Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201500008 Staff Report 2016-02-23 (2)COUNTY 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.