Charlottesville Tomorrow Blog

Top-10 Growth & Development Stories of 2007

In my weekly appearance today on WINA AM 1070 on the Charlottesville Right Now program, Coy Barefoot and I counted down Charlottesville Tomorrow's top-10 growth and development stories of 2007.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: 20080103-RightNow.mp3

Charlottesville Tomorrow's Top-10 Growth and Development Stories of 2007

1. County Elections 2007—Ann Mallek elected Supervisor in White Hall District
2. 4,800 new homes approved at Biscuit Run, Hollymead Town Center, and Rivanna Village
3. Wendell Wood’s projects around National Ground Intelligence Center on Route 29N get new scrutiny by media, public, and local government
4. Albemarle Supervisors set new cash proffer expectations
5. Proposed rural area protection ordinances stalemate Board of Supervisors
6. Lack of rain leads to drought warnings
7. City Planning Commission debates ethics, communications with the public and developers, impartiality, and starts holding pre-meetings off camera
8. Water and sewer infrastructure needs get increased community attention
9. City approves another nine-story downtown building and receives recommendations to limit future building heights in some areas
10. Major capital projects continue facility improvements at the University of Virginia

Brian Wheeler

Glenmore expansion projects recommended for approval

Don Franco and Planning Commissioner Pete Craddock

At their meeting August 21, 2007, the Albemarle County Planning Commission recommended approval of two developments that would expand the Glenmore community off Route 250 East of Charlottesville.  Developer Don Franco of KG Associates came into the meeting prepared to address concerns about a roughly $360,000 difference between his proposed cash proffers and the expectations detailed by County staff.  However, while he left the meeting with the Planning Commission’s blessing on both the Leake and Livengood developments, he also took home a new bill for an additional $1.4 million in cash proffers.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20070821-CoPC-Glenmore.MP3

Speaking with Charlottesville Tomorrow the day after the decision, Franco said, “I am a little disappointed about where we are… $1 million is a fairly significant sum to drop on us at the last minute.  I remain disappointed about the process.”

For Franco, the process has included multiple Planning Commission work sessions in 2006 and numerous meetings with County staff and Glenmore residents.  Since the Planning Commission last reviewed the projects, the County Board of Supervisors has set new cash proffer expectations for Albemarle rezonings.  All of the proposed 153 new homes for Glenmore are single-family detached which now carry a cash proffer expectation of $17,500 each.  Another expectation is that 15% of a new development’s housing will be “affordable housing.”  As an alternative to building affordable units, a developer may volunteer to pay cash into the County’s housing fund at a rate of $19,100 per required affordable unit. That approach was supported in the staff’s recommendations.

While that math seems pretty straight forward, it was the number of proposed lots that got the Planning Commission’s attention.  Throughout the staff report, it was presented as an expansion of Glenmore by 103 homes, not the 153 homes representing the combination of the Leake (up to 110 homes) and the Livengood (up to 43 homes) developments.

Franco thought he was on the same page with the County on this matter.  "We’ve got the ability to build an additional 50 lots in [the existing] Glenmore.  We had gone through this lengthy process showing how we could get to those 50 lots.  We also showed an approach [in the Leake development] that keeps us out of the environmentally sensitive areas.  We thought we should be able to get some credit against those units in the proffers," said Franco.

Glenmore’s existing zoning allows for up to 813 homes and 763 of those lots have been created.  While some of those homes could already be built by-right in portions of the Leake development, significant critical slopes would make developing certain areas a challenge.  It would also certainly impact environmentally sensitive areas identified by the County as an important resource.  With the addition of new acreage to Glenmore via the Leake property, Franco prepared a plan that showed how the development could occur along the ridge-top creating less of an impact on critical slopes.  Thus while willing to pay the new cash proffer expectations, Franco hoped to do so only on the units beyond the 50 existing lots still allowed in Glenmore. 

For the Planning Commission, that didn’t add up.  Commissioners were uncomfortable with the prospect of new homes being built in Leake or Livengood under the old Glenmore proffer expectations ($2,300 per home).  They argued that any development the size of Glenmore was unlikely to be built at its fully authorized amount (hence the remaining 50 undeveloped lots) and that with these new rezonings, the updated cash proffer expectation should be in place for all 153 proposed lots.

It was an interpretation that seemed to catch the staff off guard as well.  After several commissioners had agreed on the staff recommendation to seek $2,089,000 in cash proffers, Chair Marcia Joseph asked County Attorney Larry Davis when exactly the cash proffers would come into play.

"As it is currently proposed in the draft proffers, it wouldn’t kick in until after they have developed [813] lots,” said Davis.  “I think that’s an issue that needs to be further examined….It’s something certainly the Planning Commission should weigh in on, ultimately the Board [of Supervisors] will have to decide whether or not the cash proffer has adequately addressed the impacts of the development.”

After further discussion, the Planning Commission came around to calculating the cash proffer expectation for Leake and Livengood as being based on all 153 lots:

• 153 single-family detached homes * $17,500 = $2,677,500
• 23 affordable units (15%) * $19,100 = $439,300
• TOTAL cash proffers = $3,116,800

By comparison, the per unit cash proffers previously negotiated for Glenmore were one-time contributions of $2,300 per home to support the County’s capital budget needs ($1,000 for schools and $1,300 for roads).  There are other significant proffers for the development, but the total per unit cash proffer expectation for Glenmore’s 813 current lots would be about $1.87 million.  As recommended by the Planning Commission, the 153 lots proposed for Leake and Livengood would have total cash proffers more than one and one-half times that amount.

Since the Board of Supervisors upped the ante for cash proffers, the Planning Commission has strictly interpreted the evolving guidelines as a regular part of their discussions, including the recent review of Wendell Wood’s NGIC expansion project. 

Franco says he will now take the matter up with the Board of Supervisors.  They are scheduled to review the Leake development on November 14, 2007 and the Livengood development on October 10, 2007.

Brian Wheeler

Village of Rivanna voices strong opinions on growth and transportation

The Albemarle County Planning Commission met on Tuesday evening, and into Wednesday morning, to hold four work sessions related to developments near Glenmore in the County’s Village of Rivanna designated growth area.  In attendance were over 100 community members, largely from the Glenmore and Running Deer neighborhoods.

The projects before the Commission would, if ultimately approved at future meetings, expand the gated community of Glenmore into three new neighborhood areas and create the Rivanna Village mixed-use development between Route 250 and Glenmore.

Project under review	Housing Units
Rivanna Village	Up to 500 homes
Livengood	41-57 homes
Leake	110 homes
Glen Oaks	24 homes
TOTAL	675-691 homes

Notes: Leake, Livengood & Rivanna Village are within the growth area.  Glen Oaks is outside the growth area.  The developer would like Glen Oaks, Leake, and Livengood all incorporated into Glenmore.

While no formal votes were taken on these projects, the Commission provided direction in a number of key areas giving most in attendance a little bit of what they were looking for, while few residents and commissioners were satisfied that enough information was on the table for traffic considerations.

A stream crossing for the Glen Oaks neighborhood was the launching point for the evening’s discussions.  Glen Oaks is a development previously rejected by the Planning Commission and deferred by the Board of Supervisors.  Don Franco with KG Associates brought forward a new design for the 24 home project which he would like connected to Glenmore.  Residents in the Running Deer neighborhood made clear their preference that traffic not be channeled through their community to Route 250. 

The Commission reached consensus that Glen Oaks should be connected to Glenmore and not Running Deer.  Glen Oaks will be serviced by private roads since the proposed access requires a dam crossing, something VDOT will not accept into their secondary road system.  Later in the discussions of the Leake and Livengood neighborhoods, the Commission gave further support to the developer’s goal of expanding Glenmore with these new developments.

During the course of the evening, the following issues were among those raised by the public:

• Glenmore residents expressed opposition to higher housing densities previously requested by Planning Commission.
• Running Deer residents expressed opposition to connections between Glen Oaks and their neighborhood.
• Both neighborhoods expressed concerns about increased traffic.  Some Glenmore residents suggested relief via Running Deer would have to be on the table and others were concerned about overall traffic increases that would accompany Glenmore's growth.
• Other Glenmore residents were concerned about the implied requirement of a new gate between the Rivanna Village and Livengood when the Planning Commission insisted on preparations for a road interconnection at that location.
• Representing Monticello, Kat Imhoff encouraged the Commission to do everything possible to work with the developer to ensure the protection of Monticello's viewshed.
• Representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, Jeff Werner asked the Commission to secure permanent conservation easements in Glen Oaks for the areas offered by the developer as a preservation tract.
• After midnight, landscape architect Will Rieley made a presentation about the preliminary design ideas of the park area proposed for Rivanna Village that was well received by the Commission, and the public still in attendance.  The park proposal no longer has playing fields for organized sports.

Charlottesville Tomorrow has produced three recordings of this meeting.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Recording #1 - Glen Oaks
Listen using player above or download the podcast:  Download 20061212-CoPC-VOR1.mp3

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Recording #2 - Leake/Livengood
Listen using player above or download the podcast:  Download 20061212-CoPC-VOR2.mp3

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Recording #3 - Rivanna Village
Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20061212-CoPC-VOR3.mp3

Brian Wheeler

Realtors touting walkable, livable villages

Local realtor Jonathan Kauffmann has a blog that focuses on the Old Trail development in Crozet, VA.  In a post today, he makes mention of a CNNMoney.com article entitled "The next real estate boom: Dense settlements, not sprawling ranch houses, are the future of housing - and could make for a smart real-estate investment."  Mr. Kauffmann wants his readers (and future investors) to know that Old Trail is intended to have many of the benefits described in the article as a similar "New Village" redefining the housing product in areas outside of a city center.  According to the article's author, Chris Taylor:

"The demand for such developments is real, and it's only going to get greater as consumer preferences rapidly shift away from the McMansions preferred by boomers. According to a study by the nonprofit Congress for New Urbanism, while less than 25 percent of middle-aged Americans are interested in living in dense areas, 53 percent of 24-34 year olds would choose to live in transit-rich, walkable neighborhoods, if they had the choice."

The demand in Albemarle for "walkable" and "livable" communities has been spurred by Albemarle County's Neighborhood Model Development (NMD) ordinance.  Developers wishing to get their property rezoned (e.g. Biscuit Run, Rivanna Village, Old Trail) know the County is expecting mixed-use communities (housing combined with retail/commercial), town centers, interconnected streets instead of cul-de-sacs, and a variety of housing types and cost ranges.  The article also points out that developers also know simple math--There are more housing units selling at higher prices in these denser villages.

Another large County development designed with this model in mind is North Pointe.  North Pointe is currently at the rezoning stage and will be in front of the Board of Supervisors on August 2nd for another public hearing.  One of the things I noticed at the North Pointe public hearing was how many people said favorable things about the idea of pedestrian and bicycle friendly neighborhoods following the County's Neighborhood Model principles.  One of the challenges is that we do not have a large NMD project in Albemarle completed that we can look at and evaluate.   

As a result, the public often questions whether denser developments are a good thing.  For example, residents of existing neighborhoods ask not to be connected to new neighborhoods which will have schools and shopping they could easily drive, walk or bicycle to IF they were effectively and safely connected. New roads would allow them to take shorter trips off congested thoroughfares. However, the Neighborhood Model will only work if the developer, County and the state government can fund and build the infrastructure required to support a growing population. 

Another factor we have to consider in Charlottesville and Albemarle is the impact on our roads of developments located on the outskirts or separated from the existing urban area (Rivanna Village at Glenmore, Old Trail in Crozet, North Pointe up 29N, and Biscuit Run south of Charlottesville).  What needs will develop for new transportation solutions as people commute to jobs at UVA and in the City of Charlottesville.  What will the impact be on traffic congestion?  What impact will the over 3 million square feet of additional retail under review by Albemarle have on existing stores and roads?  Transportation infrastructure and retail saturation are two issues Charlottesville Tomorrow has asked the Board of Supervisors to consider carefully as they consider future rezonings in the County's growth areas [our letter].

What do you think about denser neighborhood villages in our community?  Are you ready to invest?  Are you ready to move in?

Brian Wheeler

Albemarle's groundwater ordinance reviewed by Planning Commission

In early June, Charlottesville Tomorrow provided exclusive coverage of the Albemarle County Planning Commission's discussion of groundwater issues related to the Glen Oaks subdivision proposed near Glenmore. That evening, the Planning Commission was told that neither they nor county staff has the authority to reject a subdivision on the basis of data from the County's new groundwater assessments. 

As a result, at their June 27, 2006 meeting (podcast below), the Planning Commission asked staff to present additional information on the intent and the utility of the Groundwater Protection Ordinance.   Mark Graham, the County's Director of Community Development, and Larry Davis, County Attorney, presented information on both the scientific and legal background of the ordinance approved in December 2004. 

Listen to podcast: Download 20060627-groundwater.mp3

The following  were among the important points made in the discussion:

• In the Piedmont Region of Virginia it is very difficult to predict the impact a well on one property will have on a well on an adjacent property.
• During the 2002 drought, the wells that tended to fail were older and shallower wells.  These are very susceptible to changes in groundwater.  The Running Deer neighborhood adjacent to the proposed Glen Oaks subdivision has many of these challenged wells in an area with poor groundwater resources.
• Virginia law indicates that an existing groundwater user has no more right to groundwater than an adjacent property owner wishing to drill a new well.  The General Assembly has not provided local governments with any enabling authority to deny a subdivision based on potential future threats to groundwater that may be caused by an adjacent property owner.  However, Albemarle's ordinance could have been written to address groundwater quality and quantity issues (minimal flow rates) for new wells being drilled, as the County received a formal opinion on that in the past from the Attorney General.
• The committee which worked on the ordinance in 2004 recommended that no numerical standards be included with respect to well flow rates because of the mixed success these standards had had in other localities (e.g. Loudoun County).  Thus, Albemarle County's ordinance sets no minimum flow rates for new wells before a building permit is issued.  The Health Department informed Charlottesville Tomorrow that they will accept any well that flows above 0 gallons per minute.  Staff shared their experience that wells as low as 0.5 gallons per minute, with evidence of adequate water storage, are the minimal standard.
• Staff reviewed the long-term objectives of the data collection effort initiated by the new ordinance.  The County is finishing the first year of a well monitoring program that will collect data over a ten-year period.  This research will focus on water challenged areas of the County seeing substantial residential growth.  In time, this data could allow more specific language to be added in the ordinance with respect to groundwater quantity standards, thus enabling a future Planning Commission to reject a proposed development based on insufficient water resources.

Brian Wheeler

Glen Oaks appeal to be heard July 5th

Fireworks are likely to continue into July 5th when the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hears the appeal of a Planning Commission denial of the Glen Oaks subdivision.  Don Franco of KG Associates has informed Charlottesville Tomorrow that his group has decided to appeal the decision to the Supervisors instead of going to court.  The Board has this on their agenda for 10:10 AM on July 5th.

GlenOaks, which is adjacent to Glenmore, was the subject of a lengthy discussion of groundwater issues at the May 30, 2006 Planning Commission meeting [summary and podcast here].  Commissioner ultimately rejected the subdivision request citing disturbance of critical slopes as the reason, this after Deputy County Attorney Greg Kamptner told the Commission they could not reject the subdivision because of concerns about groundwater availability.

At last night's Village of Rivanna Town Meeting, Don Franco told about 100 area residents that, if Glen Oaks is ultimately approved, no construction would take place unless the entire subdivision was accepted into the Glenmore Community.**  The Glen Oaks parcel is outside the Village of Rivanna growth area boundary and does not have public water or sewer facilities, hence the neighbors concerns about potential impacts to their existing wells.  While Glenmore could expand its community to include Glen Oaks, potential connections to public water and sewer would require special action by the Board of Supervisors.

Brian Wheeler

** Update 6/26/06: Don Franco called Charlottesville Tomorrow to clarify that construction will not take place until a determination is made as to whether Glen Oaks will be incorporated into Glenmore.  If it is not added to the Glenmore community, construction will take place regardless if the subdivision is approved, but access to the new subdivision would be via Running Deer Drive and not Glenmore.  Also, Mr. Franco stated that he is not interested in pursuing connections to public water/sewer for Glen Oaks nor is he interested in having the subdivision added to the County's growth area.  Brian Wheeler

Effectiveness of groundwater policies questioned with subdivision decision

With a proposal in front of them for a new subdivision next to Glenmore called Glen Oaks, the Albemarle County Planning Commission voted to deny the 30 home proposal by a vote of 4-3 at their May 30, 2006 meeting earlier this week. Factors related to groundwater issues played a major role in the Commission's decision.  Commissioners learned that a lack of available groundwater has been problematic for residents living in the nearby neighborhood of Running Deer and that the homes in Glen Oaks would be clustered on the side of the site with less adequate groundwater resources. Glen Oaks would require a total of 30 residential water wells and is located in the rural area just outside of Glenmore, a community in a designated growth area with public water and sewer services. 

Photo: Glen Oaks developer Don Franco before the Planning Commission

Glen Oaks offers an interesting example of the sometimes limited powers of local government in Virginia as well as the complexity of trying to build quality subdivisions in Albemarle's rural areas (places our Comprehensive Plan would have us protect as the growth areas have public water).  How does a community balance the interests of property owners wanting to develop their land, existing residents nearby wanting adequate and safe groundwater, and current rural area regulations that allow subdivisions to be built all at once without a time-release build-out schedule?  As I researched the groundwater ordinance for this posting, it became clear to me that phasing of construction in the rural areas is one thing that would allow for monitoring the incremental impact of rural area residential growth on water resources. 

More time and better data collection were important topics of discussion when the ordinance was approved in 2004.  According to the minutes of the Board of Supervisors meeting from December 8, 2004, the purpose of the County's Groundwater Protection Ordinance is:

"...to promote the long-term sustainability of groundwater resources by requiring that certain land development approvals (building permits, subdivision plats, site plans) and central water supplies that will rely on privately owned wells... be subject to a groundwater assessment... Satisfactorily completing the applicable requirements of the groundwater assessment would become a prerequisite to the land development approval." [download ordinance]

So while the ordinance requires a groundwater assessment for a new subdivision, some Commissioners were surprised to learn this week that neither the Planning Commission nor county staff currently has the authority to reject a subdivision on the basis of data from these groundwater assessments.  At this time, the studies are only recommendations designed to provide subdivision applicants with information aimed at protecting and preserving identified groundwater resources. 

In their discussion of the ordinance proposal in August 2004, Planning Commissioners were told that:

"...the Groundwater Committee, from a very early stage, decided to approach the standards as a vehicle to improve development design and promote good development practices, rather than as a 'yes/no' threshold test for approval or denial. This decision was made because of the evidence from other counties and the desire for a program that is defensible and practical."

In December 2004, Supervisor Dennis Rooker observed that Virginia law does not allow the County to deny a building permit based upon the alleged impact on a neighbor's well.  An existing homeowner has no priority right to groundwater over an adjoining property owner that wants to build a new home. 

Thus, at this week's Planning Commission meeting, Deputy County Attorney Greg Kamptner told the Commission that the Glen Oaks subdivision plan had complied with the ordinance by conducting the preliminary hydrogeological study and thus groundwater concerns could not be used as a reason to deny the subdivision.  If and when a subdivision is approved, wells will be drilled in advance of a building permit for each house to ensure sufficient water is available before construction, at that time.

After subdivision failed to receive approval, the Commission had to detail the legal basis for their action.  While the groundwater concerns influenced their vote, the Planning Commission cited problems with the development proposed to occur on areas of critical slopes as their reason for denial. The developer can appeal this decision to the Board of Supervisors or directly to the Circuit Court. 

Listen to podcast: Download CountyPlanningCommission20060530.mp3

• 0:54 -- Introduction by Marica Joseph
• 1:05 -- Presentation by County Planner David Pennock
• 5:28 -- Question from the Planning Commission as to what consideration they can give groundwater issue
• 21:15 -- Discussion with developer Don Franco
• 34:42 -- Comments from public
• 46:15 -- Discussion by the Commission
• 1:08:47 -- Motion by Jo Higgins-White Hall to approve. Motion failed 3-4.
• 1:10:50 -- Identification of reasons for denial

Summary of key links:

• Albemarle's Water Protection Ordinance
• Agenda item on groundwater protection approved by Board of Supervisors 12/2004

Brian Wheeler

Supervisors discuss rural area protection, master planning, and transportation at work session

On April 5, 2006, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a work session on the Community Development Work Program.  This meeting focused on implementation of the rural area plan, the schedule for master planning designated growth areas, and a significant discussion on transportation issues in the master planning process. 

During this discussion, the Supervisors voted to eliminate consideration of the Ruckersville Parkway as a transportation option in the Places29 Master Plan.

Supervisors were also presented a schedule of future master plans, including those for Pantops, the Southern Urban Area (incl. Biscuit Run), and the Village of Rivanna (incl. Glenmore).  Staff asked the Board whether it wanted to halt some rezonings (e.g. Biscuit Run) until after master plans in certain areas were completed. The consensus of the Board was that rezonings should not be held up for that reason and that the master plan schedule proposed by staff (below) was acceptable.

• Crozet Master Plan -- Complete
• Places29 Master Plan -- In progress
• Pantops Master Plan -- On hold now, but would start up again in 2006 while Places29 is in review phase
• After Places29 is completed, Southern Urban Area plan would start
• After Pantops is completed, Village of Rivanna would start
• Finally Neighborhoods 6 and 7 (Bellair, Ednam, Buckingham Rd. area) would be done

Listen to podcast: Download 20060405-BOS-CDWorkProgram.mp3

• 01:00 -- Introduction by Lori Allshouse
• 04:30 -- Introduction by Mark Graham
• 08:44 -- Mark Graham asks Board to review assumption in draft master plan schedule that rezonings would not be held up for master plans (e.g. Biscuit Run could move forward without waiting for master plan completion in the Southern Urban area).
• 10:30 -- Supervisor Sally Thomas inquires about how parts of a master plan might be started around Biscuit Run immediately
• 13:40 -- Supervisor David Slutzky raises concern that he does not see transportation issues as well integrated with master plans like Places29.  There is a very interesting discussion that follows about regional transportation plans and funding.
• 24:30 -- Discussion about potential routes of Eastern Connector and its consideration in Places29 Master Plan.  Mark Graham says potential Eastern Connector routes include taking traffic via Rio to Pantops, or Polo Grounds Rd., or Proffit Rd.
• 29:50 -- Supervisor Dennis Rooker mentions news (from earlier in meeting) that Meadowcreek Parkway right-of-way will now cost $4 million more than previous estimate and Jarmans Gap Rd. right-of-way will cost $2 million more than previous estimates.
• 38:00 -- Supervisors Ken Boyd and Dennis Rooker discuss congestion on US 29 North.
• 48:00 -- Supervisors vote to eliminate consideration of the Ruckersville Parkway in Places29.
• 58:40 -- Sally Thomas returns to discussion of interim planning steps that can be done around Biscuit Run
• 1:12:45 -- Supervisors agree to have a future work session to review all major transportation projects impacting these master plan areas
• 1:16:28 -- Mark Graham opens discussion on implementation of the rural area plan

Brian Wheeler

Supervisors Discuss Development Process in Albemarle

At their meeting today, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors had an important discussion about the County's development process. [Daily Progress coverage] Early in an agenda item on policies related to improving the zoning application process, Ken Boyd (Rivanna) made a proposal to create a high-level “strike force” that would work over 6-12 months to review the community development process from start to finish.  The resulting discussion touched on Crozet, the Glenmore/Rivanna growth area, the neighborhood model, master plans, comprehensive plans, and the overall goal of channeling new development to our population centers. This is probably the most significant exchange I have heard by the Board of Supervisors on these topics. 

The topics they covered are also at the heart of Charlottesville Tomorrow’s mission to share information with the public and to find a common agenda to protect and enhance our community so that growth is well-planned, benefits the community as a whole, and protects the area’s quality of life, rural character, and healthy environment.  The path to quality growth is through a deeper understanding of these issues and viewpoints in the community and I thought good points were made by all.  It was an important conversation that will continue early in 2006.

[Note: Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) was attending another meeting and not present for the discussion]

The audio of this discussion is available via the Charlottesville Tomorrow website.  If you are not a current subscriber to Charlottesville Tomorrow's information, you just need to signup when prompted and provide your email address to get access.

To listen visit:
http://action.cvilletomorrow.org/cvilleaction/publications.html

Brian Wheeler