HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201500008 Staff Report 2016-02-23COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 2015-008 Adelaide
Staff: Megan Yaniglos, Principal Planner
Planning Commission Work Session:
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
February 23, 2016
N/A
Owners: Judith Herring
Applicant: Kyle Redinger- Adelaide C -Ville; Justin Shimp;
Shimp Engineering
TMP: 056000000108A0; 056000000026A2
Acreage: approx. 19.975 acres
Location: 5444 Brownsville Road and Rockfish
Turnpike (Route 250). On the north side of Route
250 West, adjacent to the Cory Farms Subdivision
(Attachment A)
Zoning District: R1, Residential
Magisterial District: White Hall
Proposal: Work session to obtain direction and
Comp. Plan Designation: Greenspace; Neighborhood
interpretation of the Crozet Master Plan for the
Density Residential — residential (3 — 6 units/acre)
proposed rezoning of the parcels from R1
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools and
Residential to R6 Residential. A total of 93 units
other small-scale non-residential uses in the Crozet
are proposed.
Masterplan.
DA (Development Area): Crozet
Use of Surrounding Properties: The surrounding
property is residential. Cory Farms subdivision is to the
east of the property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Question 1: Staff believes that the recently mapped environmental features should be used in lieu of those
areas shown on the Master Plan in order to calculate density.
Question 2: If the impacts of the development, compatibility of building type, and the Neighborhood Model
principles are appropriately addressed, staff would support development at the higher end of the density range.
Approval of development at the higher end of the density range could also help provide balance with nearby by -
right development that is occurring well below the recommended density range in the Master Plan.
Question 3: Staff believes that the proposal should contain a minimum of 50% single-family detached units to
conform with the recommendations in the Master Plan.
STAFF PERSON: Megan Yaniglos
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION: February 23, 2016
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: TBD
Characteristics of the Site & Area
The area proposed for rezoning consists of two parcels located to the north of Route 250 West and
adjacent to the west of the Cory Farms subdivision (Attachment A). Three houses exist on the property,
two of which take access from Route 250 West and one of which takes access from Brownsville Road,
north of Route 250 West. Open lawn surrounds each of the houses and the rest of the parcels are heavily
wooded. A stream with some steep slopes constitutes the western property line. The properties are
located approximately 1/3 of a mile west of Liberty Hall, Clover Lawn and the Blue Ridge Shopping
Center where Harris Teeter is located.
Specifics of the Proposal
The applicant is proposing to rezone two parcels from R1 -Residential (1 unit/ acre) to R6- Residential (up
to 6 units/ acre) with proffered plan for a maximum of 93 units. The proffered plan shows proposed
locations of streets, open space (etc.) but, does not show proposed lots or unit types (Attachment B). The
applicant has also submitted a plan for Architectural Review Board (ARB) review which contains more
detail, the unit types, and numbers of each type of unit (Attachment C). The ARB plan indicates that the
units will be solely attached with a mixture of townhouse, single family attached units, and affordable
units.
Background and Purpose of the Work Session
The purpose of a work session is to gather input from the Planning Commission on the proposed project's
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and to determine any other issues the applicant should
address before resubmitting his proposal. The action of the Planning Commission is non-binding but is
meant to help advise the applicant on next steps.
The following is a summary of meetings and review to date:
The applicant submitted the rezoning proposal on December 7, 2015 and held a community
meeting with the Crozet Community Advisory Committee (CCAC) on December 16, 2015. During
this meeting the applicant presented his proposal and the community provided comments and
asked questions. A number of concerns were raised by those in attendance including traffic,
density, and interpretation of the Crozet Master Plan recommendations for these parcels/area.
Specifically, a question was raised concerning the fringe areas portion of the Master Plan.
A follow up meeting with the CCAC occurred on January 20, 2016 where the applicant and staff
attended to take comments and questions. Notes from that meeting are provided in Attachment F.
The applicant and staff also attended the Cory Farms HOA meeting on January 27, 2016 to
provide another opportunity for questions and comments on the proposal.
Initial review comments from staff were given to the applicant on January 29, 2016.
From the community meetings and staff comments, the applicant determined that a work session was
needed with the Planning Commission prior to resubmitting his proposal.
Three main questions related to interpretation of the Crozet Master Plan require input from the Planning
Commission which are identified below (Detailed analysis and staff recommendations for each question
are provided further in the report).
1. What land should be available for development and calculating potential density? Is strict
adherence to the area shown on the Master Plan for Neighborhood Density and
Greenspace required or should the area available for development be calculated using
more recent mapping technology that better depicts environmental features (stream
buffer, preserved slopes) and the Route 250 buffer?
ZMA 15-08 Adelaide- Work Session
Does the location of the parcels near the boundary of the Crozet Development Area
mandate that the low end of the density range be pursued? Or would development at the
upper end of the range be possible provided that the proposal can address the
Neighborhood Model principles and mitigate associated impacts?
Should the proposed development consist of mainly single family residential units as
designated within the Master Plan? If so, what percentage of the units should be single
family residential?
Q1: What land should be available for development and calculating potential
density? Is strict adherence to the area shown on the Master Plan for
Neighborhood Density and Greenspace required or should the area available for
development be calculated using more recent mapping technology that better
depicts the environmental features (stream buffer, preserved slopes) and the
Route 250 buffer?
When the Master Plan was adopted the intent of the designation of Greenspace was intended to capture
environmental features and to preserve the 250 scenic byway. Since the Master Plan was adopted, the
steep slopes overlay showing preserved and managed slopes was adopted, and more detailed and
accurate mapping of the streams and their buffers has occurred. See graphics below for comparison.
Go 4.1.E (produni-) AppG-
Current GIS data: Water Protection Buffer
and Preserved Slopes
ZMA 15-08 Adelaide- Work Session
Crozet Master Plan: Green area and Yellow
designated for development/density
calculation.
Combined Map: GIS data overlaid with Crozet Master Plan
The light green areas in the combined map above are the preserved slopes, and the darker green areas
are those areas intended to represent the environmental features that would have included critical slopes,
the stream buffer and the Route 250 buffer. Staff's opinion is that the new and more accurate data
should be used to calculate density. If the intent of the Master Plan was to preserve areas of
environmental significance, the detailed mapping of these features should be used. The difference
between the two different ways to calculate the land area results in 5 more units if the area used to
calculate the density is based upon the mapped stream buffer, preserved slopes, and a 50 foot buffer
along Route 250.
Q2: Does the location of the parcels near the boundary of the Crozet
Development Area mandate that the low end of the density range be pursued? Or
would development at the upper end of the range be possible provided that the
proposal can address the Neighborhood Model principles and mitigate
associated impacts?
As previously discussed, land in this location not designated as Greenspace is recommended for
Neighborhood Density Residential development which has a density range of 3 to 6 units per acre. During
the community meetings residents suggested that the low end of the density range should be used
because the parcels are located near the edge of the Development Area, in keeping with the Continuum
of Intensity of Use which is illustrated below and on page 8.18 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Area 1
Figure & Illustration of Continuum in Intensity of Use
Area 5
Saor Adapted by Albemarle County Community Development from Duany Picif rvZyberk and
Company image 2072
ZMA 15-08 Adelaide- Work Session
Development is least
intensive in Area 7
and most intensive in
Area 5. The height
of buildings gradu-
ally increases from
Area 3 to Area 5,
which has the tallest
buildings.
Q.
008 op m
e
ooh q �'°�-■'
�
c��°�'
Q m
Q o°p��° o o ' �•
o �'■
a�� ,tea. ��:
is
ll�,��
o�� �, �cf a• o
`7 bo 00
0
O `� . o
/
°
Qa
Saor Adapted by Albemarle County Community Development from Duany Picif rvZyberk and
Company image 2072
ZMA 15-08 Adelaide- Work Session
Development is least
intensive in Area 7
and most intensive in
Area 5. The height
of buildings gradu-
ally increases from
Area 3 to Area 5,
which has the tallest
buildings.
In addition, in the first section of Chapter 4 of the Crozet Master Plan, there is language regarding
Centers and how the plan is organized around these centers. Specifically, the Plan states: "The center is
the most intensely developed, while the middle and edge bands around the center become progressively
more residential, less mixed use, and less dense." It further states that an important mixed use center is
"the Clover Lawn commercial and residential area." Clover Lawn is approximately 1/3 mile east of the
properties under consideration for rezoning. While density decreases away from Clover Lawn, staff does
not agree that density was necessarily intended to be at the low end of the density range at this location.
This is because areas of very low density were designated on the Crozet Master Plan in a different color
and pattern than those designated for Neighborhood Density. (See below.)
Neighborhood Density -Low
This designation represents residential areas where a density of 2 residential units per
acre or less is expected. Housing is expected to be single-family detached. Non-
residential neighborhood uses. such as places of worship. public and private schools,
religious institutions, daycare facilities, parks, and private schools. may also be present
in these areas.
Neighborhood Density 0
This designation represents residential areas with a desired density of 3 — 6 residential
units per acre. It also represents existing residential areas within or below this range.
Housing in this area is primarily single-family detached with some single-family
attachedltownhouses. Non-residential uses include institutional uses, such as places of
worship, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers (daycare
centers and preschools). Neighborhood -serving retaillcommercial areas and office uses
of less than 5,00 square feet may be allowed by exception only in Neighborhood
Density Residential areas located within half a block of Downtown along Blue Ridge
Avenue and east of Firehouse Lane.
While the Planning Commission may believe that the low end of the Neighborhood Density range is
appropriate at this location, staff thinks it is not necessarily mandated by the Plan. Instead, staff believes
that density could be at the higher end of the range, provided that design is in keeping with the
Neighborhood Model, compatibility of building types is achieved at the edge of the proposed development
near Cory Farms, and provided that impacts from the development are mitigated.
ZMA 15-08 Adelaide- Work Session
In addition to the issues related to the Continuum of Intensity, several residents at community meetings
expressed their belief that a rezoning at this location should not be approved at all. They cited a section in
the Land Use chapter of the Crozet Master Plan with the title `Fringe Areas and the Route 250 West
Corridor'. In this section, reference is made to areas along 250W and states: "Do not approve any
rezoning for new development along the Route 250 West corridor." While these parcels are along the
Route 250 West corridor, this section of the Master Plan was intended to address those parcels at the 1-
64/250 West interchange. The beginning paragraph of this section refers to this portion of Crozet (see
below). At the time of the update of the Master Plan, there was a question on whether or not to expand
the development areas to include this region. The outcome of that discussion was that that region was to
remain and not be included within the development area. This section was intended to give direction on
how parcels in that specific region are to be evaluated and treated for future development.
Fringe Areas and the Route 250 West Corridor
Crozet has notable agricultural history and was once known as the Peach Capital of the
state. Today, the Development Area, which includes areas historically farmed, is designated
for future growth, but orchards and other agricultural activities continue in the surrounding
Rural Area. During the development of this Master Plan update, a review took place of the
fringe areas to determine whether any conditions had changed since adoption of the prior
Master Plan. Specifically, the eastern quadrant of the 1-64 and Route 250 West interchange
was studied to consider whether the boundary of the Crozet Development Area should be
expanded to allow for a business and industrial park. After study, as well as input from
residents, it was determined that an expansion of the Development Area is not warranted at
this time and that all new buildings for office, retail. and industrial uses should be located
within the existing Community of Crozet. This Master Plan update recommends that the
Rural Areas outside of the Community of Crozet remain rural, including the stretch of Route
250 West between the Development Area boundary and the interstate interchange.
In addition to the above, the prior section "Eastern Crozet" specifically shows these parcels and does not
make the recommendation that no future rezonings should occur in this area.
Eastern Crozet
Eastern Crozet is the area east of Crozet Avenue and includes the neighborhoods of
Hilltop/Myrtle, Parkside Village, Westhall, Western Ridge, Wickham Pond, The Highlands,
Clover Lawn, Cory Farms, and the future developments Liberty Hall and Foothill Crossing.
There are also undeveloped properties in this portion of Crozet. The future Eastern Avenue
is intended to provide key linkages between neighborhoods and centers.
s�
ZMA 15-08 Adelaide- Work Session
The Lickinghole Creek
sedimentation basin not only
provides water quality protection,
but also offers future passive
recreational opportunities.
Existing focal points within this
area include Crozet Park, the
Clover Lawn/Blue Ridge
Shopping Center, and the future
Eastern Park. Development for
the area east of Crozet Avenue
should focus on greenway
development, key pedestrian/bike
linkages, the construction of
public amenities such as schools
and parks, and creation of roads
and bridges.
With regards to the maximum density available at any specific location in Crozet, some residents have
said they believe that approval at the maximum density at this location could cause the maximum
population in Crozet to exceed 18,000, which the Master Plan states is the maximum capacity expected
for this Development Area. While staff appreciates the concerns of Crozet related to population growth in
this Development Area, staff notes that several of the larger parcels designated for a density at up to 6
units/acre have in recent years been approved by -right at a much lower density. Westlake Hills and a
portion of Foothill Crossing are two nearby examples which consist of approximately 213 acres and are
being developed at a density of approximately one unit/acre. If the Development Areas continue to be
built at a significantly lower density than recommended in the Master Plan, pressure will be exerted to
expand the Development Area boundaries into the Rural Area, which is not in keeping with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Several residents of Crozet asked how new units from this proposed development might affect the
population capacity of the Crozet Development Area a detailed analysis and information is provided in
Attachment D.
Q3: Should the proposed rezoning consist of mainly single family residential
units as designated within the Master Plan? If so, what percentage of the units
should be single family residential?
As stated above the parcels are designated in the Master Plan as Neighborhood Density Residential
which is described as: "primarily single-family detached with some single-family attached/townhouses..."
Currently, the application plan does not specify which type of units are to be proposed; however the plan
submitted for ARB approval shows all the units as single family attached units or townhouse units.
Staff's believes that the plan shown in the ARB submittal would not be in keeping with recommendations
of the Mater Plan. Single-family detached units should be provided and since the Master Plan states that
these units be the primary type, staff believes that at least 50% of the units should be provided as single-
family detached units.
Otherlssues
In addition to concerns about density and housing type, residents have raised concerns about traffic
impacts along Route 250 West. Members of the community expressed concerns that this stretch of 250 is
currently unsafe, that there have been recent deaths, and adding traffic on 250 will exacerbate the
existing problem. The applicant has provided a traffic study for which both VDOT and staff have reviewed
and provided comments to the applicant. Staff expects that the applicant will provide responses to the
comments with his next submittal of the plan. With regards to traffic concerns, staff notes that currently,
there is a proposal to address traffic, speed, and pedestrian safety in this area. A pedestrian sidewalk
project is planned for the north side of Route 250 from Clover Lawn to Cory Farms Road. Also, a design
has been presented to VDOT for a traffic circle that would be located at the entrance to the Blue Ridge
Shopping Center and Clover Lawn. If accepted and funded, the traffic circle would improve the speed
problem in this area.
Staff has received a number of letters regarding this application, as well as an online petition. The letters
are in Attachment E, and the online petition can be found at the following link:
https://www.change.org/p/petition-against-rezoning-for-adelaide-development-from-r1-to-r3
Summary:
Question 1: Staff believes that the recently mapped environmental features should be used in lieu of
those areas shown on the Master Plan in order to calculate density
Question 2: If the impacts of the development, compatibility of building type, and the Neighborhood Model
principles are appropriately addressed, staff would support development at the higher end of the density
range. Approval of development at the higher end of the density range could also help provide balance
with nearby by -right development that is occurring well below the recommended density range in the
ZMA 15-08 Adelaide- Work Session
Master Plan.
Question 3: Staff believes that the proposal should contain a minimum of 50% single-family detached
units to conform with the recommendations in the Master Plan.
The Planning Commission is asked to affirm these conclusions or provide guidance needed to help the
applicant prepare his next submittal of the proposal.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Vicinity Map
Attachment B:
Proffered Plan
Attachment C:
ARB Plan
Attachment D:
Population Information
Attachment E:
Citizen Letters
Attachment F:
CCAC 1/20/16 Meeting Notes
ZMA 15-08 Adelaide- Work Session
Legend
_ Le Sin
pa Gem on map ma nappear aInDench
�s
o iF
y�IBERT
IDE WIND��y!R_-DGE�RDMM�� y rrrrr a 1
5C.��RyFT�J=r P� o �IIIOnI .a 12
IST
FILL? LITTLE yOX LN � _r �. � LO,r iJL�
_ W
-
CENtiER �
751
BR�wNSV10LE 683
RD e
It
��STO
7V 1
fi Y1
643 ft
GISWBb
,...�.. y� M =ao. eux. GePo�,PMC OdW Gdvl�e
` dl6emarle pR
�. (aaal ze6seaz
Map earn Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from Me CommnweaM M Virl are Other Spurnes Febmary 16, 2016
D �-f
p
—
AIA .d
�_
- - — -- - . RockfisWGap Turnpike 1 -
rvw
` [ ° ■�
e' ' s' Google
REZONING APPLICATION PLAN FOR
ADELAI DE
Crozet, Virginia
REZONING APPLICATION FOR:
TAX MAP 56, PARCEL 26A2 and
TAX MAP 565 PARCEL 108A
WHITE HALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
DECEMBER 7, 2015
Current Rem5son Date:
AERIAL VIEW OF PROPERTY (not to scale)
SHIMP PROCILAND PIIANNING
ENGIN EE RINGa
C�
201 EAST MAIN 5TREET, SUITE M
CHARLOTTE5VILLE, VA 22902
(434) 277-5140
SHEET INDEX
C I -COVER SNEET
C2 -PROJECT OVERVIEW
C2 -EXISTING CONDITIONS
C3 - PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT - LAYOUT
C4 - PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT - DETAIL
C5 - BY -RIGHT DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT
lZ�-IS
SHEET 1
OF 5
employment Center
real and
F Y ��� center
Parcel Plan: I IN = 150 FT
Albemarle County
100' stream buffer
� existing treehne
Albemarle County
`� existing driveway
and buildings to be
m g� removed
e�
rhea
\�� / ,, o � ,3'
r existing driveway
and buildings to be
removed
l� x46. ��° i_
'1t fix° / `r,,
� � � i
,,
;;,
e,��: , .. � �o,�,
!; /,��'
i
i �
EXISTING CONDITIONS NOTES:
/
I
. Al -
I)
Current zoning is R- I and applrwnt requests R-6 zoning vnkh this
�i �
appiicxnn plan. I �
2)
This site lies within the route 25o Albemarle eounry Entrance ,
comdor.
3)
A 12' waterline and fire M1ydrant are located abng the frontage of
tM1is site. Sanitary se avaiUble through the open space of [he
�
ad�oinrng Cory Farces subdivision, i
4)
There is a 100' stream buffer located on the western boundary of
the site. I
5)
I
Non -tidal wetlands have not been found on [he site. I
67
ffistoncal lectures have not been boated on the site.
7J
Boundary information as shown is provided by Lincoln Surveying.
8)
Pddhonal topographic and pM1ysiral information is provided by
Nbemarle county GI5 aM ACSA digital files.
s
`o_
U
m
w
50 0 50 1 DO 200
me mmmmi
i
3ee ^yn
I) Development U tM1is property shall be in general accordance unth
ehe plan and guidelines as promAeA on this sheet and shell 5
along olio any proffers pro�ded by the PunervDeveloper in
wn�munu vnth this zoning request.
m
2) The m # U dwelling units permitted for site shall tic S3.
Any suhdnleaension of this property shall proud, the
total number of
costing lots. total numberproposed IUs, and total number of
remaining subdivision rgYits foil the development.
LAND USE LEGEND
DESIGNATION
AREA (ACRES)
PERCENTAGE
j
R IDEMIPI
H.8
44
DEVELOPMENT AREAS
i;
r -
OPEN SPACE AREAS
7.5
35
L __J
D ' '
ROAD R.O.W. AREAS
3.6
15
Lc,
9.9
50 0 50 1 DO 200
me mmmmi
i
3ee ^yn
I) Development U tM1is property shall be in general accordance unth
ehe plan and guidelines as promAeA on this sheet and shell 5
along olio any proffers pro�ded by the PunervDeveloper in
wn�munu vnth this zoning request.
m
2) The m # U dwelling units permitted for site shall tic S3.
Any suhdnleaension of this property shall proud, the
total number of
costing lots. total numberproposed IUs, and total number of
remaining subdivision rgYits foil the development.
LAND USE LEGEND
DESIGNATION
AREA (ACRES)
PERCENTAGE
j
R IDEMIPI
H.8
44
DEVELOPMENT AREAS
r -
OPEN SPACE AREAS
7.5
35
L __J
D ' '
ROAD R.O.W. AREAS
3.6
15
Lc,
9.9
OO
pnmitme trail to follow �! `. ''-_`-,
stream and sanitary sewer '• �'\��
connector
potential store
management areas (typical)
Albemarle County preserved slopes �'
(typicaU
50' stream buffer for potential —
stormwater facilities
100 stream buffer for
residential uses
so 0 M 100 2w
8
conceptual sanitary sewer
location (typical)
see defil Abe for i
�j
,' � �/ typical road secEtp ,,I\\
/ '\ \ _- potentiala
o
management
areare(tas (typical) W
i� 220' minimum centerime G;
Ile, ee',11`< ,• 1 r(typical)
i ,— - _ N\ etl) // entrances as per VDOT
i r °•� "�" 1 •••� x design standardsle
'V
-
-------- -- �' sm r ;rid ,�N
IF
le
Ile
ell
10 asphalt trail
I
rf
i,
Il
,
-n'
i
- , r
r � !
J .'�O
♦ ! j �i 1
50 0 50 100 150
Qupw Sme 1".50' .
SHIMPENGINEERING, P.C.
f!•INF.FRING,IANOPLAA'N1NG .PRGUAUNA�O£6MEY!
0
Zlw� Ae*i
40 FT Attached Units 42
28 FT Attached Units 6
20 Fl- Townhome Units 28
16 FI- Affordable Units 14
Total Number of Residential Units 93
IvOF
e00A
Relationship of Proposed New Units from Adelaide with Projected Population and Crozet
Capacity
Several residents of Crozet asked how new units from this proposed development might affect
the population capacity of the Crozet Development Area. As indicated in the Crozet Master Plan,
full buildout, the Crozet Development Area would provide population capacity of approximately
18,000. This capacity estimate does not assume a timeline for growth, so whether Crozet grows
to 18,000 by 2040, 2050, or even later is not known. However, during the 2010 Crozet Master
Plan update, staff provided some unofficial projections of future growth as seen below:
POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2000 — 2030
BASED ON PAST GROWTH RATES
Projection from Historic Population Growth for Crozet
Year
Low*
High"
2010
5,560
5,640
2020
8,390
9,818
2025
10,061
12,650
2030
12,065
16,299
* Annual growth rate of 4.2% to yr 2020; growth rate of 3.7% from 2021-2030 (observed
1990-1999)
** Annual growth rate of 5.7% to yr 2020; growth rate of 5.2% from 2021-2030 (observed
2000 —2009)
Projection from Growth Trends as seen in Building Permits for Crozet
Year
Low***
High****
2020
6,812
8,986
2030
8,164
12,305
*** Projection — average number of residential building permits observed from1994 to 2003
(55 permits/year)
**** Projection —average number of residential building permits observed from 2004 to 2008
(136 permits/year)
These projections were intended to give an idea of the potential future rate of growth.
A current in-house population estimate for Crozet is 6,854. This figure is based on 2,753
dwellings at a persons/unit multiplier of 2.49. (There were 2,192 dwellings in 2010.) If one were
to project growth at a steady rate from 2010 to 2020 based on an average of 93.5 new units per
year at 2.49 persons/unit, a population of 7,786 might be expected in 2020. As seen above, 7,786
is within the projected range from 2009. County projections are not considered official
projections of population since Albemarle County uses the Virginia Employment Commission
projections as its official projections. Based on current estimates, though, it appears that the rate
of growth is well within the unofficial projections used in 2009.
Megan Yaniglos
From: Thomas Loach <tcl4p9virginia.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 10:59 AM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Subject: Adelaide Proposal
Megan,
Just a couple of thoughts on this proposal. First, and perhaps most important is the fact that the Crozet
community has consistently worked to protect Rt 250 from over development. During the past master plan
review a whole section of development rights along Rt 250 were moved to be contiguous with the northern
border of the growth area for the sole purpose of limiting development along Rt. 250. The community also
supported the rezoning of the Watkins property, next to the Clover Lawn center, from residential to Light
Industrial because it was felt the LI use would have less impact on Rt 250 and would generate less traffic. The
protection of Rt. 250 is the very reason the commercial center for Old Trail is located in the center of
development rather then along Rt 250. Finally, if you look at the pattern of the existing residential development
along Rt 250, what you see is mostly large lot development including a new home being built on several acres
directly adjacent to the proposed development. The only high density development, which is still lower in
density then the proposed development is Cory Farm. While the community thought at the time that this
density was too high, it did made some sense to allow the higher density since Cory Farm would be the southern
terminus of the proposed Eastern Connector road between Rt. 240 and Rt 250 and was adjacent to the
designated "center" at Clover Lawn. The Crozet Master plan calls for development to become less dense as it
moves from a Center, which would mean that Adelaide should be less dense then Cory Farm. Finally, there is
the issue of safety along the Rt. 250 corridor. I had the police department provide me accident data for the past
5 years and their data showed that between Harris Teeter and Western Albemarle HS there has been an average
of one accident per month including the death of 2 pedestrians.
In conclusion here are my objections to the proposed Adelaide development:
1. The proposal does not conform to the Crozet Master plan, which calls for development to become less dense
as you move away from a Center.
2. The proposal does not conform to the Crozet Master plan, which calls for the protection of Rt 250 from over
development.
3. The proposal is inconsistent with the residential development pattern along Rt. 250.
4. There is a significant issue of safety along Rt. 250 as shown by the data provided by the Albemarle County
Police Department.
Regards,
Tom
Timothy O'Loughlin
888 Summit View Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-242-8839
Megan Yaniglos
Principle Planner, Albemarle County
401 McIntire Rd.
North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902
12/22/2015
Dear Ms. Yaniglos,
My name is Tim O'Loughlin and I am a resident of the Cory Farm neighborhood in the Crozet area. I have become
aware that an application for rezoning was submitted to your office on December 7, 2015 for parcels of which I am
an abutter, and would like to take this opportunity to voice my opposition to the rezoning as currently structured.
My current understanding of the request is as follows:
The tax map numbers are 56-1o8A and 56-26A2 and the GPIN numbers are 428077907211 and
427774906566.
The current zoning is R-1
The requested zoning is R-6
The developer's intention is to construct l00% townhouse and duplex style structures totaling 93 units.
As you are aware, these parcels are within the Crozet Master Plan and they are designated as "Neighborhood
Density Residential". The definition of this classification as listed in the plan is; "This designation represents
residential areas with a desired density of 3 — 6 residential units per acre. It also represents existing residential
areas within or below this range. Housing in this area is primarily single-family ;family detached with some single-family
attached/townhouses."(Emphasis added). An objective examination of the proposal would show that a change to
R-6 and l00% townhouses far exceed the planned density and desired neighborhood feel envisioned for the area.
As further evidence of the planner's original desire to keep this area as single family detached, I submit the excerpt
from the master plan land use map below. As shown, the original intention was for these parcels to be part of the
Cory Farm neighborhood and not have direct access to route 250. Further, it would be dangerous to add an
intersection to route 250 in this area as there is limited visibility in both directions due to a rise in topography, the
most recent example being a pedestrian fatality. (http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlines/Person-Hit-By-Car-
in-Crozet-2oo66g761.html)
Timothy O'Loughlin
In addition, a use of townhouses would increase the quantity of and concentrate impermeable surfaces and most
likely increase burden on storm water management systems in the area which have recently had failures, and also
direct flows along critical slopes between this properly and Cory Farm, increasing erosion.
2•
Timothy O'Loughlin
Lastly, in as far as how this development will affect me personally, when I moved to Cory Farm, it was after an
exhaustive search to find a quiet lower density neighborhood. There were many alternatives to purchasing the
home I did and I researched the surrounding zoning and available plans. At that time in 2012 it was plain to me
that the parcels in question would be developed in the future and I believe the owner(s) should have the right to
do so. However, I based my decision to buy on the fact that the County had taken the time and effort to designate
what zoning changes would be allowed, and if those decisions and the principles used to determine them are not
adhered to, I will certainly feel betrayed. In such a case, the planner's time, effort, and expense to the county
would be wasted, and why have a plan at all? This proposed zoning change would certainly affect my property
value and that of my neighbors negatively.
In closing, there are many areas of the Crozet Master Plan which are designated for such a townhouse
development which are as yet untouched. Increasing the use of the parcels in the Adelaide project above the
approved plan density is not necessary to achieve county and community goals, would unfairly impact the
property values of the abutters, and is not a good fit for the community or the overburdened school infrastructure.
Although I look forwarded to welcoming new neighbors in the future, I ask you to please look unfavorably on the
zoning change request as presently submitted.
Thank you for your time and best regards,
71-�rodg
Timothy O'Loughlin
888 Summit View Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-242-8839
3•
Megan Yaniglos
From: George Guess <gguessmd@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 11:27 AM
To: Megan Yaniglos; Ann Mallek
Subject: Adelaide project near Cory Farm
Hi,
I'm writing to express my concern about any consideration being given to
rezoning the area around the proposed Adelaide project to allow for more
concentrated housing development. Such dense zoning should be limited
to town centers, Old Trail, etc. Adding so many homes with immediate
access to the 250 by -way will both create excessive traffic congestion and
spoil the aesthetics of the area.
As a Cory Farm resident, please limit this development to the density
currently specified by statute.
thanks,
George Guess, MD
5380 Golf Drive, Suite 101
Crozet, VA 22932
434-823-1021
fax: 434-823-1637
www.drEieorEieEiuess.com
gguessmd@gmail.com
1
Community Meeting Follow-up: ZMA201500008 Adelaide
Crozet Community Advisory Committee
January 20, 2016
In attendance: Kyle Redinger, applicant; Elaine Echols, staff; CCAC; other residents
Kyle Redinger provided the following information to the CCAC:
As you may know, 1 grew up and attended public schools in the Crozet area. 1 moved back 10 years ago to be an
entrepreneur after leaving the security and career opportunity of a large technology company 1 worked for in
Seattle. 1 moved back because I love our community and wanted to have a career here. As a Crozet native, 1 love
the area and have seen its transition since I've been a member of this community for over 30 years.
Approximately a year ago, 1 first started analyzing the Adelaide property and how it fits into the Crozet Master
Plan. 1 remember at my first pre -application meeting, I had hand drawn layouts that in no way would have
complied with the Master Plan. Our initial plans called for well over 100 units and we've had multiple revisions to
ensure that we comply with the complex requirements associated with a project like this.
After studying the Plan, reviewing staff comments, countless hours of phone calls, engineering studies, and
meetings with various stakeholder, we arrived at the proposed plan for Adelaide. It is built around the Crozet
Master Plans' model for the property and the guidance the staff have shared with us over a lengthy and detailed
design period.
Based on many hours of analysis and under the guidance of County staff, our proposed development is within the
guidelines of the Crozet Master Plan. As described below our vision for this project is to increase pedestrian
safety, create homes that are affordable for median wage earners, and provide many financial and
community benefits to Albemarle County.
We have done everything to the designation of the Master Plan in order to accurately implement its vision with
the Adelaide development.
Benefits to Albemarle County
It is important to note that the County is growing by approximately 1,500 people per year and these people need
places to live. Our target market is a 55+ downsizer market that wants smaller, more manageable homes that
incorporate universal design elements such as large first floor master plans and amenities for people to age in
place.
Through the creation of 93 homes, we are achieving many County benefits. The County benefits of rezoning
include:
a) Increased Pedestrian Safety: We will increase pedestrian safety by creating safer walkable areas and
connecting to a planned walking trail
b) Workforce Housing: We are able to provide homes that are affordable for median wage earners not just
wealthy people
c) Affordable Housing: We are proffering 14 affordable units and currently working with Habitat for
Humanity to implement these houses effectively
d) Tax Base: We are increasing the taxable amount of the land by over 1500% from its current value. This
results in a substantial increase in direct taxes and indirect taxes associated with this development that
can be used to fund services and other citizen benefits
e) Cash Proffers: We are proffering the maximum allowable cash proffer which can be used to fund
necessary expansions at schools and other county facilities
f) Trail Connectivity: We are connecting to the Crozet Trail system
g) Creation of Mixed -Income Community: We are encouraging mixed income communities through the
creation of Adelaide
h) Preservation of Rural Areas: By developing within the designated growth area, we are helping preserve
the rural areas of the County
Ninety Three Units is fully within the Crozet Master Plan
Based on three pre -application meetings and lengthy review with County staff, we have submitted the site for R6
zoning because R6 falls within the Crozet Master Plan and offers the most fitting standard guidelines for the
product mix we are offering.
County staff has assured us that R6 zoning is in compliance with the Crozet Master Plan.
With 93 units, on two parcels that total approximately 20 acres, our effective density is about 4.7 units
per acre, not 6 units per acre.
There is an existing designation for "Neighborhood Density (Low)" which could have been used to
designate this parcel as lower density, it was not. This designation is only used on the north western-
most outskirts of the Crozet area
A walking trail across Cory Farm to Clover Lawn is planned and funded, ensuring that we will have a
walkable, urban environment for our development
Harris Teeter and Clover Lawn represent a "center" and the plan reads:
"the ideal distance from focal point to boundary is approximately a 1/4 mile radius (i.e., a five minute walk). The
center is the most intensely developed, while the middle and edge bands around the center become progressively
more residential, less mixed use, and less dense"
This center sees over 9,000 cars per day, which makes it a very important center and an ideal location for
a higher density development because of its proximity to retail shops and jobs
Adelaide is approximately 1/10x' of a mile further than the "ideal distance"from a center. Based on an
average walking speed of 3.1 miles per hour, we are less than 2 minutes of additional walking time from
the ideal walking distance.
While downtown Crozet is "the primary and most important center," it generates substantially less
traffic (5,300 cars per day) than the Harris Teeter/Clover Lawn center (9,100 cars per day), indicating
that the Harris Teeter/Clover Lawn center is also very important from a dense development standpoint
Traffic Impact Relatively Small
We had EPR, P. C., a third -party certified traffic engineering firm, conduct a study of our proposed rezoning. The
site is estimated to generate 782, new daily trips (our study was conducted with a 98 unit count vs. the proposed
93), or 391 trips in either direction.
The findings of this study and traffic impact can be summarized as follows:
During peak hours, we would add only about one car every two minutes in either direction
According to VDOT data, 11, 000 and 9,100 cars pass the schools and the Harris Teeter/ Clover Leaf
centers every day, so 391 cars is a very small change to that number
According to the study "the impact by the proposed Adelaide Development on the traffic operation will
be minimal (page 8)"
According to the study there will be "no queue on Route 250 through movements, maximum 1 -vehicle
queue on Route 250 left turn movement (page 8)"
Furthermore, single family detached homes generate approximately 30% more traffic than attached
homes, given their larger sizes and number of inhabitants, and accordingly, we've selected a product mix
that generates less traffic than detached homes.
We have made our traffic study public as well as the VDOT data, which supports these points.
Increasing Pedestrian Safety
Based on our analysis of two of the three traffic cases (we are still waiting for information from the County police
on the third incident), the pedestrian was travelling along or crossing the highway. In order to check the mailbox,
as Carroll Herring did, or to travel on a skateboard, as Yunze Sun did, you would have to be within a couple of
feet of moving traffic.
Our plan does several things to increase pedestrian safety, including:
We offset a pedestrian trail along 250 by a minimum of 20 feet, ensuring that pedestrians can travel
much more safely along 250
We remove any mailboxes from 250 to the interior of the development
We create access to the Crozet Trail system and internal sidewalks, encouraging pedestrians to stay
away from dangerous highways
We will connect to the planned Cory Farm trail extension, ensuring our development is easily walkable to
a commercial area
Creation of Workforce & Affordable Options in Crozet Area
By -right developments and Old Trail result in high-priced homes that create exclusive price limits for median
workers in the Crozet Area. We are targeting homes between $250,000 and $400,000 forAdelaide which is much
more affordable that what is currently available in the new housing stock.
Old Trail's average cost is $190 per square foot for new homes (vs. $140 per square foot for non -Old Trail
homes in Crozet), and they are likely reducing density because they are selling to a wealthier buyer who
can afford more space and larger lots and the complications of storm water management
Other newer developments (e.g. Westlake & Chesterfield Landing) which are building homes by -right
result in prices well over $500,000, given the economics of development
We are building 15% of our units as affordable units, for a total of 14 units which are price -controlled
and available to qualified affordable buyers through the support of Habitat for Humanity
Lack of Interconnection Options
We are aware of the County and VDOT's desire for interconnectivity. Early in the process we studied
interconnectivity options to neighboring developments and found the following:
On the Western and Northern boundaries of Adelaide, there are critical slopes and stream buffers which
prevent the construction of roads
To the East, a connection to Cory Farm is drawn conceptually, but there are no easements in the
Farm plats which would allow the construction of interconnected roads
Furthermore, connecting to Cory Farm would create a large disturbance of Cory Farm and we are trying
to minimize any impact on our neighbors.
Before 1 ask for questions, I would like to ask Elaine Echols to provide information on what the Comprehensive
Plan recommends for this area. Specifically,
o What does the designation of Neighborhood Density mean?
o Is R6 zoning within the designation of the Comprehensive Plan?
Elaine Echols, Acting Chief of Planning for Albemarle County Community Development, said she was there
representing Megan Yaniglos, the project coordinator. She said that she would be able to speak to the
recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan and provided the following information:
The property in question has two designations — Neighborhood Density Residential and Parks and Green
Systems. Neighborhood Density Residential allows for 3 — 6 dwellings per acre, but no commercial uses
except near downtown. Uses are primarily single family detached buildings, but, some townhouses and
attached housing are also allowed. The Parks and Green Systems designation does not allow for any
units. This designation identifies environmental areas intended for preservation along with other
important open space and parks.
On this parcel, the Parks and Green Systems designation refers to environmental features and other
important open space. There is a green buffer along Route 250.
Staff believes that the Plan suggests that the density could be at the low or high end of the density range
or somewhere in the middle. Staff does not believe that low density is necessarily expected because the
very low density areas are designated with a yellow and black hashing color on the Master Plan. The
buffer along Route 250 was intended to provide for a rural look and feel along Scenic 250. For these
reasons, staff thinks that, provided the density is between 3 and 6 units per acre on the land shown in
yellow on the Master Plan, it will be in keeping with the plan.
With the R6 designation, the "6" refers to 6 units per acre. If the property shown as neighborhood
density (in yellow on the Master Plan Land Use Plan) were developed at 6 units per acre, it would be
within the recommended density range.
The most important part is not the density — it is the design. The design should drive the density and if
the site is designed well, it can support a higher density. I've not reviewed the plan, so 1 can't comment
on the design.
The Comprehensive Plan promotes density on greenfield sites. Strategy 5b in the Development Area
Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan says that, "On greenfield sites, encourage developers to build at the
higher density of the density range, provided the development will be in keeping with the Neighborhood
Model." It says that for infill sites, there should be more attention paid to compatibility. This site is a
hybrid of greenfield and infill. On three sides, there is greenfield and on the eastern side next to Corey
Farm, it might be looked at as an infill site.
Staff recognizes that there are other perspectives on what the Master Plan recommends for density in
this area. 1 believe that Mr. Loach, former Planning Commissioner for Crozet, has said that this area is
not appropriate for the higher end of the density because it is at the edge of the neighborhood, the
center of which is Clover Lawn. Different perspectives are okay because ultimately, it is the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors who make the interpretation of the Plan. They need input from
staff as well as the community, which is why it is important for the CCAC to help provide guidance. The
CCAC's role is to help implement the Master Plan. If you believe that staff's interpretation is not correct,
you should say so and we will report that information to the PC and BOS in our staff report.
Questions and Answers — SA = Staff Answer; AA = Applicant Answer; C = Comment
Q: Can we get copies of your plan?
AA: Yes.
C: There is a conflict between the Master Plan transect and the Comprehensive Plan recommended
density. The Master Plan does not recommend higher density near Route 250. Property on Route 250
that was previously proposed for density was taken out of the growth area with the 2004 Plan. The
high end of the density range is not compatible with nearby development.
Q: (To Applicant) You said you are proffering affordable housing, but, everyone has to provide 15%. Why
are you saying that this is something extra you are doing?
AA: We are partnering with Habitat for Humanity to provide affordable homes, not just money for
affordable housing.
Q: (To Staff) How does this proposal at the maximum density affect the population numbers that were
provided during the Master Plan update? Were those numbers at the low, middle, or high end of the
spectrum? I thought we wanted things on the low to medium end, not the maximum.
SA: I believe that our numbers were in the middle because not everyone provides the minimum or
maximum available under the Comp. Plan. We will check and report on that.
Q: The density hasn't changed on your plan (shown in a drawing at the front of the room.)
AA: We have not changed the plan. You asked for a follow-up community meeting with more time devoted
to this project. I am here to try and answer your questions.
C: Your traffic impacts aren't being addressed.
C: You are doing away with why we moved here. I came here 4 years ago for the trees and low density
housing. I expected anything that changed to look and feel like Cory Farm. If I wanted to live in Old
Trail, I would have moved there. Your development should be more in context with the surrounding
area. It should be a single family detached product.
Q: What is the expected price of housing?
AA: We are providing townhomes so that people who work in Crozet — teachers and firefighters — can
afford to live here. The target prices are $200K to $400K.
Q: There is a lot of fast-moving traffic on Route 250. Where will your entrance be in relation to the hill on
Route 250? Turning movements onto Route 250 are difficult. Your driveway will be dangerous.
A: VDOT has asked us to move our entrance on 250 for better sight visibility. It will be near the Century
Link box.
C: Route 250 is dangerous. A couple from another country came to Crozet to live and their son was killed
crossing Route 250.
C: We shouldn't overdo it (with high density development).
Q: What are the benefits of density?
AA: Economy of service provision, less expensive to provide infrastructure if development is concentrated,
keeps the Rural Area rural, proffers help to pay for impacts from the development, bringing in more
people is good for businesses.
C: (to Applicant) Be honest. The proffers don't in any way pay for the impact.
Q: I thought you said that you wanted to use the lower cash proffer amount and that you could provide
more density that way. How does that work? You say you are paying for impacts with proffers, but, you
want to use the lower amount that doesn't really cover the impacts. It looks like a benefit for you and
not us.
AA: No other developers have developed land at the high cash proffer amount.
C: I represent the neighbors on Route 250. We have concerns about traffic. The proposed driveway is
across from the Brownsville Road loop. Traffic visibility is bad — we already have a hard time getting in
and out onto Route 250 from Brownsville Road. This will make it worse because the development will
be putting a lot more cars on that stretch of Route 250. This is one of the least safe places in Crozet.
C: Even though this development will be connected to the trail system, nobody is going to walk or ride
bikes to get there. There will be a need for more infrastructure.
C: Putting the kind of density you are asking for in a rural setting doesn't work well. Higher density should
be more in the center of Crozet.
Q: We have started a petition today and have concerns about density, traffic, and school overcrowding. I
am a senior and seniors have slower reaction times when driving. There are other seniors who live in
Cory Farm. This is going to make it worse for them. Didn't you say you were targeting seniors to live in
your development?
A: We are targeting people who are 55+, but, it won't be a requirement.
C: I can't drive safely to Harris Teeter and I can't walk safely. This development will not improve the
situation.
C: This is a great concept, but in the wrong place. Nobody will buy there because you are taking your life
in your hands when you get out onto Route. 250.
Q: What could the applicant do by -right on this property?
AA: 20 units.
Q: (To staff) Have there been any developments that have gone in at the low end of the density range?
SA: Yes. There have been some rezonings, but also by -right development such as Westlake and Foothill
Crossing. The by -right development came in at very low zoning. The County has a desire and
expectation that property with very low zoning will be rezoned for density in keeping with the
Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning provides for proffers (voluntary offers to offset impacts).
Chair: How soon do we (the CCAC) need to provide comments on this plan?
Staff: There should be plenty of time. This was submitted in December and we haven't even finished our
review yet to provide the applicant with comments. Our comments won't be provided until sometime
later this month. He will need to resubmit and, from then, it will be at least 2 months before the
Planning Commission's public hearing. If the applicant wants to have a work session with the Planning
Commission to find out if they support his density, then the Commission's public hearing will be later.
If the applicant wants a work session, we will let the CCAC know. You will want to come to that
Commission meeting and provide any comments you have at that time. A work session can't happen
before Feb. 23, in any case. Your next meeting will be before that time. I would recommend that you
wait until the applicant resubmits before you develop formal comments on the proposal and how well
it meets or doesn't meet the Master Plan recommendations.