Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-11Tentative BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T E N T A T I V E NOVEMBER 11, 2014 5:00 P.M. - LANE AUDITORIUM COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1. Call to Order. 2. 5:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. - Work Session: CPA-2013-01. Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment, to begin with public comments and possible Board direction. Elaine Echols, Principal Planner. · Development Areas Recess: 6:30 – 7:00 p.m. 3. 7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. – Continuation of Work Session to include public comments and possible Board direction. 4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 5. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 6. Adjourn to November 12, 2014, 4:00 p.m., Room 241. CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page Return to County Home Page file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/1111/0.0_Agenda.htm [10/6/2020 7:01:14 PM] BOS – CPA 2013-01 November 11, 2014 Page 1 of 4 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Chapter 8 Development Areas, STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, Echols PRESENTER (S): Elaine Echols LEGAL REVIEW: No AGENDA DATE: November 11, 2014 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission’s recommended Comprehensive Plan has been provided in the draft dated January 23, 2014 and previously provided to the Board of Supervisors. The Comprehensive Plan may be found online here: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/Comp_Plan_2013/ Comp_Plan_Round_3/Table_of_Contents_Final_1-23-14.pdf. Recommendations regarding focused topics and information since the Commission’s actions have also been identified for the Board’s consideration. This work session is the eighth in the series of detailed Comprehensive Plan chapter reviews based on the Board’s agreed upon review schedule which can be found here: http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=17151 The Board’s direction to date has been recorded in Action Memos from Board meetings at which the topic was discussed. STRATEGIC PLAN ASPIRATIONS: Development Area: Attract quality employment, commercial, and high density residential uses into development areas by providing services and infrastructure that encourage redevelopment and private investment while protecting the quality of neighborhoods. Economic Development: Foster an environment that stimulates diversified job creation, capital investments, and tax revenues that support community goals. Critical Infrastructure: Prioritize, plan and invest in critical infrastructure that responds to past and future changes and improves the capacity to serve community needs. Natural Resources: Thoughtfully protect and manage Albemarle County’s ecosystems and natural resources in both the rural and development areas to safeguard the quality of life of current and future generations DISCUSSION: At the November 11, 2014 meeting, the Board will continue its review of Chapter 8: The Development Areas. Specific topics to be discussed include:  The Neighborhood Model, including Neighborhood Model Design Guidance and Land Use Guidelines;  Facilitating infill development, including redevelopment;  Neighborhood Preservation and Public Investment;  Priority Areas; and  Urban Agriculture. AGENDA TITLE: CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment November 11, 2014 BOS – CPA 2013-01 November 11, 2014 Page 2 of 4 A link to staff reports and the Planning Commission’s discussions on the Development Areas may be found here: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board_of_Supervisors /Forms/Agenda/2014Files /1007/02.1_CompPlanAttachA.pdf A link to their recommended Development Areas chapter can be found here: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/Comp_Plan_2 013/Comp_Plan_Round_3/08_Chapter_Development_Areas_final%201-23-14.pdf A link to the associated Appendices:  Neighborhood Model Design Guidance  Recommended Guidelines for Setbacks, Sidewalks, and Urban Streets  Land Use Design Guidelines can be found here: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/Comp_Plan_2 013/Comp_Plan_Round_3/A.8_Appendix_Development_Area_Final_1-23-14.pdf Detailed information is provided below:  Achieving high quality development through application of the Neighborhood Model Principles (pages 8.15 – 8.28) and Neighborhood Model Design Guidance ([ages A.8.3 – A.8.28) In recognizing the numerous neighborhoods and mixed use developments that have been approved and have proceeded to development since the adoption of the Neighborhood Model (NM) in 2001, the Planning Commission retained the Principles almost in their entirety. They did add a Principle for multi-modalism, which replaced a Principle related to neighborhood-friendly streets and paths which the Commission believed had been met when the County adopted ordinance requirements for sidewalks and provision of street trees. The Neighborhood Model provides many pages of illustrated design guidance which have been used as references for ordinance amendments and project development since 2001. In the recommended Comprehensive Plan draft, this design guidance is updated using information from the existing Neighborhood Model and Places 29. It includes as many local examples as possible that represent the desired form of development. Staff comment: The Planning Commission endorsed the changes in this Appendix. It is pr ovided mainly for the Board’s information. More discussion on the NM principle of redevelopment is discussed later in this report.  Facilitating infill development, including redevelopment of existing building or new development on vacant and underutilized land (pages 8.28 – 8.29) Infill is a method to make greater utility of undeveloped land that is surrounded by development and utilize existing urban infrastructure rather than further expanding the Development Areas and providing the new infrastructure necessary to support it. Infill can take the form of a single use or mixed use. It can be residential, non-residential, or a mixture of both. Infill usually takes place on smaller, scattered tracts of land. It presents particular challenges because such sites often have constraints that complicate their development and can have more immediate impacts on existing neighborhoods than greenfield development. and  Redevelopment (page 8.26) The 10th principle of the Neighborhood Model promotes redevelopment as a way to maximize use of existing urban infrastructure and lessen the need to expand the Development Areas. Redevelopment provides the added benefit of improving existing properties and making them more attractive for users. Redevelopment opportunities are ripe in places such as underperforming shopping centers, buildings that have reached the end of their economic life, deteriorating mobile home parks, and residential neighborhoods experiencing AGENDA TITLE: CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment November 11, 2014 BOS – CPA 2013-01 November 11, 2014 Page 3 of 4 vacancy, maintenance and/or crime issues. Particularly as regards redeveloped residential areas, the resulting improved conditions can lead to the displacement of lower income residents. One of the biggest challenges with redevelopment is the cost. Typically, new development on vacant land is less expensive than redevelopment. Redevelopment can have similar impacts to neighborhoods as infill. In Charlottesville, redevelopment is promoted for greater intensity of use and greater density of development. Staff comment: Infill and redevelopment provide both challenges and opportunities within the Development Areas. Supervisors Shifflett and McKeel provided an email to the rest of the Board related to infill and redevelopment, which is provided as Attachment A. Attachment B provides additional comment on these topics along with suggestions for additional strategies.  Neighborhood Preservation and Public Investment (pages 8.7, 8.26, 8.28-8.31) Neighborhood preservation is a topic which is raised in the Comprehensive Plan in conjunction with designating new Villages (page 8.7), redevelopment (page 8.26), and infill (pages 8.28 – 8.29). Neighborhood preservation is also considered when new land use designations are considered for properties during the Master Plan process, when requests are made for changes in land use designations with Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPAs), and when boundaries of Development Areas are assessed with each Master Plan update. Recommendations for public investment in infrastructure, such as road improvement projects, sidewalks, and libraries, are provided in several sections of the Comprehensive Plan draft. Objective 7 (page 8.30) describes a desire to match infrastructure availability and capacity when approving new development s. Strategies to ensure that improvements are available for new development are found on pages 8.30 – 8.31 in conjunction with designation of priority areas. Staff Comment: To date almost all of the Plan’s emphasis has been placed on retaining the fabr ic and characteristics of existing neighborhoods and reducing negative impacts from new development. There have been no descriptions of or strategies for improving existing neighborhoods. This topic has been raised by Supervisors Sheffield and McKeel as needing additional discussion.  Priority Areas (pages 8.30 and 8.31; also page A.8.70 of the proposed Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan) Priority areas are places in the Development Areas where opportunities for infill, redevelopment and/or greenfield development are particularly good/important and can be most effectively supported by existing and planned infrastructure and services. The concept of priority areas first appeared with the Pantops Master Plan in 2008. The 2010 Crozet Master Plan, the Places29 Master Plan, and the proposed Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan all now identify priority areas. (The Village of Rivanna Master Plan did not provide any opportunities for internal priority areas because Glenmore occupies the majority of the Village and new development is very limited.) Priority areas were also envisioned as preferred areas for public investment in facilities and services as well as locations particularly suitable for rezoning consistent with master plan recommendations. Two of the priority areas identified in the Pantops Master Plan and the Places29 Master Plan became designated as Urban Development Areas (UDAs) when the state mandated designation of UDAs in 2011. Staff Comment: The Board of Supervisors asked staff to highlight the information above on priority areas. This information may be useful for future discussions related to the proffer policy.  Urban Agriculture (pages 8.32 and 8.33) Across the country, more people are paying attention to where their food comes from and how it is produced. This in turn has led to more citizens interested in participating in their own local food production, with emphasis on food and products that are grown organically, locally, and sustainably. Local food production is supported in the County's Comprehensive Plan, but mainly in the Rural Areas. Over the past several years, however, a number of residents have asked for permission to keep chickens, pigs, or goats in Albemarle's Development Areas. This topic was identified for study in 2011 at the beginning of the update process. AGENDA TITLE: CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment November 11, 2014 BOS – CPA 2013-01 November 11, 2014 Page 4 of 4 Staff Comment: Staff prepared a detailed staff report for the July 24, 2012 Planning Commission meeting (link provided at the beginning of this report). It provided background on ways in which urban agriculture (mostly through the keeping of hens, milk goats, and bees) occurs in some localities and issues for discussion in Albemarle. While the Planning Commission supported allowing community gardening in the Development Areas, it was not convinced that agricultural activities involving animals or livestock were appropriate for the Development Areas. They recommended that such agricultural activities be studied to see if there are ways to allow for urban agriculture without harming the safety, welfare, and enjoyment of adjoining property owners.  Additional Information After the Board’s October 7 worksession on the Development Areas, the Village of Rivanna (VOR) Advisory Council met to recommend a final set of changes to the text of the Plan regarding the measurement of density, expectations for density in Village Centers, and additional expectations for consideration of the needs and wishes of persons already living and owning property in an area, should new Villages be designated or expanded. Attachment C contains the VOR Advisory Council’s final recommendations. Most of these requests were included in the staff report for October 7 and the Board provided direction, as indicated in the Action Memo found here: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board_of_Supervisors/Form s/Ac tion_Letters/2014_Actions/10072014actions.pdf. Some of the additional wording changes can be included as part of the edits to this Chapter; however, other requested changes are substantive. These changes normally would be discussed during the next Master Plan update for the Village of Rivanna. Staff offers no additional recommendations, but has provided Attachment C for the Board’s information. BUDGET IMPACT: Recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan Draft include recommendations for future capital improvements and operations. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Board is asked to identify any substantive changes to the recommendations herein presented and concur on those changes, focusing on content rather than wordsmithing. Staff will then make any necessary changes and bring them back to the Board for its approval prior to its public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Email from Brad Sheffield to the Board of Supervisors, dated October 6, 2014 Attachment B: Infill and Redevelopment Attachment C: Recommendations from Village of Rivanna Advisory Council Meeting October 20, 2014 Return to agenda 1 of 1 Attachment A BOS 11-11-14 Attachment A 1 of 2 Attachment B BOS 11-11-14 ATTACHMENT B Infill and Redevelopment Infill Along with increasing densities and redevelopment, infill was identified in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan as an important aspect of using the County’s Development Areas more efficiently and effectively. The Neighborhood Model came about because of the need for guidance in creating urban neighborhoods and places where residents would want to live. Strong design guidance was provided in the Neighborhood Model for constructing new development that was both c ompatible with, yet potentially more dense than existing development. In both the 1996 Plan and the Neighborhood Model, caution was provided that infill and redevelopment must be sensitive to the neighborhoods and uses that surround a new development project. A recent residential infill proposal, Northfield Green, provides an example of both the positive and negative aspects of infill. The Northfield Green proposal was a rezoning request for 2.62 acres from R-2 zoning (2 dwellings/acre) to NMD (Neighborhood Model District 3 – 34 units/acre). The developer wanted to put 13 new attached and detached homes on a small parcel within an existing neighborhood of single family homes. By-right, the property could have supported 4 new houses. The proposal was met with opposition by nearby and adjoining property owners. Their concerns included the appropriateness of this high a level of density in an established suburban neighborhood, compatibility of design of buildings with existing homes, environmental impacts due to the amount of cut and fill that would be needed because of the steep terrain, and how sewer lines would affect their septic tanks. In addition, they felt that the project would create additional traffic and make their roads unsafe, negatively affect their home values, and interrupt their quality of life during construction. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning, in part because the proposal did not preserve the character of the existing neighborhood. Additionally, the developer offered no way to mitigate impacts of the proposal on public services and infrastructure. The applicant subsequently requested indefinite deferral. The concerns raised by this neighborhood are similar to concerns raised by many neighborhoods when new development occurs nearby, particularly when infill is proposed on vacant lots within established neighborhoods. Because vacant undeveloped land is typically costly to develop, often due to physical conditions, developers often seek greater density. While some existing residents may oppose any level of development, often changes such as reducing the density or intensity of a proposed development (in the example above) providing additional landscaping, or ensuring more sensitive are sought by the public. Infill and redevelopment will be increasingly important for the Development Areas to accommodate growth. Determining the appropriate balance of the scale of new development with the character of surrounding areas is extremely important to the future success of the Development Areas. Staff Recommendation: Knowing that issues related to infill development likely will continue to increase, staff believes that a strategy should be added to develop guidelines for developers. These guidelines would provide ways in which infill can occur to facilitate development and increase density without creating detrimental impacts to the character, appearance and function of existing neighborhoods. Redevelopment Redevelopment has similarities to infill. The intensity of a redeveloped site can cause concerns from nearby property owners because of potential impacts from a change in use. However, redevelopment also provides an opportunity to clean up old and deteriorating properties, provide for additional density in areas where utilities and infrastructure are in place, provide a mixture of uses, and facilitate business and economic development consistent with target industry priorities. Because of the expense of redevelopment, it is often not the first choice for new and expanding businesses. Clearing existing developed sites and/or building around existing buildings can be 2 of 2 Attachment B BOS 11-11-14 complicated and challenging. Retrofitting existing buildings can be cost-prohibitive. Old buildings can have asbestos or other hazardous materials that need to be mitigated. With historic properties, making changes that create functionality in a building while retaining its integrity can be challenging. All of these issues point to the need to explore ways in which the County can facilitate redevelopment. Staff Recommendation: As with infill, more study is needed on ways in which the County can both promote and achieve redevelopment in its designated Development Areas. Public/private partnerships, economic incentives, and City-County-UVA joint efforts may be ways in which redevelopment can be supported by the County. Staff recommends that the Board add a strategy to the Plan focused on studying techniques and measures to achieve successful redevelopment. 1 of 3 Attachment C BOS 11-11-14 ATTACHMENT C Final Recommended Changes to the Comprehensive Plan Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council October 20, 2014 Page 8.3: Vision: 3 “Expectations for the Development Areas include: As written: Development at the higher end of the density range as recommended on the Master Plans… Change to: Development at the higher end of the density range as recommended on the Master Plans should be calculated on net developable acreage, not on gross acreage, where the site to be developed includes unbuildable acreage containing such features as ponds, wetlands, critical slopes, intermittent streams, or other features protected by law. Page 8.10: As written: Encourage and support development at the higher end of the density range as recommended on the Master Plans. Change to: Development at the higher end of the density range should be encouraged should be based and calculated on net developable acreage. Page 8.11, Strategy 2b: 6. As written: Work with developers to build at the higher end of the density range, provided that development will be in keeping with design recommendations from the Neighborhood Model. Change to: Developers should be encourage to build at the higher end of the density range on net developable acreage, and such development must be in keeping with design recommendations from the Neighborhood Model. Villages: Page 8.7 Similar to the satellite communities, villages are located away from the City, however, due to their large residential component, villages are not able to operate independently. Residential density is expected to be lower than in the urban neighborhoods and communities. The range of uses, as well as provision of a variety of goods and services, is much less than what is expected in the urban neighborhoods and communities. Employment centers are not anticipated, and industrial uses are not recommended. The Village of Rivanna Master Plan 2 of 3 Attachment C BOS 11-11-14 describes the expectation for this village. In general, villages are expected to have a variety of housing types, including single family, two -family and townhouse units, and garden apartments. Overall density of the areas designated for development should not exceed six (6) dwellings per net acre; however, higher density in some areas village centers can be provided if lower density is provided in other areas to result in an average of no more than six (6) units per net developable acre. The village center is expected to have neighborhood scale services, including such as convenience shopping, other general retail and service uses, medical and professional offices, and senior living. In addition, restaurants and small lodging facilities such as inns, are anticipated. Villages are to be linked to the urban neighborhoods and the City of Charlottesville by multimodal roads with adequate capacity to safely and efficiently move residents conveniently between the village and the urban core. This guideline reflects a concern for using, but not overloading the County’s main roads (minor collector and local) and a concern that minor roads (minor collector and local) to the point that they are not become subjected to traffic loads which they cannot tolerate, or which alters their character over time. In addition, villages should be served by more than one major road to provide for better access to and from the urban neighborhoods. At present , there is only one designated village; Currently, The Village of Rivanna is the only designated village in the County; its Master Plan was adopted on May 10, 2010, and is part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Master Plan can be found here (provide link). However, if a Development Area expansion were ever needed, a future village might be designated. Future villages should be located at places where, historically, a settlement has existed, and public sewer and water is available. The proposed design should be a logical and harmonious outgrowth of what currently remains of that settlement. Within a proposed village, new development should emulate historic regional patterns of village density and design such that the feel of a traditional village is created. Neighborhood Model principles should be applied to new development in a village. When new villages are designated or the boundaries of existing villages are expanded, the decision should take into consideration ways to protect surrounding properties. In particular, the impact of the plan on existing development should be emphasized. It is expected that consideration will be given to the needs and wishes of those persons already living and owning property in the area. Major consideration must be given to protecting surrounding properties from the impact of high density development. Any development near the boundaries of a village should be sensitive to the existing 3 of 3 Attachment C BOS 11-11-14 character of the surrounding Rural Area. The impact of the plan on existing development should be sensitive to the character of surrounding Rural Areas and major consideration should be given to the needs and wishes of those persons already living and owning property in the the area. The effect on existing transportation infrastructure should also be a major consideration in permitting the development.