CCAC Meeting Recap – 17 February 2016

I’m going to let the tweets about tonight’s Crozet Community Advisory Council meeting speak for themselves.

Short summary:

  • There are at least 3 openings on the CCAC; apply here, and/or talk to current CCAC member John Savage. Please. Please. Volunteer
  • Infrastructure is needed in Crozet.
  • Restore N Station is going to get bigger
  • Adelaide faces challenges from the CCAC.
  • I’m glad I went, but … sigh.

Update: Staff comments on the Adelaide development.


Scroll all the way to the bottom and work your way up.

 

 

 

 


What follows is an email thread between the Albemarle County Planner, Megan Yaniglos, and Dave Stoner of the CCAC. Copied from the CCAC Google Group and posted with Dave’s permission (it’s public discussion, but I thought it nicer to ask first). I’m posting it for searchability and background.

FYI – Some additional information below from Megan Yaniglos, County Planner, relative to the upcoming PC Adelaide work session and our discussion tomorrow eve at CCAC.

Dave

434-227-2105

davidastoner1@gmail.com

From: Megan Yaniglos
Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 12:13 PM
To: David Stoner
Cc: Jennie More , Emily Kilroy
Subject: RE: Adelaide Worksession

Good Afternoon Dave,

First, I wanted to say that the questions that I previously sent were the draft questions and since those were sent, I have written the staff report and the questions have been refined. Please see updated questions below.

Second, below are the maps that you requested. These will also be included in the staff report. I will forward the staff report as soon as it’s available. As for the difference in units, my comment letter mentioned these numbers, I believe. 88 units could be achieved using only the “yellow” area as designated in the master plan, and 93 units could be achieved using the updated maps and environmental features including the Route 250 buffer for a R6 designation. The acreage is a difference of about 1 acre.

Third, for clarification in the zoning ordinance, there is no R3 zoning district. There are a number of different mechanisms that could get to the 3 units per acre maximum density. For example- they could rezone to R4 and proffer a maximum number of units. That is just one example, and the question really concerns whether or not these parcels should be developed at the high end of the range or the low end. I apologize for using the R3 designation earlier, as that is not correct.

Your other questions regarding exact number of units is a complicated one, and cannot easily be answered, as it depends. If the properties were developed by-right, they would be able to use the whole acreage to calculate density, and not be required to use what is shown in the master plan as the developable area. Also, there are bonus density provision within the R1, R2, R4, R6 etc zoning districts that allow for additional units provided certain elements are met. There are ways to restrict the total number of units as mentioned above (proffers, zoning district as examples) and answering the question of whether or not these parcels should develop at the high end or low end of the range will help guide the applicant (or future applicants) of how many units are possible here.

Lastly, the “we” is staff in this case. That was taken directly from the comment letter.

Let me know if you have question regarding this.

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?

2. 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?

3. 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?

Thank you,

Megan Yaniglos, AICP

Principal Planner

Community Development Department

Planning Services

ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004

From: David Stoner [mailto:dav…@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 8:32 AM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Cc: Jennie More ; Emily Kilroy
Subject: FW: Adelaide Worksession

Megan:

Thanks for how you have framed the issues as noted below. Yes, we will be discussing this at the CCAC meeting this Wed to prove input to the PC. Quick question…relative to #2…do you have maps handy which reflect these mapping disparities in the Comp Plan, Crozet Master Plan (CMP), and GIS as of today (preferably electronically that I could share or use at the CCAC meeting)? And am I correctly assuming that “we” in the comments below is the Applicant?

Also, I am curious if you have estimates of density and # of units that may be developed with the different mapping scenarios; Or maybe more specifically, what you estimate the number of units that could be developed given the site conditions/mapping (1) by right, or (2) if the applicant amended his application to be on the lower end (R3) of the CMP recommended range of development?

Thanks for all of your work on this.

Dave

CCAC Interim Chair

434-227-2105

davidastoner1@gmail.com

——– Original message ——–

From: Megan Yaniglos

Date: 2/4/2016 4:38 PM (GMT-05:00)

To: Jennie More

Cc: Elaine Echols

Subject: Adelaide Worksession

Hi Jennie:

As we discussed, here are the quick/unpolished questions that have been identified for the worksession on the 23rd. If the CAC can give comments for you to bring to the worksession focusing in on these issues, that would be great. Let me know if you have any follow up questions regarding this information.

1. Density? High end (R6) or Low end (R3) of the recommended range in the master plan?

2. Should we use the Comp Plan area for development or use the environmental constraints as shown on GIS (preserved slopes, WPO buffer, Rt 250 buffer) to determine number of units? From comment letter: “As proposed the R6 designation would be at the high end of the density range and that would yield as many as 88 units, as measured using the just the yellow area within the Crozet Master Plan. If the green area were remapped today, it might be smaller because of current distinctions between managed and preserved slopes, allowing as many as the 93 units. We believe that we could support a case for the lesser green area, given the fact that the maps were intended to represent important environmental features for preservation and updated mapping shows a smaller area identified for the environmental features. We recognize that there are different interpretations of what the green area was intended to convey as well as expectations for development along Route 250 and further away from the nearest center, which is Clover Lawn. We recommend that this be further discussed at a Planning Commission work session, to verify the density. See additional comments on this within the compliance with the comprehensive plan section.”

3. Types of units? Mostly single family? Or are attached units okay? From the comment letter: “The Crozet Master Plan designates these parcels as Neighborhood Density Residential, and states that the housing types should be primarily single family detached. The proposal does not conform to this land use designation in the master plan. It is recommended that if you wish to build these types of units, that this be discussed with the Planning Commission at a work session. Otherwise the plan should be revised to state that more than 50% of the units will be single family detached.”

Megan Yaniglos, AICP

Principal Planner

Community Development Department

Planning Services

ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004


Update 23 February 2016

These are comments from County Staff, letter from the CCAC, results of a petition against Adelaide from the Cory Farm HOA, and comments from petition signers. I’m hosting the docs here as I’ve seen permalinks, to which I’ve linked, die too often. Darn it.

Signatures

Comments

Cory Farm HOA letter against Adelaide

CCAC’s Adelaide Comments 021716

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *