HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200500018 Staff Report 2006-09-28COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 05-18 Wickham Pond — Phase II
Staff: Claudette Grant
Planning Commission Public Hearing: July 11, 2006
Board of Supervisors Hearing: September
13, 2006
Owners: Barnes -Crozet LLC (C/O Charlotte B.
Applicant: Weatherhill Development, with Timmons
Dammann)
Group as the consulting engineer
Acreage: 19.69 Acres
Rezone from: RA Rural Areas (existing zoning) to
NMD Neighborhood Model District
TMP: Tax Map Parcel 56-91
By -right use: 5 units if all development rights are
Location: Crozet, between Route 240 and the C & O
intact.
railroad, approximately 2,200 feet from the intersection
of Route 240 and Highlands Drive. (Attachments A and
B)
Magisterial District: White Hall
Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Residential with a mixture of housing types
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 106
at an average of 8.7 dwelling units/acre-net with
approximately 16,000 square feet of non-residential,
neighborhood -service uses. Requesting parking waiver.
DA (Development Area): Community of Crozet
Comp. Plan Designation: Community of Crozet —
Corridor 2-CT3 Urban Edge: single family residential
(3.5-6.5 units/acre) supporting uses such as religious
institutions and schools and other small-scale non-
residential uses, and CT4 Urban General: residential
(4.5 units/acre single family, 12 units/acre
townhouses/apartments, 18 units/acre mixed use) with
supporting uses such as religious institutions and
schools and mixed uses including retail/office and
Development Area Reserve (CT2) and Preserve (CT1)
- development area open space preserve or reserve
with very low residential density (1 unit per 20 acres).
Character of Property: Undeveloped with a mix of
Use of Surrounding Properties: Open undeveloped
open meadow, grassed lawn, and woodland.
field, Wickham Pond Phase I, The Highlands
subdivision, and single family residences.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The project positively addresses the principles of
1. Proffers are in need of revision relative to
the Neighborhood Model with specific emphasis
transportation impacts.
on pedestrian orientation, neighborhood friendly
2. Screening to adjacent parcels should be shown
streets and paths, parks and open space,
on the application plan and in the Code of
interconnection, and relegated parking.
Development.
2. 15% for -sale and for -rent affordable housing is
3. Minor revisions are needed to the Code of
proffered.
3. The proposal creates a new center as
Development, Application Plan, and to the proffers
contemplated in the Master Plan.
relative to form.
4. Density is in keeping with the Crozet Master Plan,
under staff's interpretation of the Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors agree with staff's interpretation of affordability and density,
then staff recommends approval with the following provided:
1. Revision of proffers relative to transportation impacts to include Eastern Avenue as a capital
improvements project to which they could apply.
2. Addition of screening for adjacent parcels on the General Development Plan and Code of Development.
3. Minor revisions to the Code of Development, Application Plan, and to the proffers relative to form.
Staff also recommends approval of the parking waiver.
STAFF PERSON: CLAUDETTE GRANT
PLANNING COMMISSION: JULY 11, 2006
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SEPTEMBER 13, 2006
ZMA 2005-00018 WICKHAM POND — PHASE II
With Waivers of Sections 4.2 and 4.12.9 of the Zoning Ordinance
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA 2005-00018 Wickham Pond — Phase II
PROPOSAL: Rezone 19.69 acres from RA - Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (.5 unit/acre) to NMD Neighborhood Model District - residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with
commercial, service and industrial uses for up to 16,000 square feet of commercial use and up to 106
residential units (48 single family, 8 apartments, 50 condominiums)
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Crozet Master Plan designates the property
CT3 Urban Edge: single family residential (3.5-6.5 units/acre) supporting uses such as religious institutions
and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses, and CT4 Urban General: residential (4.5 units/acre
single family, 12 units/acre townhouses/apartments, 18 units/acre mixed use) with supporting uses such as
religious institutions and schools and mixed uses including retail/office and Development Area Reserve
(CT2) and Preserve (CT1) - development area open space preserve or reserve with very low residential
density (1 unit per 20 acres).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Tax Map 56 Parcel 91, between Route 240 and the C & O railroad, and approximately 2,200
feet from intersection of Route 240 and Highlands Drive.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The property is located on Route 240 approximately 2,200 feet from the intersection of Route 240 and the
Highlands subdivision. Uses adjacent to the site include an open, undeveloped field, the Wickham Pond -
Phase I Subdivision, single family residences with a few dependent buildings, and the C & O Railroad.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant has proposed a compact neighborhood with a small non-residential center (approximately
16,000 sq. ft.) close to Route 240 which would include a mix of retail and office uses on a neighborhood
scale.
The proposed project is a Neighborhood Model development organized into 2 blocks as shown on
Attachment C.
Block 1 consists of forty-eight single family detached residences and 8 affordable apartment units on
varying lot sizes. The eight affordable units will be located in a single structure with architecture similar to
that of the single family detached units. Green space and pedestrian paths, some of which connect to
Wickham Pond Phase I, are located in this block.
Block 2 consists of four buildings offering a mix of residential and commercial uses. Two buildings will be
solely residential and the other two buildings will have commercial uses on the ground floor and residential
units above. A plaza area, green space, tot lot and community garden are proposed for this block. A new
hedgerow will be planted along Route 240 which will act as a buffer to the development and a connection
between Wickham Pond I and 11.
The project's main access will be from Route 240. All of the streets within the project are proposed to be
public. There will be an interconnected road to Wickham Pond Phase I. This road will also show future
interconnection to the adjacent property to the west. There are two north and south roads in the
development that go through all of block 1 as well as an alley that serves as access for the houses in the
middle of this block. As previously mentioned, the only east and west road in the development serves as
interconnection between Wickham Pond Phase I and II and future development to the adjacent west
2
property.
Block 2 in Wickham Pond Phase II is adjacent on the east and west side to residential uses. On the east
side residential uses in Wickham Pond Phase I are adjacent to the main entrance road in Wickham Pond
Phase II. To the west of Wickham Pond Phase II a single family dwelling is located on the adjacent property
near the commercial and recreation spaces of the proposed development. Due to potential noise, and lights
from the non-residential uses at Wickham Pond II, and view concerns, screening on both of these sections
of Wickham Pond Phase II from the residential uses on the adjacent properties is viewed as important. The
existing pond will be used for stormwater management.
Proffers include a contribution of up to $37,000 (the owners proportionate share) to improve the SR
240/SR250 intersection, the owner paying the total cost of a traffic analysis of the SR 240/SR 250
intersection, a contribution of $213,300 cash towards the CIP for schools and other public facilities, 15%
affordable units for rent or sale, phasing restrictions on the commercial buildings, and an overlot grading
plan. The most recent proffers were received on July 10, 2006. Although they attempt to address concerns
about traffic impacts, staff has not yet been able to review them in full, nor has the County Attorney's office
seen them. Staff is unable to provide a full review or comments at this time. The applicant has verbally
agreed to reallocate the traffic funds to the CIP fund, similar to what was done in Wickham Pond I.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant describes this compact development as an extension of Wickham Pond Phase I. The Code of
Development explains that the applicant embraces the principles of the Neighborhood Model District within
this development by providing an attractive development with livable neighborhoods where various uses are
intermingled and pedestrian accessibility is paramount. The Crozet Master Plan also calls for this area to
support the types of uses proposed.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
The parcel has no planning and zoning history. Records indicate it was zoned Agricultural prior to 1980 and
in 1980 this parcel was given an RA (Rural Areas) zoning classification.
Planning Commission Background And Changes To Plan
Wickham Pond Phase I and II are located next to each other. (See Attachment H) Wickham Pond Phase II
is the second portion of Wickham Pond Phase I which was a request for a rezoning from Rural Area to
Neighborhood Model District for 107 residential units. Wickham Pond Phase I was approved on January 4,
2006. (See Attachment 1) Relevant issues for Wickham Pond Phase I were, traffic impacts on the
infrastructure, long term maintenance and cost of the stormwater facility, and affordable housing. In order to
address traffic impacts, the applicant agreed to increase their cash contribution by $207,000 towards capital
improvements mainly to deal with traffic impacts. Because the stormwater facility is located on both
Wickham Pond I and II properties, an agreement was signed between both property owners that satisfied
maintenance and cost concerns. Affordable housing was appropriately provided.
On February 7, 2006, the Commission held a worksession on the proposal to gain input on several issues.
Staff was concerned about design and layout, residential density, mixture of uses, mixture of housing types,
interconnection, affordable housing, and off-site impacts and proffers. Staffs concerns are shown in italics
and an excerpt from the minutes summarizing the Commission' comments and responses of that meeting
are provided in bold as follows:
. Layout and Design - Is the design and layout appropriate for the development (Emphasis on
Blocks 5 & 6)? (See Attachment J)
In general the Commission agreed with staff's concerns that the proposed look, design, height and
scale of the buildings would be different than what is currently located on Route 240.The
Commission suggested that the applicant reduce the height of the commercial buildings facing
Route 240 to two-story structures. More information was needed relative to the layout and design.
• Residential Density - Crozet Master Plan with regard to residential densities?
Generally, the Commission believed that the density was in keeping with the Crozet Master Plan.
• Mixture of Uses — Is the mix of uses proposed in Wickham Pond Phase 2 appropriate?
The Commission was in support of the commercial use, but felt the commercial use should be
pushed back on the site and have smaller structures. There was also question about whether 41,000
square feet of commercial was too much.
• Mixture of Housinq Types — Is the mixture of housing types proposed by the applicant for Wickham
Pond Phase 2 appropriate?
The Commission agreed the mix of housing types was appropriate.
• Interconnections — Are the interconnections proposed by the applicant appropriate and do they meet the
intent of the Crozet Master Plan, specifically the interconnection to the west into a preservation area and
potentially through that area.
After some discussion, the Commission agreed that street interconnection should be left in the plan
as an option.
• Affordable Housinq — Is the applicant making appropriate provisions for affordable housing within the
Wickham Pond - Phase 2 development? The applicant provided fewer than 15% of the total units and the
units were not located in the appropriate CT zones to obtain the density shown on the plan.
The Commission said that the density and affordable units should be consistent with the
recommended 15% policy for affordable housing and the Crozet Master Plan.
• Off -Site Impacts and Proffers — Are the proffers submitted adequate to meet the impacts generated by
this development? In this case the applicant has submitted 4 proffers. One of the proffers staff has
indicated should not be included. Therefore, there are only 3 proffers. The very first proffer is the one that
does not need to be included because it is already a standard in the Neighborhood Model District.
With some discussion, the applicant agreed that the proffers needed to be revised. One of the
proffers was not needed because it is a standard provision in the Neighborhood Model District.
A follow up worksession was held on February 21, 2006 to further discuss design and layout. (See
Attachment K) The applicant brought a plan to the Planning Commission meeting and asked for feedback
on the redesigned site/plan where changes were made to the front of the site and to the commercial uses.
The Commission reviewed and discussed the proposal with staff and the applicant and responded
as follows:
The Commission agreed with staff that the changed design at the front of the project is the
beginning of an excellent response to their prior comments.
The overall density needs to be lowered or scaled down. The applicant should clarify the lot
coverage and height.
The height and scale of the units facing Route 240 was an issue. The Commission
suggested that at least the front two buildings should be reduced to two-story structures.
The road interconnection to the west should be left in the plan as an option. But, some
concern was raised concerning the crossing of the stream with the interconnection into the
CT1 zone.
The shift in the entrance would be acceptable.
The Commission liked the green space.
The affordable housing number is low and needs to be looked at and to provide more.
The revised plan submitted for this work session included a decrease in the square feet of commercial uses
from 41,000 square feet to 16,000 square feet. (Attachment K)
Comprehensive Plan:
Crozet Master Plan — Wickham Pond Phase II is located in the northeast quadrant of Crozet, east of
Crozet Avenue and north of the C & O Railroad. The location of the property in relation to the Master Plan is
shown below:
Crozet Master Plan Place -Type and Built Infrastructure Map
Corridor 2 Wickham Pond Phase 2 area
I
The following table is an analysis of the transect zones reflected on the rezoning plan:
Wickham Pond Phase II Residential
Crozet Master Plan
Wickham Pond II
Density
Suggested Units
Proposal
Max
Net
Plan
Units
Crozet Transect Density
Acres
Acres
Min
Mid
Units*
Proposed
Net Density
CT 1 and CT 2
4.54
0
0
0
0
0
CT 3 (Min 3.5, Mid 4.5, Max 6.5/acre*)
10.89
8.71
30
39
57
56
6.4
CT 4 (Min 4.5, Mid 12/acre; Max
18/acre mix use)
4.26
3.41
15.3
41
61
50
14.7
Total
19.69
12.12
45.3
80
118
106
Notes: Net acreage is 80% project area.
* Density of 6.5 units per acre in CT 3 only if 50% accessory/affordable units added & 18 units/acre CT 4 only of
mixed use
Minimum, Mid, and Maximum Crozet Master Plan Suggested Units are determined by multiplying the CT 3 and CT 4
suggested densities
for each CT type. For example, CT 3 Mid is equal to 8.71 x 4.5, which equals 39 units.
CT 1 and CT 2 areas, show no density. Crozet Master Plan anticipates very low density at 1 unit per 20 acres.
The property is designated CT 1, CT 4, CT 3 and CT 2 in Corridor 2 of the Crozet Master Plan.
CT 1 borders this property at the front of the site, adjacent to Route 240 and acts as a preserve.
CT 4 is shown near the front of the site, in the area shown on the plan as Block 2. CT 4 areas are intended
to support centers with a variety of residential types and mixture of uses. Recommended net densities for
CT 4 areas are 4.5 d.u. /ac. for single family, up to 12 d.u. /ac. for townhouses and apartments, and up to
18 d.u. /ac. in a mixed use setting. Live -work units, home offices and commercial first floor with residential
over are suggested as office/commercial use.
Block 1 is designated CT 3. CT 3 areas are described as the edges of the neighborhood. CT 3 areas are
intended to be primarily residential at net densities between 3.5-4.5 units/acre, with up to 6.5 units/acre, if
accessory apartments added for 50 % of the residential housing stock.
The south west corner and a portion of the south eastern part of the site are CT 2 reserve area. CT 1 & Ct 2
are intended for preservation of open space & historic agricultural activities. These areas clearly define the
edge of development. The net densities are very low residential density no greater than 1 unit/20 acres.
Staff believes that the limited amount of retail/services proposed at this location will not impact downtown
Crozet negatively. The services and retail proposed for this location will help reduce the number of vehicle
trips on Route 240. Adjacent subdivisions to Wickham Pond II such as the Highlands, Wickham Pond I and
Western Ridge may also use some of the commercial uses located in Wickham Pond II. These limited
neighborhood scale commercial uses will not compete with Downtown Crozet which will most likely have
services and retail of a larger scale that will serve the entire area Crozet and perhaps beyond. The Crozet
Master Plan shows this area of Crozet as an "outlying mixed use area" It is approximately .5 miles from
commercial uses associated with the old Con -Agra site and approximately 1.2 miles from downtown. As
represented by the CT 3 and CT4 designated areas, the Master Plan set an expectation of mixed use at this
location in order to help provide for some localized neighborhood services, not to create an area to compete
with downtown Crozet. It is expected that the area would function in a way similar to the Silver Thatch Inn at
Hollymead where there is a restaurant and bed and breakfast, office, and small local shops nearby.
Density in the CT3 area is an issue for discussion because of the statement, "net densities between 3.5-4.5
units/acre, with up to 6.5 units/acre if accessory apartment added for 50% of the residential housing stock"
In the Strategies for Implementation section of the Master Plan (page 23-24), the following are excerpted
comments:
To encourage and maintain a diverse population within the Crozet Development Area, one of the
Guiding Principles identified early in the Master Plan process, affordable housing options must exist.
Affordable housing options targeting these income ranges [0-80% of the median household income]
would continue the tradition of 'starter' homes that characterizes many of Crozet's neighborhoods
today.
Market based housing developed within the Master Plan Site Development Guidelines has the
potential to provide... affordable housing through "accessory units". These "granny flats" would take
a number of forms ... [they] might be located above garages in the back of properties or as stand
alone units associated with larger homes.
In addition to having affordable units available on the market, it is also important that the units
themselves be dispersed throughout the development [area].
Because such "accessory units" are but one form of affordable housing, staff has advised that "affordable
housing" could take other forms (single family detached and attached, townhouses, flats, etc.) and that the
terms "affordable" and "accessory" meet a very similar intent. The Commission concurred with this
conclusion in its support of Wickham Pond I, especially considering that "accessory apartments" meeting
the definition of the County's zoning ordinance (which are different from "accessory units" as they are
described in the Crozet Master Plan in that they must be within the structure of a single family detached
dwelling) do not count towards density and are by -right in all residential districts, thus being possible in all
single-family detached units.
Regarding the statement in Table 1 of the Master Plan that "6.5 units/acre if accessory apartments added
for 50% of the residential stock", staff has interpreted this to mean that half of the additional units would
need to be accessory or "affordable" in order to take advantage of the density bonus. If 50% of all units
would have to be accessory or affordable, there would be little incentive to provide accessory or affordable
units as all of the additional density plus part of the density that is otherwise available without such units
would have to be accessory or affordable. In addition, half of the additional units equated to approximately
15% of the total housing which was in keeping with the County's affordable housing policy. Here is an
example:
If statement in Table 1 of the Master Plan is applied literally
10 acres x 4.5 units/acre = 45 units (maximum density allowed without accessory units)
10 acres x 6.5 units/acre = 65 units (maximum density allowed with accessory units)
65 units x 50% = 32 (or 33) accessory units required to achieve 6.5 units/acre, leaving
32 (or 33) market units
If staff interpretation is applied
65 units — 45 units = 20 units x 50% = 10 affordable units/65 units = 15% affordable units
During the Board of Supervisor's review of the Liberty Hall project last month, the Board took the more
literal interpretation of the statement in Table 1 of the Master Plan, establishing 4.5 units/acre as the
maximum density for CT 3 unless 50% of all units are accessory. This interpretation was affirmed when the
Board approved Liberty Hall in which the CT3 section did not exceed 4.5 units/acre and no accessory or
affordable units were provided in that section of the development.
Therefore, the appropriate density for the CT3 sections in Wickham Pond Phase II and other Crozet
developments will be different depending on which interpretation is applied and the number of accessory or
affordable units that are provided. Application of staff's interpretation means that this project falls within the
density guidelines of the Master Plan. Application of the more literal interpretation means that it does not.
The previous table (page 6) indicates the range of suggested dwelling units based on the recommended
density in the Master Plan. The maximum density suggested by the Plan if the 50% accessory apartments
are not provided is indicated as Mid in the table and is 39 units. Based on the Board's requested changes in
interpretation of the 6.5 units/acre density provision, expectations in density for Wickham Pond II beyond
4.5 units/acre would mean 28 units, half of the proposed units for the development, should be provided as
affordable/accessory. The applicant proposes that eight units as affordable units in the CT3 area.
Members of the public have raised concerns about the rate at which Crozet is growing and staff has
provided a summary of potential dwelling units in Crozet as a "status report" on approved developments and
developments under review in Crozet. (Attachment 1) The Crozet Master Plan does not specify which
neighborhoods should develop first in Crozet. However, the plan does place an emphasis on the
redevelopment and invigoration of the downtown area of Crozet as an immediate focus.
Applicable statements from the Crozet Master Plan for the eastern geographic sector of Crozet
relevant to this site are identified below in italics. Staff comments relative to this project and the
recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan follow.
Development for the area east of Crozet Avenue should focus on the construction of public
amenities such as the school and parks in addition to the creation of roads and bridges. Specific
recommendations and tasks for Crozet -East include the following:
Construct Eastern Avenue, Main Street, and primary neighborhood streets within the two or three
major properties available for new development.
Construct Lickinghole Bridge on a time -line appropriate to demand.
The proposed Eastern Avenue and the Lickinghole Bridge are not located on this property. Once
constructed, though, they will take pressure off of the intersection of Route 240 and Route 250. The road is
not yet in the CIP for construction but is eligible to become part of the CIP.
Construct new neighborhood elementary school on time -line appropriate to demand, in general
location shown on plan.
A new neighborhood elementary school is shown on the Master Plan on the Con -Agra property north
of Lickinghole Creek and south of Three Notch'd Road. A school is expected to be provided with any future
rezoning for that development. Area from that property would be requested to be reserved if a
subdivision plat is submitted for by -right development. Construction of the school is expected at a
future date when additional demand generates the need for the school. The project will generate 16
students who would likely attend a new elementary school.
Build the long anticipated north/south road east of Crozet Avenue (called Eastern Avenue in the
Master Plan, formerly referred to as the 240/250 Connector). This baseline infrastructure
improvement will involve a bridge over Lickinghole Creek, a bridge or underpass to cross the CSX
tracks to the north, and numerous connections to neighborhood streets. Construction phasing
should begin from the south (Route 250). Aside from construction itself, truck traffic should not be
allowed on this road. The private sector should be responsible for funding and building Eastern
Avenue with the exception of Lickinghole Creek bridge.
Eastern Avenue is near this development but not adjacent to or on the property proposed for the
development. As previously mentioned this road will help take pressure off of the intersection of Routes 240
and 250. Although the road is not in the CIP, it could be eligible for the CIP in the future.
Open Space Plan/Green Infrastructure Map: The Open Space Plan does not identify any significant
environmental resources on the site with the exception of a proposed greenway. The applicant is providing
a pedestrian pathway in this area.
The Neighborhood Model: Conformity with the Neighborhood Model is assessed in the table below. All
applicable principles of the Neighborhood Model are met.
Pedestrian
Sidewalks and paths are provided thoughout the development. All
Orientation
streets will include sidewalks with connections provided to sidewalks
on adjacent parcels. Sidewalks will be provided along Route 240 to
connect to the sidewalks included in the approved Wickham Pond
Phase I to the east. Staff believes this principle is met.
Low speed limits and sidewalks buffered with street trees will help
Neighborhood
create a safe environment throughout the new streets within
Friendly Streets
Wickham Pond Phase 2. This principle is met.
and Paths
Interconnected
Streets and
There is a street pattern in the development that will eventually
Transportation
connect into adjacent properties. An east west road connects
Networks
Wickham Pond Phase 1 through Wickham Pond Phase II to the
adjacent property to the west. North -south connections are provided
with the new main road into the development, which loops to the
east -west street This principle is met.
Parks and Open
Space
The applicant is proposing to provide approximately 7 acres in open
space and amenities for residents, including an open field for
recreation uses, a tot lot and a community garden in Block 2. Block 1
will include the pond in its open space and a scenic trail for
pedestrians. Access to the pond trail will be provided along the rear
of several lots in Block 1. This principle is met.
Neighborhood
A center for this development is proposed in the mixed use section of
Centers
Block 2. There will be plazas and open spaces for people to gather
as well as various small, neighborhood scale commercial uses, such
as dentist offices, and a restaurant located in this block. Sidewalk
connections are provided throughout the development, which will
help make these neighborhood centers relatively easy to get to. A
center was proposed for this area on the Master Plan. The
Commission previously embraced the concept of a center at this
location to help provide localized services. Staff believes this
principle is met.
Buildings and
Spaces of Human
This development with its single-family, apartments, and multifamily
Scale
residences with office and retail below, will not exceed three stories
in height. The proposed size of the lots and yards will also help to
keep the community on a human scale. All of these elements are
included in the Code of Development. The mixed use buildings
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district:
The purpose and intent of the Neighborhood Model (NMD) district is to establish a planned development
district in which traditional neighborhood development, as established in the County's Neighborhood Model,
will occur. The NMD provides for compact, mixed-use developments with an urban scale, massing, density
and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within close proximity to each other within
the development areas identified in the comprehensive plan. The existing Rural Area (RA) zoning district
provides for preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, water supply protection, limited
service delivery to the rural areas, and conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources.Staff believes
that the proposal meets the intent of the NMD.
Public need and justification for the change: The County's Comprehensive Plan supports development
in the designated development areas that is consistent with use, density, and form recommended in the
Plan. Wickham Pond II's uses and form are viewed as being in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff believes that density is in conformity if the Commission and Board agree with staff's interpretation.
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources: No impacts on environmental, cultural, or
10
fronting on Route 240 will be a maximum of two stories in height to
help keep this portion of the development in scale with the existing
development on the corridor. This principle is met.
Relegated Parking
A majority of the residences will have garages. There will be an alley
in the middle of the development in block 1 that will provide rear
access to the residences in the middle of the development. Other
residences in this block. Parking for the multifamily building will be
on -street. Block 2 will have shared sub -surface parking garages.
There will also be some on -street parking available throughout the
development. This principle is met.
Mixture of Uses
There is a mixture of office, retail and residential uses proposed for
this site with additional retail uses and civic uses within close
proximity. This principle is met.
There is a variety of housing types within this development including
Mixture of Housing
single-family, apartments, and mixed use multifamily units. The
Types and
developer is also providing 16 affordable units. The number of
Affordability
affordable units meets the 15% goal. This principle is met.
Redevelopment
This principle is not applicable.
Site Planning that
Respects Terrain
The streets and proposed lots have been designed to follow the
contours of the land. This principle is met.
Clear Boundaries
The project site is entirely within the Crozet Development Area
with the Rural
boundaries. The Rural Area boundary for the Neighborhood is to the
Areas
north of the site and across Route 240. A development area
preserve, which will act as a buffer is located at the boundary of this
project at the front of this site, and adjacent to Route 240. This
principle is met.
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district:
The purpose and intent of the Neighborhood Model (NMD) district is to establish a planned development
district in which traditional neighborhood development, as established in the County's Neighborhood Model,
will occur. The NMD provides for compact, mixed-use developments with an urban scale, massing, density
and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within close proximity to each other within
the development areas identified in the comprehensive plan. The existing Rural Area (RA) zoning district
provides for preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, water supply protection, limited
service delivery to the rural areas, and conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources.Staff believes
that the proposal meets the intent of the NMD.
Public need and justification for the change: The County's Comprehensive Plan supports development
in the designated development areas that is consistent with use, density, and form recommended in the
Plan. Wickham Pond II's uses and form are viewed as being in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff believes that density is in conformity if the Commission and Board agree with staff's interpretation.
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources: No impacts on environmental, cultural, or
10
historic resources, other than removal of trees, are expected with this development. The woods on the site
are not noted as significant features on any County plans. The trees at the entrance to the site will be
retained to the extent possible and supplemented as a hedgerow, in keeping with the Master Plan
recommendation for a rural landscape along Three Notch'd Road at this location.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services:
Streets and Roads: The primary impact will be to Three Notch'd Road and Route 250 West. The applicant
provided a traffic study that staff and VDOT have reviewed. The applicant has responded to staff
comments by providing proffers related to improving the intersection of Route 240/250. While the proffers
have not yet been fully analyzed, staff believes that they should be expanded to provide opportunities to use
the cash for transportation improvements as a whole which would allow for allocation to Eastern Avenue
and the Lickinghole Bridge. The applicant has indicated a willingness to modify the proffers in this way.
Schools: The development is expected to generate approximately 31 students broken down as follows: 16
elementary school students, 7 middle school students, and 8 high school students. These students would
likely attend Crozet Elementary School, which is above capacity based on summer 2005 estimates; Henley
Middle School, which was below capacity based on the summer 2005 estimates; and Western Albemarle
High School, which was at capacity based on estimates. For short-term capacity issues, the Schools
division adds mobile units. For long-term capacity problems, either redistricting or new schools are built. To
help address future school needs proffers for capital improvements for school facilities are made for this
development.
Fire, Rescue, Police: The Crozet Volunteer Fire Station and the Western Albemarle Rescue Station provide
fire and rescue services to the area. The planned Ivy Area Station will also augment services provided by
the two existing fire and rescue stations in Crozet. Albemarle County 5th Street Office Building contains the
County's Police Department, although the police patrol all areas of the County. Current policy of police
services recommends an average response time of 10 minutes for all Development Areas. To this end,
police satellite offices are recommended within a service sector to help achieve these desired response
times to all police emergency calls. The possibility of an additional fire/rescue/police station is under
consideration for the area in 2012.
Stormwater Manaqement: A stormwater facility is shown on the pond located partially on the subject site
and on the adjacent property.
Utilities: Albemarle County Service Authority indicates that water and sewer service is available to serve the
site.
Fiscal Impact Analysis: Attachment F contains the Fiscal Impact Analysis. The summary reveals a
negative fiscal impact. Most mixed-use projects have either no fiscal impact or a positive fiscal impact. In
this situation, the commercial area is too small relative to the residential area to influence the fiscal impact in
a positive way. Almost all residential projects result in a negative net fiscal impact.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties: Surrounding properties are already
experiencing a change in character as new development has already occurred around them with Wickham
Pond Phase I soon beginning construction. With residences on the east and west sides of Wickham Pond
Phase 11, it is important to protect these residential uses from roads and commercial/recreation uses
adjacent to them in Wickham Pond Phase 11. Landscape screening is one way to do this that staff
recommends. Some residents are interested in developing their property also, but the Crozet Master Plan
designates some of the adjacent property to Wickham Pond Phase II as CT 1 and 2, with a smaller portion
designated CT3. It is important that the areas designated CT1 and CT2 are protected from adverse impacts.
At the February 7, 2006 work session, the Planning Commission discussed at length the interconnection to
the west of Wickham Pond Phase 11. Although the interconnection will be adjacent to CT 1 and 2 areas, the
11
Commission felt it important to show the interconnection as an option, should development occur in the
future on the CT3 area next door. Wickham Pond Phase II shows its CT 1 and 2 areas as open space.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
The ARB reviewed Wickham Pond Phase II on May 1, 2006. They had no objection to the request for
rezoning as long as their requests were addressed in the Code of Development. (See Attachment G). Staff
has reviewed the revised Code of Development and finds the revisions acceptable regarding the ARB
request. This project will also receive ARB review during the site plan stage.
PROFFERS
The following discusses the substance of the proffers:
Proffer 1: Proportionate Share for Intersection improvements: The applicant is offering a cash
contribution in the amount of $37,000 towards the improvement of SR 240/SR250 intersection. This figure
represents Wickham Pond II's expected proportionate share (7.4%) of intersection improvements. Staff and
VDOT estimated the full cost to be around $500,000.
Proffer 2: Traffic Analysis of Routes 240/250 Intersection: The owner is committed to providing a traffic
analysis of the Routes 240 and 250 intersections. The study will include some options for design, and the
feasibility of each option. The study will also identify estimated construction cost of each option and
conceptual designs. Estimated cost is $40,000.
As previously mentioned, these proffers will undergo change to include the option to use the money for
Eastern Avenue.
Proffer 3: Combined CIP and Schools Cash Contribution: The County's Community Facilities Plan, in
conjunction with the Capital Improvements Program identifies the need for a library, schools, park, public
safety and transportation improvements in Crozet. A list of projects for Crozet is below. The proposed
development will generate part of the need for these facilities. Most approved rezonings for residential
developments include commitments in the form of cash proffers to help offset the impacts of the
development.
Current Countv funded CIP items recommended by the Crozet Master Plan that relate to this Droiect are:
• New library: $5,378,000
• Additional High School capacity: $7,500,000 (all high schools)
• New Crozet Elementary School: $12,388,000
Items not yet funded but recommended by the Master Plan for inclusion in future CIP budgets:
• Eastern Avenue design and engineering: $500,000
• Eastern Avenue bridge: $4,000,000
• Recycling Center: $250,000. [Currently three recycling centers are recommended for county as a
whole but specific locations have not been selected. Given the anticipated growth in the area, it is
recommended that one of the centers be located in Crozet.]
• Greenway development:
Items recommended for private sector funding: or public/private collaboration:
• Eastern Park: estimated $2,000,000
• Greenway development: estimated $30,000 per year for the County as a whole.
• Main Street at Crozet Avenue: $500,000
12
• Eastern Avenue: $4 million
• Eastern Avenue underpass: $1 million
• Main Street extensions: $2,500,000
• Bike/pedestrian improvements in developing neighborhoods
The applicant is proffering to make a cash proffer for schools and other public facilities for each market -rate
dwelling unit at $2,370 per unit for 90 units. Based on the applicant's proposal, this would amount to roughly
$213,300. The applicant has proffered to reduce this contribution if the cost for the transportation study is
more than the estimated $40,000. Staff does not support the "if/then" language, but notes that the proffer
could be altered using language similar to the Wickham I proffers.
As the Commission and Board know, the County has no cash proffer policy. The table below shows the
most recently approved projects which offered cash proffers:
Rezoning
# of Units
Cash Proffer
ZMA 03-12 Stillfried Lane
26
$3000/unit for capital
Townhouses
improvements or affordable
housing programs; no physical
improvements or land for future
public facilities.
ZMA 05-14 Poplar Glen (currently
28
$3200/unit for capital
scheduled for a BOS hearing on July
improvements and $66,000 for
5, 2006)
affordable housing program in lieu
of providing four affordable units;
no physical improvements or land
for future public facilities.
ZMA 04-24 Old Trail Village
2275
$50,000 Cash proffer for park
projects, Cash proffer for schools:
$1000/sfd unit; $500/th unit;
$250/apt.; Cash proffer for public
faculties: $1000/sfd unit; $500/th
unit; $250/mf unit; and physical
improvements including completion
of Western Avenue and dedication
of land for Western Park.
ZMA 05-05 Liberty Hall
43
$3,200 per unit cash proffer for
public facilities; no physical
improvements or land for future
public facilities.
ZMA 02-04 Cascadia (PROPOSED)
330
Cash proffer for schools and other
public facilities: $2,000 /sfd,
$1000/th, $500/mf unit.
ZMA 05-07 Haden Place
34
Cash proffer for schools and other
(PROPOSED)
public facilities/services: $2,750/
market -rate unit; off-site road
improvements to Haden and
Killdeer Lanes
ZMA 04-17 Wickham Pond 1
107
Cash proffer for schools and other
public facilities: $3225.81/ lot.
ZMA 05-18 Wickham Pond II
106
Cash proffer for schools and other
(PROPOSED)
public facilities: $2370/market-rate
unit. $37,000 for Routes 240/250
intersection improvements. Total
cash payment for traffic analysis of
13
Note: sfd = single family detached, th = townhouse, mfd = multifamily
Regarding adequacy of the proffers, staff believes that, based on its actions on recent residential rezonings,
the Board has set an expectation for offsets to impacts caused by residential developments. Different types
and levels of rezonings will have different impacts. The location of the proposed development also plays
into the amount and type of offsets needed. As such, staff must rely on previous actions of the Board as
guidance to applicants on expectations for off -sets to impacts of new development. Based on the previous
proffers, it appears that the proffers are similar to Wickham Pond I which was viewed as adequate by the
Board.
Proffer 4: Phasing of Buildings C and D within Block 2: The applicant has commited to restricting the
Certificate of Occupancy for residential units (20 units) in buildings C and D in Block 2 to no earlier than the
three-year anniversary of the County's approval of the first final site plan; A restriction also applies to
Certificates of Occupancy for ground floor commercial/retail space not being issued earlier than the five-
year anniversary of the County's approval of the first final site plan. Although the commercial uses in
Wickham Pond II are not expected to compete with downtown due to their size and localized nature, the
phasing of the commercial buildings will help to remove that worry and will also give some relief to the traffic
impacts.
Proffer 5: Affordable Housing: The applicant commits to 15% affordability on the maximum number of
units constructed within Wickham Pond Phase II. Based on the proposal, the total affordable units will be
16 units available for rent or sale. Eight units are to be built within Block 1 and eight units are to be built
within Block 2. The current owner or subsequent owner shall create units affordable to households with
incomes less than 80% of the area median income. Incomes less than 80% of the area median income are
consistent with what the County considers the income of a person needing affordable housing. Pertinent
documents or persons needing assistance for these units may be approved by the Albemarle County Office
of Housing or its designee. The Chief of Housing finds both the number of units and the proposed program
for administering the proffer acceptable.
Proffer 6: Overlot Grading Plan:
The Owner will submit an over -lot grading plan with the application for each subdivision plat. This proffer is
especially valuable because of the hilly topography at the site and the compact character of the
development.
WAIVER AND MODIFICATION REQUESTS
Parking Regulations Waiver
Section 4.12.9 (a) requires that on -street parking that is provided for the purpose of meeting minimum
parking requirements must abut the lot that the space serves. Section 4.12.2 (c) does not grant the Zoning
Administrator the authority to waive or modify the on -street parking regulations of Section 4.12.9. However,
14
Routes 240/250 intersection.
Estimated cost is $40,000 for traffic
study. $3225/market rate lot.
ZMA 06-01 Westhall V (PROPOSED)
36
Cash proffer for schools and other
public facilities: $1000/market-rate
unit; $1500/market-rate unit for
Eastern Avenue; Spot
improvements to Park Road (apprx
$7500); $3000 for a pedestrian
bridge; on-site greenway trails,
parking area for trailhead, and off-
site temporary easement for
reenway
Note: sfd = single family detached, th = townhouse, mfd = multifamily
Regarding adequacy of the proffers, staff believes that, based on its actions on recent residential rezonings,
the Board has set an expectation for offsets to impacts caused by residential developments. Different types
and levels of rezonings will have different impacts. The location of the proposed development also plays
into the amount and type of offsets needed. As such, staff must rely on previous actions of the Board as
guidance to applicants on expectations for off -sets to impacts of new development. Based on the previous
proffers, it appears that the proffers are similar to Wickham Pond I which was viewed as adequate by the
Board.
Proffer 4: Phasing of Buildings C and D within Block 2: The applicant has commited to restricting the
Certificate of Occupancy for residential units (20 units) in buildings C and D in Block 2 to no earlier than the
three-year anniversary of the County's approval of the first final site plan; A restriction also applies to
Certificates of Occupancy for ground floor commercial/retail space not being issued earlier than the five-
year anniversary of the County's approval of the first final site plan. Although the commercial uses in
Wickham Pond II are not expected to compete with downtown due to their size and localized nature, the
phasing of the commercial buildings will help to remove that worry and will also give some relief to the traffic
impacts.
Proffer 5: Affordable Housing: The applicant commits to 15% affordability on the maximum number of
units constructed within Wickham Pond Phase II. Based on the proposal, the total affordable units will be
16 units available for rent or sale. Eight units are to be built within Block 1 and eight units are to be built
within Block 2. The current owner or subsequent owner shall create units affordable to households with
incomes less than 80% of the area median income. Incomes less than 80% of the area median income are
consistent with what the County considers the income of a person needing affordable housing. Pertinent
documents or persons needing assistance for these units may be approved by the Albemarle County Office
of Housing or its designee. The Chief of Housing finds both the number of units and the proposed program
for administering the proffer acceptable.
Proffer 6: Overlot Grading Plan:
The Owner will submit an over -lot grading plan with the application for each subdivision plat. This proffer is
especially valuable because of the hilly topography at the site and the compact character of the
development.
WAIVER AND MODIFICATION REQUESTS
Parking Regulations Waiver
Section 4.12.9 (a) requires that on -street parking that is provided for the purpose of meeting minimum
parking requirements must abut the lot that the space serves. Section 4.12.2 (c) does not grant the Zoning
Administrator the authority to waive or modify the on -street parking regulations of Section 4.12.9. However,
14
Section 8.2 allows the applicant to request a waiver or modification of any requirement of section 4.
Therefore, the approval of the on -street parking plan for Block 1 is subject to a Board approval of a
modification of Section 4.12.9. The applicant has made a separate request for this waiver in accord with
Section 8.2.
The 8 affordable, multi -family units require 16 spaces. The plan shows 16 spaces in the vicinity of the multi
family units; 4 on Road A, 6 on the south side of Road B and 6 on the north side of Road B. These spaces
meet the minimum parking requirement for the Zoning Ordinance.
The commercial and residential uses in Block 2 require, in addition to the 151 garage spaces, 26 on -street
spaces. These spaces are shown on the plan. There are 2 spaces on Road C, 4 spaces on the south side
of Road B, 4 spaces on the north side of Road B and 16 spaces located on both sides of Road A. These
spaces meet the minimum requirement for Block 2.
This analysis demonstrates that the minimum number of required spaces is provided. This request does not
depend on sharing spaces between the residential and commercial uses based on different peak hours. It is
unlikely that all of the spaces will be utilized at one time.
The parking analysis on page 29 of the Code of Development notes the potential for the utilization of
parking demand management strategies, increased parking space in the parking garage and the possibility
for shared parking based on specific uses. These matters can be addressed at the site plan stage.
The provision of on -street parking for required spaces requires the approval of VDOT.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. The project positively addresses the principles of the Neighborhood Model with specific
emphasis on pedestrian orientation, neighborhood friendly streets and paths, parks and open
space, interconnection, and relegated parking.
2. 15% for -sale and for -rent affordable housing is proffered.
3. The proposal creates a new center as contemplated in the Master Plan
4. Density is in keeping with the Crozet Master Plan, under staff's interpretation of the Plan
Staff has found the following factors unfavorable to this rezoning:
1. Proffers are in need of revision relative to transportation impacts.
2. Screening to adjacent parcels should be shown on the application plan and in the Code of
Development.
3. Minor revisions are needed to the Code of Development, Application Plan, and to the proffers
relative to form.
RECOMMENDATION
If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors agree with staff's interpretation of affordability and
density, then staff recommends approval with the following provided:
1. Revision of proffers relative to transportation impacts as a capital improvements project to which
they could apply.
2. Addition of screening for adjacent parcels on the General Development Plan and Code of
Development.
3. Minor revisions to the Code of Development, Application Plan, and to the proffers relative to form.
Staff also recommends approval of the parking waiver.
15
ATTACHMENT A:
Tax Map
ATTACHMENT B:
Location Map
ATTACHMENT C:
General Development Plans, revised June 13, 2006
ATTACHMENT D:
Code of Development, dated June 13, 2006
ATTACHMENT E:
Proffers
ATTACHMENT F:
Fiscal Impact Analysis
ATTACHMENT G:
ARB Letter, dated May 15, 2006
ATTACHMENT H:
Wickham Pond Phases I & II Plan
ATTACHMENT I:
December 14, 2005 Staff Report
ATTACHMENT J:
Wickham Pond Phase II Plan, dated October 27, 2005
ATTACHMENT K:
February 21, 2006 Staff Report
ATTACHMENT L:
Table of existing and potential dwelling units — dated 7/5/2006
16