ZMA 2004-014



ZMA Request

Request to rezone 123.612 acres from PRD (Planned Residential District) to PRD (Planned Residential District) to amend the proffers of ZMA 91-13 and ZMA 95-5 and to amend the Application Plan.  The property, described as Tax Map 32G Parcel 1, Tax Map 32G Section3 Parcel A and Tax Map 32G Section 3 Parcel 83 is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Seminole Trail (Route 29) at the intersection of Seminole Trail and Austin Drive (Route 1575).  The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density Residential in the Piney Mountain Community.  (Attachment A is the location map.)


STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. Gillespie, Mr.Cilimberg

AGENDA DATE:                      ITEM NUMBERS:

Planning Commission,   December 7, 2004

Board of Supervisors,   January 12, 2005


ACTION:                                    INFORMATION:

Yes -











A pre-application conference was held on this item in early 2004.  The rezoning application was submitted on August 16, 2004.  The proposed Application Plan depicting proposed changes to the internal configuration of Briarwood was received by staff on November 18, 2004.  The Planning Commission heard ZMA 2004-14 on December 7, 2004.  The unusually short timeframe between the receipt of the Application Plan and the Planning Commission hearing did not allow staff to conduct the full plan review prior to the Planning Commission meeting. 


At the December 7, 2004 public hearing, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant agree to defer action on this project until outstanding issues could be addressed and the Commission could review the project in final form.  The applicant declined to defer the item.  The Planning Commission then voted 7-0 to recommend denial of the ZMA request, citing the following reasons for their recommendation of denial:


1.      The proposed Application Plan, dated November 18, 2004, was not submitted until after the normal review period had ended.  Comments from reviewers had just been received and the applicant had not had a chance yet to respond to those comments and revise his submittal appropriately. 

2.      An interconnection between Briarwood and Camelot was lost with the proposed changes to Phase 4 on the Application Plan. 

3.      It was unclear what the proposed orientation of buildings along Camelot Drive in Phase 8 would be.

4.      The proposed application plan did not show the existing resource protection area.

5.      The proposed application plan did not provide access to the open spaces on the plan.

6.      At that time, no commitment had been made to the streetscape of the remaining phases, including a commitment to curb and gutter and sidewalks.




Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has submitted a revised Application Plan (dated December 18, 2004) to staff which is Attachment A.  This plan is the applicant's attempt to address staff comments received after the Planning Commission staff report was written.  Specifically, the plan attempts to reconcile the discrepancies between the proposed plan and the previously approved Application Plan. 


Attachment B is the Zoning Review Comments for this plan, dated December 29, 2004.  As these comments indicate, there are several outstanding issues which have not been resolved by this resubmittal.  The comments are written to include all previous zoning comments with the newest comments in bold.  These bold comments relate to the December 18 Application Plan.  The Zoning Comments indicate a need for the applicant to obtain a modification of Section 19.8 to allow a building separation of less than 30 feet be approved as part of the Application Plan.  Due to the recent receipt of this request from the applicant, the request has not been reviewed by Zoning staff for form.  However, Planning staff supports the substance of this request.  Planning staff finds the reduced setbacks to be in keeping with the goals of the Neighborhood Model.   


At this time, Planning staff has not yet received comments from Engineering staff or VDOT.  If any new comments from Engineering staff or VDOT are available at the time of the Board hearing, they will be shared with the Board. 


Staff remains concerned about the discrepancies between the two plans and recommends that the two plans be reconciled into one plan with the notes recommended in the Zoning comments prior to adoption by the Board of Supervisors. 




Since the Planning Commission hearing, the proffers have been edited for form and a fifth proffer has been added to address some confusion over the four (4) adjacent lots owned by Ray Beard.  Due to the recent receipt of these proffers, at this time they have not received a final review by the County Attorney.  Planning staff notes that Proffer #5 should be revised to include all the language of the previous proffer as follows:


Proffer #5 amending Agreement 1 of ZMA 91-13


Approval is for a maximum of 661 dwellings, exclusive of the Ray Beard lots, subject to conditions contained herein.  Locations and acreages of various land uses shall comply with the approved plan.  In the final site plan and subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved.  Primary recreation areas to be owned and maintained through a homeowners association approved by the County Attorney.  Off-street parking and access shall be limited to the recreation area and shown on the Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application and Phasing Plan revised February 7, 1992 and the means to limit such access shall be part of the site plan review;


The addition of the  phase "exclusive of the Ray Beard lots" addresses Zoning's concern about retaining the developability of the four (4) Ray Beard lots as a part of the proposed plan changes. 





The Planning Commission requested that the applicant agree to defer action on this project so that outstanding issues could be addressed and they could review the project in final form.  When the applicant declined to defer, the PC recommended denial of this project by a vote of 7-0 for the reasons stated above.  While the applicant has revised the Application Plan since the Planning Commission hearing, staff has identified remaining outstanding issues related to the consistency between the existing approved Application Plan and the newly proposed Application Plan.  At this time, comments from Engineering staff and VDOT have not been received.  Additionally, the revised proffers have not received a final review by the County Attorney's office.  Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval and recommends deferral until these outstanding issues identified above have been addressed.



A.     Application Plan Received December 18, 2004

B.     Zoning Review Comments Dated December 29, 2004

C.    Modification Request Received January 3, 2005

D.    Amended Proffers Received January 3, 2005

View PC actions letter

View PC staff report and attachments

View PC minutes

Return to regular agenda