The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZMA201600015 Presentation 2017-02-08 2/8/2017 ZMA201600015: OAKLEIGH Albemarle County Board of Supervisors February 8th, 2017 AREA MAP ate:i%�� .t, f' \ ; �`• l- i ji , rwirsnb4< /41!M �.4 f ^.,.�' �- i / 1 ,k•,.. . w I 4 < f/ "s , v > 6 p i:y, JSs�]�M l 1 =r - '.a>d �� Sao y V (' ` '' t1;:, Pr / fiat ' ,4 %-k.if- % sit.ifP wti /�/ ; •'', i • • /w\YSMt)V M i i; p J 1 2/8/2017 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN V ref f3 JO! SSN `_-_- CIS' ofry \\ o \ _ OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST Relevant history: • Rezoning approval for up to 109 dwelling units and 28,800 square feet of commercial space (ZMA200700004). • Site plan approval for 108 dwelling units(70 units were condos) and 14,400 square feet of commercial space under SDP200800101 (approved 5-11-2010). Currently seeking: • Ability to construct an approximately 56,000 square foot, 140 bed assisted living facility,min. 14 dwelling units and 28,800 square feet of commercial space with revised C.O.D.and proffers (Scenario A);OR • Ability to develop under the same application plan previously approved under ZMA20070004 with revised C.O.D.and proffers (Scenario B) 2 2/8/2017 SCENARIO A (ASSISTED LIVING) 49;-:.„-_-:,,,,,.. t'A - `''?, :) ., -. \ p., .7i,t,, .A,_::;,;;:„<;.,:,ce....,:::„.--.,,ec,,, .;,,,i,:t..,,,,,,•$,,„,,,..--_,,,,_,,,,.,,,,c_,......,,,Iir..• ..--7-.,:n5 N, \ cz.:.,p,,,-,.• „, , • _ , ,t,,, • .. .,, ct ', .4140 ' :." ' r, . . , .. ... ,.,„:.1.......k_ _,„..,i,......-____..k.4.4.,_ ,.&_,A,,e, ..:.., 71_ ,...s. , (•&,1 1 '.•-;::::":.,44, --- -ii-----'.7.._Nr.ei-Nwl - ,r -0\., em•••"-----:--• ..•"' ii- P- Es h71 41111:4ki'. 'i i i \)i::: 1 , .I'�y,' ____,_,- „ ,_:, cb , „ , 0 1,0..4' Iv, .-. , ........ ...„4., ..-.0,4 =_„..,.., i ,-a: ,4 ACM /: ,i41 il, ; ..._ 'il • ( ! / ,.- /.-- �. r„r �_J w ii. Or t . f f•.. J 'r' '1 (-17, 14_ ., rJ,�o�• Ni-I 3 • ,'1.1:i'-'' r7• 1,.,_,:-s'2----- - f11.1`7,isa:1 nr,t'i,1! if i. ._n r s ee ic'8", s ram, II, SCENARIO B (EXISTING PLAN) , ,..,,,,),, ..\\ :__ ..-° . *e•- ''''' ' , •\4074 --m- •\ .Tt :4"61 _vJ �i)Th,a i.b. Ttr 1 . i Hc, is. al.. ..F- ..•......._....... „......,,,„.„ _ ... _ ..\. , F . 4. 4.. - _..,.1%,-4 16,_:-Iii,oky-.-i_ ,..,,to___Id. J. .r. v ...ight_� �� _ .=_„..,_, :) - 41,1.)&B; ! .,iai r -ine ' .1 .../ 1 .‘''' _.'� n ). _.EGO i'll Z _ f - 1 (� 3. r T . .1.I.Y.1.I. y• V .di, • m. aran 3 2/8/2017 SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES Scenario A Scenario B n tart' ti�1i ,i I. 't, 1 --/ 1 .. Ng- . .mit. T- I� �- i�i PA I PROFFERS FOR SCENARIO A AND B • Although Staff found the applicants submitted sufficient justification for revised cash proffers under Scenario A,the Planning Commission recommended keeping the existing cash proffers for both Scenario A and Scenario B. • Staff and the Planning Commission did not find sufficient justification to provide a by-right credit for the previously existing zoning or to revise the cash proffer amounts under Scenario B. • The Planning Commission recommended retaining the existing proffer to construct 7.5% of the proffered affordable dwelling units instead of accepting cash-in-lieu of constructing affordable dwelling units. 4 SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES Scenario A Scenario B � • •�� O ; ' \� i� \ 4 I i ,/A 4 i -- ' s'1 1 Sill tail (113 SIMILARITIES The form and uses for Building A and Building B are identical. The perimeter landscaping for either Scenario is substantially the same. More about perimeter landscaping later. The revised Code of Development would permit non-residential uses throughout the development. DIFFERENCES Scenario A provides less greenspace and trees than Scenario B, but maintains the most significant trees identified by the applicant's arborist. Scenario A could provide a desired emergency access connection. Scenario A will likely generate less traffic and school-aged children than Scenario B. Scenario B may result in constructed affordable housing units as opposed to cash in lieu of construction. 7 2/8/2017 FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION FAVORABLE FACTORS UNFAVORABLE FACTORS 1. The proposed uses in Scenario A are 1. The proposed cash proffers are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan not in keeping with the cash recommendations for use and density. proffer policy in place when the 2 The proposed assisted living facility will zoning was originally approved. provide a needed housing-type for seniors. 2. Scenario A would result in less 3. The proposed assisted living facility greenspace and fewer trees supports a targeted industry under the being preserved than what is County's Economic Development Policy. currently Iequired under the 4. A required emergency access MAY existing zoning. provide an interparcel connection that addresses a known deficiency in 3. The minimum required number of emergency access to an existing facility residential dwelling units(14) 5. An assisted living facility and commercial creates the opportunity for uses in Scenario A will provide higher tax development that may be revenues than Scenario B and may create inconsistent with the Urban sufficient tax revenue to mitigate impacts Density Residential designation. from residential uses on the property. OUTSTANDING ISSUES AND RECOMMENDED CHANGES • Retain original cash proffers made for Scenario B(No) • Retain original proffers related to tree preservation and affordable housing for Scenario B (No) • Revise the COD to require a minimum of 53 dwelling units under Scenario B(Yes) • Clarify that Scenario A is only available for an assisted living use to be established(Yes) • Other technical changes to the application as necessary to provide clarity for the administration of development under Scenario A and Scenario B,including: • Removing the conceptual location for an emergency access through the Berkeley subdivision(Yes) • Verify the adjoining property owner of the Charlottesville Health and Rehabilitation Center site is agreeable to providing emergency access connection(No...?) 5 2/8/2017 POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE EMERGENCY ACCESS? ALTERNATIVE EMERGENCY ACCESS LOCATION I �` \ USING THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY IF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ROUTE(IN FULL OR PARTIAL)IS NOT i ACCEPTABLE.EXACT SIZE AND CONSTRUCTION METHOD TO BE DETERMINED DURING THE FINAL \ SITE PLAN REVIEW THE PREVXXISLY APPROVED GARDEN EMERGENCY ACCESS SPOT LOCATION(ABANDONED) ` { ^\'i EX DRI USVEWAY-- �$ �,. TO BE NOT EO� _ MI ill --41.1i ,. FOR .ti,\,. ...1**--"'N\ 7-1' - . .Vali. '' EMERGENCY `.Y (S)PKG.SPACES 11• 1 y.,h, REMOVED // i •� es �Y • [ ( v / li � �140;j41* \ NeunnoWALL af W. 1 v 1. ' I I ! \ I•.,t BLDG.a :,A .• RECOMMENDATION AND SUGGESTED MOTION Staff cannot recommend approval of ZMA201600015 because not all of the changes requested by the Planning Commission have been made to the application. • Should a Supervisor desire to approve:"Move to approve ZMA201600015 (Scenario A and Scenario B) with proffers." • Should a Supervisor desire to deny:"Move to deny ZMA201600015 (Scenario A and Scenario B)." (Should a Supervisor recommend denial,he or she should state the reason(s)for recommending denial.) 6