Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201900004 Staff Report Zoning Map Amendment 2019-07-30COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: Staff: ZMA201900004 Breezy Hill (PC Work Session) Tim Padalino, AICP Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBD TBD Owner: Carroll Creek Properties LLC; Applicant: Don Franco, PE, Roudabush Gale & Assoc.; Kimco LC; Breezy Hill at Keswick LLC; Hawkins, Charlie Armstrong, Southern Development Clarence M or Beatrice B TMP: 094000000001A0; 09400000000500; DA (Development Area): Village of Rivanna 09400000000600; 09400000000800; Magisterial District: Scottsville 094000000008A0; 094000000008C0; Location: Breezy Hill Lane; South side of Richmond 09400000004800; 094000000048A0 Road (US 250), east of Glenmore Subdivision between Acreage: 84 acres Hacktown Road and Running Deer Drive. Current Zoning: RA Rural Areas; Zoning Overlay Comp. Plan Designation: "Neighborhood Density Districts include Entrance Corridor, Flood Hazard, Residential (Low)" — 2 units or less/acre, and supporting Steep Slopes — (Managed) and — (Preserved) uses such as places of worship, schools, public and By -right use(s): Agricultural, forestal, and fishery institutional uses; "Parks and Green Systems" — parks, uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in playgrounds, play fields, greenways, trails, paths, development lots) recreational facilities and equipment, plazas, outdoor Rezone: From RA to R-4 Residential sitting areas, natural areas, preservation of stream buffers, Proffers: Yes floodplains and steep slopes adjacent to waterways. Character of Property: Primarily rural landscape Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential districts of forest and successional forest, with recreational and uses including the subdivisions of Glenmore, uses currently or formerly occurring in multiple Running Deer, and Rivanna Village; Development Area dwellings with accessory structures, as well as boundary with Rural Areas is in the immediate vicinity agricultural and/or forestal operations; tributary streams drain the subject property into Carroll Creek, which runs along the western boundary. Proposal: Rezone a total of approximately 84 acres from Rural Areas zoning Requested # of district, which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as well as Dwelling Units: 200 (max) residential uses (0.5 unit/acre density), to R4 Residential, which allows Affordable Housing: TBD residential uses (4 units/acre density) with the potential for additional units if AMI: TBD, subject to future bonus factors are applied. 200 residential units (maximum) are proposed at a discussion and voluntary gross density of 2.38 units/acre and a net density of 3.04 units/acre. action by the applicant Staff Recommendations for Each Issue/Question Directed to the Commission: Question 1: Staff believes that new residential development could potentially be appropriate in this location at this time, provided that transportation issues and recommendations as described in the Transportation Planner's July 14 memo are sufficiently addressed by the applicant so as to provide appropriate mitigation of reasonably anticipated impacts. Question 2: Staff recommends that the "Residential Areas" insert and chart should be used for density recommendations in this area, and specifically recommends that a development density of 1 unit/acre (equating to a total of 65 dwelling units) would be appropriate relative to the numerous recommendations in the Master Plan. Question 3: Staff believes it would not be inappropriate to construct only single-family detached dwelling units. Question 4: Staff believes that a monetary contribution to support off -site affordable housing initiatives within the County would be appropriate, in lieu of providing affordable housing on site — provided that such a proffer is eventually voluntarily made (as has been verbally indicated by the applicant), and provided that the amount of the proffered monetary commitment is determined to be sufficient. ZMA 2019-00004 Breezy Hill Albemarle County Planning Commission Work Session: July 30, 2019 STAFF PERSON: Tim Padalino, AICP PLANNING COMMISSION: TBD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD ZMA201900004 Breezy Hill PETITION: PROJECT: ZMA201900004 Breezy Hill MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 094000000001A0; 09400000000500; 09400000000600; 09400000000800; 094000000008A0;094000000008C0;09400000004800;094000000048A0 LOCATION: South side of Richmond Road (US 250), east of Glenmore Subdivision between Hacktown Road and Running Deer Drive. PROPOSAL: Rezone multiple properties for a maximum of 200 residential units. PETITION: Rezone a total of approximately 84 acres from Rural Areas zoning district, which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as well as residential uses (0.5 unit/acre density), to R4 Residential, which allows residential uses (4 units/acre density) with the potential for additional units if bonus factors are applied. 200 residential units (maximum) are proposed at a gross density of 2.38 units/acre and a net density of 3.04 units/acre. OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): ENTRANCE CORRIDOR, FLOOD HAZARD, and STEEP SLOPES — MANAGED and — PRESERVED. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR (EC): Yes PROFFERS: Yes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Village of Rivanna Comp Plan Area. "Neighborhood Density Residential (Low)" — residential (uses 2 units or less/acre) and 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. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE & AREA: The subject property for this Breezy Hill ZMA application includes eight parcels on Tax Map #94 (identified as Parcels #1A, 5, 6, 8, 8A, 8C, 48, and 48A) which total approximately 84 acres and which are within the Village of Rivanna Comprehensive Plan Area (Village) within the Development Area. The subject property is characterized as a primarily rural landscape of forest and successional forest, with recreational uses currently or formerly occurring in multiple dwellings with accessory structures, as well as on -site agricultural and/or forestal operations. Tributary streams drain the subject property into Carroll Creek, which runs along the western boundary towards the Rivanna River. (See Location Maps, Attach. 1.) Surrounding properties within the Village primarily include relatively low -density residential districts and uses including the subdivisions of Glenmore to the west, Running Deer to the south and east, and Rivanna Village to the west. The Development Area boundary with the Rural Areas is in the immediate vicinity, to the east of the subject property. SPECIFICS OF THE ZMA PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to rezone eight Development Area properties totaling approximately 84 acres from RA Rural Areas (which allows residential uses at 0.5 unit/acre density) to R4 Residential (which allows residential uses at 4 units/acre density, with the hypothetical potential for additional units if bonus factors were to be applied). The applicant proposes a maximum total of 200 residential units at a proposed gross density of 2.38 units/acre, and a proposed net density of 3.04 units/acre. (See Project Narrative, Attach. 2.) The proposed Breezy Hill development is shown on the General Development Plan (Attach. 3) as having two entrances — one on US 250 and one on Running Deer Drive, a private street to the east of the proposed project. The locations of proposed areas of disturbance and improvement as well as the locations ZMA 2019-00004 Breezy Hill Albemarle County Planning Commission Work Session: July 30, 2019 of proposed open space areas have a fairly responsive relationship with Carrol Creek and associated riparian areas, floodplains, and steep slopes. The proposed private streets create a semi -interconnected road network, but also rely significantly on the use of multiple cul-de-sacs. The proposal includes a future interparcel connection to the west across Carroll Creek, as well as a multi -use path along the frontage with US 250. The undated Draft Proffer Statement (Attach. 4) that was initially submitted with the ZMA application in April contained four proffers: 1. "Proffered Plan" (improvement and development of the property shall be in general accord with the General Development Plan); 2. "Density Limit" (voluntary commitment to develop a maximum of 200 dwelling units); 3. "Cash Proffer for Capital Improvement Projects"; and 4. "Affordable Housing." At the applicant's request, County staff met with the applicants on July 2 to communicate about potential proffers under the new proffer laws (Code of Virginia § 15.2-2203.4) which went into effect on July 1. At that meeting, the applicant indicated their intentions to substantially revise and resubmit a new proffer statement, with particular emphasis on modification(s) to the commitments expressed in initial draft proffers #3and #4. In addition to the Project Narrative (Attach. 2), the General Development Plan (Attach. 3), and an undated Draft Proffer Statement (Attach. 4), the ZMA application materials include several supplemental exhibits are available for viewing and download from Laserfiche Weblink HERE. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST: The applicant's Project Narrative (Attach. 2) describes a substantial and increasing market demand for the type of new development that the applicant is proposing: large single-family detached units on large lots. The narrative suggests that the proposed project would help provide a new supply of this type of residential properties in a manner and location that reduces development pressure within the Rural Areas while situating new residential uses within a portion of the Development Area "that is specifically designated for development of neighborhood residential low density lots." PURPOSE OF THE WORK SESSION: As noted above and as specified in Zoning Ordinance Section 33.36, Planning Commission work sessions are conducted for the following reasons: for staff to provide the Commission with a brief overview of the proposed project, including a summary analysis of major issues and questions generated by the proposed project; for the Commission to engage staff, the applicants, and interested members of the public regarding those questions and issues outside of a decision -making context; and for the Commission to provide direction on their expectations for how those major issues and questions should be appropriately addressed. The Planning Commission is asked to affirm the conclusions or suggest alternative recommendations as guidance to help the applicant determine next steps. This work session will not only help provide direction for the applicant and staff, but will also provide interpretation of the master plan for the community and for future applications. COMMUNITY MEETING: The Community Meeting for this proposed project was held on Monday, June 24, 2019 during a meeting of the Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Committee (VORCAC). Attendees representing Albemarle County included County Supervisor Rick Randolph, David Benish (Interim Director of Planning and Chief of Planning), and Tori Kanellopoulos (Senior Planner). A large number of interested members of the public attended the community meeting. The issues and concerns addressed during the meeting are identified in the Community Meeting Notes (Attach. 5). Many of the concerns raised by the community are included as questions within this report. ZMA 2019-00004 Breezy Hill Albemarle County Planning Commission Work Session: July 30, 2019 Following the community meeting, there has continued to be a large number of interested members of the public. An email update group has been established to quickly notify a large number of community members about upcoming public meetings or other notable project updates. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Future Land Use Map in the Village of Rivanna Master Plan (Master Plan) identifies the majority of the subject property as being designated for "Neighborhood Density Residential — Low" uses (shown in pale yellow). Additionally, the Plan recommends "Parks and Green Systems" uses in multiple areas (shown in green), including the riparian areas associated with Carrol Creek as well as a recommended buffer strip of primarily undeveloped land along the subject property's frontage with US 250. ayOeU sa^dmw�apyaw�w-ire. o�a�v�nbn �i,nyyct��•paw+w��s.O V�Y�^aaa�E[✓daRee aittpenerJini�r.�Sm My+^Osnoi mp3�r4 a�mem 9a•�sr.3»m yw�s'fona.�m.-powma��a�o reav�vary. «�e�nocapa��oe�r�*.esc. Ma��t. %��9 Map 1. This map shows the easternmost portion of the Village of Rivanna Land Use Plan, with the Breezy Hill subject properties highlighted with a gold outline. ZMA 2019-00004 Breezy Hill Albemarle County Planning Commission Work Session: July 30, 2019 80-OA 80-63 4023 � 80-63A 80-56 4036 80-566 '80-6JB 80-49 80-5 FA 381] 80-56At 1893.18 sq R - 401] 4009 2.51 acres 80-64A 4088 3934 0,02 "a cores er0axy h{i/ 8508•l s9ft 38]5 - CR 1,95 acres 94 5344 s9 k 2009� s9 k 3995 -_ q -'4130 -4 0,12 acres 0.46 a 3983 415.0, GffT 405] ]3 4 1 94 3 5]]156 sq ft � 94-BA 18,25 asre+s 944]A 41Y 93A4-- _ 948 9Y37 5 1340 94-48A 4A6A 1360 94-5 94-49B Q< 8] 94-49C -�' c= 1400 cic90 ,� 9n 8c 94-6 3100 94] � _ 3135 ioe 948E 3]35 p 4� 3050 3040 94-BE 94-IA 30]5 H'fdrRSL 44-8❑ 949 91-�� 2 1435 1450 311] 9Y10 94-11A 3008 9151 9f-la AO 94-12 C 1 Exhibit 1. GIS-Web was used to identify and quantify the portions of the subject property designated as "Parks and Green Systems" on the Future Land Use Plan. The total area of the subject property with this designation (shown in dark green) is approximately 18.31 acres. The Future Land Use Plan designates the remaining approximately 65.69 acres of the subject property as "Neighborhood Density Residential — Low." The following aspects of the proposal appear to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and/or Village of Rivanna Master Plan: 1. Trail/Multi-Use Path proposed along US 250, as recommended in the Future Transportation Network section of the Master Plan. 2. Semi -Public Open Spaces are proposed along Carroll Creek and its tributaries, as recommended in the Parks and Green Systems Plan in the Master Plan. 3. Vehicular entrances from US 250 and Running Deer Drive are generally sited in locations recommended on the Future Land Use Plan (Detail Map 2) in the Master Plan. 4. Two future interparcel connections are proposed, including one in a location that is recommended on the Future Land Use Plan (Detail Map 2) in the Master Plan. The aspects of this proposal which do not appear to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and/or Village of Rivanna Master Plan, and/or which require review and direction by the Commission, are discussed below. MAJOR ISSUES & QUESTIONS REQUIRING PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION: The major issues and questions generated by the proposed Breezy Hill project are listed below, inclusive of staff commentary to help provide the Commission with the necessary context and focus for each issue. The Village of Rivanna Master Plan (Master Plan), amended June 10, 2015, is available HERE. Question 1: Should all of the recommended improvements to transportation infrastructure and water/sewer infrastructure be implemented prior to any development occurring through rezoning? Staff requests that the Commission provide direction on the Master Plan recommendations involving the relationship between the (potential) approval of any future development through rezoning and the ZMA 2019-00004 Breezy Hill Albemarle County Planning Commission Work Session: July 30, 2019 5 adequacy of infrastructure to accommodate such additional development. Specifically, the following language establishes the (potential) appropriateness of rezoning land in the Village of Rivanna as being dependent on the completion of certain infrastructure improvements and upgrades: • Implementation — Population Capacity and Future Rezonings (Master Plan p. 43): `Additional development in the Village currently is limited by Rural Areas zoning on most undeveloped parcels and the capacity of the sewage treatment plant which was installed for the Village. Although the treatment plant is currently operating at a little more than a third of its capacity, dwelling units which have already been approved plus the non-residential uses in the Village Center will use much of the remaining capacity. The actual number of additional units which may be approved for development in the future depends on the capacity of the sewage treatment plant. An additional 300 to 400 new units may be possible, if water and sewer usage in the Glenmore development continues at the same usage. Monitoring of available capacity is essential for any future development. If in the future, the Board of Supervisors decides that additional capacity is needed in this Development Area, then major upgrades will be needed for the sewage treatment facility. In addition to sewer limitations, approval of any development by rezoning will be predicated on the completion of a number of transportation improvements, which are identified in the tables in this chapter. These improvements are needed to improve the volume to capacity ratio of US 250 between Route 22 (Louisa Road) and the City of Charlottesville." • Implementation — Transportation (Master Plan p. 43): 'Addressing traffic issues on US 250 is the highest priority for the Village of Rivanna. Several regional projects identified in the next few pages are necessary to address future growth in a larger area, but also affect the Village of Rivanna. It is essential that all of the US 250 improvements be constructed before new development occurs in the Village." • Timing of Development (Master Plan Executive Summary p. 7): `Approval of future development proposals should occur simultaneously with or follow provision of adequate infrastructure. " ... 'Approval of future development should be monitored in conjunction with improvements to US 250 and available sewer capacity so that approval of new units or uses does not exceed capacity of the sewage treatment plant or the road system." Regarding water and sewer infrastructure capacity: CDD staff has conducted an interdivisional review of this ZMA application with the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA), who has in turn coordinated with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA). Alexander J. Morrison, Senior Civil Engineer with ACSA, concluded his evaluation of this proposed project by providing the following review comments: "There is no water capacity issues that would restrict the rezoning and development of Breezy Hill. The ACSA conducted a study on the existing wastewater plant serving Glenmore and the surrounding community. During this study, the ACSA took into account the approved Village of Rivanna Master Plan and applied additional density factors to the undeveloped areas. The ACSA has concluded that there are no wastewater capacity issues associated with the full buildout of the Village of Rivanna Master Plan. In summary, there are no capacity issues for water or wastewater related to the Breezy Hill ZMA. " Reaardina transportation infrastructure caoacity and improvements identified in the Master Plan: Mr. Kevin McDermott, Principal Planner — Transportation, has provided a memorandum (Attach. 6) with detailed comments regarding each of the six transportation improvement projects identified in the Master Plan, as well as commentary on the ZMA proposal and the associated Traffic Impact Study as submitted by EPR, P.C. (dated March 2, 2018 and available in full for viewing and download from Laserfiche Weblink HERE). (See Traffic Impact Study (pp. 1-20), Attach. 7.) ZMA 2019-00004 Breezy Hill Albemarle County Planning Commission Work Session: July 30, 2019 Staff acknowledges that a strict reading of the Master Plan would suggest that no additional development through rezoning would be appropriate unless and until the identified transportation improvement projects are implemented. However, as Mr. McDermott's memo explains, staff has identified feasibility issues with some of the projects that were recommended in 2010 and again in 2015 but which are currently unbuilt, unfunded, and/or not prioritized. For example, Mr. McDermott's memo states that "Four-laning this entire segment of US 250 is neither feasible nor recommended." Mr. McDermott's memo also notes that "The TIA estimated trip generation from the proposed development shows 1,922 new daily trips and 143 and 193 new trips in the AM and PM peak hours respectively. While these trips represent a somewhat low percentage of the existing trips in the US 250 Corridor they are not insignificant numbers." (See Traffic Impact Study (pp. 1-20), Attach. 7.) Mr. McDermott concluded his memo as follows: 'Although the impacts of the proposed development are minimal, there is an identified impact. The VoR Master Plan is clear in its statement that "It is essential that all of the US 250 improvements be constructed before new development occurs. "Many of the previously recommended improvements may no longer be recommended because of changes in travel patterns and new strategies to address transportation issues. However, capacity and safety improvements on US 250 between 1-64 and Route 22 remain a high priority and no significant improvements have been made to this segment of US 250 since the approval of the Master Plan. The proposed development would add a potentially noticeable number of new trips to this segment and therefore this issue should be addressed to meet the Master Plan directive. The Milton Rd and Black Cat intersections with US 250 also continue to be unaddressed problems that this development has some, albeit minor, potential to impact and should be considered secondary issues to be considered in this rezoning." In addition to the above, it should be noted that the VoR Master Plan states that 'Approval of future development proposals should occur simultaneously with or follow provision of adequate infrastructure. " This and other recommendations were based on a set of assumptions during the Master Plan process — one of which was that the "Rivanna Village" development (which was approved, but unbuilt, at the time of the Master Plan adoption) would be built out to include a total of 521 dwelling units. However, after adoption of the Master Plan, Rivanna Village was subsequently rezoned such that a maximum of 400 dwelling units could be built (per ZMA200300012). This resulted in the Village of Rivanna Comp Plan Area containing 121 fewer dwelling units than was assumed at the time the County was developing long- range land use and transportation recommendations during the Village of Rivanna Master Plan process. Staff acknowledges that the reduction in dwelling units within the Rivanna Village project could be considered as units that are currently unaccounted for, with regards to the anticipated capacity of the transportation network infrastructure as well as the recommended transportation improvement projects. In summary, staff recommends that the Commission carefully consider the Transportation Planner's updated context and updated recommendations in lieu of a strict reading and strict interpretation of the Master Plan language that recommends against approval of any new development through rezoning unless and until the identified transportation improvement projects are constructed, and also consider the fact that the Rivanna Village development was rezoned to include 121 few dwelling units. Accordingly, Staff believes that new residential development could potentially be appropriate in this location at this time, provided that transportation issues and recommendations as described in the Transportation Planner's July 14 memo are sufficiently addressed by the applicant so as to provide appropriate mitigation of reasonably anticipated impacts. Question 2: What is the appropriate density for residential development at Breezy Hill? The "Village of Rivanna Land Use Plan" (Master Plan p. 31) designates the subject properties for "Neighborhood Density Residential — Low" future land uses. This designation recommends 2 dwelling units/acre, which equates to 168 units (using gross density) or 131 units (using net density, after factoring out areas designated for "Parks and Green Systems" on the Future Land Use Plan — see Exhibit 1). This designation also supports (accessory) uses such as places of worship, schools, public and institutional uses. The large majority of the Village of Rivanna Comp Plan Area is also designated with a ZMA 2019-00004 Breezy Hill Albemarle County Planning Commission Work Session: July 30, 2019 recommended density of 2 dwelling units/acre, including all of Glenmore subdivision, as shown below: r VILLAGE OF RIVANNA LANDUSE PLAN QOevdoprnenr Area B,mdorles Vlliope Ca 9-1., sl e _ -I— Prmory Roods N,IuRbah• d De oy N,ide lid Lw a Wriwri4-ol S -.10r Wn1, "Id —'— Sh. du Rand. Nelghhorhmd ❑-11y RcaRlonnola Pnrk, and Green 5ysi r' RMlroadr '\ Other R—d, Village of Rivanna Land Use Plan, as shown in the Village of Rivanna Master Plan (Master Plan p.31). However, the "Residential Areas" section of Chapter 4 contains a different recommendation for development density within "Area B", which is a portion of the Village of Rivanna Comp Plan Area that contains the Breezy Hill subject properties. (Please note that Area B contains additional acreage that is not included in the subject property for this ZMA application.) This "Residential Areas" section states that "Area 8 will have the lowest density of this Development Area. Single-family detached homes on medium or small lots are expected." A corresponding chart identifies "a possible mixture of density for these three areas," including Area B. The chart includes recommended density levels as well as a specific number of recommended dwelling units for each area. For Area B, the chart specifically recommends residential development at a density of 1 unit/acre, which would equate to 65 units (using net density, after factoring out areas designated for "Parks and Green Systems" on the Future Land Use Plan). ZMA 2019-00004 Breezy Hill Albemarle County Planning Commission Work Session: July 30, 2019 klow R� 13lamo Wil s0 3. . _ ning IM 16i1 9Br Dr. Cmk Acres Density dwellings Additional Population Area A 94 3 dwellings 237 600 per acre Area B 115 1 dwelling per 115 244 acre Area C 24 2 dwellings 48 102 per acre Totals 233 400 846 "Residential Areas" insert and chart in Chapter 4 ("Future Land Use and Transportation') of the Village of Rivanna Master Plan (Master Plan p.26). In summary, when considering the appropriateness of future residential development solely in terms of development density, staff emphasizes that the "Neighborhood Density Residential — Low" future land use designation (and corresponding density recommendation of 2 units/acre) has been provided for most of the Village of Rivanna Comp Plan Area, including Glenmore; and staff also emphasizes that "Area B" is recommended to have "the lowest density of this Development Area" and is elsewhere specifically recommended for a density of 1 unit/acre. Therefore, in consideration of the multiple layers of recommendations that are contained in the Master Plan, staff recommends that the "Residential Areas" insert and chart should be used for density recommendations in this area, and specifically recommends that a development density of 1 unit/acre (equating to a total of 65 dwelling units) would be appropriate relative to the numerous recommendations in the Master Plan. Question 3: Should a varietv of housing twes (such as townhomes and single-familv detached) be provided within the development. or should only sinale-familv detached dwellina be provided? The Master Plan's Executive Summary contains a section titled "Residential Uses and Mixture of Housing Types" (Master Plan p. 5), which includes a recommendation that "A mix of housing types will be provided with the greatest variety of types being in the Village Center." However, that same section also recommends that "Developed land on the east side of Carroll Creek is not expected to change in character, as it provides for a transition to the Rural Areas;" and "Density will radiate from the Village Center with the lowest densities at the edges of the Development Area;" and "Future development is expected to be at a size and scale compatible with existing neighborhoods within the Village of Rivanna." Additionally, Chapter 4 ("Future Land Use and Transportation") contains a section titled "Residential Areas" which states the following: "Area 8 will have the lowest density of this Development Area. Single-family detached homes on medium or small lots are expected." Considering the Master Plan's Executive Summary recommendations about character and density on the east side of Carroll Creek, and considering that the Master Plan states that Area B (containing Breezy Hill) is expected to develop with single family detached dwellings, and considering the proximity of this proposed development to the existing Running Deer neighborhood which is listed as being "expected to retain their low -density character," Staff believes it would not be inappropriate for only single-family detached dwelling units to be provided in Breezy Hill. Alternatively, a case could be made that other dwelling unit types (including single-family attached dwelling units, duplexes, or townhouses) would be appropriate, if such units were located on the northern and/or western portions of the proposed development nearest Carroll Creek and the Village Center, and if only single-family detached dwellings are located in the central and eastern portions of the development in closer proximity to the Running Deer neighborhood. A mixture of housing types in such an arrangement would be consistent with the Master Plan language recommending "A mix of housing types ... with the greatest variety of types being in the Village Center" and "Density will radiate from the Village Center with the lowest densities at the edges of the Development Areas." ZMA 2019-00004 Breezy Hill Albemarle County Planning Commission Work Session: July 30, 2019 Question 4: Could monetary contributions to off -site affordable housing initiatives within the County address the affordable housing policy? During the meeting with the applicants on July 2 to communicate about potential proffers under the new proffer laws, the applicants communicated with Community Development staff, including Mrs. Stacy Pethia, Principal Planner — Housing, regarding different potential scenarios for how the proposed Breezy Hill project can address the issue of affordable housing. The applicant noted that the location of the development does not have public transportation available; and further indicated that they would be agreeable to proffer a monetary contribution to support other affordable housing efforts within the County (specifically the Southwood redevelopment project) in lieu of providing affordable housing on -site. While no such proffer has been provided to staff to date, Mrs. Pethia has indicated that such a monetary contribution to support off -site affordable housing efforts could be appropriate and acceptable, in lieu of incorporating affordable units, smaller lots, or other elements of affordability on -site — if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors are agreeable to such a proffer, and if the amount of the proffered monetary commitment is determined to be sufficient. Therefore, based in part on the lack of public transit options available on or near the development, and based in part on the scale of other ongoing affordable housing initiatives in the County including one that has been identified by the Board of Supervisors as a priority project, Staff believes that a monetary contribution to support off -site affordable housing initiatives within the County would be appropriate, in lieu of providing affordable housing on site — provided that such a proffer is eventually voluntarily made (as has been verbally indicated by the applicant), and provided that the amount of the proffered monetary commitment is determined to be sufficient. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EACH ISSUE/QUESTION DIRECTED TO THE COMMISSION: Question 1: Staff believes that new residential development could potentially be appropriate in this location at this time, provided that transportation issues and recommendations as described in the Transportation Planner's July 14 memo are sufficiently addressed by the applicant so as to provide appropriate mitigation of reasonably anticipated impacts. Question 2: Staff recommends that the "Residential Areas" insert and chart should be used for density recommendations in this area, and specifically recommends that a development density of 1 unit/acre (equating to a total of 65 dwelling units) would be appropriate relative to the numerous recommendations in the Master Plan. Question 3: Staff believes it would not be inappropriate for only single-family detached dwelling units to be provided in Breezy Hill. Question 4: Staff believes that a monetary contribution to support off -site affordable housing initiatives within the County would be appropriate, in lieu of providing affordable housing on site — provided that such a proffer is eventually voluntarily made (as has been verbally indicated by the applicant), and provided that the amount of the proffered monetary commitment is determined to be sufficient. The Planning Commission is asked to affirm these conclusions, or suggest alternative recommendations, as guidance to help the applicant determine next steps. This work session will not only help provide direction for the applicant and staff, but will also provide interpretation of the Master Plan for the community and for future applications. ATTACHMENTS: 1 — Location Maps 2 — Project Narrative (4115119) 3 — "General Development Plan" concept plan (4/26/19) 4 — Draft Proffer Statement (5110119) 5 — Community Meeting Notes (6124119) 6 — Review Comments from Mr. Kevin McDermott, Principal Planner — Transportation (7114119) 7 — Traffic Impact Study (excerpt / pp. 1-20) (312118) ZMA 2019-00004 Breezy Hill Albemarle County Planning Commission Work Session: July 30, 2019 Its]