ;orj-tr1:r L"~;"'~~' vj~;~~~~ ~)I ~~y), / '- -) - ; \l
<.,)~ ,AS(' //-"~t=-ip-~ ,) ~P\ I.' /~ - /,V - r,~/')l\'F1~~}~ /,.-~:;;;<:;~ -,' '"
y,",,\ -,-;:-;..~~ iJ - C,---..r\, \ ({' ~~ ~';~r(lf~/l\j~1 --~ " ~ ~ ' .;;,
-l~~) J /-'/~ I ~---=-~::.~ ~~(,1~"S~1Z~~).':~1-J~~li\~ ~ ~ ~ /~ -~ "y ':" ~. I "~:>.~~~
>~I,;f.r.'/( \.., j\\-"~~i~/' .~i~?~ ~~~~\~~ ~.;:.. /."
,/-, I \ . :;:::J.-'~ It';) - :?\.v 1/ ' ,
,~ . j\ /~, ,/'\ · ~I( /. --::. ~ - . t?~:t' \":! '/./
~J- -1)) ~ ' '~0,l ("~ 1'\\ ~ -:!:-:::::::. '.'i ~I ;:. ,-_ ft-/'
*,,/' I; \, "" \~ ..- ~.~::;:i?' => /" J~/
~ J{(~'''' \~~~ .'\, c -t ~.----) Jh ,J /-
"~~~V1~' ~ 'WjJ}%~~jIli1l7 -
._ --~"', -' ~~J / _/ _.~~ ~ ~F"
_ _ 'V ~..... J ~ ~ \ ,.,..--"p-- r~._..::-~../ / ~ 7/1 /'
, / -- '~Jj ..'
"'- (~I ~ ::...,-) '\' ~. (( ~ "
'~~ _~",r /-'.) /)
J __. .x..r--?~. -,-c
- ~'-~~~.:"
-, ,(:-
~f
I
6JOIl .." A..."
&NDUIDNOO rflU...
~.-10 NntII WIZ''''
ill:IOIIVNiTlEJ
"7V1lfEUNI fIflOJ.NtX) .01
1 _ .......... ..........."
.0Ct -.1 )1t')5
,
.
-
.
I I
Attachment G
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 17, 2006
Work Session
ZMA 2006-015 Glenmore - Section 55. Livengood Property (Signs #26. 30)
PROPOSAL: Rezone 32.24 acres from RA - Rural Area zoning district which allows
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) to PRO - Planned
Residential District - residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to allow for 42
dwelling units. This proposal is an expansion of the Glenmore PRD and does not include
commercial uses,
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential
- residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and
other small-scale non-residential uses,
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 2,000 feet south of the intersection of Route 250 East and Hacktown Road, North
of Pendowner Lane (in Glenmore), and east of Carroll Creek
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 80, Parcel 48 and Tax Map 94, Parcel 1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
STAFF: Sean Dougherty
AND
ZMA 2006-016 Glenmore - Section K2. Leake Pronertv 'Sions #31.32.44 69'
PROPOSAL: Rezone 110,94 acres from RA - Rural Area zoning district which allows
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0,5 unit/acre)
o PRO - Planned Residential District - residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial
uses to allow for 110 dwelling units, This proposal is an expansion of the Glenmore PRO and
~oes not include commercial uses,
PROFFERS: Yes
J=XISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential
residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and
pther small-scale non-residential uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
,""OCA TION: 1,25 miles south of the intersection of Route 250 East and Hacktown Road, North
pf the Rivanna River, west of Carroll Creek, and east of the Development Area boundary,
If AX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 94, Parcel 16, 74, and 16A (portion therof) and Tax Map 93A 1,
Parcel 1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
STAFF: Sean Dougherty
n summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA-2006-015, Glenmore _
Section S5, Livengood Property and ZMA-2006-016, Glenmore - Section K2, Leake Property to
ntroduce the Commission to the applicant's proposal and provide the Commission an
opportunity to discuss how well the applicant's proposals for these lands relate to the
Comprehensive Plan, Staff and the applicants presented power point presentations to explain
he rezoning proposals and explain the character of the properties, The Commission answered
he questions staff outlined in the staff report and received comments and questions from the
~pplicant and the public, The Commission discussed what additional information may be
heeded to better evaluate the project. The Commission provided direction on the
ppropriateness of the proposal's land use, density and layout, and access and
ihterconnections so that the applicant would have clear parameters for conducting a traffic
LBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 17, 2006 '
INAL ACTION MEMO
Attachment II
z?J
-..,
Attachment G
impact analysis. The Commission replied to the following questions outlined in the staff report
regarding the Livengood property:
1. Should the Rivanna Master Plan be undertaken to a point that better guidance can
be provided regarding this rezoning proposal, or should this proposal move
forward under the current Plan?
Although sympathetic to the concept for the proposal to wait for the Rivanna Master Plan, it was
the consensus of the Planning Commission that it was the applicant's decision on whether to
move this proposal forward under the current plan or wait for the Rivanna Master Plan.
2. Is the applicant's proposed density of 1.31 dwelling units per acre appropriate
with respect to the Comprehensive Plan designation for the area which prescribes
a range of 3-6 units per acre?
(Combined response after question #3)
3. Is it more appropriate for this land to be included in an expansion of G/enmore, or
should It related more effectively to the proposed Rlvanna Village,project?
The Planning Commission could not reach a consensus on questions 2 and 3. The majority
opinion of the Planning Commission was that Pendower Lane should keep the same form and
be an extension or a continuation of Glenmore, The rest of the property could have more of a
relationship with Rivanna Village and achieve a higher density and be more responsive to the
form and density proposed in Rivanna Village as an extension or through an interconnection,
Under this concept, there should be a distinction between the north side of the Pendowner lots
and what happens in the rest of the property with a buffer of some sort, The minority opinion of
the Planning Commission was that development of this property should be an extension of
Glenmore,
,~
4. What sort of road or path facility, If any, should be provided to connect this
property with Rivanna Village?
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the applicant should provide a stub road
with an expectation for future interconnection. In terms of approving a rezoning, all of this
property would initially take access through Glenmore and, at a future date, it may connect to
Rivanna Village with a transition gate between the public and private roads. The Commission
strongly supported having at least a pedestrian connection to Rivanna Village from the
beginning.
5. Is the use of rural cross sections appropriate, despite the subdivision ordinance
requirements in Development Areas for curb, gutter, planting strip, street trees
and sidewalk on both sides of the street?
It was the consensus of the Commission that before providing a specific response to the
question, the Commission needs to see what form the applicant brings back in response to their
discussion, The Planning Commission provided several comments about the northern portion
of the property, If the proposed development is in the Glenmore form it can continue with
private roads, The northern part of the property, should it be more of the Rivanna Village form,
should reflect the street requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance,
6. Is the use of paved paths, bridal trails and golf cart paths, rather than sidewalks,
appropriate for this development?
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 17, 2006
FINAL ACTION MEMO
Attachment II
1-4
.....?
,
-
-
.
I 1
Attachment G
It was the consensus of the Commission that before providing a specific response to the
question, the Commission needs to see what the applicant brings back in response to their
discussion.
The Commission replied to the following questions outlined in the staff report regarding the
Leake property.
1. Should the Rivanna Master Plan be undertaken to a point that better guidance can
be provided regarding this rezoning proposal, or should this proposal move
forward under the current Plan?
fA,lthough sympathetic to the concept for the proposal to wait for the Rivanna Master Plan, it was
he consensus of the Planning Commission that it was the applicant's decision on whether to
move this proposal forward under the current plan or wait for the Rivanna Master Plan,
2. Is the applicant's proposed density of 1.0 dwelling unit per acre appropriate with
respect to the Comprehensive Plan designation for the area which prescribes a
range of 3-6 units per acre?
Combined response after question #3)
3. If the proposed density is not appropriate, should the applicant use the most
developable portions to achieve a higher density?
he applicant presented two concepts for this area. One that included large single-family
etached lots and another that incorporated smaller lots, such as the "Scottish" homes in
~Ienmore, The Commission agreed the applicant should let the constraints of the property
uide the layout, but that a mix of large lots and smaller lots would be more fitting, It was the
onsensus of the Planning Commission that a layout based on site constraints that works to
chi eve a higher density than 1 unit per acre is acceptable as long as the only connection into
unning Deer Subdivision is for emergency access only,
4. Is it more appropriate to provide access to the Leake property through Glenmore
or Running Deer Lane, or possibly both?
he Commission could not reach a consensus on providing access to the Leake property
rough Glenmore or Running Deer. It was the consensus of the Commission that the applicant
~ould make a commitment to reserve a 50' strip for a future connection to Running Deer
rould the only initial access come from Glenmore,
5. Should the applicant show connections to the Glen Oaks area or should the
applicant be providing access to Glen Oaks through another route?
I was the consensus of the Commission that it is not appropriate to discuss this issue at this
t jne due to a pending special use permit application for Glen Oaks,
6. Is the use of rural cross sections appropriate, despite the subdivision ordinance
requirements In Development Areas for curb, gutter, planting strip, street trees
and sidewalk on both sides of the street?
E fore providing a specific response to the question, the Commission wants to see what the
a plicant brings back in response to their discussion,
A BEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 17, 2006
F NAL ACTION MEMO
z,S'
If:,
Attachment G
7. Is the use of paved paths, bridal trails and golf cart paths, rather than sidewalks,
appropriate for this development?
It was the consensus of the Commission that before providing a specific response to the
question, the Commission needs to see what the applicant brings back in response to their
discussion,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 17. 2006
FINAL ACTION MEMO
zu
Attachment II
/'
,
-
-
.
I 1
Attachment H
Albemarle County Planning Commission
December 12, 2006
Work Session
ZMA 2006-016 Glenmore Section K2 (Leake) - Signs #31, 32, 44, 69
PROPOSAL: Rezone 110,94 acres from RA - Rural Area zoning district which allows
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 uniVacre) to PRO _
Planned Residential District - residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses
to allow for 110 dwelling units. This proposal is an expansion of the Glenmore PRO and
does not include commercial uses.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density
Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious
'nstitutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses,
l=NTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
~OCATION: 1.25 miles south of the intersection of Route 250 East and Hacktown Road,
North of the Rivanna River, west of Carroll Creek, and east of the Development Area
boundary.
fr-AX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 94, Parcel 16, 74, and 16A (portion therof) and Tax Map
93A 1, Parcel 1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
pTAFF: Sean Dougherty
In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA-2006-016,
~Ienmore Section K2 (Leake) to consider the appropriateness of the applicant's
roposals to increase density on each property and provide guidance on transportation
onstraints and options through response to questions posed by staff.
eake ProDertv - Questions for the Commission
1. Is the applicant's approach to density appropriate?
he Commission agreed that the applicant's approach to providing a number of smaller,
pttage style lots, mixed with larger lots, was appropriate. This increased the number of
esidentiallots proposed from 86 to 110,
2. Should the applicant's proposal be acceptable to the Commission, should'
the development take access through Glenmore, Running Deer Drive, or
both?
he Commission agreed that access to this property should be provided through
( lenmore, but needs to be analyzed with a traffic study,
3. Which of the applicant's proposals for providing access to Glen Oaks
through the Leake Property is acceptable, if any?
P. BEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 12,2006
FINAL ACTION MErvlO
2,-1
I",
Attachment H
-~
The Commission agreed that the applicant's Option 1, which provides access to Leake
and Glen Oaks along a road that runs along the ridge delineating the Development
Areas from the Rural Areas, was acceptable.
ZMA 2006-015 Glenmore Section S5 (Livenaood) - Sians #26. 30
PROPOSAL: Rezone 32.24 acres from RA - Rural Area zoning district which allows
agricultural. forestal. and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unitlacre)to PRO -
Planned Residential District - residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses
to 'allow for 42 dwelling units, This proposal is an expansion of the Glenmore PRO and
does not include commercial uses.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density
Residential- residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious
institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 2000 feet south of the intersection of Route 250 East and Hacktown Road,
North of Pendowner Lane (in Glenmore). and east of Carroll Creek
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 80, Parcel 48 and Tax Map 94, Parcel 1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
STAFF: Sean Dougherty
In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA-06-15. Glenmore
Expansion: Livengood to consider the appropriateness of the applicant's proposals to
increase density on each property and provide guidance on transportation constraints
and options through response to questions posed by staff.
Livenaood - Questions for the Commission
1. Should the applicant attempt to bring a vehicular connection to Rivanna
Village across the common boundary line with the Livengood property?
The Commission agreed that it would not be appropriate to provide vehicular access to
Rivanna Village across the only available common property line because it would
involve impacts to critical slopes. an intermittent stream and a long proposed road in a
circuitous alignment. The Commission felt that a stub 0 ut for future connection to
Rivanna Village not abutting the Livengood property could allow for access and
potentially a second gate in the future.
2. Which scheme or what parts of individual schemes work best to achieve
an acceptable density based on the adjacency of Rivanna Village and
G/enmore?
The Commission agreed that all of Livengood should become part of Glenmore, but
there was no consensus on which of the schemes (41,42, 51, and 57 lots) was most
appropriate in terms of density,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 12,2006
FINAL ACTION MEMO
-z,~
Attachment II
,
-
-
.
Attachment H
ZMA 2001-08 Rivanna Villaae at Glenmore (Signs #16. 17. 19. 20, 21)
PROPOSAL: Rezone approx. 94.5 acres from RA - Rural Areas which allows
agricultural, foresta', and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) residential (3 _
34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses and PRO Planned Residential District which
allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to NMD Neighborhood
Model District which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial,
service and industrial uses, A maximum of 500 dwellings is proposed with an overall
gross density of 5.29 units/acre,
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density
Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious
institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses and Community
Service - community-scale retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use
core communities and/or employment services, and residential (6,01-34 units/acre) in
the Village of Rivanna.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: (address/intersection/route number and street name) and Rural Area or
specific Development Area
TAX MAP/PARCEL: a 4.583 acre portion of Tax Map 93A1, Parcel 1 and a 0.741 acre
portion of Tax Map 93A1-1 zoned Glenmore PRO; Tax Map 93A1, Parcels 2,3 & 4; Tax
Map 80, Parcel 46, 46A, 46C, 460, 46E, 50, 51 ,and 55A all zoned RA Rural Areas; and
Tax Map parcel25A also zoned PRO.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
STAFF: Elaine Echols
Mr. Craddock recused himself and left the meeting.
In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA-01-08, Rivanna
Village at Glemore to discuss new design, overall density, affordable housing and its
relationship to Livengood property. The Commission is requested to affirm these
elements or suggest changes to make these elements acceptable. The Commission
discussed staff's recommendations regarding the rezoning request, took applicant and
ublic comment and provided comments and suggestions to the questions posed in the
taff report as follows:
hould the Rivanna Village at Glenmore development be modified to allow for
nterconnections and a relationship to the Livengood property?
taff noted that the Commission had just finished this discussion when reviewing
uestions about the Livengood property,
he conclusion of the Commission was that the Rivanna Village design did not need to
e modified for any future connections, Connections shown on the Rivanna Village
Ian provide the opportunities needed for the future.
LBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 12, 2006
INAL ACTION MEMO
~'1
....
Attachment H
Does the new design sufficiently address the Planning Commission's request for
the park to have n.atural areas and potentially retain the quarry?
The Commission answered affirmatively.
Is a minimum density essential? If so, are 4 dwellings per acre an acceptable
density?
While the Commission did not conclude that a minimum density was essential, they did
discuss the problems related to keeping track of minimum density. The Commission
said that 4 dwelling units per acre gross are acceptable; how that density is tracked was
not important to them.
If the minimum density in a block is exceeded, can the minimum density in a
different block be decreased by a like amount?
The Commission agreed that they were concerned about the gross dwellings per acre
and that modifications such as these were fine.
Can the minimum density be based on the total area minus the assisted living
facility?
The Commission answered affirmatively,
(~
Is the affordable housing proposal appropriate for Rivanna Village at Glenmore?
The Commission said that the proposal for affordable housing in substance is
acceptable,
Old Business:
Ms. Joseph asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting moved
on to the next item.
New Business:
Ms. Joseph asked if there was any new business. There being none, the meeting
proceeded.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 12:35 a,m, to the joint Board of
Supervisors meeting on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 meeting at 4:00 p,m, at the
County Office Building, Second Floor, Auditorium.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 12,2006
FINAL ACTION MEMO
?::D
Attachment II
Attachment H
,
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor. Recording Secretary.)
.
-
.
LBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 12,2006
INAL ACTION MEMO
e.31
'.
f\.llaCnmenl 111
Original Proffer _X_
Amended Proffer
(Amendment # )
PROFFER FORM
Date: November 14. 2007
ZMA # 2006-016
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s)
Tax Map 93 Parcels AI-I. A5-1 and Tax Map Parcel 94-74
and portions of Tax Map 94 Parcels 15. 16. 16A.
111. 73
Acres to be rezoned from PRDIRA
to
PRD
The Owner hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors acts to
rezone the Property from the RA to the PRD zoning district as requested, the Owner shall
develop the Property in accord with the following proffered development conditions (each, a
"Proffer," and collectively, the "Proffers"), which the Owner acknowledges are reasonable,
pursuant to Section 15.2-2303 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and pursuant to
Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. If rezoning application ZMA 2006-
015 is denied, these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no force and effect.
This Proffer Statement shall relate to the Application Plan entitled "Master Plan, Glenmore",
dated November 2, 1990, and prepared by Clower Associates, Inc., the Application Plan entitled
"Glenmore Planned Residential Development Application Plan for ZMA 99-016, dated April 12,
2000 and more specifically the plan entitled, "Glenmore Section K-2", dated June 15,2007, last
revised August 8, 2007, and prepared by Roudabush, Gale, and Associates, Inc.
1. The development of the Property shall be limited to those uses allowed by right under
Section 19.3.1 (1), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and (11) and those uses allowed by special
use permit under Section 19.3 .2(2), (4), (8), (9), (10) and (11) of the Zoning Ordinance of
Albemarle County, Virginia (hereinafter referred to as the "Zoning Ordinance" and the
"County") as those Sections are in effect on November 14,2007, copies of which are
attached hereto. The residential development on the portions of Tax Map 94 Parcels 15,
16, and 16A subject to this rezoning shall not exceed seventy-six (76) single fanrlly units
on seventy-six (76) lots. For the purpose of this proffer, if more than fifty percent (50%)
of a lot's area is within the portions of Tax Map 94 Parcels 15, 16, and 16A, then the lot
shall count towards the 76-unit cap. The seventy-six (76) single family dwelling units are
in addition to, and not counted as part of, the eight hundred thirteen (813) units
authorized in Glenmore PRD by ZMA 99-016 and the forty three (43) units authorized
within Tax Map Parcels 94-1 and 80-48 by ZMA 2006-015, Any lot that is not counted
9:;2.
.
.
.
2.
toward the seventy-six (76) single family units shall be counted toward the eight hundred
thirteen (813) units authorized in Glenmore PRD by ZMA 99-016.
In order to establish a future public greenway trail for the County along the Rivanna
River, within one (1) year after the date of approval of ZMA 2006-1016, the Owner shall
dedicate in fee simple to the County for public use no less than 43.45 acres in greenway
area, as shown on Attachment A, entitled "Glenmore Greenway Trail, Final Exhibit,"
prepared by Roudabush, Gale, and Associates, Inc. and dated June 18, 2007 (the
"Greenway Trail Area"). Such Greenway Trail Area may be increased as mutually agreed
by the Owner and the County and includes the greenway area originally intended to be
included in the greenway pursuant to proffer no. 6 of"ZMA 79-16" (such proffer
correctly identified as proffer no. 6 of "ZMA 97-16) and the additional area comprising a
minimum of 14.98 acres proffered pursuant to this ZMA 2006-016.
A. Prior to dedication of the Greenway Trail Area to the County, no buildings shall
be constructed, or erected within the Greenway Trail Area without the consent of
the County and it shall be otherwise preserved in its natural state except for
establishing pedestrian and riding trails and general beautification including, but
not limited to, the clearing of underbrush, removal of dead trees and shrubs, and
cleanup of the river.
B. Prior to dedication of the Greenway Trail Area to the County, the Owner may
grant across the Greenway Trail Area utility easements, access easements to the
Rivanna River for residents of Glenmore and members and guests of the
Glenmore Country Club and may build riding trails or make similar uses of the
area, provided that such utility and access easements allow the County's use of
the surface of the easement area to be used as a greenway, including the
establishment of signs, benches and other accessory improvements, and do not
otherwise interfere with the County's future use of the Greenway Trail Area as a
greenway.
C. The Owner shall convey the Greenway Trail Area by Deed of Gift and Easement
Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Deed")
provided, however, that the Owner and County may revise the Deed to complete
missing information and agree to make non-material revisions that are consistent
with this proffer and the existing Deed language. The Deed shall be accompanied
by a subdivision plat depicting the Greenway Trail Area and bearing a notation
that the Greenway Trail Area is dedicated for public use, subject to provisions and
reservations contained within the Deed. If, at the time of dedication, the
Greenway Trail Area is not dedicated by an accompanying subdivision plat, the
Owner shall pay the costs of surveying the Greenway Trail Area, preparing the
subdivision plat or other depiction thereof acceptable to the Director of
Community Development and the County Attorney, and preparing and recording
the Deed, and further provided that the Deed is in a form approved by the County
Attorney.
D. After dedication, the Greenway Trail Area shall continue to be counted as open
space for the purposes of the Glenmore Master Plan and required density.
'6~
3. For each dwelling lot that has more than fIfty percent (50%) of its area within the
portions of Tax Map 94 Parcels 15, 16, and 16A subject to this rezoning, the Owner shall
contribute sixteen thousand one-hundred eighty-four dollars ($16,184) in cash for the
purposes of funding transportation, public safety, school, parks and library improvements
to offset public expenditure on Capital Improvement Projects. The per lot cash
contribution shall be paid to Albemarle County prior to the issuance of a building permit
for each lot.
4. For each dwelling lot that has more than fifty percent (50%) of its area within the
portions of Tax Map 94 Parcels 15, 16, 16A subject to this rezoning, the Owner shall
contribute two-thousand seven-hundred sixty-four dollars ($2,764) in cash for each
dwelling lot on the Property to provide capital for Albemarle County's Affordable
Housing Program. The per lot cash contribution shall be paid to Albemarle County prior
to the issuance of a building permit for each lot.
5. Beginning January 1,2008, the amount of cash contribution required by Proffer number 3
shall be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect any increase or decrease for the preceding
calendar year in the Comparative Cost Multiplier, Regional City Average, Southeast
Average, Category C: Masonry Bearing Walls issued by Marshall Valuation Service
(a/kIa Marshall & Swift) (the "Index") or the most applicable Marshall & Swift index
determined by the County if Marshall & Swift ceases publication of the Index identified
herein. In no event shall any cash contribution amount be adjusted to a sum less than the
amount initially established by these proffers. The annual adjustment shall be made by
multiplying the proffered cash contribution amount for the preceding year by a fraction,
the numerator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in the year preceding the
calendar year most recently ended, and the denominator of which shall be the Index as of
December 1 in the preceding calendar year. For each cash contribution that is being paid
in increments, the unpaid incremental payments shall be correspondingly adjusted each
year.
-Signature Page Follows-
Attachment III
'?L-\
:J
.
.
.
GLENMORE ASSOCIATES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia limited partnership
BY:
(SEAL)
The Frank A. Kessler Dec
November 18, 19 6
tion of Trust dated
de , General Partner
(SEAL)
ONWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA
OUNTY OF
, to wit:
regoing instrument was acknowledged before me this k. day of November, 2007, by
I D. Comer, Successor Trustee under The Frank A. Kessler Declaration of Trust dated
ber 18, 1996, as amended, General Partner ofGI ore Assoc' tes 'mited artnership.
I
1":>
tacey L. Wilkins
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires: Commonwealth of Virginia
My Commission Expires 11/30/UlS
My Notary Registration No,: 3 L.f3 (7 Lf
ONWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF
, to wit:
regoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 'tp day of November, 2007, by
Peg B. Kessler, Successor Trustee under The Frank A. Kessler Declaration of Trust dated
Nove ber 18, 1996, as amended, General Partner 0 enmore As ci L"t Partnership.
No
My Commission Expires:
Stacey L. Wilkins
NOTARY PUBLIC
Commonwealth of Virginia
".""slofi [XP,I;";" '1/~g/g8
My Notary Registration No.:
3'-13(74
\485549 2
~
I.......J I- "-
~-C6a
---"~-a
O~~~
~)"UJ~
~~~LLJ
~~~~
l:tj '"")
0::
<D
~~! ;(
ti
~ ti! ~
; lti~ Ii Ii!
!:j ~Il, ' ~
. ailiJll ~III!I
i ,,' !ii:
~ 1:U IE !i
l :I~ !
i ..11 _.1
~ !i!i!i!i"
Attachment III
~\.9
.
.
.
I I
Exhibit A to Proffers for ZMA #2006-016
Albe ~arle County
A PIl tion ofTMP#s 93Al-l and 93A2-1A
PREPARED BY:
McGuire Woods LLP
EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER
THE VIRGINIA CODE (1950), AS AMENDED
SECTION 58.1-811 (3)
This DEED OF GIFT and EASEMENT AGREEMENT made this _ day of
200_, by and between GLENMORE ASSOCIATES LIMITED
PA TNERSHIP, a Virginia limited partnership, Grantor, of the first part, and the COUNTY
OF l<\.LBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
Gra tee of the second part, whose address is 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902;
WIT N E SSE T H:
The Grantor does hereby GRANT, GIVE and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY
and ~NGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE unto the County of Albemarle, Virginia, the following
desl i bed real property:
All that certain lot or parcel of land, lying and being in Albemarle County, Virginia,
containing _ acres, more or less, shown as on a plat titled
dated , 200_ made by Roudabush, Gale &
Associates, Inc. attached hereto and recorded herewith; SUBJECT TO the
hereinafter reserved easements and conditions; BEING a portion of the same
property conveyed to the Grantor herein named by deed from
dated of record in the Clerk's Office
of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book _, page _
(the "Property").
Further, the Grantor does hereby GRANT, GIVE and CONVEY with GENERAL
W P. !tRANTY OF TITLE unto the County of Albemarle, Virginia, the following described
east Inent:
,,1
:::>
[Specific Location of Access Easement to be Agreed Upon by Grantor and
County] (the "Access Easement").
As evidenced by the signatures of the parties to this deed, this conveyance fulfills in its
entirety proffer no. 6 of "ZMA-79-016" dated April 5, 2000 (such proffer intended to be proffer
no. 6 of "ZMA-97-016") and proffer no. 2 of ZMA 2006-16, made by the Grantor and is made
subject to the following agreements and conditions which shall run with the Property, the lands
of the Grantor, and shall further benefit the owners of lots in the Glenmore Subdivision whether
currently platted or platted in the future:
(a) The use of the Property shall be restricted to use by the public only for the
purposes of walking, jogging, running, hiking, bicycle riding, nature study, cross-country skiing,
and other similar outdoor activities consistent with the Albemarle County Greenway Plan as set
forth in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. All motorized vehicles, including, but not
limited to, motorcycles, motor bikes, 4-wheel drives, all terrain vehicles, snowmobiles,
automobiles, trucks and the like, shall be prohibited at all times, provided however, that the
Grantee may permit motorized machinery, equipment and vehicles of Grantee operated for
maintenance purposes only. The Grantee shall not permit the public or any other party to use the
Property for any use not expressly permitted herein and shall take all reasonable steps to enforce
this provision.
(b) The Grantee shall erect "Private Property - Do Not Enter" signs in locations
along the perimeter of the Property in the general locations shown on the map attached hereto as
. The signs are subject to the approval of the Grantor as to size, design and
color. Grantee, in a timely manner, shall be responsible for the initial creation, installation,
maintenance, and replacement of the signs so they are always legible and in good condition.
Attachment III
'b'i
(c) The Grantee shall place necessary signs in appropriate locations warning the
. of the possible danger of stray golf balls from the golf course at Glenmore Country Club
in t general locations shown on . Such signs are subject to approval by the
Gra or as to location, size, design and color. Grantee, in a timely manner, is responsible for the
initi I creation, installation, maintenance, and replacement of the signs so they are always legible
and n good condition. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Grantee shall indemnify,
defe d and hold the Grantor harmless from any and all claims and costs including, but not
d to, legal fees, due to any claims or law suits from anyone making use of the Property who
ma claim injury from stray golf ball(s) originating from the golf course at Glenmore Country
The Grantee shall add the Grantor as an additional insured to its general liability insurance
for claims or lawsuits from anyone claiming injury from a stray golf ball originating from
the If course at Glenmore Country Club.
. (d) The Grantee covenants to timely mow and to keep the Property, its pathways and
trail in good condition by periodically at regular intervals removing trees overhanging the
pat ays and trails, removing poison ivy in the proximity of pathways and trails, promptly
rem ving fallen trees, flood debris and other obstructions from the pathways and trails, promptly
rem ving litter, and maintaining signs and other improvements. The Grantor reserves the right
to ow and/or repair the Property as it may deem advisable, in its sole discretion, but such
s shall not negate the responsibility of the Grantee for items set forth herein,
(e) The Grantee's Department of Parks and Recreation shall monitor the Property,
incl ding the area along the common boundary of the Property with Glenmore Subdivision,
app ximately once per week. The monitoring shall be performed by a ranger or other person
desi nated by the Grantee to monitor the Property. The purposes for monitoring the Property
.
1;;~
include identifying the need for maintenance of and maintaining the trails, signs and other
improvements on the Property, observing the public's use of the Property, and assuring to the
extent practical that persons using the Property do not make unauthorized entry from the
Property into Glenmore Subdivision. Representatives of the Grantee's Department of Parks and
Recreation shall be permitted entry through the main gates of Glenmore Subdivision and over the
Access Easement. Representatives of the Grantee's Department of Parks and Recreation shall
only be permitted access onto the Property at the location of the Easement. In no event shall any
representative of the Grantee be permitted entry onto the Golf Course at Glenmore Country
Club, Grantee, at its own expense, shall promptly restore, replace and repair any ground cover or
improvements disturbed, damaged or removed as a result of Grantee's ingress and egress over
the Access Easement.
The Grantor reserves the following uses and easements over the Property in perpetuity for
its benefit, its successors and/or assigns and for the owners of lots in the Glenmore Subdivision
as follows:
(a) Reserves for the owners of lots in Glenmore Subdivision including future platted
areas and lots, as well as for their guests, the use of the horse path(s) as they currently exist on
the Property for the riding of horses and ponies on a twenty-four hour per day, seven day per
week basis regardless of whether the Grantee shall cease to use the Property as a Greenway.
(b) Reserves for the owners of lots in Glenmore Subdivision including future platted
areas and lots, as well as for their guests, the use of the Property for purposes of walking,
jogging, running, hiking, bicycle riding, nature study, cross-country skiing, and other similar
outdoor activities on a twenty-four hour per day, seven day per week basis regardless of whether
the Grantee shall cease to use the Property as a Greenway.
Attachment III
~o
(c) Reserves across the Property easements for all existing drainage areas and pipes
. as t y currently exist or as may be needed in the future for drainage to the Rivanna River
inc1 ing the right of access for installation, repair and replacement.
(d) Reserves easements for all current irrigation pipes, pumps and equipment as they
cros the Property for the pumping of water from the Rivanna River to the golf course at
Gle ore Country Club, and other properties of the Grantor with the right of access for repair
and eplacement of pipes and equipment and additional installations.
(e) Reserves easements across the Property for motorized machinery, equipment and
.
.
veh les of the Grantor, it successors and assigns as operated for the purpose of maintaining the
rty or the Grantor's retained property.
The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by
res I tion adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
ts the conveyance of this property pursuant to Virginia Code S 15.2-1803, as
nced by the County Executive's signature hereto and the recordation of this Deed and
ent Agreement.
This conveyance is made subject to easements contained in duly recorded deeds,
plat and other instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain of title to the
rty hereby conveyed, which have not expired by limitation of time contained therein
or ve not otherwise become ineffective and any lien, inchoate or otherwise for real estate
or assessments not yet due and payable.
[SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW]
~\
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
GLENMORE ASSOCIATES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia limited partnership
BY: The Frank A. Kessler Declaration of Trust dated
November 18, 1996, as amended, General Partner
BY:
(SEAL)
Michael D. Comer, Successor Trustee
BY:
(SEAL)
John F. Gaffney, Successor Trustee
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
OF
, to wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
2007, by Michael D. Comer, Successor Trustee under Frank A. Kessler Declaration of Trust
dated November 18, 1996, as amended, General Partner of Glenmore Associates Limited
Partnership.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
My Notary Registration Number:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
OF
, to wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
2007, by John F. Gaffney, Successor Trustee under Frank A. Kessler Declaration of Trust dated
November 18, 1996, as amended, General Partner of Glenmore Associates Limited Partnership.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
My Notary Registration Number:
Attachment III ~ 2--
.
.
.
I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BY:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
API ~OVED AS TO FORM:
BY:
County Attorney
cor MONWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA
OF , to wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
2007 by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, on behalf of the County of
Alb tnarle, Virginia.
Notary Public
My
ommission Expires:
My otary Registration Number:
\3413 5,5
1.-\3
-.AL r V';.r w' 7 J '~1T(J
I'lOO'HSIlSVOIlOll@O.:lNI lM'l3 - 0i2!Hl8il-K>> XV.:l- 9C2O-~ 3NOHd
~. ~ VlNlmllI\ '3TI11\S3llcnlYHO - ClVOl:l O113OUNOW 1r18 ~
. IIB6l 30N/S V/N/ell/A eN/AII3S '
NOLL VIIOc/II00 7VNO/SS3,,/OllC/ V
Sf:/3NNY7c:/ ONY7 ON"" Sf:/OA3Af:/nS 'Sf:/33NlfDN3
'JNI 'SH.L VIJOSSV '11131VD 'HsnavanO"H
~.
Ill/I
f~
~!
i
. ~
ffi _r >- tr.I
:::="-J ~a..ooq
~~i ~~
tn~(fj ...............
lu~'i!-J~
SuiCQtI'l~~
I ~~jWQ~~
ooq~~ ~~~
"" ~Q~i~~ ~
+ ...lu !l;!tl!!:!i5~
a ~!g:::i!:::..."-~
a ~h~~ui~~
a tt ~-q;~~t:~
"N "'~!!1<u......~llj
II ~ ~ O:S:~1o--:
~L>'i! ,~-J~
...... Lu \.Ut-tl.u
"N "' . ~-J"'::~~i2!>-
~~ ::e:"O(i ......~
rfi ~i ~~~fD ~:;[
~ C) Il!l! ...:::l5~Mlt~
~ ~l! 'i!~J!!:!:::"'~:::
::E h~ "'-J~~~~ g
~ ~i ~~w"'asll!'i-J
>-. S!....~~~llj~~
4-J ffi ~~ ~~I-4)..u
..., ~~ Q~t-:~Ei:~~~
c: ~ ~ ~""'i!~!s!- 51
..., ~"' ~"'-Jlu~~;:!:
LJ ~ ~~ -J1-.....:t:~~(I)
c~ l&..U~"''''''''''''cr:
..., o.~ ..... "lit '-1U"II(
... ~ffi~ -~~~
> :E ~g
a: ~; I"".~"
LU "'.......... ...~
~ ... :a:-.: '-t
t- ~o ..........15.....
~ a ~~~1;j~~i!:
U) <: S ...~5~~
~ ~~
8! ~~
~~ ~~
~I~ -~
rJ) ~~ ...: i~
z 2;';'. " ~ ~~li
:=: ~;c ~to ~ ! ~=~ ~~
t-QQ~&~ ;~ ~ i. I~
~~~ ~a ~ -~
~.~
tJl:lm ~ m~ ~ is '" I~ ~~
~~"-1 ~ ;.,~~'" ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ 8-
~~ 11S~
rJ)~lE ' ~lg.; ~~ .... ~ ~t;~ _i
~ EI'
~~~ : ~ ~ -J~ ~!~ ~ ~ g2~ !i! s
UJ '~ ~~ ... ..J~~ !~
~~i ~ ~'" ~i 1il . I nl~ ~
> ... I
"" ~... ~~
a. ~ ~ ~
:::: - - ~~
~ 7 ~
o ~I
~ ~I
~ ~i
~ u~
o ~<
rJ)
51
o
a:
it ~ ~
~ g
~
.;
.....~ ~
~..... .~s
~c .....(1)
Cb~ ~!l
~~ ~~
Ui
Lu
f-
a
<::
~'"
~~
'"
c"'
:::ljj
~2
~~
~~
~g
!i!~
....~
!5~
g!
ciG:l
~~
e5lti
fSf2
~Il!",
i"<!it
-cti~
~ii1~
~I:i",
;~~
I~~
~~~
~~fO
~
~ ~
Q. 1i
't;
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
c:5 ~
~ ~
h: 8
~
...
g; ~
lJ.... ~
~ i
~ ~ ~
<: .~ i
~ I =
~ ~ ~
.- ~ ~
as ~ l
~ ~ I/)
Q.: ~ ~ ~
Cj r..::!
~ ~
~
~ I
\\!~
:!
.~~
~~
,~
>0
~:
~;
!!
..~
~~
~l::
~
~'"
...~
~~
~~
H
l~
~=
::~
0:;:
~e
l~
~ ~~~
[)t I~~
~ ~~~
~ iS~~
~ ~~~
~ ~~~
if ~~lll
~ ~ill~
~ ~~~
lti ~~~
-J i~ffi
~ ~:~
i ~~~
~ ~!E! .
~ li~~
~ ",,,,J
~ ~;ti
!II ~~[li~
~ I.L.I.~"
-J
'<::(
ct:
Lu
~
l!)
j ~
;j! ~
-:
nj l"':i
:;;: ...;
~
.
i!:
..
000.
~~!
~~~
~~~ ~
u....~ z
-'!Ii-' -
i5~~
!S)..
u..'"
::;
.,
.;~
~~
~~
"
~~
~!
Sf
~~
~'"
~l
~~
~i;
"j
~~..;
~~~
~"R
a~
~e~
"'
~
"
~~
~'"
.!;~
~
{go
[;;1]
~:"'ltI
~~~
5;....l,I)
%-~'Ci
t;:St;:
lil2-~
~,,~
~~..
~i!::~
~ ~
~t~
l1:~.!
~~::::
~~~~
~ill)l
~~i~
~~
~;::'C;~
c...............
flQCc..
>O5'~~
~.i!r..Q
~ilt
0..
.c::-ltiI~
~~O~
il::~
ii~
-,,::::l;:~
'bltil=b'Cl:I
~~~~
"
~
~
i;;
~
i;;
~
a
..
.;
~
~
'"
~'"
~..
i~
~
"'"
fii't
:lo.,i; 5
~~ ~.~
t:llll Cb ~
ct~ ~ ~'"
~8 lq >J
QCll Cb Cll
~~ ~ ~ :
~! it ~ i
ell ~ & ClI
~l ~ ~ ~
~i I ~ is
~~ ~ I
&i :: .~ ~
&~ =: .. ltiI
~~ .. .l! li~I'
lii ~ ~
~t ~ i h
li~ 0 :: ls
~n~~n
~ ~t -= ~
~ ~~ t ~
~ ~li ~ "
~ !i i ~
~il~ ~
~ i;; _
i iii .Q
~~
2-~
~~
...
~~
~~
>O~
~'"
~~
!~
:~
~i
~"
~i .
~~~
i-iS
{gi~
,.l!~
>o;::!
,~~
~o
r.....=.
~,~
~~~
~h
"
~
,
d!
,;
'"
~:
<:it
~&.
-J"
1:
~ i
: ~
I ! i
I " ..
.a i ::::
~ t ~ .
t ~ !:
! i ~Q
It I t!
i;: i :;$
.; ~ II
...
"
.,.
~~
;,
~... .
u:.~ t
~~. ~
-'..
~if
...!il
1Il..
~
..
'"
"
~
~
~
~
'"
b
~
~
l
~
,'"
~
1'l
tri ..;
.
UJ
W
D.
~
z
:J
~
~
~
~ ~ z
m ~ ~
j~ ~ ~ ~
....I i:! ~ Ll.. w
~!~!~~I!!i
.. ~ .. m 8 III
li~wl!i~~IC
i~~ ~li!8
u I.l.I Q. 1$_
1111I111
II
. I
j :
I I
f-
Lu
Lu
J:
en
'<"1
C\J
ce....
I-:~.'~y:.\
<.I <I
','J> .
J';,',:I>r
':":j'ii;::
Ll"C,.
;ir-
><:
Lu
o
2:
I---i
:z:
<:;(
--J
Q
Cl
Lu
(f)
0
Q
0
a:
I- Q
Lu
Lu Lu
:r: --J
(f) <:;(
u
a: (f)
Lu
> a
0 a
u '<"1
1m
a
z
Lu
l!)
Lu
...j
~~~
i:sl:l
~8~
~"'l!i
Si 0;
i!l
i!;~
8~
:::~
leil!
'il.
I!<
~~
oi~
~r!i
~~
~
~
I- I-
Lu Lu
Lu Lu
:r: :r:
(f) (f)
'"
u
::;
c
~
...
u
m :
-' .
~
...
-'
""
~
a.
,.
...
ao 00 66
0:0: 0:'" 0:0:
QQ QQ QQ
!~ "'''' ~*
~~ ~o
_~ 0. ;:::;-~ 2- ~o.
.......'..... a --.,'..... a
~~& ~~& ~ ~ ~
~lIJQ
"''''' 0"" ~c::c:: U
t::............ t::.......... <(
>- u W " fY)
"'" "'" "'" ......
~ OJ '" OJ
C> '" C> ....
...; C\J 10 ....
'" " ....
:E
:;)
U)
~ '" L5
a: 6 <u a:
< ci u <(
c::
u Vl -'
0-, :z <(
...J ~ >-
ll:l UJ
;:) C> Q Cl
Q ...J Q >-
i:;
ill
~
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
0.
I
'"
~
~
~
'~
~ U"l
~ ~
:g
1\l
:g
~
'"
!~i ~
~~i!! ~
~~a u3
Q'c..~ ~
~ ~~~ rt
Q: t::;1:!1:t' ~
i ~~~ ~ m
2; m~~ ~ ~
~ Iii: j@mi
lri .. ~~'" Ii ~
~ ~ It~ Q ~
~~ ~ ~~a
!i i ill
@ : I
@
~
m
.
~
...
~
~;.li
I~-----
zrz .-1(113 /1If/ }tJ/-I-t!
rl(Y.)'HSIllMIIlOll@O:lNI lM'V3 - ~ XV:l-!ll2l)-UlI1>f:P 3NOHd
'W. l108i2 \llNlellllll '3111t\S3l101llVH:> -llVOll 0113OUNOrl "~8 ~
. 8gB ~ 30NIS 'o'INla"lIA aNIA"I3S
NOI.L'o'''IOc/''IOO "'o'NOISS3JO"lc/ '0'
StJ3NNV7d aNV7 aN'I1' stJOA3/\tJns 'StJ33NIDN3
"JNI 'SHlVIJOSSV 7jJ 31VD 'HsilavanoM
~-
hi
1:1
i
~
~ ~
w
Z
:J
..,
..,NlaY,^ 'A.LHnoo iI"'1WW3B"1Y
t]t]
~
::t-
.l33HS t:l3^OO
(3)1'9'3') ~->I NOI.103S
NVld NOl.lVOnddV 9~O-90 VVIIZ
1;)1>. ~~~ -
~j ~~~
7ml!1~Sl~~
:~:t~~~,"
~!!:ii! --
<ll'::l <li<ri<ri
c::ic::ic::i
!
i
i
!
i
!
NOISr.IiI08ns
1:f330:9NINNnli
I
I
!
.A
/
/
/~
/
/
L.._ '_"__._
/
/
/
/
.-l1D
r:R3NS J/N
rti -1NOl
fiL.-YO-di'ii
NOISIAIOBnS ' / .{;
Y33(J 9NINNn/I /.. /
// '
-'-'7i'< .~",
,(: / 'Ii.~~ ,
// /';'~."-"<$>'
1/ : ~.,~~
-/ /,'il
'-'-.- I' /".
t)~ ._;:./ ':".
1'\' ,\e :/ / ....
c" \ '" / : ',ik:
h',I' /''/ "
/' ./
-' ,/
".
;."
I
I I
Good evening. 1\/ly name is Mike 1\kCony and my wife and I have lived in Glenmon; for
over 10 years,
I am here to support the Developer's Plan to build a group of customized cottages/homes
in the Leake section of Glenmore.
\Ve like the Glemnore conununity, the amenities and the friends we have met there.
Hmvever, as ,ve get older, we are stm1ing to look for a home that ,vould better meet our
future needs; that is one ,vhich:
1. Is smaller.. ..1800 to 2800 square feet
2. Has a smaller yard ,vith a yard maintenance service
3, Has a fITst floor master
4, Is built with features designed for the "older generation" but
5, Can be customized to meet a patticular need.
Over the last several 'years, \ve have looked tluoughout the area for such a home. The
closest we came to our needs is Ednam \l illage off of 250,
When we leamed about the future development of Glemnore, ,ve approached the
Developer and expressed our needs, The Developer was receptive. A dialogue began
,vith the Developer via a group of 14 cunent Cilenmore residents who had similar future
needs. Our requirements, needs and features ,vere presented and discussed. The
Developer has made suggestions and has begun to formalize plans for our consideration,
input and suggestions.
So far ,ve like what ,ve hear and more meetings are planned.
Our feeling is that this cottage/home concept ,vill be unique in Albemarle, It specifically
addresses the older generation ,vho want to c!<nvnsize and be independent. Equally
imp011ant, these cottage/homes ,vill be built within Glenmore, a place we very much
enjoy and hope to stay.
\Ve also understand that this concept will have no effect on the number ofumts cunently
being proposed; that is, there will be no increase in density,
In summary, Glenmore is a great conununity and we 'v ant to continue to be a part of it.
Please give the Developer's ideas on this concept your full consideration.
Thank You
Date:
RECEIVED AT. BOS MEETING
1/- /</-CJ~
I.;)...
kp
(J
Agenda Item #:
Clerk's Initials:
RECEIVED ~! 80S MEETING
Date: 1/- /</ - (J "1
Agenda Item ,: /~
CIerk'a 1nJtiaJa: (f
/
From: Robert Simmons <r.a.simmons@embarqmail.com>
To: dennis2037@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Walking Path on Carroll Creek Road
Date: Monday. November 12. 20071 :18:59 PM
Dennis - thanks for the response. My position is that I would vote
against having the sidewalk and reiterate my concerns regarding the
slope of Carroll Creek Road and the problems it is causing us with
regard to runoff from any significant rainfall.
Thanks for hearing me,
Bob Simmons
On Nav 12, 2007, at 1 :02 PM, dennis2037@comcast.net wrote:
Bob, this refers to what you and I discussed before I left. The
message in your newspaper box is attached. The residents against doing
this are Debby Jones, the Cubbages, and the Howards. Terry Pemberton
is in favor. I have your comments on e mail. If you wish to change
your view, please let me know by tomorrow.
Dennis
> ----------- Original message ------------
> From: Robert Simmons <r.a.simmons@embarqmail.com>
>
> > Dennis - I was told by a neighbor that there was a notice in my paper
> > box regarding the proposal to widen Carroll Creek Rd to accommodate a
> > walking path. Can you please provide me with the specifics via e-mail
> > as I am in Florida at this time.
>>
> > Thanks,
> > Bob
http://mailcenter3.comcast.net/wmc/v/wm/4738C741 OOOOEF36000063B22216554886C9... 11112/2007
To Carroll Creek Road Residents:
During the Planning Commission hearings to consider the
application of Glenmore Associates to add the Leake property to
Glenmore, Paul Accad, a resident of Piper Way, asked for a
sidewalk to be installed on Carroll Creek Road from Piper Way to
the bridge at the end of your road. If the County accepts the
application for rezoning, the bridge will be rebuilt, and Carroll
Creek Road will be widened from the present 18 feet to 20 feet.
On the other side of the bridge, a road will continue to the top of
the ridge and will link up with the end of Farringdon Road in the
Q2 section. A sidewalk along the west side of this road link will
run from Q2 down to the bridge. Mr. Accad's proposal will
complete the sidewalk link.
The Glenmore Community Association is concerned that
Glenmore residents are not being given the decision as to
whether there will be a sidewalk, and more specifically, that the
residents of Carroll Creek Road have not been asked about this.
We expressed this concern at the first Planning Commission
hearing on this application. At this point, the application for
Leake has being rejected by the Planning Commission by a vote
of 5-2, because of inadequate proffers. It will be appealed before
the Board of Supervisors on November 14; the agenda will be
posted on www.albemarle.ora. The link is Board of Supervisors.
If you oppose Mr. Accad's proposal, I urge that you attend this
meeting and voice your concern. You may want to return this
paper to my newspaper box, with your name and address and
your concerns. If I don't hear from you I will assume that (1) you
have no objection, or (2) you are away and did not receive this -A-(Lf-oL-(,
notice. \! C-j '.. f( ~
r.w' ~L\L 0 \z. 6\= \/ .
't....,)~/0 \ .. '-~-t ~ <;.\> '" ~ (7 ~.- p.Ltl-,
, . ? C; 1 c- CcJ~:j... . _ 0 ,\}'s'i---
/ ~ ~ ~ ,J is ,_ ~ fL ~~L- \ - \_ 'I r C L)-
o~ \ - Ll\'J~(L-- o. J cf\~ 'x;
. <)_1 ~ I"~ t) \- \JL- ",,;
G~k ~ \ \' f\ 9A:r \,- l\ tLe ~ ik*' . '\)J ~
rJ \;J .r I). . r' \' \ .' l\ M-X'"\ L l( . ~
~ ~\8.J.;~ t^ \" \ . . \""' ( ~
L IJ,;[Z ~I(J"'~: s-~ I',A"~ J \c, ~t~\~ . \\\r^>~ L~ co,),1 ~CC\'V: \~v ('()J
\:"'0,'( r AJ t-I G ",\ '{ '. ~. ~ 7 ._,~
('" L,I\ f\.t.., d V' c,(U.lll- . . \)rXJV' .... V \ , .,\,...~ I' 01\(. r ,. . .
\ l/\"V ILLS '\ '" ,\.1 dt'xY' \ \\\\\IJ '._ .\ \) \ \.-\:- ..
c.~~ ~xXAL- I" . Cr,," '"7,0. .",,\ p\('
0.71/." \ (;, . '\ \\ t.,; ,.. ,\i b '~ \ ~ \ ~V.. <) _
o \J \J.J ~, \ {) J \ t <\ ,,~".:.----"'
\ \ (q (tJ 7
Thank you,
Dennis Odinov 2060 Piper Way
11/09/20 7 10:25 FAX
To Carroll Creek Road Residents:
.001
During the Planning Commission hearings to consider th
application of Glenmore Associates to add the Leake pro e to
Glenmore, Paul Accad, a resident of Piper Way, asked fo a
sidewalk to be installed on Carroll Creek Road from Pipe W y to
the bridge at the end of your road. If the County accepts he
application for rezoning, the bridge will be rebuilt, and C rr II
Creek Road will be widened from the present 18 feet to 2 fe t.
On the other side of the bridge, a road'will continue to th t P of
the ridge and will link up with the end of Farringdon Roa in the
Q2 section. A sidewalk along the west side of this road I nk ill
run from Q2 down to the bridge. Mr. Accad's proposal w II
complete the sidewalk link.
The Glenmore Community Association is concerned that
Glenmore residents are not being given the decision as t
whether there will be a sidewalk, and more specifically, t at he
residents of Carroll Creek Road have not been asked ab ut his.
We expressed this concern at the first Planning Commis io
hearing on this application. At this point, the application for
Leake has being rejected by the Planning Commission b a ote
of 5-2, because of inadequate proffers. It will be appeale b fore
the Board of Supervisors on November 14; the agenda w II b
posted on www.albemarle.ora. The link is Board of Supe is rs.
If you oppose Mr. Accad's proposal, I urge that you atten t is
meeting and voice your concern. You may want to retur thi
paper to my newspaper box, with your name and addres an
your concerns. If I don't hear from you I will assume that (1) you
have no objection, or (2) you are away and did not receiv th s
notice.
Thank you, ~ennls :
Dennis Odinov
2060 Piper Way
/. /' .I?",~ ~ /JO,
33/3 c~ L'~
G'lcl",Ja..- and I a"
a'l t1 (1J7 r / t-11I/11! a 5 IJc
F/2o t7 7 ! tJ U/l /; (j 111 e ~
1tLi2 ((' Yl 6 LV' C-A..J h d -L c" cJ> H'
M/ f2::'e' / 1 ~f- h J 5 .
/J~~,n1 c?( &WCl-<
.~ ~ d tc t1/l..-cl-"~'o w'
l-jolaly
d..L/<:::.. / H
) ~ tL<2-e 0- "f
d c, -t(c,
'/ tl ;../.1 ~
I
I
I
November11~, 2007
Mr. Dennis Odinov
2060 - Piper Way
Keswick, VA 22947
FROM: Jan and Mike Cubbage
3349 Carroll Creek Road
Keswick, VA 22947
Dear Dennis:
We are vehemently opposed to Mr. Accad's proposal.
Your letter to us was the first that we had even heard of such a plan.
Even consideration of such a proposal boggles the mind as it is clear that pE ople
have not taken the following things into account.
1) A sidewalk on the west side of Carroll Creek Road (our house side) VI ould run
through the front yards of not only our home but 5 other residences. Cor sider
that with a 2 foot grass strip and a three foot sidewalk, this would cI arl~
cause problems for those of us on Carroll Creek Road.
2) Not only would there be considerable drainage problems but irrigation he~ds
and boxes would have to be moved, drainage culverts would have to be
changed and shrubbery removed plus some re-Iandscaping would be
required.
3) Electrical boxes and cable boxes would have to be moved and believ the t the
cable lines in all yards would have to be moved.
4) This could add up to considerable expense to each homeowner and f)r w~at?
5) We have lived on Carroll Creek Road since 1996. Each home owner c n Cc rroll
Creek Road has taken great pride in the appearance of their lawns n tor Iy
for curb appeal for our neighbors and our community but for our OWl
personal enjoyment. Everyone on this street has worked hard to esti blis n,
maintain and improve our yards and landscape.
6) A sidewalk on the east side of Carroll Creek Road is a bad idea, too. f\lth( ugh
there is only one residence on that side of the street, the sidewalk w)uld run
adjacent to the golf course. Errant balls could cause serious damage to
inattentive walkers and further more, the activity on a sidewalk next to a golf
course is distracting to golfers.
7) Quite simply, we do not understand the benefit of an additional one- ~uar er
mile of sidewalk when it is weighed against the cost to GCA to install and
maintain it, plus the cost to the individual homeowner.There are certainl)
plenty of miles of existing walk and horse paths.
As homeowners on Carroll Creek Road, we see absolutely no reason tha thi~
would even be considered. The costs to all clearly outweigh any benefits
Please note our opposition to Mr. Accad's proposal.
Due to a prior engagement, we are unable to attend this most importan
meeting.
Thanks for keeping us informed,
Sincerely,
r;}vJ rydJ ~
I I
1998 Piper Way
Keswick, Virginia 22947
November 10, 2007
Mr. [ ~nnis Odinov
206C Piper Way
Kes\l ck, Virginia 22947
Dear bennis:
I am fv'riting to voice a vehement "no" to Mr. Accad's proposal to install a sidewalk on Carroll
Cree Road. I am unable to attend the meeting on November 14 due to a previous
coml itment, but wanted to be on record as opposing such proposal.
A sid walk on the west side of Carroll Creek Road would run through the front yards of six
resid nces. The two-foot widening of Carroll Creek Road, coupled with a two-foot grass strip
and three-foot wide sidewalk would clearly alter the privacy and appearance of these
hom s. A portion of the front yards of our residences would have the feel of common area,
whic is not what we purchased as lot owners. All of these residences have been located on
Carr II Creek Road for at least ten years, and many for more than that. We all have taken
grea pride in the appearance of our yards for our own enjoyment, as well as for the
enjo ment by our neighbors and our community. We all have worked hard to establish,
main ~in and improve our yards and landscape.
Plac ment of a sidewalk through our front yards would cause considerable expense to the
ownE s of these residences. Irrigation heads and boxes would have to be moved, drainage
CUIVE rts would need to be modified, shrubbery would have to be removed, and re-Iandscaping
migh be required.
A sid walk on the east side of Carroll Creek Road is also a bad idea, Although there is only
one esidence on that side of the street, the sidewalk would run adjacent to the golf course.
Erra golf balls could cause serious damage to inattentive walkers. Further, the activity on a
side\ alk next to a golf course is very distracting to golfers.
In ad ~ition, I simply do not understand the benefit of an additional one-quarter mile of
side\ alk when weighed against the cost to the GCA to install and maintain it. There are
plen of miles to walk on existing walk and horse paths.
For r e, as a lot owner, the costs clearly outweigh the benefits. Please note my opposition to
Mr. P I,;cad's proposal.
Sincerely,
'M0knL J1;Y\L}
Debra S. Jones
I
BRUCE P. KELSO
3316 Carroll Creek Road
Keswick, Virginia 22947
November 12,2007
Mr. Dennis Odinov
2060 Piper Way
Keswick, Virginia 22947
Dear Dennis,
As relatively new residents in the Glenmore community, we really appreciate your communication
and the opportunity to provide our thoughts on Mr. Accad's proposal.
I want to go on record taking the position that I am not in favor of a sidewalk being installed on
Carroll Creek and I'm not sure that a proposal from one individual should be sufficient to trigger
this kind expenditure. If I interrupt Mr. Accad's proposal correctly, I assume the sidewalk would
continue on the west side of Carroll Creek so the impact to me would not be as significant as it
would be to my neighbors. Since I'm the only homeowner on the east side, I could be at an
extreme disadvantage based on the resident count, however, I would suggest that the community
could be opening themselves up to a safety hazard based on the proximity to the tee box.
As I have traveled through out the Glenmore community, I have not seen sidewalks on any of the
roads other than the Piper Way loop and based on that, I'm not sure why a sidewalk on Carroll
Creek is necessary.
At this time, it's difficult to determine the traffic volume that will be created by the link to the Q2
section, and I may suggest there are other streets that carry significant traffic that might be a
higher priority for sidewalk consideration. Mr. Accad's proposal may be premature and possibly
should be reevaluated once the future development is complete.
Finally, I'm not sure the community wants to facilitate younger children, without adult supervision
traveling back to the holding ponds at the end of Carroll Creek.
If you have any questions or want to discuss further, please call me at 212-391-3698. Thank you
again for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bruce Kelso
II
I
4
RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING
Date: /1- /1-tJ7
Agenda Item ,: / .:l.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, Clerk'slnltlaJs: ~f
My name is Tracy Walker and I live in the R~ning
Deer subdivision with my husband Steve and our two children
Tyler and Mackenzie. I come here tonight with my family and
neighbors to talk about the health, safety, and general
welfare concerns that a back gate from Glenmore into our
neighborhood would cause.
My husband grew up in Running Deer and we chose to
raise our family in the same neighborhood because it is a
safe and rural area. However, putting in a back gate for
Glenmore would change a lot about why we choose to live in
this subdivision.
One of the changes that would occur is our roads and
neighborhood would become more dangerous. Statistics show
that an increase in traffic means an increase in property
damage, an increase in accidents, and (most importantly) a
real decrease for the safety of our children. Not only
would the increase in traffic make the roads more
dangerous, it would cause an increase in congestion. The
most obvious area affected would be children getting on and
off of the school bus. Our roads wind around with limiting
sight distances at bus stops and driveways. More traffic
means loading and unloading will be of an even greater
concern, with~l~to 200 more vehicles on the road. In
addition, the travel time of our children will be
increased. How long should increased traffic keep our kids
on the bus? How late and how early should they be getting
on and off of the bus? Another safety concern is the
inability to add sidewalks along a lengthy portion of our
roads due to the fact that easements are not wide enough to
allow for this. Yards for our children to play in would be
affected to make road improvements by decreasing the size
and eliminating natural buffers. Furthermore, the
additional roads themselves would create more problems than
they would solve.
The increase road traffic would place a major strain
on our natural resources. When we had the drought a few
years ago, about 1/4 of our neighbors had to drill new
wells. By i.ncreasing traffi.c, and therefore bringing our
substandard roads up to the standards needed for this, we
I
~
would have more severe problems with our already stressed
groundwater supply. More paved surfaces equals less
water absorption and a higher risk of contaminated drinking
water. Also, because most of us in Running Deer live
outside the growth area, we don't have the option of
connecting to public water and sewer, should we have the
need to do this. We only have one option for water and
that is a well, not public water.
Finally, at the request of Glenmore residents VDOT has
done a study showing their roads are adequate for traffic
now and for their proposed expansions. We do not want our
quality of life changed when there are other options to
help the people in Glenmore. Our health and safety issues
are real concerns. While we want to be good neighbors and
understand the necessity of a back gate for emergencies, we
do not feel something as significant as this gate should
benefit one group of individuals and ruin the way of life
for another.
I would now ask that all of those from Running
Deer and those who do not support a back gate through our
neighborhood please stand. Thank you.
"
ZMA 07-05 Avon Park II
BOS Public Hearing 11-14-07
wners: Weatherhill
evelopment represented by
rank Pohl/lan Bosserman
creage: 5 acres
Applicant: Terra Concepts
represented by Mark Keller
Rezone from: R-1
roposal: Rezone to R-6
ith a proffered application
Ian to provide 31 single
amily and townhouse
welling units
Compo Plan Designation:
Neighborhood Density in
Neighborhood 4 of the
Development Area
Location Map
ZMA 07-05 Avon Park II
Zoning and Neighborhood Context
"-
1
ZMA 07-05 Avon Park II
Existing Conditions
-~..
i
t I ..'.
:~ ~~--~ /<~~ .
('.;'ll
. -"!..i_f.>?"
h~""" '~~:_-.:::::
;;//
2
3
ZMA 07-05 Avon Park II
Planning Commission Recommendation
Approval with the expectation that:
The grading on lot 28, as shown on the application
plan, will not exceed 3:1 slopes or less and if retaining
walls are needed, they will be low in height and
terraced.
Alternate street section will be shown on the plan that
meets the ordinance requirements.
Additional Affordable Housing proffer language will be
provided.
Additional proffer language to further address storm
water management impacts will be provided, using a
standard of 80 percent removal as opposed to the 60
percent standard
ZMA 07.05 Avon Park II
Application Plan-10-19-07
4
I
. . .
ZMA 07-05 Avon Park II ZMA 07-05 Avon Park II
Proffers 11-2-07 Recommendation
Cash ImDacts-
- Full amount/market rate units proposed ($17,500
single family detached, $11,900 Single Family
Attached, and $12,400 Multifamily) Staff finds that the expectations of the
- Total $343,000
Affordable Housina- Planning Commission have been addressed
- 4.5 is 15% of total units and recommends approval of ZMA 07-05 with
- 4 affordable units the proffers dated November 2, 2007 and
- Cash-in-lieu of unit provided for 0.5 unit in amount application plan last revised October 19, 2007.
of $9,550
- County Option for Cash In Lieu of Affordable Units
Stormwater Manaaement-
- Increase removal rate
5
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
F ank Pohl
eather Hill Development
7 3 East Jefferson Street
C arlottesviIle V A 22902
Fax 434 972-4012
ZMA-2007-00005, Avon Park II (Signs #64, 72) - UPDATED LETTER CHANGE IN RECOMENDATlON
Tax Map 90, Parcel 31
.
Te Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 16, 2007, by a vote of5:1
r commended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
P ease note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
A tion on ZMA-2007-00005 Avon Park II:
I. The grading on lot 28 will not exceed 3: I slopes or less and that if retaining walls are needed, they will
be low in height and terraced,
2. To accept staffs recommendation to reject the planting strip waiver. The applicant presented an
alternate street section that met the ordinance requirements, which the Commission recommended be
reflected on the revised plan.
3, The Commission suggested the applicant consider adding additional proffer language to the
Affordable Housing proffers, to address the situation if there is not a person to occupy the affordable
housing that the appropriate amount would be paid to the County for affordable housing.
4, The Commission suggested the applicant consider adding additional proffer language to further
address storm water management impacts of the rezoning, using a standard of 80 opposed to the 60
percent standard,
A tion on Public Street Waiver Re uest for ZMA-2007-00005 Avon Park II:
A prove the waiver to allow a private street instead of a public street.
PI ase be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
p blic comment at their meeting on November 14, 2007,
. If ,ou should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
c ntact me at (434) 296-5832.
cc: Fox, Diane Marie or Randy Eugene
File
.
.
.
I I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A( ENDA TITLE:
Z~ ~ 2007-05 Avon Park II
Sl BJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST:
R- to R-6 with a proffered application plan to allow up to
31 ~ingle family and townhouse dwelling units
STAFF:
REBECCA RAGSDALE
AGENDA DATE:
November 14, 2007
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
Sl ~FF CONT ACTlS):
Cil tnberg, Ragsdale
LE J:iAL REVIEW: YES
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
I WNERlAPPICANT:
\ eatherhill Development represented by Frank Pohl/lan Bosserman; Terra Concepts represented
I Mark Keller
I~CKGROUND:
I public hearing was held on this rezoning at the Planning Commission on October 16, 2007 and the
( pmmission recommended approval of the rezoning to the Board of Supervisors. This motion for
c ~proval was conditioned upon the following being addressed:
o The grading on lot 28, as shown on the application plan, will not exceed 3: 1 slopes or
less and if retaining walls are needed, they will be low in height and terraced.
o The applicant presented an alternate street section that met the ordinance requirements
and did not require a waiver of the planting strip requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance, which the Commission recommended be reflected on the revised plan.
o Additional Affordable Housing proffer language, to address the situation if there is not a
person to occupy the affordable housing that the appropriate amount would be paid to the
County for affordable housing.
o Additional proffer language to further address storm water management impacts of the
rezoning, using a standard of 80 percent removal as opposed to the 60 percent standard.
[ SCUSSION:
., e applicant submitted revised proffers and application plan following the Planning Commission
r ~eting on October 19,2007, which satisfactorily address all conditions included in the
( pmmissions recommendation of approval for the rezoning. (Attachments A-Proffers, B-Application
F IF! n )
Ftl COMMENDATIONS:
~ f1ff recommends approval of ZMA 2007-005 with the attached proffers and application plan.
~ T ACHMENTS:
A. Proffer Statement, dated November 2, 2007
B. Application Plan, titled "Zoning Map Amendment for Avon Park II", prepared by Terra
Concepts, P.C., and last revised October 19, 2007
ZMA 2007-005 Avon F ark II
BOS November 14. 2CJ7
':2.p<c:) \
\"",J-)'-".
Original Proffer l
PROFFER FORM
Date of Proffer Signature: November 2.,2007
ZMA # 2007-00005 Avon Park II
Tax Map 90 Parcel Number 31
5.17 Acres to be rezoned from R -1 to R -6
in accordance with the Application Plan of Terra Concepts, P.C.
dated April 30, 2007, last revised October 19,2007)
Weather Hill Development, L.L.c., a Virginia limited liability company, is the owner (the "Owner") of Tax Map
90, Parcel 31 (the "Property") which is the subject of rezoning application ZMA 2007-00005 known as "Avon Park
II" (the "Project").
Pursuant to Section 33.3 ofthe Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby voluntarily proffers the
conditions listed below which shall be applied to the Property, if rezoned with the offered plans approved for
development. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that the conditions
are reasonable.
1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Owner shall provide affordable housing equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the total residential dwelling
units within the Project in the form of for lease or for sale affordable dwelling units (the "Affordable
Dwelling Units" or "Affordable Units"). Each subdivision plat and site plan for land within the Property
shall designate the lots or units, as applicable, that will, subject to the terms and conditions of this proffer,
incorporate Affordable Units as described herein, and the aggregate number of such lots or units designated
for Affordable Units within each subdivision plat and site plan shall constitute a minimum of fifteen
percent (15%) ofthe lots in such subdivision plat or site plan. ,
In the event that the number of Affordable Dwelling Units to achieve 15% results in a fractional unit, the
Owner shall contribute cash to the County in a proportionate amount based on the amount of$19,100. For
example, if 15% equates to 4.5 Affordable Units, the Owner shall provide 4 Affordable Units pursuant to
the terms described herein, and shall contribute cash to the County in the amount of $9,550 be paid prior to
issuance of a building permit for the first Affordable Dwelling Unit.
A. The Affordable Dwelling Units shall be comprised of one or more of the following unit types:
single-family attached housing (townhouses), condominiums or apartments/flats. The Owner or his
successor in interest reserves the right to achieve the 15% Affordable Dwelling Units in a variety of ways,
utilizing the above mentioned unit types alone or in combination as outlined below. The Owner shall
convey the responsibility of constructing the affordable units to any subsequent purchaser of the Property.
The current Owner or subsequent Owner shall create units affordable to households with incomes less than
80% of the area median family income (the "Affordable Unit Qualifying Income"), such that housing costs
consisting of principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowner's insurance (PITI) do not exceed 30% of
Proffer Form
A von Park II
Page J of5
Attachment A "&>5 2...
.
.
.
the Affordable Unit Qualifying Income; provided, however, that in no event shall the selling price of such
Affordable Units be more than sixty-five percent (65%) of the applicable Virginia Housing Development
Authority (VHDA) sales price/loan limits for VHDA's first-time homebuyer programs that the
selling price shall not be required to be less than One Hundred Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Dollars
($190,400) at the beginning of the 90-day identification and qualification period referenced below. The
Owner or his successor in interest may at its option facilitate the provision of down payment assistance
loans to reduce the out-of-pocket cash requirement costs to the homebuyer, such as, but not limited to a
"silent" second lien Deed of Trust, so that the resultant first mortgage and housing costs remain at or below
the parameters described herein. All financial programs or instruments described herein must be acceptable
to the primary mortgage lender. Any "silent" second lien Deed of Trust executed as part of this paragraph
shall be donated to the County of Albemarle or its designee to be used to address affordable housing, For
purposes of calculating the price of the Affordable Dwelling Units, the value of Seller-paid closing costs
shall be excluded from the selling price of such Affordable Dwelling Units.
i. For-Sale Affordable Units - All purchasers of for-sale Affordable Units shall be
approved by the Albemarle County Office of Housing or its designee. The Owner shall provide the County
or its designee a period of ninety (90) days to identify and pre-qualify an eligible purchaser for the
Affordable Units. The 90-day period shall commence upon written notice from the Owner that the units
will be available for sale. This notice shall not be given more than 120 days prior to the anticipated receipt
of the certificate of occupancy. Ifthe County or its designee does not provide a qualified purchaser during
this ninety (90) day period, the Owner shall have the right to sell the Unites) without any restriction on sales
price or income of purchaser(s); provided, however, that any Units(s) sold or leased without such restriction
shall nevertheless be counted toward the number of Affordable Units required to be provided pursuant to
the terms of this proffer. If these Units are sold, this proffer shall apply only to the first sale of each unit.
Nothing herein shall preclude the then-current Owner/builder from working with the County Housing
Department prior to the start of the notification periods described herein in an effort to identify qualifying
purchasers for Affordable Units.
II. For-Rent Affordable Units
1. Rental Rates For-Lease Affordable Units The initial net rent for each for-rent
Affordable Unit when the Unites) is available for occupancy shall not exceed the then-current and
applicable maximum net rent as published by the County Housing Office. In each subsequent calendar
year, the monthly net rent for each for-rent affordable unit may be increased up to three percent (3%). For
purposes of this proffer statement, the term "net rent" means that the rent does not include tenant-paid
utilities. The requirement that the rents for such for-rent Affordable Units may not exceed the maximum
ents established in this paragraph lA(ii)(l) shall apply for a period often (10) years following the date the
ertificate of occupancy is issued by the County for each for-rent Affordable Unit, or until the units are sold
s affordable units as defined by the County's Affordable Housing Policy, whichever comes first (the
'Affordable Term").
2. Conveyance ofInterest - All instruments conveying any interest in the for-rent
ffordable units during the Affordable Term shall contain language reciting that such unit is subject to the
erms of this paragraph IA. In addition, all contracts pertaining to a conveyance of any for-rent affordable
nit, or any part thereof, during the Affordable Term shall contain a complete and full disclosure of the
estrictions and controls established by this paragraph lA(ii), At least thirty (30) days prior to the
onveyance of any interest in any for-rent affordable unit during the Affordable Term, the then-current
Proffer Form
Avon Park II
Page 2 of5
Df ......
[jL/S 5
owner shall notify the County in writing of the conveyance and provide the name, address and telephone
number of the potential grantee, and state that the requirements of this paragraph IA(ii) have been satisfied.
3. Reporting of Rental Rates - During the Affordable Term, within thirty (30) days of
each rental or lease term for each for-rent affordable unit, the then-current owner shall provide to the
Albemarle County Housing Office a copy of the rental or lease agreement for each such unit rented that
shows the rental rate for such unit and the term of the rental or lease agreement. In addition, during the
Affordable Term, the then-current owner shall provide to the County, if requested, any reports, copies of
rental or lease agreements, or other data pertaining to rental rates as the County may reasonably require.
B. County Option for Cash In Lieu of Affordable Units. If at any time prior to the County's approval
of any preliminary site plan or subdivision plat for the subject property which includes one or more for-sale
Affordable Dwelling Units, the County's Housing Office informs the then-current owner/builder in writing
that it may not have a qualified purchaser for one or more of the for-sale Affordable Dwelling Units at the
time that the then-current owner/builder expects the units to be completed, and that the County will instead
accept a cash contribution to the County to support affordable housing programs in the amount of Nineteen
Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($19,100) in lieu of each Affordable Unites), then the then-current
owner/builder shall pay such cash contribution to the County prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy
for the Unites) that were originally planned to be Affordable Dwelling Units, and the then-current
owner/builder shall have the right to sell the Unites) without any restriction on sales price or income of the
purchaser(s). For the purposes of this proffer, such Affordable Dwelling Units shall be deemed to have
been provided when the subsequent owner/builder provides written notice to the Albemarle County Office
of Housing or its designee that the Affordable Units(s) will be available for sale.
2. CASH PROFFER
A. The Owner shall contribute cash to the County in the following amounts for each dwelling unit
constructed within the Property that is not an Affordable Dwelling Unit. The cash contribution shall be
used to address the fiscal impacts of development on the County's public facilities and infrastructure (i.e.,
schools, public safety, libraries, parks and transportation) identified in the County's Capital Improvements
Program. The cash contributions shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for the category of
units described in this paragraph 2 in the following amounts:
1. Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($11,900) for each attached town
home/condominium unit that is not an Affordable Dwelling Unit
11. Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($17,500) for each single family detached
dwelling unit.
Ill. Zero Dollars ($0.00) for each Affordable Dwelling Unit
B. Annual Adjustment of Cash Proffers. Beginning January 1, 2008, the amount of each cash
contribution required herein shall be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect any increase or decrease for the
preceding calendar year in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index (the "MSI"). In no event shall any
cash contribution be adjusted to a sum less than the amount initially established by these proffers. The
annual adjustment shall be made by multiplying the proffered cash contribution amount for the preceding
year by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the MSI as of December 1 in the year preceding the
Proffer Form
Avon Park II
Page 3 of5
BD: )L~
.
calendar year most recently ended, and the denominator of which shall be the MSI as of December 1 in the
preceding calendar year. For each cash contribution that is being paid in increments, the unpaid incremental
payments shall be correspondingly adjusted each year.
3. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
A. The Owner shall, to the maximum extent practicable as determined by the County's Program
Authority, provide additional erosion and sediment controls to achieve a sediment removal rate of eighty
percent (80%) for the Property. (As a reference, current regulatory structural measures achieve a 60%
optimal removal rate).
[Sign lure Page Follows)
.
.
Proffer Form
Avon Park II
Page 4 of5
r2r..," .
.tJ-j I..J
1518091v3
Proffer Form
Avon Park II
Page 50f5
Weather Hill Development, L.L.c.
By:
~\
Marc C. Powell, Manager
')?-, ,
. ....-c'
t O,:~)t
~'-! u ;oJ" 1'\01.." .iU l'\o1..Ulilil .lUJV\L!:1U
~:. ~t:: g~ aNY SNOI.LIGNOJ DNI.LSIX3: ~.~,
"':2 ~~~
~~ ~u ~;;~
"'~ ... ef'" VlNl:lllL\ '.HMOJ 3'IlIVW3H'IV
~~ ''''=l~ \ ~"
8~! ~ ..... <:
~~ II )lHV d NOA V !' '"
!>u i!i~~ ~~o ~ ;I
0'"
~8 @ ~~ ~Od NV'Id ~N3waN3WV dVW DNINOZ ~o ~
...I ag; """ft,...
ill
~
'"
Jk =~ W
<:z ~
?u~~
~~~
~::Lrl
~~ct
"'itw
ill ~a~
~
~
"
"
/
"
"
<../
/
/
,..
~
0: ~
offill) "0_
~f~~~~jl
O~OOLUIN~~~
"'6....Z:!li!!'iljO:
a.. ~D:: Z 0 z..
~.'!llJ~~N d
li1> it
<i
E
o
o
CJ)
"'to: 5
lOlgoo
D.~<lli
~6~'-;
::iiitO~
F~""::I
0:
~
a.
"
....
z~
ilI~
~a.
ill:;
w....
i3"
,,~
l.
.--. '~"'--"""'''-'''Y'''''''' "Y"'"V-.~, v_",~_,.."",-v.......-.., ....
,lD'QltM.J.tJO.>SS
1
I ,
I
,',
. 1
,
~I
..I
t: ~
jll'" gj ~
...",21-.11'-1 ;>, CJ):!l "5liij
....:::-~ll :!l;JO:"'" j5",
...... ..-1"'1 lol ~8a:~~j
...,....J D. cO:p".s::;'Z
OJ I 8 >- ~ ~ j .!l>o:
_.- '11lJl'1 D. 6$""p~~"
~tt--.! ~!~wai ..ill
,: I~r;z: f'!ci j::l
.." 1'-1 ~ ":
1 ::! c.
r.: ~
; .1
I I
...1
I I
I '"
\ \
-II
\ \
--.\-...\
I \
I \
-.\. --1
.-/ \
. I
............~'--_J
'"
-~..8
r " = -~~! . -- .~: '.=- =~,
It.. .._~ -- .. - --~ili-
I - - -~ --- -- -- ~
tGL9~__
....\=. .--.:::--=' ~
:7~ -] .....= .... ~' ::: i -
- - ..L -..- -L
/~~=_-=.~...~8-l-=_":__----~~--- =-=,
r-- - P .~~ --~:.._-
~~ _ ~.l~a:~Ul
+;::15 ~O:~ ~o:....
I' uc o.oo~az'.""
I lllffi ~.l.u.i~ ill"'
-~ <: i5 c:i ~:>-- -----..____....
-- "~ "l
~
\
,
",
"
\
\
".
"
~~
~~
g
\
\
/
,I
'....
,/
/"
/
/
/
I
//
/
/
~
Q;
~ ~
~J:: l~
/
/
#'
/
/
--
/
..----
,/
---
~,
~w OJ::'" 'u;_
lilj8t;;C;;LD~ c~~
a.. o::>>a:a.:cL~.! Q)
-J0:"':ri",..D.'8:2
Sl"'lii:;l?:lIO~~~<i.E~
a.. o UJz"'" N.... 0
::!itO:.....N .8;;
I-OO.Jccmm ..ell>
<: II. ci ci ci .~::I
..,. -r ~ a
~ ~ ~ ir:"'~~~~
i~ '"'
)l 0
.. oo~~~)l
>- en uuuus:8
= z 8000<U
.. ;Z; 0 u u u a..
W ~ ~ 00 ~-~~-~ ~
6~~~:;;;r;;;:i: sl
cn~O~"';N"';~ ..;
~H';I i" "j
f...J
IHlif~ !f ~ 00 ~
....
if!iJif i. I i =
, ~
! h i :i e
Wif~~ r ~ .Cl
H!! ~! it . 4i ~
~
pUll a ~ t:
:I:
en <
w
a.
~ 0 0::: lJ.. 0
&~ mw::ElD ~~
flS ~5~~ 0:0:
~~ ~~~~ ~,,~
CI) li) t= w II/:i 9 z ~ UJ
wi ;frl~ w~ ~~~~o: ~o
l;::i~~~~ ~B~:r~:t~~ ~~
gffi~~w~~~~()~~g8~~ ~~
~2ffiowirllJ..C1.-a:::rCo?u)OOlJ...I ~~
tu~ffi~~~~~g~~gg8~g ~~
U)LL1uUOu)X~O:;l>lD>>>XO .....0::
I ~+Q.a. "'d~~ue: a..o
~~:J:-J ~o88:J:o ~~
t't;:
I
r
~
~
~Ii
p c:
cC ..
...8~
i.s::;..
l5f~
Nd
III
a:
!
!l!
~
>-
~
"
>'-
J:
~
Ii!
>-
~
Z
:J
"
CD
z
o
~
~ ~
~o~
g~~c
Li~Z~
@~~~
~~~~
~~gg
~~~~
0:
o
-'"
0: 0.
o ~
~ n
~ o:-f a~
lE ,,--~
Q. ~~ g~
~ ~ 0: ~ ~i ~~
fm ~~ f ~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~a:: ~ ~m~w ~ ~U~
~w~~lll~ ~ ~,,~~ ~ffi~~~
~> ~~CI) w~z5~-W5~w 22~5~
~~ ~~~~a~~~~~~~~~ita ~~~~~
ffiffi~X ~zos~c~~~~~ffi~~~m~ffi~
~ i~~~~!~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~
~ I i~~ S 18 li ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ II ~1; ~ i811 ~
~ r~ i j" I~'r rr
l;;
~
~ ~
I I
M ~
~ ~
~ m
(;
ti ~
! ! !
~ ~ I
~ ~
. ~
Ij~ ~ ~ il~
! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <: ~ ~
~ ~~~ i~~~~ i!!f.
E-t ~~~<:<:l!1~i~~<:
~ ~8~Q~~.t~ij1fi~~
E-t ~ i
~IIIIiUil,11
g
;
['""'i'Tf-'iT' _.!",:--i~rr"': ~
'''!~! i~f !~~: i~i :i ~
~,...jLL ll.",:,i.'bli)! ~
;~'liii i~: '~ '...: .,'" i~' ~
I jj1j-H; -i~:jfilt' ~
!iIl:lIf:i, '. :~!I, f' ~
: ! : i i'~~i: It,.: i ~
; i ':: !; i,~' i;i:1' ~ i.. ~
I I I ! 1 5 F ~
: ! j: I i I ,~' g 8 ~
; .:,LLiI,. 'l'~ t! ~
i~'I!,'"ii!:,ti:i;,i:i:I:,,' i ~ ~ i
;!';'L~.L'~ .l!:~!, ;~Ufi ~ ~lq!;!l;l i ;;; ~ 'i1
I
m
~
~ ! ~ ~
~ ffi ~ i!j
s.. ~ lis fil
~ i~~~ ~ i ~ I
~5
co
~i3
8~
. ~
o ~
z
~~
u_
~II
>~
-~----- ------ ------------~~----- ----~-- --------------------------- -------
~l.? t.; NN l"l \' .iO l"lUl~ V Jl J.oa V I I " g~ '"6 ~U" i( .. >:;..
rfl'.' li~~ 1,I'i ~J 0
~~- r ..,"0'; ~ + ~Ut~~ llli Iii ~ I
l ;:l~~ ~"'~ N
~fu G~ Sf .'" ::0 o~
::0 '" "
"';j"' VINI~~JA '.\~NI10J lI'~VI'IllH'V .. .. 8800g ~h! I ~I ~ (
z~ ~. ~ ;.. 00 "" 8
~~ ~~ 8!~ II )lRVd NOAV !Xl z 0000:;''' liii,H f ~ \I;
gu .. 0 ~ 8 """"C'o.
tl~ ~ ~ ~ 00"" ~ J i ~ .. il . f-<
~8 :;;j!:l~>~~~~ ~ Soli 'a :I ~ Jj
~ flUB U ~
as: ~O.>I NV'Id ~N3waN3WV dVW DNINOZ WOO ~"'''.... $\ :I:
... ooooCl ...' .
1-1 _MM....., 00
- ii
J/(
_-ii
-I~
I~:
m~ ~
~~gj~
&<",
:i5~":
ll.;t0>-
20-,,,,
F." =>
0::
J,
, 1 "= ". '.~ .C' .:,=- 't.o:.'-' ,I
.~=.r~:J.-~c;p'-i.'-~ .'
-0 .~__Q).~.-- f .i:..
....,..."Ilt cB--
~ :~~ ~"~ li
~ l~€ ~
~.!38~~
ci f=>
..
----.
----
_.~.w
fa"g
ll.~
8...liio
a..Qw~
~~~~
~..J
>0
Q~
::l!u
~
.
o
.~
~
o
'B!
';'~li
0::.8"
.. 'j
!t~
N~~
j=>
ll.
!
Ii
rJJ
~ ~
~~O
~oo::
>-'"
~~~
~ ..-
~
::l!
~
ii
~
8!
--Ej
~~'i
j.!l'o::
~l"
d
~
!
~~//
-,/Ur /~.
/-C.~~\') ..t"'~~ _~ \
ffi ,~~~ /=~dg,-""", -. ,"~
~ 'i~~'" --.$ ,If ". ..
~. ~fE,~, ~~~~o , ' .:-,'~,~, ~~~, "~~,~~.,,
/~~ ~r ,/ ,.:,/.....~.2 I'~,
~/~ .~~~ . ..;,: F:;:-0. ~:'N, - '"
""<- .^,,~ - ~'(iIiJ ~ 'C/ -,- .
)__/?' , \/' J ?-.... /~;;. Ar4" """,.\... '-' ,
; 4~~~~~ · .' ,~1
/ ; ~: : ......:::~~,JiL ... '; .. .. 1/
/'/~~>~;~";~ir~ ,. \' ~ ,-" .-' 01~u>f~ dl .,,,:.,.,~ /(
;1",2.';;~",:/2lJf7 \\ I \ I"",. (m- _ - ~~ fi~~ I, ~."..~: ",'>( '-
J' , /<:::~{/'... , f j!:1 . ~ ;::...." j! ..~;::.. ~ .'
.:f:;};"l"1f. '. \ I; L,-~ ~ ~;UA jilt /' .-/,
~~~...__ ' J If. v ~ //1/ I 0 .
~,,<-. ~__ .,1,..,..:.-.,....' \ ,t"~(.. /6",.~ - </,;q&~ />,' .. ..
~~ I~ . - - , f ~~ 1'.\ '-= / . ~~ /<- ./ ~~ -;, - /,-
v,' ~ . I .... . ~J~~ 'I. ,~'l.l.<?<.:/. (.' ~j / .' .1
~, J~,.._,_ ~J~ iU \>.~~.~~... /~ 1\> o/~~- ~ 1~
/ / J '''1'--- --", ~: ll. o..-z olO:: -.... _", /,~O~:J_~
Jv.jl ~ ~ffi~ N ~~, >. ~'"n-:-," / -./,.ic, 0.., -Q- ~
~~~.= ........ <~5 ij :Ui: /~~g0~..._':: .
:::/ -l-. ~ .!I...- ~~.' ,:: ~l" -' " - - ."," "'-:....,.,. .
v-- dl... _.. _, ill" II " "".~), fIliif I I--!"~ "
yP .JI<<'ll..Jt'.- - -- ~~ -- "",. ,.. ,ill, W~ C 0- ~ - --lH -
~ ,."~. '=, .'..- --~, _ ,iI~ .~?i1~ ur~,-- -"~ .. - . --.J -
.c~ '_.~ ~~, - .," ., r ...... -4!
kJ_':~---'-' - - --'''''-''-''-~=- [' "'~llQ"'" ~
~,../':,~,',.,.,~...~; ~-~. -,~~-.: ,- ..~~- -.' ~-~~ ~~'w . - ' :~ ':~r,', j" !
~ - - '..~ ---p. ~ _,' " -~ /..-1
Vfi~;r: .,' -.~- ",/ <:'.~ ~ ~i_~?/~ r~.~ '-,' ',.--, r'*.'~ ;
~, r ".." -~~ _ ~'~-i l\ /~ ,.,l r.t. \
~. ~'" ~~~JrT! /. '.' .' '\-~iE::
~"~Rs!'.~ ;:~~~,/~i I :)~\~\ ~~~~~<~~:'-~.~.,L~ '. ~i 1itBi~ c~
- ~~"" . .~, \:,) \ -. N ',-Iilu ._~,
~'~="~.:~-'~~~~~~'::\~~~..~~'~-~ ~~~~~ ~. ~. ~!! L~--
-- ,. ,'''''=~' _ ~'~ ;~ ::?:' _ N --.-..,'., ,'- - J .. "-
--T''''' -. - - ~\ '-~ ~~\ ~\ $~';~-.- -=--5'] - I~ ~ ,,,JI, -~~.. ' LJ ~;~ -':: ~~.
'-' '--,.,- ~.~ ' i ~ " -'0-, t.-" -- ~,~;1' I"~ i' =;'_, ", ~.. i\.'}
--'~' .....-~ ~- ~'j :::,. ~ ' ,1 ::--':--<J=-~ ~"" t -- - m'- - - .J-.
iF'- '~::::,~o i~::\ ',- jj =-=' ~ C _.- . . ~. \ .
,,)..,t, ,_' -,'~ 'j <'" -. /" . 0 1 - 'vz/€Z .. 1 .. - -: . ' _
:;;- ~ .__ Jj ~ ~ Ii' ~--lc'" :;. ""' .. F '.cc._-~.. -:. :'l;L=H 8~ L:.t ~\'''I\
,,-' -'<" - .tFf~ /.. T ~I,,- --I" /., . "'-.. ...~.. ~ I :n - _. - P" 1\
!ll -..',b--l..,', T"E.=:, =-_~1~'--,' ~ --. ,_ _1 ,.: ,,-...- ~~~l~ ',f---',',-" · ~'-H":":::J' '
n~'-Pr;':'- , -":'<c7 7 ~ .' ,- ~ _ - 1'-- ':.. ~ _ - &. ~
r -Lr-.i; I ....... - ,li}It..I\J)l . -, _ ~~
.. ,7""" ,"-J " ~....... ~'""'- 1M: ~,-~ ,..,-'
_,-- I"'~ "., . j .n....."
~';~ ..~7<. j;lli a~'1al/--/ M~;t Ilil(.:,~'"_~.__" ~uJ .co, -='=-~~ I"
v_,v-~~ cr., ~ -~ r 1I1'1l.,r'~~
~ --)''l.,'IJ I k
~o ,_ t ,J. ~\'\\\~)< '~II--f f ~ ~ ~~\
~..,., ....... 'r-; ~I.'I\~" ~;f-,~~~:.L ltl1 .11/1\ f i/r.lI: I-fL ~
/ \J ~ /n g [1)')-_:::, , . i . 1.1 ._~_...., 1'1
'. --'.. I -- . U - I r+;(
--..// '1 / -/-- =t / U'~I .,!lL,~:::' ~j l;1 I~ ._,,~~~ i
~~ i ..,~-I )11 0. 'f M . ,,;:. r+ <i
. .b--/ . ,., I ....- i ;!;
~lwmL0(~ \ .. I '''4..~.-:,llit ~ ,,;. '-')t>- j . i
\ f~f~"cY.c~ \~(/ 'rl~~~ ~t 'I~ l: 7 ' ";~J~;!~i~
""" n'-~.~~[::>-~ILI ~\,~.t I~ -21> /(~rt\ 1/"<- h\[',' 1I't'd?TI -o-''7t~- /lC ~~~~Ifl
I f ~r:-, ,1" '.. -,. / 1ii"- ~ <3 0 "l i:i ill rT'
_"_ "- ,"~ -7' ;>"-- - ~ zo .!l!=> ...
-', _, __ ' 9lt1 I' '/...' '-.0= >9~ . /. Ol · / ~ ~ ll. ~
~~/.::j~Jl fi. ....~-:-/':I.J · ! ~
\. _ ! ........r. ,,"'N ,/ " ~
._~~- ~.-- / "'-'" Z
J. ~
i:l..
Q~ ! ! ; I
~ ~ ~:"!::oi,, f,J,
~ ~ ! : : . '
i w .r-rJ~ jiJ
g~lil!"',;g!,;g ill! '
~ 5 ' 1::1'2
CL In i ; i!
:
~~
r
u _iN ~'.; ,
9i I -.~
"'1l\1ie,
lei rei
jo.o !
<~ i
i ! i i~i~
~(OJi(")iMj \HS
Q ,~. I 'i~iQ;""
-.: ~cnl5:J '
hi[!li[!ll><i!
~ ' , ,W, !
~!mrr '
!l~'~;~i~! ,
~ Sb;~~tJj ;
I!Nja..jet:;~i l
I ~!~i ~:~ [
w(8~ilci
~,~:Q'lJ;! ~i
!i 1lJ;!~i II
Ii: I ~:
i ~i~i~!Mi ~i
""!N!~! i :2:
I I I; !"j
I.
~ 1:1
;: ~ 1:1
<>'-'~-
;: ~ 1:1
~ 1:1
-~ '"
~~
lL
~ 1:1
~'
"
z
m~
..
~ 1:1
3:
~ ~ -
::l
; 1:1
~,
~ 1:
--'~
F'
,-., --. ..-;'.r" '."j"-":'-I']
1:: ..~..;i,ll:i:II:!
:.i t . J
:;:1 tt; i !l[j::!
I!I i:!il:I:rI:'
IJII ~l fi
!~! i i i~i ! 1 :.,'
!~lt-i ; 1~:~; ;
!~f I i :~J i ; i
f~i ; 1 ~ij j ~ :
i~1 : ; 'i' I ,~,
~rH~IJII
Li~
...
i~l
:I"'~
: 'a::
zj :~
0:';1
I>'
~ r~-~,
~..
<ii,
~~!;.'
i i
f:
~ iw'
r", '!!Ii
'-' i!i!'
c... '3'
~t'--f"
~ i~i
~ it
I
;;..
~
Cl
~
o
~
~
~
~
rn
I
~
z
Z
o
....
~
u
~
Cl
<:
o
~
~~
<:~
u<:
....;;.:.
~~
~p.
E,
~
~
z
~
~
rn
;;..
~~
~S
~p
~~
'~
Zrn
0<:
....::c:
~p.
~~
rnO
Cl~
<:~
Oz
~O
~....
<:rn
uffi
....~
~~
~~
E,
ili
~
~
~
it
~
'"
f3
Cl
w
o ~
ffi ~
~O~
~'
~
~ R;fl~~!illi
< i~! i!~:: i' i
f'\, 'j' , ,;I' iii, 'W
~ !i3~ t !i1 :~\ 1~1
rn i:oli~,I1j;~' .9ii
Z ii)i!i!,-\~!..j~j,.\i!
,1j.~; I." '!I' 'i!;.
~ i,i.l !ifii ::J I~~
i:l.. iilj!;;!i :i!;; lilj'i~1
o l~gii~U~L :ill
~u li ~:;.:
~ ~~ ~g~
AI~ ~~ ~:>.~
~Il< ffi~ ..~..
~~ ~~ ~n
t:.........ou u~ :;It
r 3 5~
1~ 'Ii JLU .fl.......J. J.,hL.l...L
VINWlIL\ '.\L'lnO~) lI'1l1VI'illIl,V
II )I~V d NOA V
~O.!l NVId ~N3WaN3]'iV dVW DNINOZ
~~~ U~~~;
.. .. ~~8:li8~~:I
6:l ~ u u .'. ~8
.. 0 2!: 9 8888~a:
~ g5 ~ CIl ~~~~ ~
::;j CIl~~ ~"'''I;J: <l
~gao~-<~:~ :
WI,'l H
1;1 it, ,0 u
Pllii~ h,l ~
eh!it! ;1 i
Hl,ifli (I ~
Ii! !!,!! it .
UO!f )1
pl!d .1
- il
~
/'
/'//
" /""~
A~ // \
>- if..\)~ /
~ /5f~ J.-//~;1
~~~~~~~ ~
,~~O ~~~ ,;~~ V ~//
/// ~ ~'iA' ,.. ,;.c
//'. ,,- \ .~:,..o' ,
/~/ '" -:: I
;.,;.-~.....;,;.o' ",
~ -",.."", ~, tl
".
tz
w
a'l
~
S
'"
::>
"
~
'"
<(
u
tz
w
,.
w
~
~
::;
'"
::>
(:\
\1
~
w
,.
w
~
w
'<
>
0:
"-
-jIIIil
-I~
1_:
~
o
z
@DIIII
~
".
o
"., ,,'
~",/,/
o
tJJo
~/~/
, /, l
I
t::>
~
.,
~
~ ~
~~~~lll ~
~j~~~~~
~5(J)~&j~~
~~~ffi:~~
I-OW5'!;
~!3_0 .!li
~> 0..
I ~
j 8~
~~
e1 ,-{ !~
,/-!."r-~I\ i, -,-- ~
III1 I ~- MIillill'J>, - I
--- ~ I 8 ",
- -
'1" ----/
I /;; e I\r' 1 >---
:-----;_~> / , ,'; " ~~ N I-----: It , ~ '~~ v
~,~:~ ;:;:' \ \ I . - "'---~~~ ~ -"-
:>~~~),\y-~\-\.~ :_;~~~: "/
:T~" nO.ifili\ \.\tJ j I · i t n ~ I I
'~~~c~~ ~H \ 1~~:'f I I ~ ~ 1;fjl - ~:~ _~
""" r"il I I 1\ L e-"J,I W
tB~=i~l~ o~~/ I !\o ~L-' :=-~~ F~ ,:;-;;:'l.. ~ ~ ill ~: I ~~ - J _
~I~-~- j I' .. "HiIp'fH' -'
_ _ _____ _ __ '" -.-L' _ ---L__ M _._~ M :-L M L--I M - :-'Ji:r ^ 1- c- M - MI -
J~AVMYH.LVH 1'-1-- I----~ r- ~-r "=t=----=--=j--
-- '7 - - - - - ----L I- - ::1i:l:
'" ~ '
r'I-=-' f-fj.....l \; I~~~ \~ _
' I' ~ -~,- . tt:~ -- r-- - "'\-
I 1= - '--t,- ;;; ~ -~-~
I ~', JL ~ IJ-.Ll. ;!:ffi
l. I r--_,~ ! ~ ., --it
~.llltlll-ft IT. - .:/ ~~ -----.~~! - _v_ ;; ~ -;r
-- ---- - -- - -, C'- / ~, - -"'- -= l+tll- -~-"
~-:-, ; " 'b'T _~ '; i~ =~~ iL .~ ~e~~
iP.~CP ~_~-~- i ~_ .~__, ~
a> ~ _ \lJ ",8 ffla'l
~~ f.l~~ ~is ffla'l ~~
:; ..ii:8~ ~Ol ~~
~ 1 ~~ ~
co O,cw
ci f=>
~{1
~l:!
~., I
II:~~
w~o
~"!l!
~tzC!l
~~~
A
I ;
~
t.
I
II
~
;;;~
1;j
/
I : I
/ I
" I
--- /
"
-
>,W 0
o "'~' (!) f-:::
co 0 en ~.,
0.. 0::>0.:
5lL.L.;:~Sl
0..5SlO~lil
::Ii il~ .
1-00 <q
~u. 0
/
uJ
<i!--,
>0
00
:ilS
g<ll
o
L
o
~
l i
! Ii
I ; n
'f : ~;~
a: ~ ~ IJ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~
o..jci~ ~~~ ~ ;
~,,>-~ ]!!'J! ~ r,
0.. " $ I- ~ .. s.
~ ~ a ~ .. 3l ii~
~ I- j :J c~
~ 0.. ~~
~' ~i
! h~
~~~
n!
~2~
oc
..,
ot'~~
~~o~
~~Olll
~j~~
tl!
1Il
~
~
~~I
~~J
c oa; 0::
~~~
j::>
0..
~
8
~
~ \
~ t
:I r ~~
~ ~~!.
~iL~
!J ;~~
f~~:j1i~\ ,~ !;~;
J ~~!<i2Qll
r ~:~ z~~
~ I UH~1j
s~l ~a~9~~
qffi~f z lPtn000o..
z"~ ' l
~~9. (~, ~
oJ:i) .- z
o
\ ' Eire /1 ~
~ Jl~'": j 8
~~jU l" 5
I ,g.,'
~ ~
~~ ~ 15
~~Sl ~ffi ~
~~~ ~~ :)
lD~~ wtt
~~~ ~~
9 "
"~ ,,-
~~ ~~~
,. ~,.~
~ n II
~ III !ill ~
~ :i~ ~ffi.~ Q
;>~ :~~~ i
'-&.~ ,
..
L
I
,g
v
~o-
~ II)
ffi D.
w
~
12~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~ '
~~
,,0
~~
ti<
~~
~g ~
~~ ~
o~ . e
~<z 1;\
15~~ 5
liih z
5~Q ~
1.l.l::l1ii II)
~in
~~n
n~~
QZlll ~
~~: ~
~~I g
;;1~~iO :;:
6 ~~a ~
z... M
ffiz ~
s~ ~~
@5~5 il~
~~.~ ..
~i~~ i~
a~~~ 18
.~~~ i~
f~",,~ ,o~
~~zlll ~~
~z~l~~~.
~~g~~~.~
iE~~!~~!~
----:I
o
I":;
ciJ
~
i
z
~o
~E=:
E-t~
....1rn
..... .
~rn
o~
.......:
~u
~8
~~
~,.
lDZ
,&
o
z
.....
u
ffi
~
o
o
o
d ~
"~ ~
u
.....
t2
~
o
~
o
d ~ ~
"g ~ ~
~o
;:J .
oj
E8
~ I
'"
z
~ I ~
"
,~ ~i
"
~
lD~ ~lil ~!
lilJ~ ..,~ 5i
oOo..~.8-o
0.. ..: llS ~ \i'<: 'j
~ 5zr:~ "i'~
I 0.. J:>-~~z"
~r~~~ d
,,0 .!!!
0..
I ci.
~
!~
18
z
1-
L
~
~
z
~
1'-- r-----.
j<--
- '---
- ;'-
U
d ----..:::::
"
k- . I
41[
fi
~[
~~
w"
~ u~~
o~d~j
U~"E~
~> ~~
~go.~~~
o
~
u
ffi
~z
~~
~~
Cl~
~~
OE=:
~u
I~
E8
!i! ~ . .,I""
~ ~ln liHii! i5~~~
~ ili"i:;~ g~;;~ ~lrl~ffi
,. !1~";;, ~"~;j~~0~
~ =iz!~~~ o~~~ ti~~~
I: ~ ~;zs ~~~t;; ~~I-~;1
~ :s..~Cl~ ~Si!~ ~~~~s
"t?- \ ) ~ \
0< (
~ :ii
. ,.
.- ~~
"2
.
.
.
I I
-
~~~
~Yml~
~~
~
ALBEMARLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Proj ct Name: ZMA 07-05 Avon Park II;
Privi e Street Request
Plan ing Commission Public Hearing:
Octc er 16, 2007
OWJ1 rs: Weatherhill Development represented by
Fran Pohl/lan Bosserman
ACrE ge: 5.170
TMP: Tax Map 90, Parcel 31
Mag sterial District: Scottsville
ProJ bsal: Rezone from R-1 to R-6 with a proffered
appli ation plan to provide 31 single family and
town ouse dwelling units
DA ( evelopment Area): Neighborhood 4
Cha cter of Property: Two existing homes,
outb Idings; approximately half of the site is wooded
I ~ctors Favorable:
The rezoning is consistent with the Land Use
Plan recommendations.
<. The applicant has provided an application
plan that meets Neighborhood Model design
expectations.
,. The applicant has provided affordable
housing and cash proffers that meet County
Policy
Staff: Rebecca Ragsdale
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
November 14, 2007
Applicant: Terra Concepts represented by Mark
Keller
Rezone: R-1 to R-6 Residential
By-right use: 5 dwelling units and up to 7 dwelling
units with a density bonus; supporting uses permitted
in R-1 such as schools, churches, and clubs by
special use permit.
Proffers: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 31, at a gross
density of 6 dwelling units per acre
Compo Plan Designation: Neighborhood Density
Residential
Use of Surrounding Properties: Single Family
Residential
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The applicant is not proposing a street
section that meets County requirements.
REC MMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ZMA 0705 and the private street request; the planting
strip aiver is not recommended for approval.
Zfv]f-\ Q7-C5 Avon Park II
PC ')ubllc Hearing 10/16/07 80S} 1!1':+/CJ7
'0[.,<.. It,
.0 ,<~.J
~r'
area, has provided a detailed request for approval of Stratford Way as private street, and has
addr sses all adjoining property owner concerns,
.
Cha acteristic of he Si &. Ar a
Ther are two existing homes on the site, one built after 2000 and one c. 1945 dwelling, and also
outb ildings, and mature trees. (See Sheet 1-Attachment E) Adjoining properties to the north,
sout ,and east are single family residential and zoned R1. Parcels to the west are currently
wood d. Immediately adjacent to this site to the north is Avon Park I, which was a rezoning (ZMA
04-0 ), approved May 25,2004 for 16 single family homes and 43 townhouse units, That project is
curre tly under construction, near completion with some units occupied. Nearby to the north are the
MillC eek Subdivision and Snows Garden Center, along with an Industrial Area, (Attachment A-
Aeria , B-Zoning Map, C-Land Use Plan)
5 e ifi s f Pro osal
The pplicant has submitted a revised rezoning plan and proffers since the Commission work
sessi n, which appears to address the issues discussed at that meeting. Avon Park II is proposed
as a ontinuation of the existing Avon Park project. This rezoning is for a mixed residential
devel pment of 20 town homes with two-car garages, four condo/apartments with two-car garages,
and s x single family houses with two-car garages, along with the existing c. 2000 single family
hous to remain, The units would be served by an extension of Hathaway Street (public road) in
Avon Park and a private street that is requested, The front portion of the property, adjacent to Avon
Stree Ext., will provide the open space and recreational area for the development. (Attachment E- .
Appli ation Plan) In addition to the plan and waiver request, the applicant has submitted proffers
indic ting a commitment to provide 15% affordable housing and to provide cash proffers for each
resid ntial unit meeting the Board's expectations.
Lan Use Plan
The Land Use plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density Residential in Neighborhood
4. (A achment C) Applicable statements from the Comprehensive Plan relevant to this site are
identi ied below in italics. Staff comments relative to the recommendations of the Land Use Plan
follow each statement:
borhood Density Residential
Neighborhood Density Residential areas are intended to have a gross density of between 3
to 6 dwellings per acre. Neighborhood Density Residential may be located within the Urban
Area, Communities and Villages.
o Neighborhood Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate all dwelling unit
types as well as institutional uses such as places of worship, public and private schools, and
early childhood education centers including day care centers and preschools.
o It is anticipated that Neighborhood Density Residential areas will accommodate small areas
of non-residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service, as defined later in this
chapter, to serve residential uses.
o Any new development within an existing subdivision shall be in keeping with the character
and density of the existing development.
o New developments adjacent to existing subdivisions or developments shall be developed at
higher densities and in a form in keeping with the Neighborhood Model to support infill
development efforts.
.
Zf"1A 07 -os !\von Park II
PC PubliC Hearing 10/16/07 BOS 11/14/07
3
~.r) e-.. I' '2
LA".' \0.-..#1
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
REBECCA RAGSDALE
October 16, 2007
November 14,2007
ZMA 07 -05 AVON PARK II
Private Street Request
Petition:
PROJECT: ZMA 2007-005 Avon Court II
PROPOSAL: Rezone 5.17 acres from R-1 Residential (1 unit/acre) to R-6 Residential (6 units/acre)
with a proffered application plan. The proposal is to allow development of 31 townhouse and single
family units.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USEIDENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential-
residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other
small-scale non-residential uses,
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Avon Street Extended, approx. 1,000 feet north of the intersection of Avon Street Ext.
and Route 20, south of existing Avon Court
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 90, Parcel 31
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
Planning and Zoning Historv
There is no rezoning, plan or subdivision history on this parcel. A special use permit (SP 03-48) for
a Home Occupation Class B (Randy E. Fox) was approved in 2003 for a small engine repair shop
but will not be continued on the property if this proposed rezoning is approved. The buildings in
which the home occupation is conducted will be removed.
Planning Commission Work Session
This rezoning was reviewed by the Commission in a work session on August 14, 2007, to discuss
two issues. The first issues was the design and layout of the proposal, specifically how residential
lots and pedestrian access related to the open space/amenity area, The Commission also
considered the private street request and proposed street section for that private street,
summarized here:
. The Commission indicated the applicant's changes to the lot layout presented at the
meeting, specifically to the lots located adjacent to the existing house within the
development and the provision of more direct access for pedestrians from Stratford
Way to the open space area was an improvement. The Commission recommended
the applicant continue looking at the layout in this area of the development to provide
more direct driveway access to the lots.
. Further consideration of the proposed street design for Stratford Way was needed.
The Commission desired more information to demonstrate why the applicant's
variation should be approved and more information as to why trees normally are
placed between the sidewalk and the street. [See Neighborhood Model sections on
Neighborhood Friendly Streets & Paths, provided as Attachment EJ
. The applicant was encouraged to address the neighbor concerns, both those
resulting from the first phase of Avon Park regarding installation of a privacy fence
and comments made from other neighbors regarding this proposed second phase,
including a request for fencing, public road interconnection, and extension of water.
The applicant submitted a revised application plan following the Commission work session that
includes changes to the lot layout and provides direct pedestrian access adjacent to the open space
zr'1A 07.05 Avon Park II
PC PubliC Hearlilg lO!16/07 BOS 11/14/07
Z
Dr,<:::' '\
fJL ~~ f
.
.
.
Avon Park II is proposed at a density of 6 dwelling units per acre, or 31 units on 5.1 acres, with one
hous already existing. Non residential uses are not proposed or expected at this location. This
proje is developing at a density and in a form that is in keeping with the Neighborhood Model and
adja nt development of Avon Park.
· C nsider the recommendations of the Southern Charlottesville Transportation Study for this
ighborhood
rimary recommendations of this study were the construction of east-west connecting roads
withi Neighborhoods 4 and 5, including the Avon-Fifth Street Connector road (Southern Parkway),
Avon Route 20 Connector road (constructed), and an Avon-Fifth Street connector road north of 1-
64, he connectors south of 1-64 were considered higher priorities. This parcel does not provide an
oppo unity for either of these connecting roads.
· D e to increased development in this area, including the construction of the new Monticello
H 'gh School, upgrade A von Street Extended and Route 20 and construct bicycle facilities and
w Ikways in conjunction with these upgrades. Determine the right-of-way requirements for these
,., ad upgrades and obtain and/or reserve right-of-ways as necessary.
An a phalt path has been constructed on the west side of Avon Street from the Southern Parkway
to So th Mill Creek. The CIP calls for a walkway to be constructed from the Southern Parkway to
the C ty limits within the next 5 years. No widening for bike lanes are planned or funded at this
time.
.
cate a library branch in or near Neighborhood Four.
The J fferson-Madison Regional Library has proposed the construction of a new library in the
south rn urban areas to adequately serve this area although there has not been any site selection
yet. T e library needs approximately two acres of land for the 15,000 square foot facility. The
Coun y owns large acreage near the high school and fire station off of Mill Creek Drive which may
be ap ropriate, although some of the property is hilly and not the best for development. Site
selec ion and land acquisition, if necessary, is scheduled for 2012/13 and construction in 2014/15.
A site near an east-west connector road would seem to be the best location so it would be
conv nient to either Neighborhood 4 or 5, This site is in proximity to the Southern Parkway, once it
is buil to Fifth Street.
· P rticipate with the City to construct the eastern branch of the southern water loop. This loop
w I link the Avon Street and Pantops Mountain Water tanks and improve water distribution in
th Neighborhood, Build another smaller water tank on Avon Street to increase flow to
N ighborhoods 4 & 5.
stern branch of the southern loop is programmed in RWSA's CIP for construction in FY 09-
· P vide additional water storage in the southern portion of the Neighborhood to support demand
a d ensure adequate fire flow.
Stora e tanks have been developed as part of Avon Park and Mosby Mountain development that
will pr vide water storage and address fire flow issues for this area.
Zfvl,A 07-05 Avon Park Il
PC Public Hearing 10/16/07 BOS 11/14/07
4
r".) "" "...,
150::::'1:)
. Extend the Biscuit Run Interceptor to provide capacity for the entire drainage basin.
The Biscuit Run interceptor was extended close to the Biscuit Run property as part of the
improvements provided to serve the Mosby Mountain development off of Fifth Street.
. New development and redevelopment along Route 20 and Avon Street Extended should be
designed in a manner that is sensitive to its location within the Monticello viewshed and
designation as Entrance Corridor Roadways.
The proposed development is not in the Monticello viewshed. The Architectural Review Board has
provided comments on the Application Plan.
Open Space Plan -- The County's Open Space Plan shows no significant environmental resources
on this property.
Principles of the Neighborhood Model -- Conformity with the Neighborhood Model is assessed
below:
Pedestrian
Orientation
Neighborhood
Friendly Streets
and Paths
(Attachment E)
Interconnected
Streets and
Transportation
Networks
Parks and Open
Space
Neighborhood
Centers
Buildings and
Spaces of Human
Scale
Relegated Parking
Mixture of Uses
Sidewalks are shown along all streets, both public and private, internal to
the development, connecting different buildings to the amenities and to
other buildings. The applicant has also provided a sidewalk across the
fronta e of the ro ert alon Avon Street Extended, This rinci Ie is met.
Street trees are shown for all proposed streets; however, street trees along
the private street (Stratford Way) are proposed behind the curb and
sidewalk, which does not meet the desired street section. The applicant
has submitted a private street request and justification for this design for
the Commission to consider. This rinci Ie is met.
Opportunities for north-south interconnections exist to adjoining properties
and are provided via a planned interconnection approved with Avon Park,
shown as Hathaway Street on the application plan. (Attachment E) This
interconnection is being extended to the Brooks property to the south of
this proposed development. This principle is met.
Proposed amenity and recreation areas comprise 1.69 acres or 33% of the
site and are located on the front one-third of the property on Avon Street
Ext, The area would include a pavilion, picnic tables, grill area, and
horseshoe pits. These amenities are proposed as a substitution of
recreation requirements of the ordinance rather than providing a tot lot.
This development will be added to Avon Park I and will have access to
those amenities as well, which includes a tot lot, so the substitution is
su orted. This rinci Ie is met.
Cale Elementary School is the nearest center to this area and a place to
which the residential units can relate. However, it is a mile away. This area
is expected to relate to the adjoining center proposed in Biscuit Run under
review. This rinci Ie is met.
The scale of the buildings appears to be appropriate and this principle is
met. A site section is provided in the application plan.
5
ZMA 07-05 Avon Park II
PC Public Hearing 10/16/07 BOS 11/14/07
"M's \ I
.
.
north on Avon Street Extended. A commercial center is approximately a
mile away at the intersection of Mill Creek Drive and Avon Street Extended.
No additional mixture of uses is recommended and this principle is met
with nearb uses.
The mixture of housing types, with four multi-family units, townhomes, and
single family, is viewed as appropriate and the applicant has committed
that 15% of the units will be affordable. This rinci Ie is met.
The project represents redevelopment from low density rural residential to
higher density residential. The existing house on the site and outbuildings
closest to Avon Street will be demolished and the other existing house on
the property will remain and be integrated into Avon Park II. This principle
is met.
As previously indicated, the property has some topographical challenges
and slopes downward towards Avon Street. This principle is met for most
of the project; however, staff has concerns regarding the proposed grading
for Lot 28, as the are ro osed as 2: 1 slo es,
Not applicable, the nearest Rural Area boundary is to the east of Route 20
and south,
;onship between the application and the purpose and intent of the
sted zoning district
The plicant has requested a rezoning to R6 Residential and the intent of that district in the
Ordin nce and lot and setback requirements are provided here:
This district (hereafter referred to as R-6) is to provide a plan implementation zone that:
-Provides for compact, medium-density residential development;
(Amended 9-9-92)
-Permits a variety of housing types; and
-Provides incentives for clustering of development and provision of location aI, environmental and
developmental amenities.
R-6 districts may be permitted within community and urban area locations recommended for medium-density
residential use in the comprehensive plan, (Amended 9-9-92)
16.3 AREA AND BULK REGULATIOl'lS
AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS
REQUIREHENTS
Gross densi
Minimum Lot Size
STANDARD LEVEL
':ONVENTI ONAL CLUSTER
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
6 duia= 6 du'a=
(Ad&d 7-17-85)
7,260 s ft N>A
4.840 s ft. NIA
BONUS LEVEL
CotNENTrONAL CLUSTER
DEVEItOPJ1ENT DEVELOPMEHT
9 duiacre 9duia=
Yards, minimum:
Front 25 fed 25 f~ 25 f~t 25 fed
Side~) 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Rear :w feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
a Mioimml$ide yanis shaI1 be reduced to DOt less than ten 10 feet in acconiance with section 4.11.3 Amended 1-1-83
Maximum
Structure bei 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet
.
Staff lieves this proposal meets the intent of the R-6 Zoning, which is consistent with the Land
Use I n recommendation of Neighborhood Density. Avon Park I is also zoned R6 and this
propo al will be added to that development.
',"/l, os /\'vun r'ark II
pc Public Heamlg 10/16/07 BOS IljJ4/07
6
, /.
BeS I'"
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources
Approximately 50% of the site, on the western half is wooded and there are significant grade
changes across the site, from elevations of 690 at the highest point near proposed Hathaway Street
and 590 near Avon Street Ext. The woods would be removed and the slopes graded in order to
accomplish the plan proposed. The existing vegetation located around the homes on the site is
proposed to remain, There are no environmental features shown on the County's Open Space Plan.
The Historic Preservation planner provided information regarding historic resources. Albemarle
County Real Estate records indicate that the existing dwelling on Tax Map 90, Parcel 31 was
constructed c, 1945 and is therefore considered historic. This resource has not been evaluated for
listing on the National or State historic registers. The applicant has indicated on the Site Plan Study
that the existing c. 2000 or later dwelling will be retained but the historic structure will be removed
because of its condition, Staff is requesting that the applicant provide documentation of the
resource, in accordance with the Department of Historic Resources (DHR) standards prior to its
removal, which they have agreed to provide. The Virginia Department of Historic Resources' (DHR)
Data Sharing System (DSS) also identified the Midva/e School (DHR #002-1141), which is on the
adjoining property.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Streets - The development will generate an additional 208 trips per day on Avon Street Extended
which provides primary access to the site, Traffic counts are not available at this location although
north of Mill Creek Drive; the street has 10,306 Average Daily Trips (ADT) with a Level of Service E.
Regarding Avon St. Extended, the hope is that the road can continue to function as a 2-lane (with
turn lanes), lower speed (35-40 mph) road that can stay more in keeping with a neighborhood
oriented, multi-modal type of collector road. It was anticipated that east-west street connections
(Willoughby connector, Southern Parkway) would help distribute traffic to the larger regional road
network (Fifth Street, Route 20) that currently almost have to travel on Avon to reach almost any
city/university destination.
Some of VDOT and the County's initial comments regarding streets have been addressed, since
the applicant no longer proposes maintaining the existing drive from Avon Street Ext. into the
property. The request to allow Stratford Way as a private street is discussed below.
Schools - The development is expected to generate 8 students broken down as follows: 4
elementary school students, 2 middle school students, and 2 high school students. These students
will attend Cale Elementary School, Walton Middle School, and Monticello High School. Cale will
be renovated in 2006 to add classrooms. The renovation will replace the portable units currently in
use and also accommodates the growth from development of this adjoining site.
There is an additional elementary school proposed in the CIP for the Southern Urban Areas to
address growth in the Southern Urban Areas. At present, an elementary school is being considered
in conjunction with the Biscuit Run development.
Fire. Rescue. Police - Fire, Rescue, and Police facilities are located nearby in buildings south of 1-
64. The Monticello Fire Station located near Monticello High School provides fire and rescue
services to the area, Albemarle County 5th Street Office Building is contains the County's Police
ZMA 07-05 Avon Park II
PC Public Heanng 10/16/07 BOS 11/14/07
7
"Qr.b \ to
.
.
.
I
Department, although the police patrol all areas of the County regardless of the location of the
stati n. No impact to these facilities is expected.
Utilities - Albemarle County Service Authority indicates that water and sewer service is available
to th site. Single family lots will be served by grinder pumps, which the ACSA does not have an
obje ion to and were approved in Avon Park I. Generally, grinder pumps are not recommended
beca se of private maintenance and easements are required. However, the easements have been
locat d in such a way that they do not cut across properties. (See Utility Plan, Sheet 3-Application
Plan, Attachment E)
Anti ipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties
This roject is expected to be in keeping with the residential character of this area. The applicant
has itigated all concerns raised by adjoining property owners that were raised at the August 14
work ession.
The pplicant has submitted proffers (Attachment D) including a commitment to the application
plan, hich are summarized below, The proffers have been reviewed by the County Attorney and
only inor changes are needed and there are outstanding substantive issues.
Affordable Housing- This proffer provides for four affordable units, identified as 21/22 and
23/24 on the application plan and proposed as multifamily units which may either be for-sale
or for-lease units. The affordable housing policy of providing 15% affordable, which is 4.5
units for this development, is met through provision of these four units and a cash
contribution is proffered for the 0.5 unit. These proffers are acceptable to the Housing
Director.
Cash Proffer- The applicant has proffered to meet the Board's cash proffer policy, by
proffering $343,000 to the County for mitigating impacts from this development. That
amount is equal to $11,900 per market rate townhome and $17,500 for each single family
unit.
te Street Ruest
The ubdivision Ordinance specifies criteria for the Commission to approve a private street. The
appli ant has requested a private street be approved under neighborhood model development
criteri of this section of ordinance for Stratford Way. (Attachment F) The street section proposed is
show on sheet 2 of 3 of the application plan as a 33' ROW with two 11' travel lanes and
5'sid walks behind the curb and is approximately 500' total, with about 230' section to the west and
a 260 section to the east. Street trees would be provided behind the sidewalk on individual lots. This
is a v riation from the standard expected of curb, 6' planting strip, then a 5' foot sidewalk. The
appli ant has indicated in their justification that this design is proposed to keep the existing house
on th property, to promote healthier trees and because of how water and sewer easements must
be 10 ated.
Staff as provided the ordinance criteria for authorizing private streets under Section 14-233A,
follow d by comments below.
1. Neighborhood model development. The proposed private street(s) would enable the principles of
the neighborhood model to be more fully implemented than could be achieved with a public street,
without diminishing other principles of the neighborhood model, in the following circumstances:
(i) the subdivision would have a streetscape more consistent with the neighborhood model;
zr\!..\ 07.0S, Avon Park II
PC PUll!IC Hearing 10/16/07 BOS 11/14/07
8
Qr,<, I '1
The applicant has provided a private street that is narrower than a public street and will
have lower travel speeds, The arrangement of sidewalks and planting strips is not in
keeping with recommendations of the Neighborhood Model and is discussed under the
Planting Strip waiver section below.
(ii) the subdivision design would allow it to better achieve the density goals of the
comprehensive plan;
This design will allow density in keeping with the Land Use Plan.
(iii) rear vehicular access to buildings would be provided so that the buildings may face a
common amenity;
Rear vehicle access is not provided to the residential units. The subject parcel is rectangular
shaped and is not conducive to providing alleys.
(iv) a significant environmental resource would be protected; or
No significant environmental resources exist on the site.
(v) relegated parking would be provided to a greater extent than could otherwise be provided.
Relegated parking is not achieved to a greater extent and parking provided is front loaded,
mostly in garages.
Staff supports the proposed private street and recommends approval since the traffic on each
section of the private street will be very low and the streets will not interconnect.
Planting Strip Waiver
The Subdivision Ordinance specifies criteria for the Commission to approve a waiver of the planting
strip requirement. Street trees are proposed on individual lots, behind the sidewalk. This is a
variation from the standard expected of curb, 6' planting strip, then a 5' foot sidewalk. The applicant
has indicated in their justification that this design will allow healthier trees and because of how
water and sewer easements must be located under pavement.
Staff has provided the ordinance criteria for granting a waiver of Planting Strips Section 14-222F(2)
followed by comments below.
(i) a waiver to allow a rural cross-section has been granted;
The applicant is proposing an urban section.
(ii) a sidewalk waiver has been granted;
The applicant proposes to provide the 5' sidewalk required by the ordinance.
(iii) reducing the size of or eliminating the planting strip promotes the goals of the
comprehensive plan, the neighborhood model, and the applicable neighborhood master piau;
and;
The street design proposed by the applicant will allow for greater density to be achieved
on a property in the development area; it does not, however, result in a form that greater
reflects principles of the Neighborhood Model.
(iv) waiving the requirement would enable a different principle of the neighborhood model to
be more fully achieved.
The waiver does not allow relegated parking to occur or to help buildings face the street.
ZMA 07-05 Avon Park II
PC Public Hearing 10/16/07 BOS 11/14/07
9
\2J'J:S \ <6'
.
.
.
In al proving a waiver, the commission shall find that requiring planting strips would not forward the
purppses of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest; and granting the waiver would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development ofthe area, and to the
land ladjacent thereto.
Street design that addresses character and appearance as well as design speed and
capacity are important in the Development Areas. Trees, usually planted in grassy strips of
land between the curb and the sidewalk, provide a softened appearance to streets and
enhance the quality of the walk for pedestrians. Trees also provide a barrier between the
pedestrian and a moving car.
Staff does not support this waiver. Planting strips located behind the curb provide a greater
sense of enclosure and this is important to creating a Neighborhood Model form of
development and providing for the pedestrian.
Sun marv
Staff has found the following factors favorable to this rezoning request:
1. The rezoning is consistent with the Land Use Plan recommendations.
2. The applicant has provided an application plan that meets Neighborhood Model
design expectations.
3. The applicant has provided affordable housing and cash proffers that meet County
Policy
Staff ~as found the following factors unfavorable to this request:
1. The applicant is proposing a street section that does not meet County requirements.
REClllMMENDATION
Staff ecommends approval of ZMA 07-05 and the private street request with a waiver of the
plantitlg strip requirement.
ATT lCHMENTS
A. Aerial Map
B. Zoning Map
C. Land Use Plan
D. Proffer Form
E. Neighborhood Model-Neighborhood Friendly Streets & Paths sections
F. Private Road Justifications
G. Application Plan-Titled "Zoning Map Amendment for Avon Park II", prepared by Terra
Concepts, P.C., dated April 30, 2007 and last revised September 10,2007
ZMA 07.05 Avon Park II
PC: Public Heanng 10/16/07 BOS 11/14/07
10
Qn.:;::\Ci
--
<
il
.~ ~~
~~~:g
;:m~..
ICG)~
ai~i
ii~
<>
-----{z
-
=
~
e
=
:J
=
-
-
<
! i
Ii J I f J J i! II
OJ I I 0 I I . I .0
I
.
t
k'-[ < ;' \
J
.Ii
l
~.
f ~
f
s
I ~
J f i
I! OJ
0....
I a
I J 0 i ,J
-->f'lli )1
IIII!IIIIIIJJI~
11 II.. ... ....
t
~
) I
< f } I
I f I i
..rn
~
~ ~
~~ ~
!:!2 u N
,,~ ~
t ~
<!J
<1z
=
-
=
~
8
.c:
y
=
-
-
<
f' i
. . i .
f ~. f f . I
ill ..!~~
1011.[ iD
I
!
t
o
01
PI
I
~
o
l"l
I
~
~-.1 .
f"..f!
-!
u
J
i
~
f
f
5
J ~ 1
J ~ J I
Ii OJ I
il
~e>
~ON
i~~~
~~~~
~u.8N
C):C'ii-
~~~
g~-
"
--1z
-
=
~
~
~
-
-
<
1 I i I
~ i I !!
1 i ! J f I I 1 1
101 I. I .O!
.
i I
! 1. I I I i
i q J I
!E:J...
!
3 .
I I
! i
-
Q
\0
I
g
.
'.
'e>
~
~
..
~
~
~
'-'
~
ii
I
..
"
~
l
~
.
~
'6
.e
.
c.
.
:;
;..-- <.
.
.
.
Original Proffer ..1L
PROFFER FORM
Date fProffer Signature:
ZMA # 2007-00005 Avon Park IT
Tax p 90 Parcel Number 31
5.17 Acres to be rezoned from R-l to R-6
in accordance with the Application Plan of Terra Concepts, P.C. (dated April 30, 200T)
t to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent,
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned with the
plans approved for development. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is
agree that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a
reaso able relation to the rezoning request.
1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Owner shall provide the equivalent of four (4) residential dwelling units as affordable housing for lease
or sale. In addition, the Owner shall make a $9550 cash "comparable contribution" in lieu of.5
affordable unit payable prior to or at the time of issuance of the first building permit for the IlTst
affordable dwelling unit.
A. The four (4) units shall be comprised of one or more of the following unit types: single-family
attached housing (townhouses), condominiums or apartments/flats for rental. The Owner or his
successor. in interest reserves the right to achieve the four (4) equivalent affordable units in a
variety of ways, utilizing the above mentioned unit types alone or in combination as outlined
below. The Owner shall convey the responsibility of constructing the affordable units to any
subsequent purchaser of the subject property. The current Owner or subsequent Owner shall create
uriitsaffordable to households with incomes less than 80% of the area median income, such that
housing costs consisting of principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowner's insurance (pITI)
do not exceed 30% of the gross household income.
1. For-Sale Affordable Units - All purchasers offor-sale affordable units shall be approved by
the Albemarle County Office of Rousing or its designee. The Owner shall provide the
County or its designee a period of 180 days to identify and pre-qualify an eligible
purchaser for the affordable units. The 180-day period shall commence upon written notice
from the Owner that the units will be available for sale. This notice shall not be given more
than 120 days prior to the anticipated receipt of the certificate of occupancy. If the County
or its designee does not provide a qualified purchaser during this period, the Owner shall
have the right to sell the unites) without any restriction on sales price or income of
purchaser(s). If these units are sold, this proffer shall apply only to the flTst sale of each
unit.
Proffer F onn
Avon Park II
Page 1 of3
D<' .
r!::l;"J '" ,
Attachment D ~
n. For-Rent Affordable Units
1. Rental Rates For-Lease Affordable Units The gross lease amount, including tenant
paid utilities, shall not exceed one-hundred twenty (120%) percent of the fair
market value of rentals published by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development that is in effect when the unites) is available for occupancy. In each
subsequent calendar year, the monthly net rent for each for-rent affordable unit
may be increased up to three percent (3%). For purposes ofthis proffer statement,
the term "net rent" means that the rent does not include tenant-paid utilities. The
requirement that the rents for such for-rent affordable units may not exceed the
maximum rents established in this paragraph lBi shall applyfor a period often
(10) years following the date the certificate of occupancy is issued by the County
for each for-rent affordable unit, or until the units are sold as low or moderate cost
units qualifying as such under either the Virginia Housing Development Authority,
Farmers Home Administration, or Housing and Urban Development, Section 8,
whichever comes first (the "AffordableTerm").
2. Conveyance of Interest - All deeds conveying any interest in the for-rent
affordable units during the Affordable Term shall contain language reciting that
such unit is subjectto the terms of this paragraphl. In addition, all contracts
pertaining to a conveyance of any for-rent affordable unit, or any part thereof,
during the Affordable Term shall contain a complete and full disclosure of the
restrictions and controls established by this paragraph 5B. At least thirty (30) days
prior to the conveyance of any interest in any for-rent affordable unit during the
Affordable Term, the then..current owner shall notify the County in writing of the
conveyance and provide the name, address and telephone number ofthe potential
grantee, aild state that the requirements of this paragraph IB(ii) have been
satisfied.
3. Reportinl!: of Rental Rates - During the Affordable Term, within thirty (30) days of
each rental or lease term for each for-rent affordable unit, the then-current owner
shall provide to the Albemarle County Housing Office a copy of the rental or lease
agreement for each such unit rented that shows the rental rate for such unit and the
term of the rental or lease agreement. In addition, during the Affordable Term, the
then-current Owner shall provide to the County, if requested, any reports, copies of
rental or lease agreements, or other data pertaining to rental rates as the County
may reasonably require.
2. CASH PROFFER
The Owner shall contribute a total of $343,000 cash to the County for the purpose of mitigating impacts
from this development. The cash contribution shall be used for transportation improvements, schools,
libraries, fire and rescue, parks or any other public use serving Neighborhoods 4 & 5 as identified in the
Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter, "Capital Improvement Project").
A. Contributions shall be payable as follows:
Proffer Form
Avon Park II
Page 2 of3
--'t I
'"00, ~L,.-1
l'''j.j-) ./
,~
.
.
.
i. For market rate attached townhome/condominium units: $11,900 each for 20 units payable
prior to or at the time of issuance of the building permit for each unit.
11. For new market rate detached single family units: $17,500 each for 6 units payable prior to
or at the time of issuance of the building permit for each unit.
B. If the cash contribution has not been exhausted by the County forthe stated purpose within (5) five
years from the date of the County's receipt of the fmal contribution, all unexpended funds shall be
refunded to the Owner.
C. Annual Adjustment of Cash Proffers. Beginning Januaryl, 2010, the amount of each cash
contribution required herein shall be adjusted annllally until paid, to reflect anyincrease or
decrease for the preceding calendar year in the Marshall and Swift Building CostIndex (the
"MSI"). In no event shall any cash contribution be adjusted to a sum less than the amount initially
established by these proffers. The annual adjustment shall be made by multiplying the proffered
cash contribution amount for the preceding year byafr~ction, the numerator of which shall be the
MSI as of December 1 in the year preceding the calendar year most recently ended, and the
denomination of which shall betbeJ\1S1 as of December 1 in the preceding calendar year. For each
cash contribution that is being paid in increments, the unpaid incremental payments shall be
correspondingly adjusted each year.
September ,2007
Date
Wea er Hill Development"LLC
by: M c C. Powell, Manager
Printed Names of All Owners
for Current Owners ofTMP90-3l
E. Fox and Diane M. Fox
Proffer Form
Avon Park II
Page 3 of3
,-:-) F'.:<:'- €._
t.,Ljj.
.Lk'
12~:
" "'c:>~~i:?:J:;;.
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
,: .;:<:;<
;,',"-;C,"';"
Figure 2:9 Chevy Chase,
Maryland demonstrates
many of the principles of
the Neighborhood Model as
it pertains to the making of
well-defined streets in an
American context. Any
number of elements,
including a row of street
trees, and a white picket
fence at the propertY line
defines the space of the
street, In addition, the
house is set close enough to
its front property line so
that conversation between
passersby is possible when
people are seated on the
front porch.
2. NEIGHBORHOOD F'JuENDLY
STREETS AND PATHS
Roads make up the largest component of public
open space. Typically, traffic engineers have
designed roads based on capacity. Less
recognized is how much roads influence the
character of an area and how much they are a
setting for human activity.
The Neighborhood Model proposes
that road design addresses character
and appearance as well as design
speed and capacity. Specifically,
streets should 1) be narrower, 2)
include streetscape elements such as
street trees, 3) provide paths for
pedestrians and bicyclists, 4) allow
better distribution of traffic, and 5)
accommodate potential public
transportation connections. These
changes would make transportation
routes work better for all citizens,
not just those in cars.
Reducing required street widths has a number of
advantages. Narrower pavement area can enhance
property values, provide public amenities, do less
environmental damage, and increase pedestrian
safety. Alleys, for example, greatly improve the
network without requiring wide pavement.
Providing just as good a network for bicyclists and
pedestrians makes long-term sense, particularly in
combination with planned public transportation
connections. Bike paths can be sited along roads
and also as part of green ways or other path
systems. Steep terrain for example, can make
pedestrian paths a sensible alternative to excessive
roadcuts.
'-:-..
&'.c.,,) Z
Attachment E
-ff
.
.
.
The eighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
ntages of Reduced Road Width:
Red ced water pollution. Roadways are a major
con r butor of erosion and water pollution and
narr er streets have less impervious surface than
wid streets.
ced Pedestrian Safety. In some instances,
residential streets may be safer than wider
Drivers tend to drive slower when streets are
er. Slower speeds give drivers more reaction
o avoid accidents, and reduce the severity of
when there are accidents.
ed Cost. Reducing pavement width should
ce a pro-rata savings on the cost of the road.
Cle ing and grading costs also would be less, as
wo I long-term maintenance.
13
Figure 2: 10 f1ew of
narrow street of new
townhomes in Kentlands,
Maryland.
?-.c 2> 21
-.-rt'
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
2. NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY STREETS AND PATHS:
OPTIONS FOR THOROUGHFARES
To achieve the goal of having neighborhood friendly streets and paths, the relationship of
streets to neighborhoods must be considered. In Virginia counties using VDOT subdivision
street standards, traffic engineering typically deals with capacity of roads. With the Neighbor-
hood Model, the character and appearance of the street as well as the design speed and
capacity must be factored into street design. Character and appearance are determined by
streetscape elements, building front conditions, building use, and form. Capacity and design
speeds are determined by local street design standards. Design speeds generally should be
lower on subdivision streets than on arterials in the urban area,
Streetscape elements are important to neighbor-
hood design. Trees, usually planted in grassy
strips of land between the curb and the sidewalk,
provide a softened appearance to streets and
enhance the quality of the walk for pedestrians,
Trees also provide a barrier between the
pedestrian and a moving car Where sidewalks
abut a curb, trees can be planted adjacent to the
sidewalk in the front yard to help create a similar
effect.
The Neighborhood Model proposes that many
street interconnections will be made, which
should allow for narrower road widths than are
currently used. Narrower road widths and on-
street parking help to reduce travel speeds on
roads, which can make neighborhoods safer.
The following road types introduce elements of
"character" into the urban road system, Part A
of this section includes streets that fall within
neighborhoods and extend from neighborhood
to neighborhood. They are arranged from
highest volume and width to lowest. Highways
are outside of individual neighborhoods and are
required for high speed regional traffic. They are
represented in Part B of this section.
The Neighborhood Model proposes streets for
the urban area that have lower design speeds
than standard VDOT designs suggest. Certain
road improvements may require substantially
lower design speeds than the examples ilIustrate.
51
Figure 6: 7 Massachusetts
Avenue in the Spring Valley
area of Washington, DC IS "
example of a Boulevard,
described on the facing
page.
, " 2~
i?(:S
-fr
.
The eighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
~ hborhood Street or Road
De ition: A neighborhood street or road
cal slow-movement thoroughfare, A
borhood street is urban in character
road is rural in character.
res of Streets
. treets have an "urban" cross section
hich includes curb, gutter, street trees,
d sidewalks.
. treets are used to establish an "urban
orm" which supports densities of 3
welling units per acre or greater.
. arallel parking is allowed along the
houlder of streets.
. uilding fronts are aligned with small
etbacks.
. rainage system is closed.
. uggested speed limit is 20 m,p.h.
. opriate location:
e, General Areas and Centers
res of Roads:
. oads use a "rural" cross-section
hich includes open drainage ditches
nd no curbs.
. aths instead of sidewalks are used
djacent to the drainage ditches,
. etbacks can be irregular.
. oads are used to characterize a more
'rural form" and are used in areas with
ery low traffic volume.
. oads are the "exception" rather than
e rule in the Development Areas.
Sug sted location:
Frin s.
.
I
I
) 8i~
I
L-
3Q:- 36'
Figure 6: 14
illustrates a
"subdivision"
street,
57
\:i -
~~-
Attachment F
10 September 2007
Ms. Rebecca Ragsdale
Albemarle County
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Avon Park II; Private Road Justification
Dear Rebecca:
Please allow this letter to serve in support of our client's request to permit private roads to be
constructed in Avon Park II in accordance w.ith Albemarle code Sections 14-232 and 14-233.
Article II, Division 6 of the code describes the criteri~ and protocol that must be met to allow
either the "commission" or the "agent" to authorize the institution of private roads within a
new community. The Applicant is also requesting two additional considerations relative to the
private road sections. First, they wish to be permitted to place the sidewalk adjacent to the
street and to move the street trees back from the street where the sidewalk would normally
reside in a Neighborhood Model District scenario. Second, they are requesting that a short
section of road be permitted to exceed 10% grade.
Avon Park II is an extension of the original Avon Park community that is currently under
construction, Avon Park II proposes to create both public and private roads to support a
development of single-family lots and townhouses, The first phase of Avon Park also utilized
public and private roads to serve the same mix of unit types, An extension of the public road
connects the two phases and has been designed to allow for further extension to provide
access to adjacent property within the growth area.
All of the townhouses are proposed to be served by private road sections. Of the two
sections of private road one resides on relatively flat ground on a ridge, while the other, an
extension of the first, travels downhill toward Avon Street. In total, roughly 490' of private
road is being proposed. Each section terminates in as a deadend with a turn around. Future
extension of either road section is very unlikely and the traffic on anyone section will be less
than 130 VTPD,
You can see from the Application Plan (Sheet 2) that a short run of the lower section of
Stratford Way reflects slopes that exceed 10%. The native topography in this alignment is a
consistent 14%-15%. It is the Applicant's desire to have the new road fit sympathetically into
the native topography so that a minimal amount of grading is required. By allowing a brief
section (90 - 100') of the road grade to exceed 10% but not to exceed 13.5% (well within
VDOT Mountainous Terrain Standards) we are able to tie road grades into native topography
almost immediately behind the new sidewalk. Relaxing of the 10% road grade limitation also
makes it much easier to preserve an existing house, which resides at the low end of the
private road section. The home is in excellent condition and the Applicant wishes to preserve
the residence and have it be a part of the proposed development.
CIVIL ENGINEERING . LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
.'1 "II:T. . . """"':l#"\.(\'" r'l.P'" A...,AI ""rIoP" .Ann!"" T:'___ A",'" ..,(\~ '"'il-:l"''''
.?:{)=> '~~
~
.
.
.
lacement of the street trees further from the edge of the private road sections is beneficial
I three ways. First, because the private road widths are less than that of the public road,
ehicle traffic and maneuvering will occur in tighter quarters. We wish to avoid having street
ees inadvertently pruned by trucks traveling a smaller road section, Second, we feel the
ees would be healthier if permitted to grow in an environment where pavement was not on
o sides. Finally, the water and sewer easements associated with this and other
evelopments reside under and over the roadway, whether public or private. Exchanging the
idewalk/street tree positions enables those necessary easements to reside completely
nder pavement resulting in no intrusions by plantings. We will create maintenance
asements over the planting area on the lots so that the Homeowner's Association will be
ble to maintain these trees.
e hope that our request has been clearly articulated and that your review of our justification
nds you able to support this request.
incerely,
ark E. Keller
c: Ian Bosserman
.~;~) :3 \
-~
WEATHER HILL
DEVELOPMENT, LLC.
10 September 2007
Ms. Rebecca Ragsdale
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: AVON PARK ll; PRIVATE ROAD JUSTIFICATION
Dear Rebecca:
Please allow this letter to serve as the written request to permit private roads to be constructed in Avon Park
n in accordance with Albemarle code Sections 14-232 and 14-233. Article n, Division 6 of the code
describes the criteria and protocol that must be met to allow either the "commission" or the "agent" to
authorize the institution of private roads within a new community.
Avon Park II is an extension of the original Avon Park community that is currently under construction. Avon
Park IT proposes to create both public and private roads for a development of single-family lots and
townhouses on a steep and narrow 5.1 acre site that supports the current comprehensive plan target for
density. The fIrst phase of Avon Park also utilized public and private roads to serve the same mix of unit
types. An extension of the public road connects the two phases and has been designed to allow for further
extension to provide access to adjacent property within the growth area.
All of the townhouses are proposed to be served by private road sections. This is in response to three main
site limitations; steep grades, limited property width and constraints of existing and planned infrastructure.
Of the two sections of private road one resides on relatively flat ground on a ridge, while the other, an
extension of the first, travels downhill toward Avon Street. Each section terminates at a dead-end with a turn
around.
Town homes alone are proposed for the upper flat section of the lot because this is the only section which
can be directly served by the existing sewer line without the use of grinder pumps. Grinder pumps are not
allowed to serve townhomes. Therefore the single family units were located on the lower section for which
grinder pumps have been approved. The lower, steep section of proposed private road serves a mix of town
homes and single family units. A short run of the lower section of Stratford Way exceeds 10% slope in order
to have the new road fIt sympathetically into the native topography. This also preserves the wooded
characteristics of the land but would not be allowed under Public Road standards.
The narrow width of the lot also required the use of Private Road standards. Lots of adequate standard sizes
could not be accommodated without the use of the more narrow Private Road standard. A wider road would
have required wider lots which mean fewer lots. In order to "better achieve the density goals of the
comprehensive plan", (Albemarle County Code Section 14-233 .A.l.ii), we are seeking approval of the use of
Private Streets.
703 east jefferson st. . charlottesville, va 22902 . 434.296.9484 . fax 434.296.2560"8o~) :3
~
.'
.
.
bemarle County Code Section 14-233 allows for private roads to be approved by "the agent" in a
" ubdivision containing attached dwelling units ......where the units.....are to be located on individual lots."
stated above, this situation pertains in Avon Park II.
ction 14-233 also allows for authorization of Private Roads by ''the commission" in support of the
ighborhood Model when "the subdivision design would allow it to better achieve the density goals of the
prehensive plan." As stated above, this plan could not "achieve the density goals of the comprehensive
" without the use of Private Roads.
ditionally, per the requirements of Albemarle County Code Section 14.234, we are including responses
b low to the five fmdings in Section 14.234, Paragraph C.
1. The private street will be adequate to carry the volume which may be reasonably expected to be
generated by the subdivision.
Future extension of either road section is very unlikely and the traffic on anyone section will be less
than 130 VTPD. The proposed road section is more that adequate to carry the proposed volume.
2. The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in the approximate location of the
proposed private street.
1bis is the case.
3. The fee of the private street will be owned by the owner of each lot abutting the right-oi-way thereof
or by an association composed of the owners of aU lots in the subdivision, subject in either case to
any easement of the benefit of aU lots served by the street.
The fee of the private street will be owned by an association composed of the owners of all lots in
the subdivision, subject to an easement of the benefit of all lots served by the street. No public
entity, including Albemarle County and VDOT shall be responsible for maintaining the private
street.
4. Except where required by the commission to serve a specific public purpose, the private street will
not serve through traffic nor intersect the state highway system in more than one location.
This will be the case, as the road dead ends and is not expected to be extended (due to slopes on the
east and west).
5. If applicable, the private street has been approved in accordance with section 30.3, flood hazard
overlay district, of the zoning ordinance and other applicable law.
The proposed subdivision is not within a flood hazard overlay district.
~
F. Bosserman
-
7 3 east jefferson st. . charlottesville, va 22902 . 434.296.9484 . fax 434.296.2560'[3[,)5 :::.
,~
to .~
I) C
"
~~~ !Q ~d-!t i~ ....
0Q =
0 ~
"~::E n~n I- .1- if, 8
;"'.J. llhfl~ i! i .cl
~ ~
.. '.oooou ;h~111 ~I '\ ~
~~~~~~~ ....
....
.. ~ 0 t.iuuUC! HUff! f i <
~ ~ Vl "'1'-'''' liH ) it . '"'
:;j;:J;:l!> ~",h -fliP !I ~
u'" ~J."-""c. t .- I Ji
"', ..
I11_Q ...,.."......... (f]
<~ '" ~~
tJ ~~
~~ ~:t
~:i i!i~
~,,;!;
'"~
~~ ~~ ~~~
ZI'l ~~'"
W~ I'l!;: o>~
~~ u~~
~8 uO ~~~
~
.....
NV'1d NOI1J'10W30
aNY SN01LIGNO:J DNIlSIX3
YINlDHIA 'UNa.O;) 3'nIVl'i3ll'IV
II )I~Vd NOAV
~Od NV'ld lNHWGNHWV dVW DNINOZ
il
Jtt
...
N
....IS w
l!~ "
;!
i:; .~ ~!z
~~o(
:>...~ Ow ..
~~ ,.
~~ili -.. u
~~~ f2ili N
~~~
woz
muo(
il
~
!<l
~ /"
,."", ;>;>
/..//~./' /
,. "r/"." ,...,....' ,,/~~..... --.;-
..". -'......... ,,","
'/':~::::'::~;;:::::;;:>:
/< /.......:"r/
~/~~;::~,/~
/
,0
~
.~
"
o
m~ ~~ g:m
oeD::OC"l........-ec
C"l~oOa:&::o.g
O"tfc:{~.....;;j~.1
~ a z,..: ~ ~ ~'"
O"~5>-~~Zi:ri
i!~'~~ c~
a::C1 ~
ci.
E
o
o
;
I
~
u;
0::
"
'" 0
~Offi", '8-
~e~5~_O~
"'e::J<( .&:~"
o..o~cnQ....'O:2
~~UJ~~l~~
~:t:~z~~~..
t-~~~~ c~
~> ~
ci.
E
o
o
,--,
J
r-;\
I I i I
/ I! I
! ! I
f I 1
J I
,
--It
- ._~ ,,-"
-..i .-"-
w
~ -'--C,\OJ__
'"
o
.__" _.._ '''_.. _,,_ ,,0... ~..., _... _,,_ _
x '..
.-~ - -.. --,2 _u -ii_u --'- _..
m~ ,0
]. . ---. --;.~. ~~. _..11-. -._. _'._
~~ ~ ~~cL~~~!
~ _ -&~a~!-;~_
j: 0 Q. .... 0:: r- ~.Ii 0:::,....
uc S~O"-OZiD~
~ ifi ~uj a;-t'L . VI It)
__fl$ol <: >- ci ,j ;:).--- __
o Q. .tll'......__
Z
- ---'~
~
~ I ~
I 01
~ 1"-1'" ffi ~
'1'-&-11-11 <( ~ ~ III "8 ~
.- -'.-,'-"1 g ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~
'__m ....O! ._.J, ~~~~~i~~
,... -g....--,I D. O~,..:~ 6~..
....~ l::it ~ (; WaiN .. 3:J
It......."..... "" ~ 0 .li :J
I I '" D.
'" ",',,' 1'-'" ~ ci.
---f-; g
IJ 0
II
1 1
I .
\ \~
-\ ....,
\ \
-""-..\
, ,
\ \
._,\., ..\
/ I
\
'. \,-_..J
=r
a:
~
w
>
--1---
......
_'. Ii
. g-
o
~
,
\
'....
\
I\.
-"...
C
~~
8u
~>>f
o
...
/
/
/.
".
.....~
/
./
,,/"
/
/
;
/
/
/
I
/
/
~
'iij
. 0::
/ Qi ~
'" un- ~ -
Ol::a:~lD~ J!l
~ eO' c:
l1.S .OcL~~~
OLl..Og5Nj-Ccn
. :-'1i~J~ 5.r~
,. ~ ~~~~N~ ~
"" ~o ~::J
a:
m
./
/
/
~'
,/
/
.,,'0
/
/
..---
/
/
I
.-'
"",
/'
--
/
I
/
,.0'-'
/
.--,,'
/
.....'
".....
"
'"' .
...::
~,
;::...W or-m w_
fJii8t;;;;t;;:!<(c:~~
Q..8g~c.:a.:c.:~~-g:9
OLl..~"""s:~m"O ci..O ~
~a~~g~~g5~~
~~:SSaiaiaiNO~51
~LL cicici o~~
lU
;~
l'lo;
~
~".:: ___ ~8<'
W
..J
<(..J
>0
00
~~
8
ci.
E
o
o
P-t
-<
::g
~
f-l
~
z.
~8
u_
-JI
>;...
w
w !!,
z w ..
::i a.. w w
~ ~~ ~a..5 ~ww3 ~
~ ~~ ~~~~ ~!!,!!,~ ~
~ ~~ a~~~ w~~w ~ ~
~ UJ lii 0 ffi~~~w~~~~~m !Z
52 ~ !:: w~ ~ ~ o~o2~2~9~~~@s
~5~~~W~~~ ~~~~Gif~cg~~~g~~c
1<~""""'Z Cii:i!z...;::olt... a:~"'''''''U~'''!;~
<!!~~~~W~o~0o~eeE~w~~~ffi~cw~~~
O....~5I!!PWW.. -ItX~""UdO:>~Q-
~~~~~zZ~~a~~~~bbg~b!~~a~~~~~
g~~oow~8~~zg5~~gg>~5~2f%>~ee~
~~
I+CLa..
,~~....
i5
I
!
t~~~~5~~~~~!t~~~
m U x
Cl
Z
~
C)
~
~
.:
o
Q'if
~ ~~
~~ ~ i
0- _0
if_ ~ 00 i=
'U g 11
.: ~.. ~~ <~
Offi ~~ 0 ~ ou ~~
~~ s~ ~ ~m~~ ~~
~~ ~oc ~ ~ ~w ~ ~U~
~w~~~~ ~ ~sw~ ~ffi~~~
w>Z~<ffi w~z5~_m:>~ ~,.u:>w
~~~~~~g~~g~~w~~~~~w~~~~~
~~~X~<zO~~C~~~x~~ ~FUJ~<<~
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~
lij~iI8i~~;~j~wll~~~~BI1~
· 0 c txo ~o
I~ i r "II II
.:
o
if
t
~
~
~
!
~
M
~
!
~
>
;;:
C
l!!
'"
<S
;!;
i
..
%
;:i
!J!
:>
..
~ i
~ ~
~ g
ffi ~ I
~ i ~
5 ~ ~
w .. ~
~ ~ >'
It lr a:
~ I!! 1\
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ f g
: i U;"j''' 1
:.:,;~ i,l,i .,.,i,
. :I!
!~lli'I,~,I,
++:~t
i il i'~I~
" ! i~ IIi .Ii I~I
~r~n~ lin~~ti!1
"'i'li ':i" , 18"
::I,;s;"'1:::' ;;-z'
it if; L.l!"L~;J!j::
~
~
IE
t
!II
~
~
z
o
~
i
!i ~
if ~
i i ~
>= ... ~
! I u!
! ~ ~ i
; ~~~~ ~ ;; ~ ~
~
Ii
i
~
oJ
Ii!
~
ffi ~
i~! ~
~~ W tii
.:.; ~i! ~
~ ffi~ ~ ~
~i~i~i
f-l
u
~
~
i
~ ;;/ 0
Ii g
w ~
~ ~ i
~ ; ~
~
~
~
~ ~
Uj ~ ~
~ ffi 1u
i i ~
Q
~
J<..' ~
ffi ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
?: ~ ~ ?: N C ~ ~
~ i ffi ffi ~ ~ ~ !
f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
m
~
i\
~
~
o
-
~
;!:
g
~
i l5
~ S~~~!
~ ~~Uia= ~
~
15
C
fil
:g tZ
~ w
f 5
~
I
<q rn ~~
f-< ~~
U
rn~ <,},
~~ f:l~ ~~l1i
,,;;;
~u "'~
5>~
~~ @~ ~~~
z~ ~>~
~fi l>l~ 0~8
~~ (,) ;!.
~8 uC: ~i~
j u"
NVid NOI~ V:JIiddV
Y1NWlIIA '.u.N.'lOJ 3"IlIY1'a1l1V
II )I'UVd NOAV
~O.!l NVid .LN3WGN3WV dVW DNINOZ
- fil
//V'-
/' ...... --
~~'" ,/-<.,~
ffi ' ~\) /::'~,/- "~ '~
~ ~~~~~," '-,',,~,'/~.%:'.::,
~ /~;{~~~o~,,/;;: /' '~. ~ ~
~ ~~~~' ~__ -- 7:; _,
-J~ "'~ , /,'$ ~~~ ,-~.. ~ ';It- ~ ' ""
I' : ,;::,,/ ~~>:~~: /;:12~ ;. ~\- ~~
-- _ .... ~~ ..:;.:~~:#~. :"ij; . .~~U
.... \ I'.~' -~~~ J7
"""".,/Y,' <;',',1" / \' \'''' _' ::'~:.:;;;:- / 0 I ~ -....r-/ ' -,
_ ---. / \' ... --,,' ./ / / ~ .. -<C'- -''',,-''''
..~...(' /)/ A'"~:~~ , , \' ._.." ~-_. ~ I / z.1 . / ~ I
/<'/:::>>'J~}f;%,~;''''' \ 1\ ' --- / 01~35~ ~UL ' .()~ -0 ""''',-
/::/.;~~i!#f/fZl.,.. ~\ ~\ rC (~-- I=~~t ~/~it / ~~'J -'- -" -
".-.'<f,.,..,.. >" C:>' '. , f' I l.:!J 0 l'j~ii~ j ~~~~ /" "
/' ..~. ,. ~", ~ iD~&Bj/~R~ir________<;
~:" ,... ~_ '__'....,_~.-,,:~ \ \, \ "- \~~V'- "~tri<<~.~~/7 :~/O// /~',,,. 0__- ._' . .
~ ' \ , ~-~\., -- ;i.-> / ''^9~:(1{ ~ / -'
= .\-. -- f t;( ~:- /// ;;:'/~~,-:
)~:- :1 r -:=_ ~ rU U'~\ : >-f~: ~> ~!/. ~5> ~~Ir-'r~
, ..\. Ii: ~ en ~ G a: '-'. ",0 ---. ./". /~ ....., '. / 0 q.. ___ 0:;'- k',,'"
.;'~\IT=-- ~~~~ H' --n- -<1'// (...E'rO=:'L- 'I
-- j;J;;~--~~' --- ~ > i M .':.:~.-~.,r:~~,~ .: ~:g~'..~i~:= := -~~)~ ~.
,,' ./ ~__. U ~ "--Je:~Jl-~o ~~_ ~~'. ,= _-= . - ,;;,;-: := --i
, _~., ". ..' '- ~ . ,_ ~~ . _ "-".~~ t-- --0,r-" "'''-<r,' __ ".
,,' -.---. -- w ~ H:_ ~..:-:....- ,-' ':' /~ ~1- i:--~ _ --::::-' _ -=:- 0>-
~:L/' ~-~.-_.. - '" ~~ -- F' ~'...1~i': f.~~,-~..--' ,',~.~=~ :-.~
-=-= . ..-" - ......., ......, <<0 -- ~ ,," 2:'" W<<UI . ,"-" "". '"'' 10
- ~'" g~" _----l!l .ll5S --~ili ,j-' [} /: /'-n..... -'.. ~:-' -.
-........ ~.. ..'- ..-" -..' - ,- '..,- -- <~ ,. , : __ '~:-: P't..." ..,- .r
'~,,'~' ~" ". --;;;:;;o''''~<~<:::~'~:.::-.:;::y,~;w_~v=_ ~ .,: ' ~'.-:- ~
'1 :"/' \\,--L-/'- -*:::'_ --- '--.. ""., - - '-:4='''-:;;,,,.. .-~ ~ti..c: :::
~--I,~"','~~.~,i"r_~'i, ~~ ~,.,~..., ...... '-.._ ,- ".. . "'~ /r. '~'
~ ' I -' -- ____' "-." ,,- -" ~ r~'::1
~_~~~.--,,:'~~/.-..~,-;~~:,~- 0: :. ~ ~f-~, __ ~~"} ~
, I -- .,. " . ~ - ~. -=f',"'11L - ...;/~ DJ
- ~I ".;,... .-" .~-- tV -~ - ---' r- -fJ7j]Tr' -- ~:-- ~~: .
~~~. ~;~~-'.:..~91/./.-.: ,,: -- :~/'~ ..~r: -~ ---I-~._~ ~~'~I... :"~E' ..
u~ _~~. -~~,,:-'..- -'~~ ._>_~:~' _: . _ J ...' ~l1lJg g;
~ ~m -k- ~7~~'- , -\ ~ ~ ~~~~.... "t.:.-1J~',= =- <(~a:~
.' -.~" , '~~-~'~.._- ' ,-,~- :'_ -~_ ~ \ 1,,, ~~~. ~ ~__ ,~_ ~~!~ ~ ~ ~g
,- .-' ,~ ~~;- ,. -- -:,- '1-&....' <iJ~'-+": r._ o"'i~~- il:~~gj
2" '< ~~ ,\'.- ~. - ~' :\~\=">-'~P-':~ ::> ...~ <~ "~..~' i ',,~ .N~ j' '~ ,[! ~ ;" ~ffi~ ~ ~ ~ J i ~ ~
,.,'/'.. ".~ ~ ')l!\ 0." , --- . ..'" -- .J--!__J ~ ;j., i2 a:
',',.,~" ...,~"-- A a; =.: -, ,,'~0~::~; '-.-.~ ==- - -- ~-I '" :;,-,. t.- ...~~~ "."'- ~
~ ~~~" ::mo"~ -~~~5~~ .~-~. ;: ~~:= ~~~,'~ '" :,,:~~:_~1 ( ~ ';' ~O~ ~ Cl~~ ;,
1'-/ 1-9..9$'~ !~.- ~~-,.;:r'--.;",.J d':~J:~-~,':- = ::J .-,P:-~ - ~:.:- 'll4, ",.
~m:z", _Jl.~...:,1.~l<i" :.:('.r-' '---: ---=-= f~ "'Mi'-~ ,
8:-'7.''''3.., ",'2ji~ o~.D . w-'--~-' '~'" ... ... "T~ ~ ~ I, \
",= ....~,~~;,~, :~~""'~',,~- ,-~_~-~~h '~l- ..rF _~G~G, tS. fti ~"~~~:~l\~
to',- r'~, ~:', rs';.; '... t ,,- 1'7!1-~';;'-"II~I!'
, ~,~~-I-~ -- ,.-/ A __ _ IC=-I _ L:: - - .. \
/"11f'-." VI!' ......' "..~"" '","/ '-Jro,.V ,~=...::-=- - - . - -=...",.. - 1 .
,'" ... "'F--=:I::, -r =:/ 1'.: ~ ~ ", ::r- , ----
~_ .~~;!- ,.' _,- ,-1- \A :' .. . . "'"
! / ',I" .. ff<~~_, "-'""~~ _-', 1,_ _ ~ ~ \
~(..."v-:\I'j \1 '4,~ ~ (l'YF( " I?.;;;;- ~il ,-..". ~ -rr
. ... .. ... --;.-~~ - T ~...>; ~\
~/.,- ) 1-, - ,-- "~ if-':::~'~>:,-_ , ", .[ ~ '\' J I" '\ \ ~\
/'" "" ~~/I :\~! !_-~ ,~~ -"~' '~,_:-._.. ~-.;:l .1 ~ ~_~_~ -A ~
/ " ,,'" -,- '-".",= [ I u'~, It ~ ",""l E I fj ~ 10 ~' ffi
k ./' / '1 I ~ ,;- :: 1..;olL, /:.. _ _ V I- -~ -':" ~..
I ). ~ ~-~-'b ~~ _ /!:~ !; ~ U ; / '1' ~ '" ~.. I ~ ~ ,1. ~ 1
~~NJJ+'"-''' I-'N I ,',' 'I ~ I ,,~ '! W / ~--~ ~ ~i S ~-",-; ~
, ,,' I \R'", . ..,.....L "'--' ... , ~ I-b ...
~... ......---, I _ ~~-- . DE 8 , - - fi 0::
p"., ,- -:;--. .- _.. _, " _. \ j // " ? 10' ..' N ~ H /t" ~
~~~~i/~~~I-<' "S ,'.', ,.- -.. rr::~ ,,' ~~' ,;.~::~ - 'I ~ -:- :~ }/ ~ J.~ ~ ~ ~
-.... r I!\.J /""'h /'~- ~~ .~ ~..,...~':.. .!::.:.. ~~~~.~
-'.. ).~,. . 1lIt- ~ .. 7.l ~....'" ....... ~ ,~ ~ / ~ UJ
'_,.. ~r'?,,;;'1 "'. ~ it.. I?I' m .. a:
:CD~ i=-r:r,~1~~'~1---="~='J_"~;~,,=_~~_ ~_~:.::~{ : 2~r~ ~ _ ~ _::: ~/:.! _'. )" ~~ m
~ ~.~~,t~v>"~ -< ~J,.. . C/ ..- ,_' _,_ ,
- "....",..".. -... / ~- !<l ",__. I ~"" .OEN .-
--- ,__--.- ---- '- --- .... ""~ rg ~1; ~~..-- "'~ ~- "~ ~"_~~ .' ..... '
- - - - -- - -'-, _A. 50 ~ 0.: ",:.n:~ ff:,>! ~ ...~......
o~~~~frim-i:; '~e'!--- ~
~ ~~~g~~..g..E~Q:
~~15:5aiaiaiN8:2~
<:u. ooci f~
Jt
-,..~
DJ ~ ~
0'1)0::0
"'500
ll.tf..:gj
g:~~~
~"'o>-
o"m
~ =>
a:
Ww
"w
z.,
w.
U.~M
'" :i-Ii;
~~~
0""
~~~
0~1i;
:ho
~,~__,\ar
:.'
'~
v')
~
.. t-- ~ ~
~c:r~ ~
~ ~ ~~~~~
nns
> ti:i 888Sg
I'Q Z ci cio 0:;'
"zoutJuuo
~Q~tiJ ..--
~~;:lS=~~~~
vgs J.>1 U.l.l
trJ_O~ .............~
itl.!t t~
tH' !f,
11/1111 i'li i
!n!~I! i ~
i1!d~I II !
,iUti I~
.. I ,
..,
~
o
N
~
~
'"
~
~
I ~
~
I. ~
Cl
~
UJ . ~I 0
<J..J ;;. ~
>0 to<
00
~i'i ~
2J w to<
::~ ~I rn
I
Z
0
<>' 10-.. -
0 to<
U
~
"I rn
'li N
-s Cl
-(
~ 0
'F! ~
" ~ ~I ~~
0
'"
~~ 8~
~.8 0.._
l~ :>-<~
~~ r-oo..
C' E8
..
0:
r:i
E
0
u
E-< ~
"-
~ <
-rf"
"ili
~ E-<
1:1 rn
~ :>-<
'" ~~
z ~~
..>2
<<
11:
k- to<~
~~
~ 1:1
'~
Zrn
;i 8~
~ ~ -
::I to< 0..
~::g
r.:l rno
0 Q~
-(~
Oz
~o
~ k-- ~d1
'iii uZ
'"
" -~
c ,:l.;E-<
'8iii S
0., ~ :>-<~
~J::'" ~E~
d::o~
-c~l
H~ ~\-- ~
N..:ll
Iii=>
a:
r:i
E
0
u
~
'"
"
o
'8-
~~~
~.8~
~~~
~~;;
~~ ~
0: ...:l
! ~
~
c.;,
Z
1-1
~
~
<
~
~ I ~ 0 ~,o ill!
i .
iw ,ji,
i~fiil !o~~ lI!i !
~s .:E!::E I
LID . j i
l- i i ! l
I~~i- ~i~ ~1
el'rl~ !
..i~:."':~ill!
~m \-1 ; J
I '~!g !
3'"?j"?:"?\Xb!t-
t;NlNiN!W:I;~ 1
~ j
J+"=!~'I
BI:~~i~; i
x~!~~:~ i !
~~i~~!~ i
~i'~i!~ ! "
!!8~i~ I I!,
i ' !!
! ~l
i 11
~ ~[~~IM i ~!
! .>,1
~! [~'n~~}1
1,li,' I i~t~i, ! !,l~;,!i I~i
'!~I+++ii' ,
:~lffi
:lL!l:b
Iii
m!
!~Ii
','~','~ !:lito, i i.;!~ '~I
Z :~i~ " "
0'''''
E::: !~: '
~jl
~:!
~U
O!l I 1~1
!Ill :~""
~':! ijiU~u:
~,~ ;Ji i ~
~.,....I.... i
:i
~
'"
z
i2
<<
11:
~
!2
13
o
L..(
W
Cl ~
Z ~
~ Ul
~O~
~
f'.r. .''''T-'''-r.i.''.,
~I:j'
rn ,~;
Z!3
~
~
o
~i i~:
.}.....:.....!.,~i,.,
ll~li
I i!l!
i'~:
i :tn1
; l
~~ rn h
t;
~~ :s:t:
~~ j!i"l
~w ~~~
~~ '-'~ g.~
.......
z~ S~8
~~ ~~ 8~!.
~~ ft; ~
~8 w.:: NO;!;
~ ~~
U
NV'"Id AJ.I'lIJ.i1
YINm'llIA 'A.LN.1.0J ::rnIVI'l::IiflV
II )lHV d NOA V
)fO'!! NV'1d ~NHwaNHWV dVW DNINOZ
ii:
)If !Z
!Z w
:;
W W ~
:; .,
w ~
~ 1= :;
w
ii: ~ :J ~
::J ~
i= 0 w
0 " w ..
~ ~ ~
Z 0:
" U ..
ES II II
~
~
~/ /"
~ // /' --~
.~;;~
/;>/
./ ~~
o
~
~
a;
I
UJ
:gt0:5
~~~li1
0"'''''''
O>lsZ"':
Cl.;t6>-
r!o"''''
<: ::J
0:
~I
I
~
c
"
c
g:m
-E;c:
0"
.ell
.c:",
"'''
-';0:
~=
Ii=>
a:
ci
a:;;
U:J:
..
"
I-
Z
W
~
W
..
~
tn
..~
;lJi:!
~.., I
2j0:
cl ~Ul ~
~~5!i
~~~~
m....U>z
Q..O....z
:::;;;to:w
....ow-
;Z:1XI>
li1>
I
;
~
jJ
7,,=-\ ~I
I I .
III D - - :-
, I
/
I
!
H
'"
'"
,LOlllfM...lUll.ltS
.1Ilrlll,;.
----
~
-",'7'
---'
~
'ill
~ ~
~ ~::: 8m
~Qla:otO~.c::g
Cl.~~OO:O:i5"
~Lfe~~ji~
c..6a:.J:::glllD::
~~~C5a:!N~m
:!: ffiO e.:J
0:
'"
I
"1'"'' I
_-h-9=l-l-CfJ+CP-/ I
/'
~
>.W 0.....0) 11I-
O"t::C)t-.....,...v "cm
<olDOtl)Mtt)~c(C~~
Cl.~g~O:O:O:~~"8~
OlJ...t-I-~~~"O ciO ~
~;SSl~~~~~E~~
~~2j:5aiaiaiN8:l!~
<:u. cicici .~::J
\<l
~~
"0;
~
!Z
UlW
.,:;
Ww
u.,
~U\
. ...::<
~9~
I'"
:: ~
-....
~
o
Ul
Z
o
UlUl~:'G
IhU
.. .. oooou
r=Zd~d~~
"~OUlJuuO'
~Cl ......_..
::;j[:'5<~~~~~
urJ:l~~./,"o1.c.
tfJ . . .
cr::I-4Q "';NM-+
ill'n i~
1111111 t1' I
IHI I! I i
i1!d..i if ~
tlUU H
~
&.l
fi3
rJ:l
o
I
~ ~
"ill
ci c
"
Ul C
"tl_
g,g
&;€~ i
.. .8'3
il ~o: i
~~m
j=>
Cl.
~
0
()
ci
E
o
U
W
...J
cl-'
>0
00
~5
gUl
o
~
'ill
c
"
C
"tl
o
o
of
"
.0
.c:
'"
-.;
Z
<:
e.
<i
E
o
U
& ~\
..
~..
0:- Z
~:og g
iwl-::E
~H~ .
~~~!i ~
~ollJi5 ;t:
~
~lli
~~
~5
~~
;~
~~
gc
n ~
~~ M
~~z 0
15~~ ~
ti>O 0
~!~ ~
ua:... I:
~~~ ~
~I!';;l ~
ji'wz ;li
..~i G
gi~ ffi
~ffim ~
~e;i! i
~~e ~
~(J~ z
~~i ii
~U~ ~
~I- N
z
o
1=
()
w
UJ
Ul
tIl
o
0:
U
!
"
Z
~
~
~
~ ~z g
(, ~ ~!
~~ g~S ~!il g~
~, ~i~ ~u i-
n ~t, ~!i. ~~
~ gd h$~ II
~ I~i 2il! i~!~ ~L
" .~i ani
~ :~! ~Ii~
E~
~
41
~
~
~,!!
g:!~~~
""~lnlt
~~~~~~
~
u
o
.,
~ ~ ..J -
~ .~... ~ti ~ ~~~~
In ....U)~I a~:>ffi zfds.!!z
~ ~5~~ m~;I~ !i~a!ll
Uj -Ii: >. a:: ~. <i w
2 Sifi~~~. ~~!~ S5~~:J
~ ~~~!i ~~~~ ~l!i~~~
,~, \")i \00.
z (
~ ~
.. ~~
"'2
rti
E-<
i
z
~o
~E::
1-<u
~gJ
.... ,
~rJ:l
ogs
....p::
i:Qu
~~
5;~
o
z
....
u
Z
~
~
Ci
o
o
~
~
U
....
1-<
~
~
:>
o
~
o
Uj...l
,<
~b
....l~
i:QCl
:;:J -
O~
oS:
~
e
.
r.;
Z
....
u
Z
~
~z
~~
~~
O~
~~
OE::
i:QU
I~
l'<")rn
ZMA 07-12 Blue Ridge Cohousing
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing 11/14/07
Rezoning
Albemarle County Jurisdictional Area Amendment
Private Street Request & Waivers
ZMA 07-12 Blue Ridge Cohousing
Proposal
Acreage: apprax, 6.15 acres Rezone from: RA Rural Areas
TMP: TMP 56-67A, 67B (portion By-right use: Theoretically
of) three dwelling units if the
property has additional
development right. agric. uses.
Proffers: Yes
Magisterial District: White Hall
Proposal: Rezone to PRD Planned
Residential District for a mixed
housing development
DA (Development Area):
Community of Crazet
Requested # of Dwelling
Units: 26, SFD, SFA, Multifam.
Character of Property: Currently
developed with a house and
outbuildings
Compo Plan Designation: CT
3 Urban Edge in the Crazet
Master Plan
Use of Surrounding
Properties: Undeveloped,
veterinary hospital, nearby
employment uses
1
ZMA 07-12 Blue Ridge Cohousing
Location Map
ZMA 07-12 Blue Ridge Cohousing
Aerial & Topography
2
ZMA 07-12 Blue Ridge Cohousing
Zoning Map
III
Q
j
..
!:
!
.ot-
~..v:'o
N
,';(.;..-
.'-,-
-~..:,:':--
=::::::-..:::--';::"
-"-""...
.--,~..
_....._,"'-_.......,-
-_._,_.~,.,
--,-...
_---,'--, _w....
ZMA 07-12 Blue Ridge Cohousing
Application Plan-Illustrative
3
ZMA 07-12 Blue Ridge Cohousing
Application Plan
AutoTURN 5,1 F
-'ACCESSF
SIMULATION-"!
~EELe
ZMA 07 -12 Blue Ridge Cohousing
Site Photos
4
ZMA 07.12 Blue Ridge Cohousing
Crozet Master Plan
ZMA 07-12 Blue Ridge Cohousing
Parkview Drive-Proposed Section
STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT
EXlSllNC ~ EASDIDIT (P_W OR.)
r
i
I
I . .
~..~~'
V
'8'-0- PAVEMENT
-I
0'-0" I
.~
t 11lA\IEl. L.AIlE
~
11l....
o SCALE
PROPOSED F~OAD CROSS-SEC110N
5
ZMA 07-12 Blue Ridge Cohousing
Application Plan-Utilities Schematic
". ~~..'~ - -, , ~- / \" I
'\-... f~-
\....., ~ " . ,I ~
/r\.,,:~ -_...~.': '...., /1 .~~
~, ",Ii ',' ,'>~_, "_~
t::.'J \ \/"'" ,"~ 1~,-' -' - -..::;:::-~.___.....;".,;-'c~~"'"
\ \ ",\,
(/
C:)
/
/ f
ZMA 07-12 Blue Ridge Cohousing
Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area
I :
I
I
0'-
....~'I-
DPiln:oa~
CJP3fC9Ioflr"l10res.l
6
I
. .
ZMA 07-12 Blue Ridge Cohousing
Planning Commission Recommended
Denial on 10-9-07
Based on the following Outstanding Issues:
1. Stream buffers appeared to be impacted by grading.
2. The applicant had not demonstrated the legal right to upgrade
Parkview to accommodate this development.
3. Proffers did not address the project's impacts.
4, Emergency access provisions had not been verified on plans with
Fire/Rescue to confirm that the plan provided can be approved as
shown without significant redesign to meet Fire Rescue comments.
5, Workable concepts for stormwater management had not been
demonstrated on the application plan.
6. Sight distance had not been confirmed with necessary easements
as required by VDOT.
All of the above have since been addressed with the updated
proffers and application plan. The remaining issue regards the
provision for stormwater management through bio-retention
filters in yards.
ZMA 07-12 Blue Ridge Cohousing
Proffers provided since Commission Public Hearing
Affordable HousinQ
- Minimum of 5 affordable units for-lease or for-sale,
19% of the total number of units
Cash Impacts
- Full amount for market rate units proposed ($17,500
single family detached, $11,900 Single Family
Attached, and $12,400 Multifamily) - $286,200 total
Park View Drive Improvements
- Off-site pavement widening and multipurpose path
- Intersection improvements at Park View
Drive/Route 240 per VDOT requirements
7
ZMA 07-12 Blue Ridge Cohousing
Recommendation
Should the Board find the applicant has adequately addressed the
basis for the Planning Commission's recommendation of
denial and the approach to storm water management
acceptable, staff recommends:
Approval of ZMA 2007-12 with the attached application plan
dated October 19, 2007 which reflects approval of a waiver of
the Building Separation requirements of Section 19.8, and
proffers dated October 19, 2007
Approval of the Private Street request for Park View Drive
Approval of waivers of Sections 14-410 H regarding curb/gutter
requirements for Park View Drive
Approval of waivers of Sections14-422 A & D regarding the
planting strip and sidewalk requirements for Park View Drive
A public hearing date be set in December for an amendment
to the ACSAJA map
8
.
. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4012
October 17, 2007
David Jones-Community Housing Partners
100 West Franklin Street Suite 300
Richmond, Va 23220
RE: ZMA2007-00012 Blue Ridge CoHo using (Sign # 71, 77)
Tax Map 57, Parcel 67 A (Portion of Tax Map 56, Parcel 67B)
To Whom It May Concern:
On October 9,2007, the Albemarle County Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend denial
by a vote of 7:0 of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors, This recommendation of denial
was based on the following staff recommendations:
Stream buffers appear to be impacted by grading.
The applicant has not demonstrated permission from easement holders that use Parkview Drive will
be granted so that the road can be upgraded to accommodate this development.
Proffers are inadequate to mitigate the impacts of the development and do not meet established Board
expectations and should be provided using the County's proffer form,
Emergency access provisions need to be verified with Fire Rescue to confirm that the plan provided
can be approved as shown without significant redesign to meeting Fire Rescue comments.
Workable concepts for stormwater management have not been demonstrated on the application plan.
Sight distance must be confirmed and easements may be required by VDOT.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on November 14,2007. 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. Therefore any new or additional information regarding
your application, including final proffers if applicable, must be submitted to our office at least twenty-one
(21) days prior to your scheduled hearing date, which is October 24, 2007.
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,
Rebecca Ragsdale
Planner
Planning Division
Cc: Martin or Barbara L Schulman
1263 Parkview Dr
rr,.,..,p>t "" ') ')Q1 ')
.
.
.
I
I I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ac.. ENDA TITLE:
ZN A 2007- 12 Blue Ridge Cohousing
Sl BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
ReRuest to rezone 6.157 to PRD Planned
Re~idential District for a mixed housing
de elopment
STAFF:
REBECCA RAGSDALE
AGENDA DATE:
November 14,2007
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
STl6.FF CONT ACTIS\:
Cil mberg, Ragsdale
LEGAL REVIEW: YES
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
(~WNERlAPPICANT:
r~artin & Barbara L. Schulman owners; Blue Ridge Cohousing LLC (2. Peter Lazar) applicant;
( ommunity Housing Partners (David Jones) & Gay and Neel, Inc consulting
I ACKGROUND:
J public hearing was held on this rezoning at the Planning Commission on October 9, 2007 and the
( ommission recommended denial of the rezoning and accompanying private street request and
~ aivers of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees. This motion for denial was based the following
( utstanding issues:
o Stream buffers- The required 100' stream buffers appeared to be impacted by grading.
o Park View Drive- The applicant had not provided documentation to demonstrate permission
to allow upgrades to Park View Drive to accommodate this proposed development.
o Park View Drive/Route 240 Intersection- VDOT's requested sight distance had not been
confirmed nor had necessary easements been obtained at the intersection of Park View
Drive/Route 240.
o Emergency Access Provisions- The application plan did not reflect emergency access
provisions and it had not been verified with Fire Rescue that the plan could be approved as
shown without significant redesign to meet Fire Rescue requirements.
o Stormwater Management-Workable concepts for stormwater management were not
demonstrated on the application plan.
o Proffers- Proffers submitted for the Planning Commission public hearing were inadequate to
address the impacts of the development on public facilities as expected by County policy,
either through the provision of standard cash proffers or otherwise through cash, land or in-
kind improvements. Off-site road improvements were also not included in the proffers.
[ ISCUSSION:
1 he applicant submitted revised proffers and an application plan following the Planning Commission
r~eeting on October 19, 2007. (Attachments A-Proffers, B-Application Package, D-Application Plan)
1 he applicant has requested that the Board of Supervisors review the Private Street Request and
d~nial of the waiver of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planting strip requirements of the Subdivision
( rdinance. The property is not designated for water and sewer service in the Albemarle County
~ ervice Authority Jurisdictional Area (ACSAJA) so a concurrent application for amendment to the
t CSAJA has been submitted with this rezoning.
I The acreage has been corrected since the Planning Commission public hearing.
ZMA 2007-012 Blue Ridge Cohousing & Waivers
BOS November 14, 2007
ZMA 07-12
The applicant has provided for preservation of stream buffers on the revised application plan,
documentation of permission to make upgrades to Park View Drive, and addressed sight
distance/easement issues at the intersection of Park View Drive and Route 240 to the satisfaction of
VDOT. Emergency access provisions have now been specified on the application plan and Fire
Rescue has indicated that it appears access for their equipment will be sufficient. Proffers have been
revised to address the substantive issues that contributed to the recommendation of denial from the
Commission, including the provision of the standard cash proffer in accordance with County Policy.
The applicant revised stormwater management concepts on the application plan since the
Commission public hearing. The County Engineer has reviewed and commented on the new
concepts for bioretention filters at four locations on the property, as shown on sheet 4 of the
application plan and as illustrated on Page 32 of the application package. These basins would be
located around the perimeter and behind the residential units; they are conceptually designed to be
30-34 inches in depth. (Attachment B-Application package, Attachment D-Application Plan) It
appears as though the proposal would meet technical criteria. However, as discussed with the
applicant prior to their resubmittal, the Board should be cautioned that the placement of these
facilities in the yards of future residents will likely be a nuisance. In a conventional subdivision with
individually held lots, this would not be good practice according to the County Engineer, and would
not be recommended for approval. The applicant is of the opinion that the careful design of these
bioretention filters, education of future residents, and the common property ownership will forestall
any complaints.
Private Street Request & Waivers
The applicant has submitted a request to allow Parkview Drive to remain as a private street based
on Section 14-233 of the Subdivision Ordinance, and this request also includes waivers of the curb,
gutter, sidewalks, and planting strip requirements of Section 14-222. Park View Drive is currently a
private street, with undeveloped property adjacent to the road on the west side. The request is to
allow the existing road to remain private with Blue Ridge Cohousing making the upgrades necessary
to serve their development only. In the future, if the adjoining properties submit development
applications, this issue would be revisited with those applications. At the time of the Commission
public hearing, there was a lack of information as to what authority the applicant would have to make
changes to the road and whether or not it could be upgraded to a public road, The Commission did
not specifically discuss the waivers and private street request, but recommended denial of those
along with the recommendation of denial for the rezoning.
The Subdivision Ordinance specifies criteria for approval of a private street under Section 14-233
and the criteria is followed by staff comment below.
1. The private street will be adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonably expected to be
generated by the subdivision.
The private street will be improved to carry the additional traffic generated by Blue Ridge
Cohousing to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
2. The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in the approximate location of the proposed
private street;
The Crozet Master Plan does not make recommendations regarding Park View Drive and does
not show it is an improved public street on the master plan.
3. The fee of the private street will be owned by the owner of each lot abutting the right-of-way thereof or
by an association composed of the owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in either case to any
easement for the benefit of all lots served by the street;
The current owners of the property already participate in the established private road
maintenance agreement. With the development of the Blue Ridge Cohousing property, the
agreement will be revised to reflect Blue Ridge Cohousing participation and its increased share of
the costs.
ZMA 2007-012 Blue Ridge Coho using & Waivers
BOS November 14, 2007
2
.
.
.
4, Except where required by the commission to serve a specific public purpose, the private street will not
serve through traffic nor intersect the state highway system in more than one location; and
Park View Drive is an existing private street that intersects a public road in two locations, at Route
240/Three Notchd Road to the south and intersects with Thurston Drive to the north. Thurston
Drive is primarily accessed via Route 810/White Hall Road and terminates just east of its
intersection with Park View Drive.
5. If applicable, the private street has been approved in accordance with section 30.3, flood hazard overlay
district, of the zoning ordinance and other applicable law.
This is not applicable.
aff finds that the criteria has been sufficiently met to allow the development to be served by a
pr vate street.
ctions 14-410 H & I set forth design standards for curb and gutter in the development areas.
ction 14-4101(2) contains the findings that must be made to support a modification of these
uirements. The applicant is upgrading an existing rural section and making improvements to
rve the development only, to its property line. Since this road transitions to the Rural Area and the
plicant is working with in the existing 50' easement established for Park View Drive, staff can
pport a curb and gutter waiver for Park View Drive with this rezoning. However, future rezonings
y be expected to make further upgrades to the road, including to an urban section.
ctions14-422 A-D of the Subdivision Ordinance set forth the requirements and design standards
sidewalks and planting strips, which specify that a 5' concrete sidewalk and 6' planting strip
ould be provided on both sides of a street, with the planting strip between the curb and sidewalk.
e applicant has proposed to provide an 8' multipurpose path along the eastern side of Park View
ive. For the reasons stated above in supporting the curb and gutter waiver, staff supports the
iver of sidewalks and planting strips on both sides of Park View Drive, with the provision of the 8'
Itipurpose path on Park View Drive.
ilding Separation
accordance with Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows waivers, the applicant is
r uesting a reduction in the 30' building separation required as part of a PRO Zoning District:
19.8 BUILDING SEPARATION
Except as otherwise provided in section 4.11.3, whether or not located on the same parcel, there
shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet between main structures. This provision shall not apply to
structures built to a common wall. (Amended 1-1-83)
e Building Official has reviewed this request and can support it if a minimum of 10' building
aration between the single family and single family detached units is provided and a minimum of
, between the multifamily units. This separation appears to be provided between buildings on the
plication plan. The waiver of the 30' building separation requirement can be supported to the
tances supported by the Building Official.
A emarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area (ACSAJA) Amendment
A equest to amend the ACSAJA has been submitted with this rezoning. The ACSAJA designations
f the two properties included in this rezoning are shown on Attachment C. TMP 56-67 A, which is
t majority of the project area, is designated water service to existing structures only, and TMP 56-
6 is designated Limited Service. If the Board approves this rezoning, staff asks that the public
h ring for the ACSAJA amendment to allow full water and sewer service to the property be
s eduled in December.
ZMA 2007 -012 Blue Ridge Cohousing & Waivers
BOS November 14, 2007
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The applicant has addressed outstanding issues that led to the Commission's recommendation for
denial of the application and waivers. Should the Board find the applicant's approach to stormwater
management acceptable, staff recommends:
o Approval of ZMA 2007-12 with the attached application plan dated October 19, 2007 which
reflects approval of a waiver of the Building Separation requirements of Section 19.8, and
proffers dated October 19, 2007
o Approval of the Private Street request for Park View Drive
o Approval of waivers of Sections14-41 0 H of curb/gutter requirements
o Approval of Sections14-422 A & D of the planting strip and sidewalk requirements
o A public hearing date be set in December for an amendment to the ACSAJA map
A TT ACHMENTS:
A. Proffer Statement Blue Ridge COhousing, dated November 6, 2007
B. Blue Ridge Cohousing application, revised October 19, 2007
C. Albemarle County Jurisdictional Area Map
D. Proffered Application Plan, titled "Blue Ridge Cohousing Application Plan", prepared by
Gay and Neel, Inc, revised October 19, 2007
ZMA 2007-012 Blue Ridge Cohousing & Waivers
BOS November 14,2007
4
.
Attachment A
Original Proffer 2L
PROFFER FORM
"Blue Ridge Cobousing"
Date fProffer Signature: November 14,2007
ZMA 2007-00012
Tax ap Parcel- 56-67 A and 56-67B (Portion)
6.15 Acres to be rezoned from RA to PRD
in accordance with the Application Plan of Blue Ridge Coho using dated
June 25, 2007 and resubmitted and revised September 11, 2007 and October 19, 2007
Purs ant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby voluntarily
proffi rs the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned with the offered
plans approved for development. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning
and e Owner acknowledges that the conditions are reasonable.
.
.
1.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Owner shall provide four (4) residential dwelling units as affordable housing for sale. The four (4)
units shall be comprised of one or more of the following unit types: single-family attached housing,
single-family detached or multi-family condominiums. The Owner or his successor in interest reserves
the right to achieve the four (4) affordable units in a variety of ways, utilizing the above mentioned unit
types alone or in combination as outlined below. The first subdivision plat or site plan for the Property
shall designate the four (4) lots or units, as applicable, that will, subject to the terms and conditions of
this proffer, that will be the affordable units as described herein. The Owner shall convey the
responsibility of constructing the affordable units to any subsequent purchaser of the subject property.
The current Owner or subsequent Owner shall create units affordable to households with incomes less
than eighty percent (80%) of the area median income, such that housing costs consisting of principal,
interest, real estate taxes and homeowner's insurance (pITI) do not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the
gross household income, provided, however, that in no event shall the selling price of such affordable
units be more than sixty-five percent (65%) of the applicable Virginia Housing Development Authority
(VHDA) sales price/loan limits for VHDA's frrst-time homebuyer programs provided that the selling
price shall not be required to be less than One Hundred Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Dollars
($190,400) at the beginning of the 90-day identification and qualification period referenced below. The
Owner or his successor in interest may provide down payment assistance in the form of secondary
fmancing to reduce the costs to the homebuyer, so that the resultant first mortgage and housing costs
remain at, or below, the parameters described above. All fmancial programs or instruments described
above must be acceptable to the primary mortgage lender.
A. For Sale Affordable Units. All purchasers offor-sale affordable units shall be approved
by the Albemarle County Office of Housing or its designee. The Owner shall provide the County
or its designee a period of ninety (90) days to identify and pre-qualify an eligible purchaser for the
affordable units. The 90-day period shall commence upon written notice from the Owner that the
units will be available for sale. This notice shall not be given more than one hundred twenty (120)
days prior to the anticipated receipt of the certificate of occupancy. If the County or its designee
does not provide a qualified purchaser during this ninety (90) day period, the Owner shall have
the right to sell the units without any restriction on sales price or income ofpurchaser(s);
provided, however, that any units sold or leased without such restriction shall nevertheless be
counted toward the number of affordable units required to be provided pursuant to the terms of
1
n~
-"
~
this proffer. If these units are sold, this proffer shall apply only to the first sale of each unit.
Nothing herein shall preclude the then-current Ownerlbuilder from working with the County
Housing Department prior to the start of the notification periods described herein in an effort to
identify qualifying purchasers for affordable units.
The County shall have the right, upon reasonable notice and subject to all applicable privacy laws,
to periodically inspect the records of the Owner or any successors in interest for the purposes of
assuring compliance with this proffer.
~ County Option for Cash In Lieu of Affordable Units.o If at any time prior to the County's approval
of any preliminary site plan or subdivision plat for the subject property which includes one or
more for-sale affordable units, the Housing Office informs the then-current ownerlbuilder in
writing that it may not have a qualified purchaser for one or more of the for-sale affordable
dwelling units at the time that the then-current ownerlbuilder expects the units to be completed,
and that the County will instead accept a cash contribution to the County to support affordable
housing programs in the amount of Nineteen Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($19,100) in lieu of
each affordable unit, then the then-current ownerlbuilder shall pay such cash contribution to the
County prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the unit that were originally planned to be
affordable units, and the then-current ownerlbuilder shall have the right to sell the units without
any restriction on sales price or income of the purchasers.
2. CASH PROFFER
The Owner or his successor in interest shall contribute a total of $286,200 cash to the County for the
purpose of mitigating impacts from this development. The cash contribution shall be used for
transportation improvements, schools, libraries, fife and rescue, parks or any other public use
serving Neighborhoods 4 & 5 as identified in the County's adopted capital improvements program.
A. Contributions shall be payable as follows:
i. For new market rate attached townhome/condominium units: $11,900 each for 14 units
payable prior to or at the time of issuance of the building permit for each unit.
ii. For new market rate attached multifamily units: $12,400 each for 4 units payable prior
to or at the time of issuance of the building permit for each unit.
iii. F or new market rate detached single family units: $17,500 each for 4 units payable
prior to or at the time of issuance of the building permit for each unit.
B. Annual Adjustment of Cash Proffers. Beginning January 1,2008, the amount of each cash
contribution required herein shall be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect any increase or
decrease for the preceding calendar year in the Comparative Cost Multiplier, Regional City
Average, Southeast Average, Category C: Masonry Bearing Walls issued by Marshall Valuation
Service (aIkIa Marshall & Swift) (the "Index") or the most applicable Marshall & Swift index
determined by the County if Marshall & Swift ceases publication of the Index identified herein.
In no event shall any cash contribution be adjusted to a sum less than the amount initially
established by these proffers. The annual adjustment shall be made by multiplying the proffered
cash contribution amount for the preceding year by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be
the Index as of December 1 in the year preceding the calendar year most recently ended, and the
denominator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in the preceding calendar year. For
each cash contribution that is being paid in increments, the unpaid incremental payments shall
be correspondingly adjusted each year.
2
~_ ~ I
.
3.
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
A. Park View Drive Improvements. In order to mitigate traffic impacts resulting from the Project,
the Owner shall design and construct to standards established by the County Engineer, in the
location shown on the Application Plan of Blue Ridge Cohousing, Sheet 6 of7, dated June 25,
2007, last revised October 19,2007, (hereinafter, the "Application Plan") a private road upgrade
ofParkview Drive. The improvements as shown on Sheet 4 of7 includes an eighteen (18) foot
wide paved road and an eight (8) foot wide bike trail adjacent to the road. Construction of all
improvements required by this Proffer shall be completed and accepted by the County Engineer
prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for new dwellings.
B. Intersection Improvements to Park View Drive/Route 240. The Owner shall design and
construct to Virginia Department of Transportation road standards, an intersection that meets
the requirements for road intersections as stated in VDOTs Road Design Manual- Subdivision
Street Guide, in the location shown on the Application Plan, Sheet 6 of 7. Construction or
installation of all improvements required by this Proffer shall be completed and accepted by
VDOT ~ert01lie-issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for new dwellings.
.
Printed Names of All Owners
Date
~JN !('kU~
~cYlb{} rd S ~hlA/ IJJ dnl
III"J--- ;;"
C::;5~ j J] tJ f
.
f
~
':l
7:>.....,... --1
Q1
, ,
Q
j
I/IJ
~
~
1M
I.
I
Attachment C
ZMA 2007-012
Blue Ridge Cohousing
O~
~-
/G--~O
~~\?
(/
I
/
I
I
//
/
Area Proposed for Rezoning
Jurisdictional Areas
rezoning
D No Service
1M Water Only
D Water and Sewer
D Water Only To Existing Structures
D Umited Service
/"J Roads c==J Parcels
Streams D Parcel of Interest
Water Body
T'"'"l_ ,,~-/
Q
~
=
~
e
-=
l;,I
~
~
~
-<
w<<I"INUpuMo600JUf =t./DW3
rut-l~ (OK) ,.OJ 1109-I~ (OK) '"'""Id
GLot2 '8JUl'.:aJA ".m'l8~
l"".llll p.:aoJP1Ill 0921
D/U/6.J1/\ '4uno:J elJDweqtv
~ ~~~ c "-
{~ ~ l!i C
.. l!l
... ~ -
'!~ iii" i
~~i~~ i
~ ~i5~ ~ ~ r.
flNlDAHllS ~
:mn.J.:)1.UItlHY :IdV:l1Klln'1
flNDIDNIflNB 'IIAI:) ~
'3NI ''1:i:iN aNY AYf) .
:pc~+ UD:) reUD,a~H
U8[d UORl1:JJ[ddV
2u!SnoLfoC) d2PRI dn[8
~IJ~
J]I!
8
'"
,,;
I
i
I
f
f g
is ill] j J ii
J fJ j f I I J i I J I ; ~ } 8
II OJ I I 0 I 1.0 I 0
jl5-~'\ $)') ,~" ~ ~~~~~I #~. -~.
'.Jr?t r... ....... '9 v'Oti ... ~~
~:,~; ~ -:~~ ~ ~ ~1JtI \ I ~~c".. L~
~... 'I. - " , '~ .c.7'~ ::;;;r~' f "- x lv;;f,;:;:f'=; ><:
~ ~~, n 'if ~ I\; ~ I~ ~~ · C!i:""'--' r Sf.:: ~ 1il"l:~{
.~ ),.' /\~~~ "If' '1 :~~ ,,< ~ ~ m "#'~ y t5
1\~~jA ~. M ~~ ~ ~}h ~~ ~*' '--~'l ~ ~~:),j ~
"~~ ~~\\ ~~ I~L~~~. ~ ~ ~
~~~~ 1~ ~\U . ~1IC ~~~OI3' .I'Y~ ~ _
'l ~ -- " ...;a.p -...: S., " 0 · .
~ x )( --- ) x ~1 9tH ~j ~ it ~.. ~ ~,~, .'.
.-::7J....... 7 r~ ~ '
x 'O"'~"')' t:oti-s ~--- '7 ~~ ~.if."'...
,. f ~ ~ ~ - ~ rA.~t - J' I~ ·
~1IC ~~.: X ----2-',~ ~ ~~ ~ IJl~ V f\ wn\l lJ l~ -'" ~Q
-- ././ 1 "/ ""'11 \001 "" _ J ~ , ...J J .7 ,..; ~'\ '
~ 'j ..K!'<\7 ft v I f?' ~ '7\ \
11 1 ~~~\~
:E I~ J ~ "'~'\ ~ '1 ; J "/ Ii
,
8 r ~ p I l( x ~"'~ ~ _ \ > ~) C0~ x \
- -'Ji.JI vlC/ ~ ~~ l.211 ~
ftS. l\ 0" ; \\), /'\ ' ~- r .-..t. I ~ x,'\....... ~~&t;f,
g ~(9 ~1I -I ~iXj - / I rjll ~ 1 - 7~\ It: C;,:
Og l'''~ 9"' < ') ~_ ~{r\::~, V~ ~9 \V~ ~ l'
s 1IC~ iJJ. ", l( W" V> ~ --'... 1\ fl ) ~ ).\ 1IJ ~.17
...~ lllC ^ ~ ~ )( j
J i' :, ~ ~~~ ~ (f)r\V l ~~ r:::- J" · ~ ') 9
. 9'= t -::?'L ~ ~ J~ - ~ )( >
~ 11 "$9 W r\ ~ "q J ~H'. ~ ~ ~
~fllC - .~ n ~lllC~ ~ (n ~ ~IL/J ( ~ ~\~~ !
_\V ~) r~~. ~L\ 1 tl~p' J~} ~~1
~
~ j ) ~ ~ 1IC ~ ( I ~ '~ t- x ~ / ~~ ~ ~
!Z!f1lC ~~ ~~ \ ~ \:~lA.9"'" 'L- "'~~ ....~'; /~! : ~i ffJ 1IC ~ 0' ~ j
~ ' { rl' J 'I, 'V If-. J. ~ j 'fJ :c !S~ ~ f,J~Qj L '""''';1 I
~~ V/ \ , L/A ~ \ Y ~ U ~-:7,; ~~. ~ ~ IiioI ~~-(_'}th l(~__~. ~
~1-!:'ft lJ' r-... ~ ~ Lr ~/ / ~~~~ ~ .. F. V r ri:~~ ~~( ~,~\ ~
- '" . ~ I ~ '\:- 17- ~('''. I""'::~- r--.. A=il f-..\. .~ rj..-:::z I
b ~ :> v ./ ~ --"A, '\ 1/1( ,." ~ ~ '- '\ 1 :;t ili= .L (l\~~~ ii
h~ /-/ ~~ vi Ii/J l~ ~ ~ ~ Itlrj~ f-7:F--~~' ~Q !
~9~~ [({I/~)'l\j m, ) <i.~ ~!~f Ff.,Jf\-..))4 tbD::; ~;[L-l~ i
j
i! ll'",
ell '!:/
DJ!lI'2>
~~.!!
~i~~
I!I~
f
'-, /
,,:5, ' !,
;.,.4~' --~~::.,
)oz~,..(, ,\:1-'[ ~
~\;l:":f.. \~'~\. . .::t~,
~ '~.;''''''-''''';'' ~ _ :1'\, k.... "" ~ }
~I.. "i 1'';--, '., \.~'('\>~i! \..
,.t::c;rrt ~. t d', ",~ ~
-~ .~
~
--{z I
!
ell
8
L~\:t>l'l:~ '\;:ld'OO\:L XOJ9X 'op~ '~d \:O:ll:l LOOll9~/m '9\:t>lN00X3 'llMp'J9^00Ql- dOOLH\ Bls6u!M8JO\:E>
UJO:)',..upuDlCo6ooJu! :1!DW3 DiU/iii,.... '..QunOa e/JDWIK/fl/ ~ ~~~ 0 I'.
ri.L~-lflr (0t9) :XDj U09-tBr (OK) :.UDIkJ
GLatZ WJlllI.IlA 'J,m'l8UVJ\8l.ClI::l Al1'1pUnog d1!S pdSOdO.IcI ueTd uonl1:Jnddv {~ ~ l!s
l......S p.loJPwa: Olllll t '"
co -
ONUaAmlS ~ 2b> Ampunog d1!S ~uHS!X~ 2u!snoqoQ ~2P!N ~nTfI .... ...
~~~ ~~ II!~~ i i
'JNI "HHN aNY AVf) . ~~ ~
(
Le, '~d 609l '8'0
NOlllt~Od~OO lllH >l33~O ~3^ 1t38
00L90 00 00 00990 130~ltd dlt~ Xltl
Le, 'Od 609l '8"0
NOIlIt~Od~OO lllH >l33~O H3^ 1t38
00L90 00 00 00990 130~ltd dlt~ Xltl
....Ig~ r-...
wcc- co
Ul.OIzl"")
Q::o~o .
~g~~~
~a5~~
:::::taCt::~<D
x8~8~
~:gLJ ~
OCO 0
o
co
I"'-
co
o
....JgUi'
W '"
ffiuo~
oQ::O?;
~~o~
<( 0
~xco~
W<(lf')i!'
C:::I-O!.
KVIEW DRIVE
PAR / EGRESS ES\vI1.)
(50' INGRESS
ii'j
~~ h
~ i~i i;
~i ',. ii!~
8~~~ ~~
-~:ll i!'if
~."'F l!5..
<xoCoC cnZ
~=~~ ~:
~~~fi ~::I
~~I!!~ ~ ~~
~~~~ j!: Z
..~~~ ~ g~
~if60 o!i:;!
i~~iti ~ ~~
~~5i~~ ~ ~~
~1St:lID" III i!ii!'
~~~~!!! ;;1 ..."
..S:g2i!' El ~g
~ ti;;i5~ l5 mz_tl
~~dlll~ ~ -:g
iiilz.... ~ <12
d~~: IS <~vi
"!il..ll< ~ Ill!~
Oe~FEl s: n!~
~N:i!:~:::I ~ O2
illRSi!i!i ~ tld..
~~~~~ iil ~~!ii
-Jg~ r-...
WlX)- co
U(OIZr")
a::::a~o .
~g~~rr
~a~~~
:::00",,12'"
x8~8:
~:g~ ~
OCO 0
o
co
1"'-'
cou
0<(
ol~
lL.QO ..........~
OuO;!:~
ZC:::O .?;
<( --<
Qo...olI'"
I- 0<('"
C:::xco W ~
O<(lf') C:::i
0...1-0 <(~
..
~ E
~ II ~g
eeL as
s ~ti l&.1t:
- ..Ill f!!l!;
cD 3ID ffif!!
d llJill ~~
i ;~ 2i!i
~ :~ ~~
., l!5,.. ICCl
.... ~oC ~cn
~ 52 ",6
~ ~~ ~i
~~ ~~ ~~
~~ ..~ :;!~
lI!", alii 12...
~;;J i!',. !i~
~ ~ :~ ~..
~..J ~ ~o
~ i i: ~i
ISIl! (Il~ ID~
Iii! ;iii!_ !!!~
~i~ ~~ ~I
a~ ~~ U
Z,.., N 00:1 ~
KVIEW DRIVE
PAR / EGRESS ES\vI1.)
(50' INGRESS
011 ...
ft
8
-' r c!
w ~
0
"" ""z t
<(00<(", I
a...~ ~a)
n..(O~=>LO
<(O:::oI "
:::::t85~~
x I
~DU.J~
0(/)<(0 ~
~8~~--:
ztOa:::m~
OLO<(et:::O
~o~~
~
'a~
0.... ,a,H010N 33~Hl
.l 3l~ 'itA ..
01 .sO,'F
-
>- U
a::: ....J <(
<( ....J
0 Z
.0 (3
Z ,,~ C:::
=> ZCi 5
-0
0 (/):::0
CD ::::>w ~
OCO I-
W I~ Z
I-gjOVl ::::>
-"-U-' 0
(f) tJ u
0 W~ W
"a. ....J
W O~ C:::
(f) -3: <(
0 0:::0 ~
I W
Il.. WVl co
0 ::::> ....J
a::: ....J <(
Il.. CD
-'
w
o
""
<(
a.
~ae:::~
:::0 CO 0:::0 '"
xr-...z...J~
;::~~~ .
~gS~~
Oo~..J~
150Vl<(o
>=oz""~
~g~~~
a..ll)<:tCt::o
,-,0:::0;:;
z
Z
;;:
::l;
w
'"
ft
8
r
t
c!
~
I
~
U
....J
....J
o"a~ O,H010N 33~Hl
ti?: 31~ .ItA 0 ..
1 .sO''F
-
>-
a:::
<(
o <.50
ZVl Z~
=> ~ (/) t3
08 ::::>50 ~
CD~ O~~;?;I-
:::0 IVl20Z
w 0""0 [jW~::::>
I- ~~ 0""<(0
- 0 U~~F2U
(f) ~ wa.OVlW
~ ,,~>- ....J
e"w 03: C:::
Z[ -0 <(
- O:::ilj ~
I- W
~ ....J~ ~
W CD
<(
Z
(3
C:::
5
l.~l:v~'~:~ '\;Od'00I:1. XOJeX 'op~ 'Wd ~v:H:~ 1.00~/8~/O~ '~lnO^el '6MP"dde 6U!U0Z8J JO! al!sodwoooun6MP\ou~\s6U!MBJo\:E)
wo:J'INUPU~! :HDWJ O/U/6J/A ',Quno:) IlJoweql't ~ ~~~ 0 ....
fLLZ- UK (OK) :XDj U09-UK' (OK) :.utnld
1lL0ta VJllIIoIJA 'J.rnqlUVnaJ.l1l:) . - ~
l"II.qB p.lon>va 0921 SUOrl1pUOQ 2UPSlXJI uela UOpr1:JJlddV t -~ l!s
DmaAHnS ~ 1JuJsnoqO;) ~1JPRl ~n18 "- lO)
~~~ !~ nl~~ ~
'JNI '1:!1:!1N aNY AYf) . ~ ~ i c
~IH~
o[Jr
~~)II'lrii) II \ ,I '-/>.~~~' \\~~\\\\
1 I 'I I, I '. \ ! ~\ \ \ \ \ \ !
1/'/ / II i i! I" //"',.\ \\ \ \ \\
I I 1/ I / It~' /,' "0 (// "'~ \\\:
I I /! I / / I ~\ // \ \\
I I I 1 II / I ;$ '",/ "'/,.,~""~ \ \, I,.
i I ,I 'I'. " ~ \ it
( I / / '!' ) I Q) <\ ' \ '~>
ri!/I t,ld// t:: '\~
\ \ (I / i: 1\ ~ \\(\ j /<:-:'::::'-. \ ~
, ' ,\ ,\' I';;c /../,.':#ni;,..,,\\ " \ \,t
\ \ \ , '""" --- "."_~,~.L-' " '
" \ \ \ ',\~, \ \!1 (/(/,./;j".'"''\tS''' \\ ~\ \,
\ \ \ \ \ \.lr \ \!'" ( I / ' / ,/,::',,", I \ \ \ " \
, \ \ \ \ \., \ ,l : I I ( I .,I! "\ ,.). \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \=,! I IFf' . ,'! -, I " '\ , ~.,~, '
\\\\ 'Iii ih?~~ \II! (III,,'~\\\\~'.I\"\
\ i i: 'illl r-\" 'l ~ i ) ; / (/ / " \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ ~,\ \ \
, I I I ~,', f, ~ ^ 11/ /1/ i / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I \ \
~ ;;'1:/:1/ i~~\'i.\'''''/I '/ \\\\ \\~\ljl\, \
I I I I JJ\ '/ I \ \ \, \ \ ) i , \ \
/I~ / i ; ! i ill J I i: f: I ~\ \ \ \ \1 Y'Ji~' I i ~
J// I I! ! \ \ I \ \ : \ \\ \ \ l I /1' , (
I '!J~ .\', \ \ \ '" \ ' \ \ \ \ \ " r /
I i I I - I I' \ \ \' " P / /
I, /1h)~ I,' \ \ \'0'", I \ \ \ \ \ ,\>1' / ,/ .-
(, ~(~z~ I; / /;1) ! \ \\ \\~I\ . \\~\ \~\'~~\ \ ~ ; (,; ,/':/
~ 0:: "" 0 . ~ WZ I, . I 1 '\ \ I " \ \ '\ ",,,",\1, 'I ~ J
-<awF" a..'- ( I ,%. : ...,"\"\, "'\~ I I I
.~~5~~~:i !~I~ II I ] J I ~ ~~':\\ '\\\\ \, \ \ \ ", J i " , /
::EOO::O::WZ",\ * " I) ~,,," \\, \\ ,\, \ \(0<11' i I
,
I e-)~)~)/~ it /1 (( // ~f )jr~':'X\~~~:' \\\\'~ ~~'~\ \~\ \ :\ ~
':il/~1 /;// )1"- (j V..~\\ ~\~ ~\, \~o::z ~
1)'/ i// /~i /~ ///('/ / /{' " .. j\:~ ' ~\~} '~~j~'~~, \\ \ \~~i;:~~
/ i I I I 'I 1/ / I~' .. , "i!. \ '.> ' to \ " , "- g => '" 0.. <(
I 11/1 , I , i / " .. '~ '^ '^ ~. 'oi ~ \ \ \ 0 I...iW ~ :il
I / I j / I 'I f I I ' /' V< )( 'Y<: )( ')p-' ,\ ' ' ,';-' " , Z 0 (j IX) 0:: '"
/ / I! /1/ I / I / / ~ 'j,' f / _' ,,1>"')<' X \' . 'x'\ \, : g : \ ! \ ~ ,\ 1 ~ B ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~
'" /~/~</ !/l,///;llA ,~-S);."> rt:~// ,,<~~~ \~~'\ \\\~\ \" \ \ I: \ \ \ \ \ ~~~~!~ ~\
/ / I I I / / / Y', ---// ~7 b "'\0 ' \ x> 'X 0 r~ \, I I \ \ \ ~ ::l
I // />>/) , I~I //1'/ ../" I / I cJ ~ ~ \ I J..~~o< ~'~' \ \ , : \ I, " \ ' ~ '\
/ /1/ I I) //i' . 1/ <{/.' 'C}' ". ~ s><".'~)l'0~'1'~\" \ l i" .' <( "
I 111// I ////1 $" , I/I.L.J IE [ill,' ""-, ~\ ~r,.\~\-,,;\\'i,\\ .11\,,\ \ \ I., \ \, ~ \ '-,
I I / '! / I' '" / , / /w Z ...'v' ~)< \A V'i .~, ,I ' , \ .
I ! I / /If / / ~' /, ~/' // , ' o':J ~ 0:: l '~~ ~ "\\ 1- f\\ " \ \ " \ . \
/ ! I ! / I I / / ! /~ ~ / + ~~ /'''-'' 1 l\/t< K\ " '~~"' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ " \ ~\ \" """
1 ! Ii! i I ,/ ( /1 I, ,',' " !.JI'! / / ll. ~ ~ II ,', ~~ K)< )(' . \~ "\\~ ( I i J i \ \ " \ " \ 'I' ~ \ '.
, I! 'i! ii" ."./' ~ ~/ , ' / ,t1I "- '" '~' ",,' ,:x )(ll\=i Iii"" , ~,
/ 1/ Ill.l ! i II ~// ~/ / 0 ;li ~N~ l ~\ \ ~\ \ ,A ~ \\'1 { (\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ \
/1// //1,'11//,1//1 /,}' 'i< . 11/1/1 ~f~~ ~J / ....., \ \ \ ~ ~~~ AiY \ \ \ \ \ \\ \~\ \
1/ I ( Iii! " { I i (0 e:::::.. \ \ \ :\~ ')x: 'l~ \ '\ \ \, \ \ \ \ \ '\
! / j /l!! //1 I ,/ / I / (J.!? <{ ~ I \ \ \ ~)< k ,', \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '''H \ \
/ I I I / I I / II / f / /,//, / .. lOr.., , _.~ -\. \ \ %~\ :>\) ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~\ \ ',,-
III ii/I i/!/,/ ..../// / /,) \ I ~'"j "~' \\ )('; ~. \\\ \\ \ \ \ \. ""',
) / / 1/)/ )) t';;' W;/;/.// / /""-) \ {, i ~ ~\ '\ \ \ ~' S?" ~\\ \ \<~ "<"">",,
I / I I I / I 'I~' 'R:' ...., / / / /.'...../ l ~....j .." \. \ \ "'. "" \ \ \ '" {!l', , "'," "
I / " / ' / ..' / / ' !il" \ \ ,,'" fi ' \ ' ,?\' , ','
! / / / / / / /!P ,/////' / /' I ,/' ~. '\ \~" '\ .... ~ ~~ \ ", *" ", '\, ", \ \"
" ',Ij /1/ IA7; / ~/ / /,j \'" '" '" "'~ "~,~\, '\ \ '"
/;/~/;ft!h * r; / /,,". /','~/ tzs?:~~, ,S~~ . ... ~"~ \\~~,~'" \,,",.,':,'~,
/ /I!JI;/'//~~~<tl /') ;1 /' / / ( J ' c. '\, ~~>",~ '\, \" '" ,,",'\ """'
/11/1 1///1/1/ " () ,) ~... \ BJ ~~. '" ~~~~'~~~nS \I ' ~L\ "\ \\\'''"'' """
11/ I 1/;/, . 1! / / I ~ I ) 0 u ~~ ~)< ~ \ "" "'-.. "'"
f I /11 ! II ~ LA I / I (I>; (I 0 ~'" '.." ~ '>>' ~ 'li" I ~ \, ''\ ""
11/' 'I ' '\ .. \ f'l i! '" \ i 0 I. ~"'~.H II' '" ..,.~)I. '>Ii';! \. q.'(~ \ ' ".
/1,',///,/,/",,1/ it, ~\~i ; ~,,! \ (, \ I ,__ ~r l:' 0 lli.'''', "\-...'~. ,')(< Y.:x'>< ~ \~1~ \ "....,'\
I/I! ill!! l i,-... ~\\, \ \"l!i \ \... "" 8... ,I; Ui .!,;j; ,~~ . 'lK.~ ~ J::'" \ " i
j ///1 i il\ " \ ~t \ "'" ....,., ..;g, lR~ ,jlltl '\\,'<:- ,i~ -Ji-' !
(' 1,1 I I ! " \ \ -', \( \ "'" ""',,':<< .. I ~ ,'.17 '~I'" \ · ~.,<'<~ -:i-. ;s-""",,-..... ,
I I'I i' II I \ \ 'i" \ ~\ ',..,..,. "'" '3-0... . · '5 , - .-.7 . """ e, ,", ..,..a-',......,..,...... I
f , I;! I ! \ '\ ""',,- " " ~_ IlL. 'VJ~! \ -"\_~~ -..: ''"..
g' (( ( / II i I \ ~ \ ""'.,'~ ~ J:~~, =:'" --4 ~
li/ /; It/ 12 i $; ~ ~ ~>....,..'ci\ \\" \1 ': .~ · -. : ') 'c-/ /~gJ:::>"~ '..'
!!I;?/,',I,// //// ~l~~~.,~~", \~\~"~""~I~.f'~ z~ ~,~1 'n::>O t:.SM1.) (/ / '/i, l\~}! (
\. '/ i I (i z,~....j.:,x:X: If!!: -.-:;;)'~ '11( /)'" , J
~_, i I \, ',", \.. ~~///",..Cl I ( ,,' // /
._",.~ ".-/ 7 . >- ,."...., V, ,,<<:j,~.;::/ / ,I I /...J g::l .... X'
:=_,.______i -'" '"'" "",," ~ ---....... .-' ,-" l ( I l.LJ...... - co
~~>-_. ',: ""/:;-r"i ~r I %~~ it~ '~ ; /
1/':;; ~/~' '~.~ /J~;~;' ../; i !:/~',Ui~~ ;/ ~~
'/~/~ ~:~ ,,<0 10 ~ /
:;;:;...-;,,///,// / ' ,/' , I ) / / /
/'>::;///// ,/' / I
; " /,/ '/;/,;>;;:;/ / / 'I ;
i~~~
it}:-~ .
o ~:'"
l!i ~
ozzz
h~~
o "'ill '
o_~;:;
IF
~' ~~
~z ~N
!l!~ '"
""" en. . .
~::::)ChN"'"
l'i~0!"":
< "''''
i3",.,l;j~
j58~'o
~ . ....
"' "'
-~'"
(
\
~~: .S
g~;:~
~;~~~
~uOrl
i3
\
/
/
H&~l'l:1 '\;:ld'OO&L XOJ9X ':>p~ 'rld ll:~l:Z LOOZ191/01 '9&~ZNOOX3 '6Mp'J9^OO9J- dOOLH'
H\s6U!MI!JOHl
WG:).,NUpCJDlCo6OOJU! :I.IOWJ
fUl-l9r (OK) "D. llOS-I9r (OK) '_
CLotZ WrcqJ.IJA 'J.rnqauwnaJ.l1C
laaollS p"OJllq 09Zl
ueld uonB:Jrrddv
ONIAaAHlUl ~
:IIlfOJ.'):iLtIIIDHY lIdY:)saNn
O!mIDNIOIOl 'IJAJ:) ~
"::>NI '1:1:1N aNY AYD .
/ ////!Fll '
\~' '\
~
u ~
::) N
g:W(9_
w~~~
c::oen<(
u..c::2,ca
...-enz...J
lOenOw
zW_W
""U~I
u..U..J~'
~<(::)
.9 ~
~ en
~ '"'IJ I 1 \ \ \
/, ~- ------. \ \
g,~'("~bl~\ '~~~
II iJ ~ ~ ^- \~ \\ ~ [lj ~
I ~":~' \ ;'>1 \
I ! I ) { V :'\
I 1~3= 0\
C '\
\ ~ \~ I
\ . ~
\ ~2 ~'~, '/\/,
\~O ~ I
~ i 0 ~ I I___~ '~,
- \ I~ ,,1/'1' ~"
--' \ - r--I ~
-::J' \ 0 ,- \.--J /'-- 7N>...\.'-
ciJT ~~' ~!W~ ~~
~_~- ~)~N
----r 7 ....
(jf~~~\ \.
Iii!! 11,...\\ \\\\ \~
\ \ \ 1 il/ \\,'\ \\\\ 1\\
) f)) /////\,",\..'\\\\\\ t\\'~
iil;' /1// '\\\\ \\\\\111\\
\ ///j //'// \\\\ \\\\ 1\\
'i// ;(// ,A~ \\\\\\ \\\~) III \
/ / /! f \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '\ ! 1 1'\
' Ii / /0 \ \ Yi) \) l.j J I '
! j \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ( {! i,','"',.,',, (""t,' \""",1,1 \""",1,' ('\""("i"'~"'i'~ (I'\-~'//~
',\1~\ \\\ \\ \ \
~)...( ~ \ \ \ \ \ \. \ \ \ \ \ \ ' '\ '\ \ ,
'\\(c:X~\\\\",- "'-,',,\\ \ \1 \'1'
\ ,\' \ "......... \ \, \ \, \ \ I \
, \ ~ \ \" ",\ \ \" \ \' \ I
\ ""0', ""''''' \\\~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
, "'''' ,,;,.\ \\\\ \\\\
~..." ''', \ ....~ \ \ \, \, ,\ \ \
"'-" \\:\ \\\\ \\\\
...... \r\\ ,,\ \ \\ \\
~' \ N \\\, \\\\
\,\\.\ ',\\\ \\\\
'~\ "\ \\'\
~ \\',\ ~I\,;\\\
~ ~ ,\, ~\ 1: i ~ 1: \ \
a.:lj' ... '\ '~ \ \ " ,',:
~ r. ~ ,{Lj \\'~ ~\ \ \ \ \ ,\ \ \
/ ,. ~/~ ... ~ \~'-...~~\\\ \'\\ \', ,\
,.... 9 \ \ \\" \ \ \ \ \ " '
,...-; ~ :; \ \" \ ' \ \ \ \ ' \
~ ~ \ \ \'. ~ \ I I \ \g
ll;(,rrJiJ.:~' ~ \ \\ \\ \',~;;',\"
'LSt:rZJWt '\B~' \ \ \~, \ \ ',~ \ \
~~ ~"J!IC 0 / ~' \ \ \ \" ,\ \" I
,..,f~ViCl(j"',.,j -~-~)' \ \\ ~\~ \\,\\\\,
~ ~~'t:..lJ.ff -2f.,.....,' I \,,~\\\ \\ I'"
'0/ Cl.':}J , a I \ '~~\\ \ \ ',' \ \ \
Ij (7-'<-/ ' \ 0 ~\ 'I i i i \
;, I j -" \ \ ra: \\ i! I!"
/ / 1 I III! ,i 'I! /' I( (j2. ~/ / ,Q II r ,\ \ \ ~\~ I ! ( ( \
I 1/ /, I 'J I .. l / , '!C... ;7l j' \ I \ ~ \1 \ \ a II \\) \ \ \ \
/ I' // /1/',/ I, II' // 7. Y' 'I~''''''>>' \ \ \ \ "-IV i'"
/ / III III/II!'? U '!"'/,~/! / c; tulJn~' \\~ ~, \\\\
/ / / / Ii ; I I I! / ../&Jt~ A~~]HI ~ 1(' ~I/ (~ '\~\t ~ ...\ \... ~~~\ ,.,\, \\\\
1/ / III ,/ I I {' (I . / r -:r. v / / ~ \~\ ",' , " , , .",~,
""/1'/ /,,/1 ,/'"I/.,/;! ~i ;' ,;:]/ u of. // "C!) > i -~ / '>2-' \ ,\ \ <..... \\\\ ' ",,-' \\
.,. Y&'1u oq/ :5 ~~(J)* I w ,\' \" ",\ \\\\ "\, ~ \
I II 11/1/ ~ ......../. ~.Q." 'Q'} '....,' \' ,\ .......... '\'~\ ~~"~~\
, ,I! llli j,' VI'-r.l 'A..... ~ ~ \ \..' ,.... ,,\ '"" ~:~ \
i{ ii/I,',I;I"I///'>>,,1 j'i/;jJ;.// '. f/;:>r~-r~y' ." .J~r ~~~~~\.?\
/ l%f//J ,"'J ,,~'O'.L )<~ ., ~~""~~."~'~"~'~'\
II//'//i;;{f/ / ... /
I Ii /////J/ {. ..
;/11 1//1'/1 It. Jlh ~ ~o. fd!:::!:1 )4:::rJ :<-,.~ "'~~."" ", '...,', '...
/~fi;l/ J~,(O;::~ n '" 0:: =f'~ ~:?,l~~>' '~
Iljl/I;lt \ ~~~t~ tt~~~. i<~~-~~~~~''''~~~'\
(/1/11111 \{\ \ \ .~ o~ ~.~~s ..., : .. ~'l:. '\ ;';~,)I18'
I ' 1./ !,' i f \ \ " ~~... o,o@:. ~J'....L'" r::6itF~ CJ e
/ /// !/it1j i ! / , ~ 0 ~ ~ 'r'F ___ p~~~::l1~'((%
,//// /1/// <..l.t ,', \ '1 ~ ~ \', \ , /~'/< ~I" '~~~~~ > ob 5EE5HEEl /;' ,,.: / (
/ I! ( (\ \ ',1' /', L....~~~ / /- / t- :I: W -z.
'! ,\,',\~ ~ .. /~~"'..o ~ '\ /;///, zen J: 9 , l
! ,I' , ... "'~ ,/ " ,I, / I / WZ,nw 0 X
'- '" ,'.-..... ,/ Z ~ < $J, /1 -L !.. ::!:WzD:: ~, ..;'
.. ''', 7::..-' Q ii:! \ ~/ / ;'~ / .. ~ ~ i= ::::l <h
1_/7 ro::f- <( /, '/:/:; I , /ll.CJ~!;( en'.::..
-.,,; 'JlG, ~~i'5c /' /> '/.//",rP / JIh/ / & .. g;ffi~::!: % ,; s,.~~~'
~~1""""''''~ "-.'5ffi~~ / (>::.></,;/~ ,/ / 'lh / l / en~Q.~ tM/ 1(i~0'~~
:/~ .}}~~//~/,~:-i!:;~:/~,:j ~~<_I}f~ j./ //~ ;I /", ,././~~:
//;>// ;//'%'/'// /' . . / _~ ,/ ! i/ I~::~-:< /
-- ?' ~ ./ ,..", """'z / ~ ----- /" !
z~O ~ u.3=~>-
QoW W 00i=..J
I-~O '0.. I-:I:<(Z
i5wffill)~(/) W(/)::EO
Wa..::E8w9:, W ~W~(/)
i!=~::ENitj~ ~ w~f2~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ::l ~ Ii wl~ ~ ~ ~
<( ""Oa.oq--u.O I-~-~~
~O""Ou.o3= > oozo~
Z Z~W>OI-Z~> Z(/)~u.a.
o <(cbi!=~I-a.3=<(~
b ::E~. ltl~O~~
W ZWW~u.!;:;:I:O~
(/) 01->_ ....(/)11.<(
I i=<(ct:0~0(/)>-a.
(/) <( ~ 0 ~ (/) a.. <( <( G
(/) ~W3=O-~ZOZ
~ ~a'j!!d8~(/)Qffig
U WG><(Zzt)a.<(
G..J~>-W<(W ~
o a..::::!~!::::EO(/)~~
~ ct:3=~(/)~I-I-ct:O
~ I->-OZ_a'jWI-O
WI-I-~~::EWOO
f3 i!=ffiz~@w~~~
(/) :I: a.. 0 (/) ~ ~ (/) 0 ::E
o 1-0i=':E1-a.01-1-
25 ~~ZI-Wu.Wa.<(
~ a..~~~O~~:I:
"In. WW~OI-I-a.wl-
< O:I:wu.(/)WOI-I-
~ ~::a.:I:Z~~~a'j
00(/)1-0 a.0::E
~w9:,g(jjZWW""'a.
o ~>- :I:""'o
O(/)I->~WI-::E..J
O~ 001- Ow
<(w~<(m~>o>
z:I:cbO~-<(O<(W
_I-__~(/)WO 0
I
/
--- ~ ....\-
r-
~
z
w ~ ~
~ ..
a..
0
...J i
w ~
> I '0
ffi ,:. I
w ~
Q
c:: I '0
0 ~
u.. ~ ~
en ~ .~
0 13 .~
c::
<( .. -
Q ..
Z
~
en
:
lil~~
!~
"
'U:U:u.
11. . , ,
I-cri~~~
LL.,cjGGG
00000
(/)g~~~(/)
..........,...1-
Z
~
~<o<o<ooq-<i!
o I-
o
I-
<0
N
>- ~
~~~~~
!::~~~uJ
~~66cl
~~~~
I I I I
<(moo
D/U!tiJ/II 'Aluno:) aj./DUJaqIV
ueld uop8:J![ddV
~u!snoqoo ~~pm ~nlfI
...
;~
~~
\\
\
~~
\ (
c_ - "....~
!~
!/
: (
l~
~
\
1/
~t
~CJ
ll.Z
0-
lf~
CJ
,I
:~
.//
/....
,I
/'..
Z
o
i= (/)
~~w ~
I- ~~O W
~ltlw~08 5>
..Ju.~ ,f5G od
~ll)<(ZOZ (/)
(/)~~3=Oi5 W
Gml-O<(::::! N
Z ..J wZ :I: ~ ~ (jj
-..J (/) m ~
~~~~~<i! ,-~
~~~~~~ ~~
<(~~..J:I:i= i=O
I-va.<i!(/)<( ~~
~WW:I:(/)~ wO
:I::I:(/)Gw Gu.
~G~(/)~I- wM
~oo::l~ >tu
O~~WM Gw
5u.~3=8 ~:I:
mCloON ~~
~~~a'j~ ~~
....~OWI-
::E (/) a.. ~:I: , 0
~ iiS ~ W ~ A('
::E ::E a. m > ~,'i V 0
~ N ~
Z
W W (/) 0
.~ W Z
G(/)<( C3 ~
g~(/)W~w~3=w
~-z~_a.OOa.
wX~..J~(/)o:I:::::i
~W<(mo~<((/)<(
..Jwmu.3=<S:o>-O
mOoOw:::l~..J~
OX~~~~5~~0~::E
:I:(/) Z~(/) ~
~!::zcri'w~:I:u.~::E
~3=~filQ~!::filwz
U:~O:I:fflG3=>G~
criw~(/)~~fil~~:I:
~~~~~<i!~~~~
cOO..J~>-z!1:1Wi=o
<O::lWOmOrumow
II <(1-<(l-oi=..JZ~1-
o (/) <(a.<(~Z
W~~-i~tua.o~::S
~ XO~ ~Zza.
5Z000ffi(/)oow
@~ltD:z>~i=om
~~~~~cj~~~~
~oO::::i~~<(GS20
~~~u:l~~~~~~
(/) W ,n 3= W(/) 0 <( a. :I:
I-zOw:I:::Ez-O
a'jCij(jjG~OW3=~~
a.w~za.O~o3=O ,
O~Oi=WW::l:I:W 'ffl
~i=:I:~mG<((/)~~w
~zoxog:I:(/)~..J~
NWOWI-~(/)<(oa..l-
Z
o
~
W
G
W
>
o
W
(/)
o
a.
o
~
a.
(/)
(/)
W
o
~~
>-w
O~
a'ja.
Gu.
~~
W~
::EI-
WO
OW
wO
(/)~
00
a. 11.
o~
~w
a..~
I
--,
e ~H~ o "
"'i:: IS l'
~ ~g ~ l!s
.. \
iii" i ~ I
i!1~~~ c
~ ! ~ ~ ili
'~i
" ! ~
;s~~
,.
/
\
S!
\
:1;
I
~IU~
o[Jr
<::::;
i<S
1<1I ~~ ~~
G 131<._..
I G ~ li'
'j ~,l
Ii, i
i~
l!i
i
<L
~
~
HEtol'l:~ '€OO'OOEL XClI9X ':lp~ 'Wd 90:E~:l LOOl/lH/O~ '9EtolNO:JX3 '6Mp'J9^O<lQl- d:JOLL~\6Mp\OLH\s6U!"'BJaH)
.
DNl1BBllS ~
~ ZdY:>SCINn
DNDIDNIfINJ: 11m 6J
'JNI '1:!l:!lN aNY AY~ y
orrBUI~qoS s~prrnn
UBld Uop13orrddV
U8ld uop8:J![ddV
1Ju!snol.[o;:) ~1Jpm ~nlfI
"-
..~
~:?!
~~
~ ~~~ o ....
II :: ~
~ -g - ~ l'i
II)
a" d ..
Ilu~ z i c
~ c
'~i,
r
l
0
woo.tfI8UPUOICD6ooflJ! :nouq
rla-UK (OK) :)(D.:I UOB-air (OK) ;auDlki
Cl.Ot2 -.pqJ.IlA 'l.rnql1l1lnaJ.l1l:)
llllollS p.tOJP"H 0921
o!u/6J/A 'A)uno:) fljJOW8q1'(
~~
~
z
o
F Vl
<(
Q >-
f- f-W'"'
<(W ZWZ
0:: ::>VlO
wO 0 <( .
CD;;:;ZU tv-lZ
l.U _ . LL. <( <(
O WWW'"'::>-l
o -lU f-
f-ZCDo::ZO:: n..
f-<(O<(<(~~f-
ZVlf-~~f-UZ
Ww WOo::ZW
~-lVl~O::::>O~
~~B<(Ol.LU~
<(>- Zo::W<(
ZVl~IOOIZ
<(l.LOt::Fl.Lf-<(
~O 3=U....O~
-l W'~f-
O::Z<(Wf-l.L 0::
WOZUOOVlW
f-FG:Zo:: Wf-
<(<( <(n...q-f-<(
~~ '~O::f-:S~
o::CD~OWWWo::
O~-lUf-WO::O
f-OWU~I,-f-
VlUU<(>Vl'-Vl
,
I /"'
//
L~€to1:'1:'~ '!;Od'OO€L xwex 'op~ 'Wd 0€:91:'1: LOOl:lll~lO~ '9€to1:N00X3 '6Mfl"Ja^ooar dOOLH
:HIS6U!MWaH)
wcm'/eaupuDlCqoJU! :HDWJ ".Ia .M.~!'Ul.n1d 01 s~pt'1~dn D/U!6J1/\ '~uno:J "/JDWIK//V i ~b~ Q " ""::J
fLLZ- HIr (OK) :ItDj U09-l8f (OK) :.UOijd ;;::s-
CLllt'll -J1llI.lJA 'I.mQ81l'8n8,;nm rmla UorreDrrddv ~. ~ ~ lis -
l"aIlS p,lOJP1I8 Olllll ~IYo.IcI pue ueld I ~l!: - .
DNIDABnS ~ Pt'10N ~1t'1APd p~sodo.IcI gU!SnoqoC) ~gP!H ~nlfI :r
" '" 'oj
~~~ Q d
~~ fila.. (.
ii~i~j!J z m 0
"::>NI '1a:a:N aNY .A.Y~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
....8:J ....
~8~~~
0':8l:l~~
~o!'lf5!'l
~~~~~
)(o~o .
j!~~ ~
jf",/
~
-'"
';d _ "
:~~~ 11
· ~ it~~SI'
i:; -''''''1
liIa. .-i
~i~~~~fl
~ H
t"'t
I'
ii
rr
;'
L!.
8
~
55
8
~
Q
~
8
~
~~'"
2;i;8~
-. I Ill.
· i:; . . i
alii .,,;t
s~
&:..
8
~
Q
Q
~
L~\:F(nn 'OOCL xOJaX\~O-J9I1lllS\\ '~p~ 'I'ld ZZ:g~:Z LOOZl9~/m '3 OVOl:l d '6Mp'OO>tOVOl:l-dS OLH\6Mp\OLH\s6u!MBJa\:~
WQ;)O,..,upua.<D6OOJut :1JOW3 o/u/6.J/A '~uno:J 9jJoweq", ~ ~~~ Q .... \r
ral- UK (OK) :XD,;/ <log-lor <OK) ,"uO</d
CLOtz VfUIJ.IlA 'J.m'lwvnaJ.l1l:l . - ~ -
rreld UOR1:1O!lddV -~ 1IJ \
l8a.qS p"oJP"lI 09111 ~ l!l
Srre1~a UOPOnI1SUO:J V
DNIAaAHnS ~ 2u!snoqoo ~2P!~ ~n18 .... .... ,
~ lIdY:lSlIIWI ..~ "-. i (1
DNnlDNIDD 'IIAID ~ ~~ ill~~ i
"JNI '188N aNY AYf) . ~~ ~
-':;i.1"
en
a:::
~
0..:
en
~
G
UJ
~
UJ
a:::
i:i:
~
!l
I ~ I I ~
~ ~
~II ~ ~r I I
G ~I
. .. ~ ~~ ~ ~ z
,,~~ I " il 0 ~
~ .
dill d~ ~S ~! ~! I
~i ~. ~ i:!
UJ
" lo " ,., lo en
!z
UJ
~ ::J:
~ ~ ~
a.. 0..:
~ ~ UJ
en
=>
~ ~ c
i UJ
a:::
~ ~
en
!l
.."~'~i~~'~'~~'~~
.~ ,~~ ~ "..~';:'''''.~';:'''''''~~<
._.", '- 'I' ,.'1. ,.'j'~-
~,'0"l.., .L," .L,.~,~,
~~'"~t:r~~.,.:.~~.,~~
~,:%,~'~'U'\#'I.~"I~~
'~';.~'~, :~'~':~'~~
"';' -~~:,~.~.;:~:,~!';:":~$...~
\_\.;~'~:~~"~:~~'~~'
i:}\-- ,:,~..,.;:~:.~...;:.,:~~
..:.<\~'~.~~'~'~~,.~~
~:".""'.!"'~~
.~~4'''\''1. ,,!tl'!f.-#-
~~'.M'~M'~~
i'1 II~'U~II
I \
i I
~'
~ i
~f. ~ I I ~i:iU
lC' "., g
iia .. = ~ , ~~I
"'i"
:! ~ ~
.. lit
H"., < i I::: ~~ I
II 15"'
~~
,. . ill'" ~~'i'
~ <C .:: 'lI~
6e !
:lj. ~. 1<<
; ',Ii;
I h:
~
I a ·
;
I
i:!
lo
~
o
z
ill
I
i:!
WT<l
.0'
I
UJ
~
/ iii
~
!l
~
!l
..
b ! II
~i : ~
!~ ~; I G
:~ i;; ~
, ill h! I ~
i~1 ~ii U ~
~I~ ~d n ~
/, ~i~~n~ ~t en
~~I~Sili~U
:B~.~~!~!~!! ~
!l
L~€v1:'1::~ 'E:X!'OOI:L XOlBX '~p~ '~d €O:6~:1: LOO1:/1Hlm '9€v1:NOOX3 '6MP'JB^o:l9J- dOOLL~\fns6U!MBJaH)
.
.
.
I
I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Pro ~ct Name: ZMA 2007-0012 Blue Ridge
Cotl~using; Private Street Request with waivers to
stre~t standards
Pia Ining Commission Public Hearing:
Oct Iber 9, 2007
ow~ers: Martin & Barbara L. Schulman
Acr age: 6.1571 acres
TM !: TMP 56-67 A, 67B (portion of)
,
Mal sterial District: White Hall
Pro osal: Rezone to PRO Planned Residential
Oist ct for a mixed housing development
DA pevelopment Area): Community of Crozet
ChCl acter of Property: Currently developed
with ~ house and outbuildings
actors Favorable:
I
I. The rezoning is consistent with the Crozet
Master Plan recommendations.
A. The applicant has provided an application
plan that meets Neighborhood Model
design expectations.
~. The applicant has provided affordable
I i housing in excess of the County's
affordable housing policy.
Staff: Rebecca Ragsdale
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
November 14,2007
Applicant: Blue Ridge Cohousing, Community Housing
Partners & Gay and Neel, Inc consulting
Rezone from: RA Rural Areas
By-right use: Theoretically three dwelling units if the
property has additional development rights, Agricultural,
forestal, and fishery uses.
Proffers: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 26
Compo Plan Designation: CT 3 Urban Edge in the
Crozet Master Plan
Use of Surrounding Properties: Undeveloped,
veterinary hospital, nearby employment uses
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Stream buffers appear to be impacted by grading.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated permission
from easement holders that use Parkview Drive
will be granted so that the road can be upgraded
to accommodate this development.
3. Proffers are inadequate and do not meet
established Board expectations.
4. Emergency access provisions need to be verified
with Fire Rescue to confirm that the plan provided
can be approved as shown without significant
redesign to meeting Fire Rescue comments.
5. Workable concepts for stormwater management
have not been demonstrated on the application
plan.
6. Sight distance must be confirmed and easements
may be required by VDOT.
RE'l~MMENDATION:
Staf ~annot recommend approval on the rezoning or any waiver requests based on the number of
outs ,nding issues. A public hearing has been advertised so the Commission is asked to take public
com nent. The applicant may ask that this meeting be treated as a work session and then request a
defe al until outstanding issues can be resolved. If the applicant requests action at this meeting, staff
reco ~mends denial.
I Corrected 11/1/07
~_ t/
.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
REBECCA RAGSDALE
October 9, 2007
November 14,2007
ZMA 07-12 BLUE RIDGE COHOUSING
Private Street Request 14-233 and waivers of street standards for curb, gutter,
sidewalks, and planting strip
Waivers of 19.8 of 30' Building Separation and Section 18.4. 12. 15(g) Curb and gutter in
parking areas and along travelways
.
PETITIONS
PROJECT: ZMA 2007 - 00012, Blue Ridge Cohousing
PROPOSAL: Rezone 6.157 acres from RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) to PRO Planned Residential District -
residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to include a maximum of 26
dwelling units, a community center, and no commercial uses,
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community of Crozet; CT-
3 Urban Edge: single family residential (net 3.5-6.5 units/acre) supporting uses such as
religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: Approximately 300 yards from Three Notched Road along Parkview Drive
near the crossing of Parrot Branch creek.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 57, Parcel67A and a portion of Tax Map 56, Parcel 67B.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The property is 7,3 acres in size, 6.157 of which is proposed for rezoning, surrounded on
the northern and southern property lines by Parrott Branch and a stream to the south,
and fronting on a private road. There is an existing house, which is possibly historic,
outbuildings, pastures and horse riding ring, and it is wooded along the edges of
streams. (Attachment A-Location Map Aerial) Immediately adjacent properties to the
north, east, and west are undeveloped or rural and are zoned Rural Areas, (Attachment
B-Location Map Zoning) South of this property is the Crozet Veterinary Care Center. The
property is located within walking distance of the employment uses at the former
ConAgra complex and the proposed neighborhood service uses at Three Notch'd
Center.
BY-RIGHT USE OF THE PROPERTY
The current zoning of the property is RA Rural Areas and the property is 6.157 acres in
size. If the property has all development rights and meets all other requirements, it could
theoretically develop with 2 additional 2-acre lots.
.
PREAPPLlCATION PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION
On April 24, 2007 the Planning Commission held a pre-application work session on the
Blue Ridge Cohousing concept to provide guidance to staff and the applicant on several
issues and received input from the public. The Commission discussed density and
housing type in relation to Crozet Master Plan recommendation and also provided
2
comments regarding the design and layout of the proposal as it relates to the
Neighborhood Model. (Attachment C-Planning Commission Action Memo)
The applicant initially proposed 32 residential units and the Commission suggested that
a lower density and that more single family detached units, or units designed in a
manner that mimics single family detached units, would be appropriate for the property.
The applicant has reduced the number of units initially proposed from 32 units to 26 and
has provided architectural details to address the form of the units. The Commission's
comments regarding design and layout were primarily about the relationship of the
parking lot to Parkview Drive, the road that serves that area. There were several
neighbors that spoke about impacts to the character of that area, improvements to
Parkview Drive to support the project, impacts to Parrot Branch, and traffic.
SPECIFICS OF PROPOSAL
The applicant has provided an application package with supplemental information,
proffers, an application plan (dated 9/11/07) and several waiver requests. (Attachments I
& J) Information is provided in the application packet, which describes the goals of
cohousing that make this proposal unique from conventional developments. The
proposal is to allow up to 26 residential units, including duplexs/townhomes, single
family detached, and two quadraplex units, The residential units would be primarily
located east and north of the existing house, pool and outbuildings. Parking would be
located primarily around the existing house, off the entry drives into the project, and near
the recreational and amenity area, while seeking to respect the stream buffers on the
property. The proposal seeks to preserve the existing buildings and pool on the property
for use as common areas in the cohousing development. The applicant has indicated
that they would be providing 19% of the total number of residential units as affordable.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant has indicated that their request will provide affordable housing
opportunities and a mix of housing types in the community and intends to use
sustainable materials for the project. (Refer to Pages 21-23 of the Application Package-
Attachment I)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Crozet Master Plan
The property proposed for Blue Ridge Cohousing is located within a Neighborhood as
defined in the Crozet Master Plan, at the edge of the Crozet Development Area, The
property is a portion of the area added to the Community of Crozet with the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was adopted prior to the adoption of the Master
Plan and is located entirely within the Development Area. The northern boundary of the
Community of Crozet follows Parrott Branch. The Crozet Master Plan maps do not
depict this boundary correctly. (Attachment D)
The property proposed for cohousing is in a neighborhood that includes an existing and
potential Employment District at its center with the former Con Agra (currently Music
Today) and Acme buildings. (See inset below & Attachment D) Neighborhoods are
described in the Master Plan as discernible places with a focal point and boundary that
maintains and fosters social, cultural and economic activities. The area of
neighborhoods, from center to edge, is based on a % mile radius, or comfortable 5-
3
,-~ .~. l. J'
.
minute walking distance, and the intensity and density of land uses are intended to
decrease from the center, out to the edges of the neighborhood.
Site
Proposed for
rezoning
,
~~ _. ~J"-'-,
~: 1) ,~IG1iBO\RHOOD
T J I
j 2'\:(W/ DISTR1CT
\.:./ "" I
....\, '~
\, .
.
The property is designated NeighborhoodNillage Edge (CT3-yellow) in the Crozet
Master Plan, The Edge areas are intended to support neighborhood centers with
predominantly residential uses, especially single family detached. Net residential density
recommended in the plan is 3.5-4.5 units per acre. The plan provides a recommendation
of up to 6.5 units per acre if they are accessory apartments added for 50% of the
residential stock. Lot sizes of 10,000 square feet are recommended in CT3 areas with 1-
2 story structures at street level. The Green Infrastructure map in the Master Plan shows
proposed greenways along Parrott Branch on this property.
The applicant is proposing 26 units and the range of units suggested by the plan are 20-
26 units for this property, or up to 29 with provisions for additional affordable/accessory
apartments. The proposed net density is 4.5 units/acre, which is within the guidelines for
this property in the Master Plan. The applicant has proposed a mix of housing types,
predominantly single family attached, however all units have been designed to mimic
single family detached.
.
Neighborhood Model
The Neighborhood Model describes the more "urban" form of development desired for
the Development Areas. The following is an assessment of this proposal's consistency
with the Neighborhood Model's 12 principles:
IVIA 07-12. Blue ~idge Cohousino
Planning .ommission 10/9/07 Be Hd Of ;:JUt '~rvisors 11, .L4iO
4
,.~...:.. I -""'"
Pedestrian
Orientation
Neighborhood
Friendly Streets
and Paths
Interconnected
Streets and
Transportation
Networks
Parks and Open
Space
Neighborhood
Centers
Buildings and
Spaces of Human
Scale
Relegated Parking
Mixture of Uses
The conceptual layout submitted shows an internal system of
pedestrian paths that lead from the parking area to the residential
units, in some cases the pedestrian paths would also provide
emergency access. Pedestrian access has been provided along
Parkview Drive in the form of an 8' multipurpose asphalt path on
the east side of the Park View Drive. This rinci Ie is met.
Parkview Drive is a private rural section which is12 feet in some
places. The applicant is proposing pavement widening and an
8'pedestrian path on the east side. This seems an appropriate
response to this principle, given its location on the edge of the
Development Area. However, more information is needed on the
feasibility of widening the road since the ability to use the
easement for additional units is unknown.
The triangular shaped property is surrounded by Parott Branch to
the north and a stream to the south. There are no
recommendations for interconnections to adjoining properties to
the north, south, or east in the Crozet Master Plan due to these
constraints.
PRD Zoning requires a minimum of 25% for open space and
recreational uses. Amenities proposed include the existing pool, a
common green, and playground centrally located. Greenway
trails will be provided along Parrott Branch. This principle is met,
however the applicant should specify on the application plan the
ercenta e of area to be rovided in 0 en s ace/amenties.
This site is located within walking distance of an existing
neighborhood center in Crozet that includes a major employer,
with Music Today, neighborhood service uses such as video
rental, laundry and small offices, and a restaurant. Downtown is
located approximately 1.5 miles from the site. The pedestrian
path along Parkview Drive will lead to Route 240 and facilitate
walkin to these centers, This rinci Ie is met.
The layout of homes, which are proposed as no more than two
stories, framing a central open area will provide a spatial
enclosure in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. The Zoning
Ordinance would allow up to 35 feet without additional setbacks,
which is up to 3 stories, This is an issue that should be resolved
with the a licant. This rinci Ie is addressed,
Parking has been located in several areas around the site and
some spaces remain between Parkview Drive and the proposed
residential units. To relegate parking, the applicant is proposing
to screen this parking from Parkview Drive. Given the unique
characteristics of this site, with stream buffers on most sides of
the site, staff believes this rinci Ie is met.
The proposal includes residential uses only, which is consistent
with Crozet Master Plan expectation for the property. Non-
residential uses are existing or planned in the Master Plan for
nearb ro erties, within walkin distance of the site.
5
.....
.
Mixture of Housing
Types and
Affordability
Redevelopment
Site Planning that
Respects Terrain
Clear Boundaries
with the Rural
Areas
The variety of housing types within this development includes
three housing types, including single family, single family
attached, and quadraplex units and 19% of the units are proffered
as affordable, This rinci Ie is met.
The property is redeveloping into a more urban form, while
reservin the existin house, outbuildin s, and 001.
The site has slopes and wooded areas leading down to two
streams, Parott Branch along the northern boundary and an
unnamed stream along the southern boundary. The applicant has
worked to cluster the development on the knoll adjacent to the
existing farmhouse. However grading plans submitted do not
appear complete and the County Engineer has concerns that
development cannot be accomplished without impacting the
buffer. This rinci Ie is not met.
The project site is located entirely within the Crozet Development
Area boundaries but borders on the Rural Area edge, with Parrott
Branch as the northern boundary of both this property and the
develo ment area.
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested
zoning district
The PRD Planned Residential District is intended to encourage sensitivity toward the
natural characteristics of the site and toward impact on the surrounding area in land
development. More specifically, the PRD is intended to promote economical and efficient
land use, an improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical
development, and creative design consistent with the best interest of the county and the
area in which it is located. 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,
.
Staff believes that the intent and expectations listed here for PRD districts are met with
this rezoning proposal as it is providing a variety of housing types while seeking to
preserve the existing house, outbuildings, and natural features of the site.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Environmental & Stormwater Manaaement- A 1 DO-foot stream buffer from Parrot Branch
and the stream along the southern edge of the property, at the rear of the property, must
be kept free of encroachment by the proposed development. The applicant has shown
residential units up to the 1 DO-foot stream buffer. According to the County Engineer, the
application plan submitted does not demonstrate workable concepts for meeting the
requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance for detention and water quality. The
conceptual grading plan appears to be incomplete and it does not appear that the
perimeter construction/grading work can remain accomplished outside the stream buffer.
(Attachment E)
.
6
1"""', _ ,,'
Streets -The Cohousing project would be served by an existing private street, Parkview
Drive which is accessed off of Three Notched Road (Route 240) and continues to the
north, providing access to two other private roads, Halcyon and Thurston Drives. At least
5 other properties are accessed on Halcyon Drive via Parkview Drive. Thurston Drive
also connects to Route 810. Route 810 appears to serve as primary access to Thurston
Drive, and Parkview Drive appears to provide secondary access to those properties.
Existing pavement on Parkview Drive is approximately 12-16 feet wide. The applicant
has submitted a request to allow the road to remain a private rural section. However, it
has not been demonstrated by the applicant that they have authority under existing
agreements for Parkview Drive, which involves other property owners and users of the
road, to increase users and make upgrades to the road,
The applicant has indicated that the proposal will generate 156-260 trips per day. The
applicant is proposing a pavement width to18' to be provided for within the existing
easement of 50' for the private road and an 8' multipurpose path to be provided along
the east side of Parkview Drive. This pavement width design would accommodate up to
400 trips per day but would not be fully designed and upgraded to public road standards.
If traffic exceeds 400 vpd, including through traffic, then additional widening may be
necessary.
VDOT has indicated that improvements would be needed at the intersection of Parkview
Drive and Route 240. (Attachment F) This includes the need for a sight distance
easement to the west of 390 feet on the adjoining property and also the need to upgrade
the private road entrance to Route 240 (Three Notch'd Road). The applicant has
proposed the necessary intersection upgrades requested by VDOT but the sight
distance easement appears to be an outstanding issue. In addition, any off-site
improvements to Parkview Drive should be included in the proffers.
Schools - Students from this development would impact Crozet area schools and likely
attend Crozet Elementary School, Henley Middle School and Western Albemarle High
School. Cash proffers are intended to provide for impacts to schools.
Fire, Rescue. Police -The Crozet Volunteer Fire Station and the Western Albemarle
Rescue Station provide fire and rescue services to the area. The planned Ivy Area
Station will also augment services provide by the existing fire and rescue stations in
Crozet. Albemarle County 5th Street Office Building houses the County's Police
Department, although the police patrol all areas of the County. Current policy of police
services recommends an average response time of 10 minutes for all Development
Areas, To this end, police satellite offices are recommended within a service sector to
help achieve these desired response times to all police emergency calls. The possibility
of an additional fire/rescue/police station is under consideration for the area in 2012.
Fire and Rescue have requested that the applicant verify adequate fireflow is available.
They have no objection to the use of walking paths shown on the plan to be used for
firetrucks and other emergency access. However, the standard for these alternate
facilities will have to meet basic rural road turning radius standard and be constructed to
withstand the weight of emergency service vehicles. Those details will need to be
provided at the site plan stage and will be reviewed in detail then. Staff is still verifying
with Fire Rescue that these standards can be adequately met without substantially
impacting the design of the plan.
7
.
Utilities - The property is currently designated as water service to existing structures
on/yon the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area (ACSAJA) and has
water service. Because the property is in the Development Area, the ACSAJA boundary
would be amended and processed concurrently with this rezoning. The property is not
served by sewer and the nearest sewer lines are to the west, located in near the video
rental/laundry mat retail/service area across from Music Today. It is not clear if gravity
sewer is possible. If it isn't, a private pump station and force main to the nearest gravity
line will be needed. (Attachment G -ACSA comments)
Anticipated impact on cultural and historic resources
Comments have been provided by the Historic Preservation Planner with no objection.
Existing structures on the property will be maintained and integrated into the Coho using
project. County Real Estate Records indicate that the house on the property dates to c.
1890, however there is no information available from the Department of Historic
Resources.
Entrance Corridor Impacts
Tax map 56/parcel 67B falls within the Route 240 Entrance Corridor. The portion of the
development proposed within this parcel is not expected to be visible from the EC.
Consequently, ARB review is not required.
.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties
Neighbors within the vicinity of this project raised concerns about a change in rural
character of the area with this project. The applicant has addressed this concern by
designing the units to appear as single family with height limits of 35 feet, clustering the
homes, and preserving landscaping. The issue remains as to how adjoining properties
have been involved with determining upgrades to Parkview Drive.
Public need and justification for the change
The change in zoning is consistent with the CT3 designation of the Land Use Plan and
provides a variety of residential uses within walking distance of existing employment
uses and neighborhood service uses, near Downtown.
PROFFERS
The applicant has provided proffers on page 49 of the rezoning application package.
(Attachment H), summarized here:
.
Cash ImDacts
The applicant has indicated an intent to proffer the full cash impact amount for each
market rate unit proposed ($17,500 single family detached, $11,900 Single Family
Attached, and $12, 400 Multifamily) which staff supports. However the applicant is
requesting a $20,000 credit for each affordable unit provided, which is not supported.
Affordable Housina
The applicant intends to proffer a minimum of 5 affordable units, or 19% of the total
number of units proposed. This meets the County's affordable housing policy goals. In
8
;--..
addition to not paying the cash impact amount for the affordable units, the applicant is
requesting that a credit of $20,000 given against the cash impacts. While staff does not
fully understand the intent of the credit, staff cannot support it since cash proffers are not
expected on affordable units anyway. The Director of Housing has provided comments
and suggests changes to this proffer.
The proffers are inadequate and would have to be revised, using proper form and
standard language before they could be accepted by the County. The proffers also do
not provide for the following:
Park View Drive Improvements
The applicant should also provide for the off-site and intersection improvements to Park
View Drive in the form of proffers.
Architectural Standards
The application package includes architectural standards. This is not a requirement for
PRD zoning so if the applicant is making commitments to certain architectural elements,
such as roof types, materials, scale, massing, than those should also be provided for in
the proffer statement. The word typical should be added to these sheets. Floor Plans
should be removed altogether or notes added,
PRIVATE STREET REQUEST & WAIVERS
Private Street reauest
The applicant has submitted a request to allow Parkview Drive to remain as a
private street, which would include a waiver of curb, gutter, sidewalks, and a
planting strip. However, since there is a lack of information as to what authority
the applicant will have to make changes to the road, staff is not commenting on
the waiver until that issue is resolved. The ordinance section is provided here for
reference and the applicant has requested the waver based on Neighborhood
Model Development and General Welfare. (Attachment H)
14-233 When private streets in development areas may be authorized.
A private street may be authorized in the development areas under the following circumstances, provided
that the findings required by section 14-234(C) are made:
A. By the commission. The commission may authorize a subdivision to be developed with
one (1) or more new private streets in the following circumstances:
1. Neighborhood model development. The proposed private street(s) would enable the principles of the
neighborhood model to be more fully implemented than could be achieved with a public street, without
diminishing other principles of the neighborhood model, in the following circumstances: (i) the subdivision
would have a streets cape more consistent with the neighborhood model;
(ii) the subdivision design would allow it to better achieve the density goals of the comprehensive plan; (iii)
rear vehicular access to buildings would be provided so that the buildings may face a common amenity; (iv)
a significant environmental resource would be protected; or (v) relegated parking would be provided to a
greater extent than could otherwise be provided.
2. Two-lot subdivision. The proposed private street(s) would be within a two-lot subdivision.
3. General welfare. The general welfare, as opposed to the proprietary interest of the subdivider, would be
better served by the construction of one or more private streets than by the construction of public streets.
B. By the agent. The agent may authorize one (1) or more new private streets in the following
circumstances:
1. Subdivision containing attached dwelling units or non-residential uses. The proposed private street(s)
would be in a subdivision containing attached dwelling units or non-residential uses where the units, groups
of units, or non-residential uses are to be located on individual lots.
2. Family subdivisions. The proposed private street(s) would be within a family subdivision.
9
-
.
Buildina Separation
In accordance with Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows waivers, the
applicant is requesting a reduction in the 30' building separation required as part of a
PRD Zoning District:
19.8 BUILDING SEP ARA nON
Except as otherwise provided in section 4.11.3, whether or not located on the same parcel, there
shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet between main structures, This provision shall not apply to
structures built to a common wall. (Amended 1-1-83)
The Building Official has reviewed this request and can support it if a minimum of 10'
building separation between the single family and single family detached units is
provided and a minimum of 15' between the multifamily units. This separation appears to
be provided between all buildings, with one exception. If these minimum separations are
not provided for, special fire separation construction standards would be required,
.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this rezoning and special use
permits requested:
1. The rezoning is consistent with the Crozet Master Plan recommendations.
2. The applicant has provided an application plan that meets Neighborhood Model
design expectations.
3. The applicant has provided affordable housing in excess of the County's affordable
housing policy
Staff has identified factors unfavorable to this request:
1. Stream buffers appear to be impacted by grading.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated permission from easement holders that use
Parkview Drive will be granted so that the road can be upgraded to accommodate
this development.
3. Proffers are inadequate and do not meet established Board expectations.
4. Emergency access provisions need to be verified with Fire Rescue to confirm that the
plan provided can be approved as shown without significant redesign to meeting Fire
Rescue comments.
5. Workable concepts for stormwater management have not been demonstrated on the
application plan.
6. Sight distance must be confirmed and easements may be required by VDOT.
.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Staff cannot recommend approval on the rezoning or any waiver requests based
on the number of outstanding issues. A public hearing has been advertised so
the Commission is asked to take public comment. The applicant may ask that
this meeting be treated as a work session and then request a deferral until
outstanding issues can be resolved, If the applicant requests action at this
meeting, staff recommends denial.
10
ATTACHMENTS
A. Location Map-Aerial
B. Zoning Map
C. Planning Commission Work Session comments, April 24, 2007
D. Crozet Master Plan Place Type & Built Infrastructure Map
E. County Engineer Comments
F. VDOT comments, via e-mail from Joel Denunzio, P.E.
G. Albemarle County Service Authority comments via e-mail from Gary
Whelan
H. Waiver requests, letter dated September 11,2007 from Gay and Neel,
Inc.
I. Blue Ridge Cohousing Rezoning Application, including proffers,
resubmitted September 11,2007, prepared by Community Housing
Partners
J. Application Plan, "Blue Ridge Cohousing Application Plan", dated
September 11,2007 and prepared by Gay and Neel, Inc.
y
11
,....
, I
Attachment A
l<i
oj
.
I
.Ii
l
~
f
~
g
I ~
J f 1
It DI
8
.~ ~~
il~~~
~~~:g
6~~i
~i~
~
<:{z
<
! J fl.
I f i i l f j I
IIDII.'
i
!
i
-
=
~
S
-=
~
~
t
<
'" .-,"'1
Attachment B
I J I I I Ii!
. ...
. I
[ !
I I
I Ii! I
...
a J . t
{ , ~
l ~ I ,
~ I I I I ~
J f f f f !
I I i i ~ t i )
a l l l l .
.... ..rn
8
'"
I
.Ii
I
1 i
f
f
5 .
I~! !!IJ
! ! it f f . . t f r I !
~ ~ 8, 0: ~ {l {l .. ~ l !
J!D J IIDII.ID
.
~
~ ~
-i~ ~
:tS ~
II) u '"
ffi:E i
~ ~
g
"
~
.....
=
~
S
-=
~
~
.....
.....
-<
i
.
i
e
1&.1
CO
,~
18
II) I/)
CO CO
I I
18 lRI
II
II)
CO
I
18
II
CO
I/)
I
18
(
'It
"
I
. ~:g-
. :c:-'
'It
CO
I
18
.
c(
'It
"
~
,
~Pl_
, ---- (--
18 ....J l____~
------ /--
r
'--)/
'It,
~
18,
\
\
---...,
~
'It
I
II
i
.
"
'",
5:
'0
5
I
~
g
<.)
~
~
8,
~
J
I/)
~
18
1
is.
>-
i
'D
J<
.
c.
~
D r'\ <:
'") <;y'
.
.
.
otion: Mr, Morris moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, that CPA-2005-00002, Growth Management Policy
U date be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation for adoption.
T e motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Mr. Strucko and Mr. Craddock were absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that CPA-2005-0002, Growth Management Policy would go to the Board of
S pervisors with a favorable recommendation.
Mr. Benish noted that this item has not been scheduled for the Board's agenda yet, but will be set up now
th t the Commission has taken action.
e Planning Commission took a break at 6:59 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 7:07 p.m.
Work Session:
B ue Rid e Cohousin ZMA Pre-A Iication Work Session
P OPOSAL: Conceptual development proposal submitted for discussion with the Planning Commission
p ior to a rezoning application to rezone 6.16 acres from RA Rural Areas, which allows for agricultural,
fo estal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre), likely to PRD Planned Residential District,
w ich allows for residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses. The applicant proposes up to
3 dwelling units, including duplexes and townhomes.
P OFFERS: No
E ISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Crozet Master Plan, Urban Edge (CT3) -
s pports center with predominately residential uses, especially single-family detached (net 3.5-4.5 units
p r acre) (net 6.5 units per acre if accessory apartments are added for 50% of the residential stock) and
D velopment Area Preserve (CT1) - development area open space preserve or reserve with very low
re idential density (net 1 unit per 20 acres) in the Community of Crozet in the Development Area.
L CATION: Community of Crozet, 1317 Parkview Drive, approx, 500 feet north of the intersection of
P rkview Drive and Three Notched Road (Route 240).
T MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 56, Parcel 67A
M GISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
S AFF: Rebecca Ragsdale
In summa ,the Planning Commission held a pre-application work session on the Blue Ridge Cohousing
Z A to provide guidance to staff and the applicant on several issues that relate to the applicant's request
to rezone the property. The Commission received input from the applicant, staff and the public, The
C mmission discussed the questions posed by staff and provided the following comments.
1. Are the residential Density and housing type, as conceptually proposed, appropriate based
on Crozet Master Plan recommendations?
2. Any comments regarding the design and layout of the proposal as it relates to the
Neighborhood Model.
· Several Commissioners raised the concern about the relationship of the parking lot to the road
that serves that area and that the applicant needs to look at in a design concept. The density
might not need to be reduced significantly, but there is a different relationship of the dwelling units
to the Rural Area that also needs to be looked at before the applicant proceeds with the project.
· There was a lot of community interest outside of the immediately adjoining properties concerning
the proposal and the applicant should talk to those community members,
· There are many other agencies and departments that the applicant is going to have to work with
on the proposal. There is the Service Authority, VDOT, etc that they need to talk to about what
the constraints are and what the opportunities are on this property,
A BEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2007 3 ]o..s , 29
D AFT ACTION MEMO - SUBMITTED TO STAFF
Attachment C
"-.,
,; 0
0
~ 0
x
e '" '"
I- 0 g
w Z ...
... ~ x Ai
~ 0 ...
. g w 8
x z
r
_,.1
,,", ~.rd
[~ =1:1:; ~) ~
,'r__~"_~ ~
CE.e~e s::
i8 ~-:8-Si.f
~"V~~",_....,",
.;-5 ~ s::t: ~~~
~.=.~g ..g;=.
~ ll(I,sU s:: !S ~ l:5 ....
~j.~.e.S 51 ~~
o I.I-cl.t::.:e E v .... =
<f.~;1 ~.r:~~~ g
g ~ ~~ .=..5 e~~
8a2:.~1~5-::
~].s'~:€ ~.E'~ ~
E: e-.c ~ E~ ~ ~
,]5'~E~g..5;S::
~ [i.E~1 ~ii: ~
-s...Q.!!.s ~~ ~.~.~
'O~i~5-s~5~
...."'tlg...... E ....:.:.t:: '"
[~"~ t~~:2 s.~
l-E ~-a~1 ~g.;
c.....,c C."'tlllCc:U....
~~ ~:.s :: E~ B
;1 5-S.s ~~"5.a
c~<z~ 2 ~ ~~ 8
s: ~~ ~.g ~o.~ t
g~tl5-g-;~E~
~ :; 8-5 e3 2 i:'.~
E~2 ti~~~ ~ ~--
e"'tl 0 E ~ .;0 E ~
UB.~ll(I~5~~s
.~:~ ~1~1] ~.~
~\.
.'.
.'
1.
/
/
~
J 1- -
=
Iii ~
..
.
r
,
I ..
iJ ~
=J ~
Ii [~ ~ -
:0 -
I Hi I <
~ ~r e ~
j J I I J I
IIJ ld ~ .
I J i
<5 _H .I'
1III1 .
z
c >
L "
<
c
z
~w ~
w~
~~ i
El
~g z
c~ l
~~ 9
~~ ~
P.
ell
~
Cl)
...
::;
...
u
::;
... s::
... ..".
<I:J ~ 0
= ell c:: 0
... <"l
ell - ..., .....;'
- = ::l .
~ 0 (
- :9 J-
... ... E
OJ
Cl) - tJ
... .... ::l OJ
<I:J ::; p:) 0
ell !:Q .... ."
~ ctl OJ
""C <lJ 15..
>- 0
= 6 ."
ell N <(
Cl)
p.
~
\
Cl)
U
ell
-
~
N'
0
[ ~ I
<.>
"
w ~ z
" I
8
~ I
1~lllil
~ .~
~~
::"::
H
. .
:.
z
"
:::
;~
:=
::
;:.
I~/.)} ..
:'.~_.. .
,-r'
If
.
Subject:
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner
Glenn Brooks, County Engineer
3 Aug 2007
Rev. 1: 26 Sep 2007
Blue Ridge Cohousing (ZMA2007000 12)
To:
From:
Date:
The rezoning plan and proffers have been reviewed, The following comments are offered for your use;
1. The street section on page 29 specifies a 2: 1 ditch slope, which is too steep, This section without
dimensions, and the stated proffer to widen and resurface the road may be enough. Otherwise VDOT
standards should be referenced,
Rev, 1: The ditch slope has been corrected The section and dimensions are still in the plan, but it
should be clear that they may be changed with final construction plans, If the traffic will be over
400vpd, including through traffic, more widening may be necessary.
.
2. It is not clear that the 8' trail/bike-path can be built within the right-of-way, VDOT permitting for
private maintenance would likely be required. Topography may not pennit the section as shown on
page 29.
Rev. 1: I understand this is a private easement and more easement can be dedicated An easement
should be provided for drainage release, as well as any necessary additional width for the sidewalk.
3. Proffer 4 states BMP's will provide rate, volume and quality control. The perimeter swale alone would
not provide this, and more infonnation is needed regarding how this is to be accomplished.
Rev. 1: This proffer has been removed The concept appears to be rain barrels and the perimeter
swale. The conceptual grading does not allow for the perimeter swale. It does not appear feasible as
shown on the plans. In any case, the applicant should be aware that the requirements of the Water
Protection Ordinance will need to be met. It is not clear how the detention and water quality
requirements will be met with the current plan.
4. A conceptual grading plan is recommended. It is not clear how grading will be minimized.
Rev. 1 : The conceptual grading appears incomplete. It does not appear that grading for the perimeter
work and erosion control measures can be accomplished outside of the buffer. From the pictures in
the application, it also appears that houses may be built on slabs, which requires more grading for
site preparation than is currently indicated
.
5. Rev.!: Regarding the request for a waiver of the curbing requirement on all travelways and
parking areas: There is one parking area which may sheet flow to a perimeter water quality swale.
The requirement for curbing could be waived on this edge of the parking row at the southeast
corner of the site. Waiving the rest of the curbing on the site is not required to accommodated
storm water management or BMP facility design, and so cannot be waived by the County Engineer
Attachment E
i"')r,. <. _ .;~ R
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of2
(I8-4.12.15g). This is more an issue of neighborhood model design form as desired in the
development areas,
6.
.
.
.
Attachment F
Re~ecca Ragsdale
____.1_,____.._. _ .
Frqm: Denunzio, Joel D" P.E. [JoeI.Denunzio@VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sel!1t: Friday, September 28,20078:59 AM
To:: Rebecca Ragsdale
Subject: ZMA-2007-012 Blue Ridge Cohousing
Rebecca,
I hav$ reviewed the above ZMA revision and have the following comments:
. This plan shows the existing Parkview Drive to be improved but it will continue to be a private road. The
proposed improvements will not bring the road up to state standards and cannot be eligible for state
acceptance into the secondary system.
. As of August 2007, the VDOT design standards have changed and the CG-11 vertical requirement no
longer applies to street connections. The connection to S.R. 240 needs to be designed in accordance with
VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B - Subdivision Street Design Guide, page B-14, which states that
all intersections should have a landing of 50 feet that does not exceed 2%. In this case, the flat area
, should be started at the back of the shoulder of route 240 under the current shoulder standards for rout9
, 240. The current shoulder standard on route 240 can determined from Appendix A of the Road Design
Manual under the standards for a rural minor arterial road (GS-2) standard. The shoulder should be 10
feet wide and the landing area should be at no greater than 2% for 50 feet beyond the back of the
shoulder
· Sight distances need to be shown on the plan and any necessary easements where the sight lines fall
outside of the right of way need to be shown. The posted speed at this intersection is 25 mph. The
corresponding sight distances can be found in VDOT's 2003 Minimum Standards of Entrances to State
Highways, on page 13. In this case the sight distance will be 390 feet. The sight lines need to be plotted
on the plan. The method for showing the sight lines can be found in VDOT's Road Design Manual,
Appendix B, figure 2 on page B-12.
If youihave any questions, please contact me.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel !DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434-~93-0011 Ext. 120
joel. deru nzio@VirginiaDOT.org
From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Sent:! Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:56 PM
To: '~ebecca Ragsdale'
Cc: Prloctor, Charles C.
Subj~ct: RE: Blue Ridge Cohousing
Rebe4ca,
I havei reviewed the pre-application submittal for the above project and have the following comments:
· The proposed site accesses a private road that runs north of rte. 240 and connects to rte. 1235. The
10/7/7007
Attachment F
R-r., '" - ~ '?
Page 2 of3
private road is approximately 16 feet wide and paved. To bring this to a state standard, the minimum width
of pavement will have to be 18 feet wide on a 40 foot right of way.
. A sight distance easement will be needed to the west for 390 feet.
. The private road entrance to rte. 240 will need to be upgraded to a CG-11 street connection standard.
. There is an existing right turn lane to the private road,
. The amount of traffic does not warrant a left turn lane on rte. 240 for this development.
. Most of the traffic from the site will access rte, 240.
. The size of the development does not generate enough traffic to request a traffic impact study, however,
the cumulative effects for all the development along this route in this are will have negative impacts on the
transportation network.
There is a general traffic concern for all the development that is occurring on rte. 240 in the Crozet area. There
are inadequate Levels of Service at the intersection of rte. 240 and rte. 250 now and additional development will
only amplify the problem. The county should consider projects in the Crozet area that have been identified on the
Crozet Master Plan such as the rte. 240/250 connector and bridge over Lickinghole Creek and any other projects
that are out of the range of what a single development can accomplish and prioritize those projects. Then
development can proffer per unit amounts that the county will apply to the projects. At this time I would say that
the rte. 240/250 intersection and the rte. 240/250 connector road should be considered priorities and the county
should take steps to implement these projects with proffers from all development. VDOT will be glad to meet with
the county and discuss how to determine cost estimates and prioritize these projects for future development.
I hope this provides you with the information you need. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
ReSidency Program Manager
434-293-0011 Ext. 120
joel,denu nzio@VirginiaDOT.org
From: Rebecca Ragsdale [mailto:rragsdale@albemarle.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 9:31 AM
To: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Subject: Blue Ridge Cohousing
Joel-
Thanks for taking a look at the Blue Ridge Cohousing concept plan we sent over and for
discussing it with me this morning. Like I said, we got some questions from our Planning
Commission on the project (below), if you could provide a response to those when you send
comments on intersection improvements/turn lanes that would be great.
Thanks!
Is there a traffic concern? What is the current state? Will the effects of 32 more units push the
existing traffic conditions into a totally unacceptable situation? What are the cumulative effects
of other development on trafjic that have been approved in this area?
Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Plamu~r
County of Alhemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
1 Onn007
Attachment G
Rebecc
.rom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gary Whelan [gwhelan@serviceauthority.org]
Tuesday, October 02,200710:12 AM
Rebecca Ragsdale
FW: Blue Ridge Cohousing ZMA 2007-00012
Attachm
cohousing.jpg
:ohousing. 'pg (2
MB)
From: Ga Whelan (mailto:gwhelan@serviceauthoritv.org)
Sent: We nesday, July 25, 2007 8:52 AM
To: Miche Ie Simpson (msimpson@rivanna.org)
Subject: : Blue Ridge Cohousing ZMA 2007-00012
From: Ga Whelan [mailto:Qwhelan@serviceauthoritv,org)
Sent: Fri ay, July 20, 2007 9:36 AM
eTO: Sean ougherty (sdoughertv@albemarle,orq)
Subject: lue Ridge Cohousing ZMA 2007-00012
Sean,
Currently his project is in the ACSA jurisdictional area for water only to existing structures. I understand from the brochure
that there s an application to amend that condition. If that is done, final water and sewer plans are required for our review
and appro al prior to granting tentative approval. You will also need off-site water and sewer plans along with the
necessary easements for crossing properties of others to serve this site. I don't know if gravity sewer is possible. If it isn't,
a private ump station and force main to the nearest gravity line will be needed. I will attach a copy of our GIS showing
water and sewer in the vicinity. We usually don't have much to say at the ZMA stage, so these comments are for your
informatio only. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to call.
-Gary
G. M. Wh lan, LS
Civil Engi eer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotn p Road
Charlottes iIIe, VA 22911
(434) 977- 511
Fax: (434) 979-0698
.
1
~ ;~
..
'" "
30:)'"
.3[[
.
.
.
II
. GAY AND
,W 1 2 6 0 R A 0 F 0
Attachment H
NEEL, INC.
R D S T'R E E T ~ C H R 1ST I A N S BUR G ,
V A
2 4 0 7 3
. September 11, 2007
Ms. Rebecca Ragsdale
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Roorn 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
. RE: Blue Ridge Cohousing Waiver~equests
GNI Job No. 1770.0
Dear Ms. Ragsdale:
In accordance with Chapter 18, Section 8.2, Blue Ridge Cohousing requests the following
waivers in conjunction ~ith the Application Plan to rezone Tax Parcels 56-67 A & 56-67B from
Ruml to Planned Development Residential:
,
1) Chapter 18, Section 4.12.15, Minimum Design Requirements and Improvements for
Parking Areas
g) Curbs shall be established at the edges of parking areas or access aisles. . .
As shown in the Application Plan, the site has been designed to sheet flow the
drainage Jrom the site into the linear bio-retention trenches. This maintains the
natural drainage flows and hydrologic cycles and avoids the concentration of
storrnwater runoff to a single point. No curbing is proposed for this development
project.
2) Chapter 14, Section 14-404, Lot location to allow access from lot onto street or shared
driveway
A. Each lot, . . . shall have reasonable access to the building site from only one street,
shared driveway or alley . . . For the purposes of this section, the term "reasonable
access" means a location for a driveway or, if a driveway location is not provided, a
lqcation for a suitable foot path from the parking spaces required by the zoning
ordinance to the building site. . .
I
As shown in the Application Plan, sidewalks connect every dwelling unit within
the' neighborhood to the parking areas. This furthers the design intent for Blue
Ridge Cohousing and maintains a high standard fot the overall public health,
safety, and welfare. No individual lots are proposed for this development project.
, Dwellings units will be developed as condominiums.
PHONE: (540) 381-6011 ~
E-MAIL:INFO@GAYANDNEEL.COM ~ FAX: (540) 381-2773
D1'\<.. '<7
BlueRidge Cohousing Waiver Requests
Job No. 1770.0
Page 2 of2
3) Chapter 18, Section 19.8 Building Separation
. . . there shall be a-minimum of thirty (30) feet between main structures. This provision
shall not apply to structures built to a commC?n wall.
All dwellings shall have a minimum separation in accordance wJth the 2003
International Building Code and 2003 Virginia Uniform S/tatewideBuilding Code.
The thirty-foot separation requirement shall not apply to the development project.
4) Chapter 14, Section 14-233, When private streets in development areas may be authorized
The commission may authorize a')subdivisionto be developed with one or more
new private streets in the following circumstances:
I i. Neighborhood model development
Blue Ridge Cohousingwill further the intent of the neighborhood model with the
use of a private ~treetin the following ways: .
1. The use of a private ~treet will allow a site plan that respects the terrain.
Current VDOT standards would eliminate more ve~e.~ationand create
more earthwork, thus having ~ greater impact on the rural landscape.
. The overall character and appearance of the existing streetscape will
remain.
11. Th~ pr9posed trail adjacent to the roadway/is a convenient route for
pedestrians and bicyclists, which further connects with the existing
sidewalk system along Three Notch'd Road.
The general welfare, as opposed to the proprietary interest of the subdivider,
would be better seryed by the construction of one or more private streets than by
the construction of public streets.
1. As stated above, the rural character of the existing road will remain due
to less overall earthwork and vegetation rem?val necessary to build the
private road.
I( you hate any questions, please feel free to call me at (540) 381-6011.
;
, Sincerely,
'Gay and Neel, Inc.
Kevin D. Conner, L.A.
Landscape Architect
KDC/asw
\.:::1_.,.. ;&IV