HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201600006 Correspondence Zoning Map Amendment 2017-12-201
Elaine Echols
From:Jess Achenbach <jess@reddirtdev.com>
Sent:Monday, October 09, 2017 11:13 AM
To:Elaine Echols
Cc:Jess Achenbach; Justin Shimp
Subject:Re: Comments on your ZMA request
Elaine,
Maybe use of the the words "development rights" is not correct. Our case is that we have 42 acres,
which would allow us to create two, 21-acre lots in the RA zone--therefore our by-right density is two
and we are submitting that the cash proffers should not be applied to those two lots.
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org> wrote:
Yes, I have time this week. I am open tomorrow between 9 and 11:30 a.m. and between 1 and 4 p.m. . Wed. morning is
available after 9 a.m. and Thursday afternoon is available after 1:30 p.m. I am out of the office next week.
If you are going to pursue this proffer change, I strongly recommend that you provide the information about the
development rights ASAP. Our research does not indicate that there were 2 development rights associated with the
properties you currently own. Also, we don’t know exactly what properties would be involved in the ZMA.
Once you give us the supporting materials for the development rights, I can pass them on to Zoning to review.
However, I am glad to talk about the process and properties involved in the ZMA when we meet.
Elaine
From: Jess Achenbach [mailto:jess@reddirtdev.com]
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 10:57 AM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>; Justin Shimp <justin@shimp-engineering.com>
Cc: Jess Achenbach <jess@reddirtdev.com>; Johnathan Newberry <jnewberry@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: Comments on your ZMA request
Elaine,
2
Are you available for a short meeting this week or next to discuss these comments? I want to make
sure that we are on the same page and submitting what you need.
Thanks
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org> wrote:
Hi Jess – since we never heard back from you as to a PC date, we are providing the attached comments.
Please let us know what you want to do.
Elaine
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252
--
Jess Achenbach
Red Dirt Developments
P.O. Box 645 | Charlottesville, VA | 22902
C (434) 242-4802 | jess@reddirtdev.com
3
--
Jess Achenbach
Red Dirt Developments
P.O. Box 645 | Charlottesville, VA | 22902
C (434) 242-4802 | jess@reddirtdev.com
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 11:58 AM
To: Elaine Echols
Subject: FW: Glenmore - Leake - Proffers
glenmore
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 11:34 AM
To: John Blair <jblair@albemarle.org>
Cc: Greg Kamptner <GKamptne@albemarle.org>; Johnathan Newberry <jnewberry@albemarle.org>
Subject: Glenmore - Leake - Proffers
I think I have a possible answer to the question about the status of the Glenmore recalcitrant
applicant situation:
Facts:
Application submitted for review 3/21/16
Accepted for review (clock starts) 4/6/16
Comments sent 5/6/16 – with offer of May 27 as PC date; no response until 6/15/1 6
6/15/16 applicant request for deferral to 7/26/16 PC meeting – I think this might be the
beginning of what is allowed for the 1 year deferral option (An application shall be
deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn if the applicant requested that further
processing or formal action on the application be indefinitely deferred and the
commission or the board of supervisors is not requested by the applicant to take
action on the application within one (1) year after the date the deferral was
requested.) - 1.5 months into 1 year deferral
7/26/16 applicant request for deferral to 9/13/26 PC meeting – 3 months into 1 year
deferral
9/13/16, applicant requests deferral to 12/6/16 PC meeting – almost 6 months into 1
year deferral
12/6/16 PC public hearing – recommendation for denial
12/20/16 applicant requests deferral to June or July time period
6/5/17 – applicant resubmits different proffers – about the end of the 1 year deferral
We determined shortly after the resubmittal that the project needs to go back to the PC
but we have not gotten any response as to a date – So, is the project dead? An
application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn if the applicant
requested that further processing or formal action on the application be indefinitely
deferred and the commission or the board of supervisors is not requested by the
applicant to take action on the application within one (1) year after the date the
deferral was requested.)
If it is not dead, does the applicant needs to send request for deferral or the project
dies? (If request is made for a second year of deferral, they need to establish a date for
the PC.) If they don’t respond to our notification that they need to request a deferral, is
the project dead or should we send to PC with recommendation for denial?
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252
From: Johnathan Newberry
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 6:18 PM
To: Elaine Echols
Subject: FW: Glenmore K2C-II
Attachments: Glenmore_Proffer Amendment_060517.docx
Hi Elaine,
Here are the amended proffers. Thanks for distributing them.
J.T.
From: Justin Shimp, P.E. [mailto:justin@shimp-engineering.com]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 6:51 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Jess Achenbach <jess@reddirtdev.com>; Johnathan Newberry <jnewberry@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: Glenmore K2C-II
Hi Elaine,
Sorry to be a little after 5, I’ve attached the revised proffer language. We addressed the change in
the same way we did with Riverside Block 1 (a portion of the larger zoning) I’ve also removed
proffer 6 from the original that related to erosion control. With the current regulations I don’t
really see how those have any meaning at this point, and we have already phased the
construction of the subdivision. We can add them back if you think thats easier with a quick copy
and paste.
I’ve also amended proffer #1 slightly to address the current TMP/Parcel and referenced the old
ZMA as it related to the lots originally in the 99 ZMA.
Let me know if you need any edits.
Thanks!
Justin Shimp, P.E.
434-953-6116
On Jun 2, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org> wrote:
We just need your revised proffers on Monday.
From: Jess Achenbach [mailto:jess@reddirtdev.com]
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 3:52 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Jess Achenbach <jess@reddirtdev.com>; Johnathan Newberry
<jnewberry@albemarle.org>; Justin Shimp <justin@shimp-engineering.com>
Subject: Re: Glenmore K2C-II
Hi Elaine,
Sorry I missed this earlier. Yes, we are going to drop the claim to reduce
proffers based on the road construction and only pursue exemption from
cash proffers for the two by-right lots. Please let me know what else you
need from me.
Thanks
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
wrote:
Thanks for sending this info, Jess.
For clarification, did you mean that you want to except the 2 lots from any cash
proffers and that will be your only proposed change? Or are you saying that you are
still asking for a reduced proffer for the 60 lots?
Elaine
From: Jess Achenbach [mailto:jess@reddirtdev.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:38 AM
To: Johnathan Newberry <jnewberry@albemarle.org>; Elaine Echols
<EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Justin Shimp <justin@shimp-engineering.com>
Subject: Glenmore K2C-II
Elaine,
It is my intention to revise my proffer amendment to apply only to the 62
lots specified as Glenmore K2C-II. These lots were part of the 110 lots
rezoned as part of the Leake rezoning (ZMA-2006-00016). I would like to
amendment the proffer statement to only apply cash proffers (Capital
Improvement Projects and Affordable Housing Program) to 60 of the 62
lots--I request that the two by-right residential lots that could have been
created on this parcel do not pay cash proffers.
The current parcel (Parcel ID #093A5-00-00-00100) is 42.42 acres and
does not carry any development rights. I will send you a follow up email
from Bill Ledbetter of Roudabush outlining how the development rights
associated with this property were allocated elsewhere. Therefore, the
buildable rights associated with my property are restricted to the two, 21-
acre lots that could be created given the original RA zoning.
Thank you,
Jess
--
Jess Achenbach
Red Dirt Developments
P.O. Box 645 | Charlottesville, VA | 22902
C (434) 242-4802 | jess@reddirtdev.com
--
Jess Achenbach
Red Dirt Developments
P.O. Box 645 | Charlottesville, VA | 22902
C (434) 242-4802 | jess@reddirtdev.com
ZMA 2006 –015 Livengood –Addition to Glenmore PRD
Rt. 250
Livengood Parcel
Up to 43 single-family
dwelling units on 32
acres
Rural Area/Glenmore
Boundary
Layout of Livengood Addition
Rivanna
Village
LIVENGOOD SUMMARY
Factors Favorable to this request
-Proposal provides greater density than existing Glenmore (1.4 du/ac v
0.5 du/ac), although it does not meet Land Use Plan recommendation of 3
to 6 du/ac
-The applicant has reserved area for a future vehicular connectivity option
-The applicant has provided roughly 1.5 acres of shared and usable open
space in the form of a common green and an additional 11 acres in
common area.
-Cash proffers meet Board’s expectation
-Affordable housing proffers meet County policy
Factors Unfavorable to this request
-None
Original Proffer ______
Amended Proffer _X___
(Amendment # __1___)
PROFFER FORM
Date: June 5, 2017
ZMA #: 2016-00006
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) Tax Map 93A5 Parcel 1
42.42 Acres to be rezoned from PRD to PRD__
Glenmore Partners, LLC, is the owner (the “Owner”) of Tax Map and Parcel Number 093A5-00-
00-00100 (the “Property”) which is the subject of rezoning application ZMA No. 2016-00006, a
project known as “Glenmore, Section K2C-II” (the “Project”).
This current proffer statement for the Project (the “Proffer Statement”) supersedes the proffer
statement dated November 14, 2007, for ZMA 200600016.
Pursuant to Section 33 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the Albemarle
County Code), the Owner hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be
applied to the Property if it is rezoned to the zoning district identified above. These conditions are
proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and the Owner acknowledges that the conditions are
reasonable. Each signatory below signing on behalf of the Owner covenants and warrants that it
is an authorized signatory of the Owner for this Proffer Statement.
1. The development of the Property shall be limited to those uses allowed by right under Section
19.3.1 (1), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and (11) and those uses allowed by special use permit under
Section 19.3.2(2), (4), (8), (9), (10) and (11) of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County,
Virginia (hereinafter referred to as the “Zoning Ordinance” and the “County”) as those Sections
are in effect on November 14, 2007, copies of which are attached hereto. The residential
development on the Property shall not exceed sixty-two (62) single family units. Refer to the
proffers for ZMA 2006-016 for the apportionment of lots from ZMA 99-016.
2. In order to establish a future public greenway trail for the County along the Rivanna River, within
one (1) year after the date of approval of ZMA 2006-1016, the Owner shall dedicate in fee simple
to the County for public use no less than 43.45 acres in greenway area, as shown on Attachment A,
entitled “Glenmore Greenway Trail, Final Exhibit,” prepared by Roudabush, Gale, and Associates,
Inc. and dated June 18, 2007 (the “Greenway Trail Area”). Such Greenway Trail Area may be
increased as mutually agreed by the Owner and the County and includes the greenway area
originally intended to be included in the greenway pursuant to proffer no. 6 of “ZMA 79-16” (such
proffer correctly identified as proffer no. 6 of “ZMA 97-16) and the additional area comprising a
minimum of 14.98 acres proffered pursuant to this ZMA 2006-016.
A. Prior to dedication of the Greenway Trail Area to the County, no buildings shall be
constructed, or erected within the Greenway Trail Area without the consent of the County and
it shall be otherwise preserved in its natural state except for establishing pedestrian and riding
trails and general beautification including, but not limited to, the clearing of underbrush,
removal of dead trees and shrubs, and cleanup of the river.
B. Prior to dedication of the Greenway Trail Area to the County, the Owner may grant across
the Greenway Trail Area utility easements, access easements to the Rivanna River for
residents of Glenmore and members and guests of the Glenmore Country Club and may
build riding trails or make similar uses of the area, provided that such utility and access
easements allow the County’s use of the surface of the easement area to be used as a
greenway, including the establishment of signs, benches and other accessory improvements,
and do not otherwise interfere with the County’s future use of the Greenway Trail Area as a
greenway.
C. The Owner shall convey the Greenway Trail Area by Deed of Gift and Easement Agreement
in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Deed”) provided, however, that
the Owner and County may revise the Deed to complete missing information and agree to
make non-material revisions that are consistent with this proffer and the existing Deed
language. The Deed shall be accompanied by a subdivision plat depicting the Greenway
Trail Area and bearing a notation that the Greenway Trail Area is dedicated for public use,
subject to provisions and reservations contained within the Deed. If, at the time of
dedication, the Greenway Trail Area is not dedicated by an accompanying subdivision plat,
the Owner shall pay the costs of surveying the Greenway Trail Area, preparing the
subdivision plat or other depiction thereof acceptable to the Director of Community
Development and the County Attorney, and preparing and recording the Deed.
D. After dedication, the Greenway Trail Area shall continue to be counted as open space for the
purposes of the Glenmore Master Plan and required density.
3. To offset public expenditure on Capital Improvement Projects, the Owner shall contribute sixteen-
thousand five-hundred ninety dollars ($16,590) in cash for the purposes of funding transportation,
public safety, school, parks and library improvements to offset public expenditure on Capital
Improvement Projects. The per lot cash contribution shall be paid to Albemarle County prior to the
issuance of a building permit for each lot.
4. To provide capital for Albemarle County’s Affordable Housing Program, the Owner shall contribute
two-thousand nine-hundred fifty-two dollars ($2,952) in cash for each dwelling lot on the Property to
provide capital for Albemarle County’s Affordable Housing Program. The per lot cash contribution
shall be paid to Albemarle County prior to the issuance of a building permit for each lot.
5. Beginning January 1, 2008, the amount of cash contribution required by Proffer number 3 shall be
adjusted annually until paid, to reflect any increase or decrease for the preceding calendar year in the
Comparative Cost Multiplier, Regional City Average, Southeast Average, Category C: Masonry
Bearing Walls issued by Marshall Valuation Service (a/k/a Marshall & Swift) (the “Index”) or the
most applicable Marshall & Swift index determined by the County if Marshall & Swift ceases
publication of the Index identified herein. In no event shall any cash contribution amount be adjusted
to a sum less than the amount initially established by these proffers. The annual adjustment shall be
made by multiplying the proffered cash contribution amount for the preceding year by a fraction, the
numerator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in the year preceding the calendar year most
recently ended, and the denominator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in the preceding
calendar year. For each cash contribution that is being paid in increments, the unpaid incremental
payments shall be correspondingly adjusted each year.
6. As outlined in items 3 and 4 above, the Owner shall contribute Cash Proffers and Affordable Housing
payments for each new residential unit in excess of the number of units that are allowed by-right
under the zoning in existence at the time of the approved re-zoning plan. The previous zoning was
RA with two allowable units. The Owner shall apply the credit for the by-right lots to the 25th and 26th
lots platted in the Project.
OWNER
________________________________________________
By: Jess Achenbach
Title: Manager, Red Dirt Developments, Manager of Glenmore Partners LLC
Glenmore Partners LLC
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
October 4, 2017
Mr. Jess Achenbach
Red Dirt Developments
P.O. Box 645
Charlottesville, VA
Re: ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Change
Dear Jess,
It has been some time since staff has heard from you and we are wondering whether you wish to
continue pursuing proffer changes for the above referenced ZMA. As you may recall, the County
accepted your application to reduce the cash proffer amount for certain parts of the Leake
development, originally approved with ZMA 200600016, on April 6, 2016. You requested several
deferrals before asking for a public hearing with the Planning Commission on December 6, 2016.
At that meeting, the Planning Commission recommended denial of your request. You then asked
for another deferral.
On June 5, 2017, you provided revised proffers (see attached). The County determined that the
change in proffers requires a new Planning Commission public hearing. J.T. Newberry, the
reviewing planner, asked your preference for a Planning Commission date but never heard back
from you. Review of this project has now been assigned to me.
The following are comments on the Proffers:
1. What parcels are involved in the rezoning? Please place the correct TMPs on the proffers.
Attached is a copy of the properties we believe you own in Glenmore.
2. Provide the correct acreage if it is not correct. The acreage approved with ZMA200600016 was
111.73 acres. The acreage indicated for the December 2016 Planning Commission public
hearing was 86.23 acres. The acreage requested in the proffers dated June 5, 2017 proffers is
42.42 acres.
3. Add the words, “for these properties” to the end of the second sentence in the first paragraph
so that it reads: “This current proffer statement for the Project (the “Proffer Statement”)
supersedes the proffer statement dated November 14, 2007, for ZMA200600016 for these
properties.”
4. Add the words, “for each dwelling unit” to the first sentence in Proffer 3 so that it reads: “To
offset public expenditure on Capital Improvements projuects, the Owner shall contribute
sixteen thousand five-hundred ninety dollars ($16,950) in cash for each dwelling unit for the
purposes….”
5. Staff does not recommend that you delete existing proffer #6. Proffer 6 provides for an
enhanced level of erosion and sediment control that is viewed as a positive aspect for the
project. To date, the Planning Commission has not supported requests to elim inate proffers
such as this one.
6. Please provide information to demonstrate how you calculate that two development rights
existed for your acreage prior to ZMA200600016. Our research thus far does not match your
conclusion that there were two development rights specifically attributable to the land
involved in this rezoning request.
Jess, your application is set to expire on December 20, 2017 and staff needs to know if you wish to
pursue a December 19, 2017 Planning Commission public hearing. If so, you must resubmit any
new information for that public hearing no later than October 30, 2017 and the fees for
advertisement must be paid by November 28, 2017. If you have decided not to pursue this
rezoning, we would like to close out the file as soon as possible. Please let me know at your
earliest convenience whether you plan to pursue this ZMA.
Thanks and feel free to call me if you have questions or need additional information
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols FAICP
Chief of Planning, Community Development
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C
Proffer Amendment
Staff: J.T. Newberry, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing: December
6, 2016
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBD
Owner: Glenmore Partners LLC Applicant: Jess Achenbach, Red Dirt Development
Acreage: Approximately 86.23 acres Rezone from: No change in zoning is proposed.
Applicant proposes to reduce cash proffer amounts
approved with ZMA200600016.
TMP: 09400-00-00-01600; 093A5-00-00-00100;
093A5-K2-0B-00800
By-right use: PRD with up to 110 dwelling units
Magisterial District: Scottsville Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Request to reduce per unit cash proffer
amount from $16,590 per lot to $4,918 per lot.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: No change;
Maximum of 110 units allowed per previous ZMA.
DA (Development Area): Village of Rivanna Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Density
(Low) – residential (2 units or less/acre), supporting
uses such as places of worship, schools, public and
institutional uses; and Parks and Green Systems –
parks, playgrounds, play fields, greenways, trails,
paths, recreational facilities and equipment, plazas,
outdoor sitting areas, natural areas, preservation of
stream buffers, floodplains and steep slopes adjacent
to rivers and streams.
Character of Property: The properties are currently
under development in accordance with subdivision
plat approvals for Glenmore Section K2C.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Single-family
detached residences within various sections of
Glenmore and the Running Deer subdivision.
Factors Favorable:
1. None identified.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The cash proffered and accepted by the Board
when the property was originally rezoned was
voluntary.
2. The cash proffered and accepted by the Board
when the property was originally rezoned was
a reasonable amount to address the impacts
from the rezoning.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Amendment.
ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission December 6, 2016
Page 2
STAFF PERSON: J.T. Newberry
PLANNING COMMISSION: December 6, 2016
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TBD
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Amendment
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 093A5000000100, 093A5K20B00800, 09400000001600
LOCATION: Approximately 1,500 feet southwest of the intersection of Carrol Creek Road and
Waterside Way.
PROPOSAL: Reduce the currently approved cash proffer amount of $16,590 per lot to the cash
proffer amount recommended by the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee of $4,918 per lot.
PETITION: Request to amend proffers on property zoned PRD which allows a variety of
development for residential purposes and ancillary uses. No new dwellings proposed.
OVERYLAYS: Entrance Corridor, Steep Slopes (Managed and Preserved), Flood Hazard
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density (Low) – residential (2 units or less/acre);
supporting uses such as places of worship, schools, public and institutional uses in the Village
of Rivanna Master Plan.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
This request is comprised of three parcels in the Leake area of Glenmore along Carroll Creek
Road (see Attachment A). Parcel 94-16 currently contains two single family dwellings under
construction while the other two parcels remain vacant. Farringdon Road borders the area to the
north and The Preserve at Glenmore is located to the east.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
Portions of the area under consideration were included in previous rezoning applications within
Glenmore dating back to 1994. Below is a list of the most recent application history relevant to
the current request.
ZMA200600016 Glenmore Leake Expansion (approved 11/14/2007)
SUB201100056 Glenmore K2B (Lots 1-8) – Final (approved 9/27/2012)
SUB201400181 Glenmore K2C (Lots 1-26) – Final (approved 12/31/2015)
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
In 2006, the area currently under consideration was included in a rezoning to the “Leake”
portion of Glenmore. This rezoning added 110.94 acres of PRD zoning and permitted up to 110
single family dwelling units. As a part of that rezoning, the applicant proffered $16,590 per lot to
address impacts to public facilities in accordance with the County’s cash proffer policy at the
time (see Attachment B). The applicant is now requesting a reduction from the currently
approved cash proffers of $16,590 per lot to the cash proffer amount recommended by the
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee (FIAC) of $4,918 per lot (see Attachment C).
Because the only requested change to the zoning at this time is a reduction of the cash proffer,
analysis in this report is limited to that topic only.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
As justification, the applicant provided a summary of recent legislative changes to state-wide
laws related to proffers, as well as the County’s efforts to respond to these changes. The
ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission December 6, 2016
Page 3
applicant additionally noted their reduction request is consistent with the $4,918 per unit amount
for single family dwellings recommended by the FIAC committee in July 2015.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property is designated Neighborhood Density (Low) within the Village of Rivanna Master
Plan, which allows residential uses at a density of up to 2 units/acre, with supporting uses such
as places of worship, schools, public and institutional uses. The applicant is not proposing any
changes to the land use with this request.
DISCUSSION
In September 2014, the Board of Supervisors directed the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee
(FIAC) to provide advice and recommendations to the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors on revisions to the credit provisions and the per unit cash proffer amounts of the
Cash Proffer Policy. FIAC made its recommendation to the Board and Commission in July 2015
including a reduction in cash proffers to the following amounts:
$4,918.00 for each single family detached unit, and;
$3,845.00 for each single family attached unit or townhouse.
The recommended reductions were based on the County’s FY 2015-2016 capital improvements
program (CIP, which covers future years 1-5) and capital needs assessment (CNA, which
covers future years 6-10). The CIP and CNA considered a reduced number of projects
proposing new capital improvements or projects that would expand the capacity of existing
facilities; projects that would merely maintain existing facilities without expanding capacity were
not considered. Updated information based on the 2016-2017 CIP would yield the following
amounts:
$7333.18 for each single family detached unit
$5447.57 for each single family attached unit or townhouse
$7419.91 for each apartment or condominium
The cash proffer policy was repealed by the Board on June 8, 2016 and the County has not
developed a new policy for evaluating impacts from rezonings. There are currently no cash
proffer amounts or model for determining cash proffer amounts endorsed by the County. To-
date, the Board has not approved recent rezonings to reduce cash proffer amounts. Two similar
requests for cash proffer reductions were denied on July 13, 2016 - - Out of Bounds
(ZMA201600003) and Spring Hill Village (ZMA201500009). The Board indicated that the 2016-
2017 figures could be used for new projects in process as of July 1, 2016. This Glenmore
rezoning, however, would not qualify as a new project.
The applicant has not provided an evaluation of impacts or justification for the reduction other
than references to state code changes and the outdated Fiscal Impact Advisory report. The
cash proffered and accepted by the Board when the property was originally rezoned was
consistent with the cash proffer policy and was intended to address the impacts from the
rezoning. The then applicant/owner signed the current proffer form that stating the proffers are
voluntarily as part of the rezoning and acknowledged they are reasonable. The proffers were
approved under prior legislation and the County is not required to evaluate this request under
the new proffer legislation. Based on these items and past actions of the Board for a similar type
of request, staff cannot support the applicant’s request to reduce the cash proffer amounts.
ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission December 6, 2016
Page 4
SUMMARY
Staff has not identified any favorable factors to this rezoning request.
Staff has identified the following factor as unfavorable to this request:
1. The cash proffered and accepted by the Board when the property was originally rezoned
was voluntary.
2. The cash proffered and accepted by the Board when the property was originally rezoned
was a reasonable amount to address the impacts from the rezoning.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends denial of ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Amendment because no
new information evaluating impacts from the development has been provided. Furthermore, no
information has been provided to justify a reduction of the current cash proffer amounts.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION – ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Amendment:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Amendment with the
revised proffers submitted by the applicant.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Amendment with
reasons for denial. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should
state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
Attachments:
A – Location Map
B – ZMA200600016 Action Letter
C – Proposed Amended Proffers
From: Jess Achenbach <jess@reddirtdev.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 1:37 PM
To: Elaine Echols
Cc: Jess Achenbach; Johnathan Newberry
Subject: Re: Comments on your ZMA request
Elaine,
Thank you for following up on this. I will dig into this and get back to you shortly.
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org> wrote:
Hi Jess – since we never heard back from you as to a PC date, we are providing the attached
comments. Please let us know what you want to do.
Elaine
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252
--
Jess Achenbach
Red Dirt Developments
P.O. Box 645 | Charlottesville, VA | 22902
C (434) 242-4802 | jess@reddirtdev.com
From: Johnathan Newberry
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 12:26 PM
To: Elaine Echols
Subject: RE: Glenmore K2C-II
No, to my knowledge, they have not submitting anything related to division rights for this application.
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 12:06 PM
To: Johnathan Newberry <jnewberry@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Glenmore K2C-II
Did they also send information related to division rights on the former RA parcel?
From: Johnathan Newberry
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 6:18 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Subject: FW: Glenmore K2C-II
Hi Elaine,
Here are the amended proffers. Thanks for distributing them.
J.T.
From: Justin Shimp, P.E. [mailto:justin@shimp-engineering.com]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 6:51 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Jess Achenbach <jess@reddirtdev.com>; Johnathan Newberry <jnewberry@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: Glenmore K2C-II
Hi Elaine,
Sorry to be a little after 5, I’ve attached the revised proffer language. We addressed the change in
the same way we did with Riverside Block 1 (a portion of the larger zoning) I’ve also removed
proffer 6 from the original that related to erosion control. With the current regulations I don’t
really see how those have any meaning at this point, and we have already phased the
construction of the subdivision. We can add them back if you think thats easier with a quick copy
and paste.
I’ve also amended proffer #1 slightly to address the current TMP/Parcel and referenced the old
ZMA as it related to the lo ts originally in the 99 ZMA.
Let me know if you need any edits.
Thanks!
Justin Shimp, P.E.
434-953-6116
On Jun 2, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org> wrote:
We just need your revised proffers on Monday.
From: Jess Achenbach [mailto:jess@reddirtdev.com]
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 3:52 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Jess Achenbach <jess@reddirtdev.com>; Johnathan Newberry
<jnewberry@albemarle.org>; Justin Shimp <justin@shimp-engineering.com>
Subject: Re: Glenmore K2C-II
Hi Elaine,
Sorry I missed this earlier. Yes, we are going to drop the claim to reduce
proffers based on the road construction and only pursue exemption from
cash proffers for the two by-right lots. Please let me know what else you
need from me.
Thanks
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
wrote:
Thanks for sending this info, Jess.
For clarification, did you mean that you want to except the 2 lots from any cash
proffers and that will be your only proposed change? Or are you saying that you are
still asking for a reduced proffer for the 60 lots?
Elaine
From: Jess Achenbach [mailto:jess@reddirtdev.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:38 AM
To: Johnathan Newberry <jnewberry@albemarle.org>; Elaine Echols
<EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Justin Shimp <justin@shimp-engineering.com>
Subject: Glenmore K2C-II
Elaine,
It is my intention to revise my proffer amendment to apply only to the 62
lots specified as Glenmore K2C-II. These lots were part of the 110 lots
rezoned as part of the Leake rezoning (ZMA-2006-00016). I would like to
amendment the proffer statement to only apply cash proffers (Capital
Improvement Projects and Affordable Housing Program) to 60 of the 62
lots--I request that the two by-right residential lots that could have been
created on this parcel do not pay cash proffers.
The current parcel (Parcel ID #093A5-00-00-00100) is 42.42 acres and
does not carry any development rights. I will send you a follow up email
from Bill Ledbetter of Roudabush outlining how the development rights
associated with this property were allocated elsewhere. Therefore, the
buildable rights associated with my property are restricted to the two, 21-
acre lots that could be created given the original RA zoning.
Thank you,
Jess
--
Jess Achenbach
Red Dirt Developments
P.O. Box 645 | Charlottesville, VA | 22902
C (434) 242-4802 | jess@reddirtdev.com
--
Jess Achenbach
Red Dirt Developments
P.O. Box 645 | Charlottesville, VA | 22902
C (434) 242-4802 | jess@reddirtdev.com
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C
Proffer Amendment
Staff: J.T. Newberry, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing: December
6, 2016
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBD
Owner: Glenmore Partners LLC Applicant: Jess Achenbach, Red Dirt Development
Acreage: Approximately 86.23 acres Rezone from: No change in zoning is proposed.
Applicant proposes to reduce cash proffer amounts
approved with ZMA200600016.
TMP: 09400-00-00-01600; 093A5-00-00-00100;
093A5-K2-0B-00800
By-right use: PRD with up to 110 dwelling units
Magisterial District: Scottsville Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Request to reduce per unit cash proffer
amount from $16,590 per lot to $4,918 per lot.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: No change;
Maximum of 110 units allowed per previous ZMA.
DA (Development Area): Village of Rivanna Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Density
(Low) – residential (2 units or less/acre), supporting
uses such as places of worship, schools, public and
institutional uses; and Parks and Green Systems –
parks, playgrounds, play fields, greenways, trails,
paths, recreational facilities and equipment, plazas,
outdoor sitting areas, natural areas, preservation of
stream buffers, floodplains and steep slopes adjacent
to rivers and streams.
Character of Property: The properties are currently
under development in accordance with subdivision
plat approvals for Glenmore Section K2C.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Single-family
detached residences within various sections of
Glenmore and the Running Deer subdivision.
Factors Favorable:
1. None identified.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The cash proffered and accepted by the Board
when the property was originally rezoned was
voluntary.
2. The cash proffered and accepted by the Board
when the property was originally rezoned was
a reasonable amount to address the impacts
from the rezoning.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Amendment.
ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission December 6, 2016
Page 2
STAFF PERSON: J.T. Newberry
PLANNING COMMISSION: December 6, 2016
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TBD
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Amendment
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 093A5000000100, 093A5K20B00800, 09400000001600
LOCATION: Approximately 1,500 feet southwest of the intersection of Carrol Creek Road and
Waterside Way.
PROPOSAL: Reduce the currently approved cash proffer amount of $16,590 per lot to the cash
proffer amount recommended by the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee of $4,918 per lot.
PETITION: Request to amend proffers on property zoned PRD which allows a variety of
development for residential purposes and ancillary uses. No new dwellings proposed.
OVERYLAYS: Entrance Corridor, Steep Slopes (Managed and Preserved), Flood Hazard
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density (Low) – residential (2 units or less/acre);
supporting uses such as places of worship, schools, public and institutional uses in the Village
of Rivanna Master Plan.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
This request is comprised of three parcels in the Leake area of Glenmore along Carroll Creek
Road (see Attachment A). Parcel 94-16 currently contains two single family dwellings under
construction while the other two parcels remain vacant. Farringdon Road borders the area to the
north and The Preserve at Glenmore is located to the east.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
Portions of the area under consideration were included in previous rezoning applications within
Glenmore dating back to 1994. Below is a list of the most recent application history relevant to
the current request.
ZMA200600016 Glenmore Leake Expansion (approved 11/14/2007)
SUB201100056 Glenmore K2B (Lots 1-8) – Final (approved 9/27/2012)
SUB201400181 Glenmore K2C (Lots 1-26) – Final (approved 12/31/2015)
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
In 2006, the area currently under consideration was included in a rezoning to the “Leake”
portion of Glenmore. This rezoning added 110.94 acres of PRD zoning and permitted up to 110
single family dwelling units. As a part of that rezoning, the applicant proffered $16,590 per lot to
address impacts to public facilities in accordance with the County’s cash proffer policy at the
time (see Attachment B). The applicant is now requesting a reduction from the currently
approved cash proffers of $16,590 per lot to the cash proffer amount recommended by the
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee (FIAC) of $4,918 per lot (see Attachment C).
Because the only requested change to the zoning at this time is a reduction of the cash proffer,
analysis in this report is limited to that topic only.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
As justification, the applicant provided a summary of recent legislative changes to state-wide
laws related to proffers, as well as the County’s efforts to respond to these changes. The
ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission December 6, 2016
Page 3
applicant additionally noted their reduction request is consistent with the $4,918 per unit amount
for single family dwellings recommended by the FIAC committee in July 2015.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property is designated Neighborhood Density (Low) within the Village of Rivanna Master
Plan, which allows residential uses at a density of up to 2 units/acre, with supporting uses such
as places of worship, schools, public and institutional uses. The applicant is not proposing any
changes to the land use with this request.
DISCUSSION
In September 2014, the Board of Supervisors directed the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee
(FIAC) to provide advice and recommendations to the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors on revisions to the credit provisions and the per unit cash proffer amounts of the
Cash Proffer Policy. FIAC made its recommendation to the Board and Commission in July 2015
including a reduction in cash proffers to the following amounts:
$4,918.00 for each single family detached unit, and;
$3,845.00 for each single family attached unit or townhouse.
The recommended reductions were based on the County’s FY 2015-2016 capital improvements
program (CIP, which covers future years 1-5) and capital needs assessment (CNA, which
covers future years 6-10). The CIP and CNA considered a reduced number of projects
proposing new capital improvements or projects that would expand the capacity of existing
facilities; projects that would merely maintain existing facilities without expanding capacity were
not considered. Updated information based on the 2016-2017 CIP would yield the following
amounts:
$7333.18 for each single family detached unit
$5447.57 for each single family attached unit or townhouse
$7419.91 for each apartment or condominium
The cash proffer policy was repealed by the Board on June 8, 2016 and the County has not
developed a new policy for evaluating impacts from rezonings. There are currently no cash
proffer amounts or model for determining cash proffer amounts endorsed by the County. To-
date, the Board has not approved recent rezonings to reduce cash proffer amounts. Two similar
requests for cash proffer reductions were denied on July 13, 2016 - - Out of Bounds
(ZMA201600003) and Spring Hill Village (ZMA201500009). The Board indicated that the 2016-
2017 figures could be used for new projects in process as of July 1, 2016. This Glenmore
rezoning, however, would not qualify as a new project.
The applicant has not provided an evaluation of impacts or justification for the reduction other
than references to state code changes and the outdated Fiscal Impact Advisory report. The
cash proffered and accepted by the Board when the property was originally rezoned was
consistent with the cash proffer policy and was intended to address the impacts from the
rezoning. The then applicant/owner signed the current proffer form that stating the proffers are
voluntarily as part of the rezoning and acknowledged they are reasonable. The proffers were
approved under prior legislation and the County is not required to evaluate this request under
the new proffer legislation. Based on these items and past actions of the Board for a similar type
of request, staff cannot support the applicant’s request to reduce the cash proffer amounts.
ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Amendment
Planning Commission December 6, 2016
Page 4
SUMMARY
Staff has not identified any favorable factors to this rezoning request.
Staff has identified the following factor as unfavorable to this request:
1. The cash proffered and accepted by the Board when the property was originally rezoned
was voluntary.
2. The cash proffered and accepted by the Board when the property was originally rezoned
was a reasonable amount to address the impacts from the rezoning.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends denial of ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Amendment because no
new information evaluating impacts from the development has been provided. Furthermore, no
information has been provided to justify a reduction of the current cash proffer amounts.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION – ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Amendment:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Amendment with the
revised proffers submitted by the applicant.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA201600006 Glenmore K2C Proffer Amendment with
reasons for denial. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should
state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
Attachments:
A – Location Map
B – ZMA200600016 Action Letter
C – Proposed Amended Proffers
From: Andrew Knuppel
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 11:21 AM
To: Elaine Echols; Johnathan Newberry; Amelia McCulley; John Blair; Frank Pohl
Subject: ZMA2016-06 Glenmore K2C-II - Area
Attachments: Summary - Sections and DRs.pdf
All-
Following up from our discussion yesterday, I did some more research and prepared a few maps that
might help make sense of the area the applicant is seeking to amend. The explanation is lengthy, but
there’s a lot going on-
Page 1 shows the parcels as they existed in 2006. During ZMA2006-16, all of parcels 94-74, 93A1-1, and
93A5-1 (already inside the PRD) as well as portions of 94-15, 94-16, and 94-16A within the bounds of
what is now Carroll Creek Road were added to the PRD and proffers amended/added. A bit over half of
94-16, which was zoned RA with 2 assigned development rights per a 1989 plat, was added to the PRD.
The proffers stated that residential development was not to exceed 110 SF units.
Page 2 shows the approximate bounds of the relevant parcels at the end of 2015. Lots comprising
Section K2B are visible along Carroll Creek Road, and Section K2C were to be platted within the next year
within the bounds of new 94-16. K2C-II, which would be addressed in ZMA2016-06, would take place
within Parcel 93A5-1, which consists of a (what was) a 38.308 acre portion and a 4.112 acre portion
separated by 94-16.
Page 3 shows a rough outline of the PRD before and after ZMA2006-16, the original Parcel 94-16 (RA,
2006), and the parcel applicant is seeking to amend. This sketch provides some context to applicant’s
claims to credit for the two development rights from the former parcel 94-16.
Page 4 shows the area as it currently exists following the subdivision of K2C -II, Phase 1 in SUB2017-05
(recorded in DB4946/44). The area highlighted comprises the PRD amended in ZMA2006-16. The below
table was also included in the recent Phase 1 plat, which explains the distribution of dwelling units
within the entire site and why applicant has provided the figure of 62 single family units.
We will be discussing the proposed Proffer #6, which concerns the credits for 94-16’s 2 development
rights, today at the Legal meeting to determine how to handle potential claims for the credits from
sections K2B and K2C, which are also within the bounds of the original RA parcel.
Hope this clears up some of the confusion.
Andrew Knuppel
Planner - Zoning
Albemarle County Community Development
434-296-5832 x 3313