Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200400022 Staff Report 2006-08-31COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: Staff: Sean Dougherty ZMA 04 — 022 Treesdale Park Planning Commission Worksession: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: October 31, 2006 Not Scheduled Owners: Albemarle Housing Improvement Applicant: AHIP represented by Joyce Dudek Program (AHIP) and Mike Fenner Acreage: 6.60 Rezone from: R4 to PRD TMP: Tax Map 61, Parcels 182, 183, and By -right use: 183A 26 (39 with density bonus) Magisterial District: Rio Proffers: No Proposal: Rezone 6.6 acres from R -4, Requested # of Dwelling Units: Residential to PRD, Planned Residential 90 Development DA: Neighborhood Two Comp. Plan Designation: Urban Density Residential (3 -6 units / acre) Character of Property: Use of Surrounding Properties: The property has 450 feet of frontage along Rio Adjacent to this project to the north is the Village Road. The property slopes downhill away from Square subdivision which includes a mix of single Rio Road and west. Roughly 350 feet from Rio family detached, duplexes, triplexes, and Road the slope increases significantly. The townhouses. Further north is the Waldorf School, property has a narrow strip of land, roughly 60' Pen Park Drive and the River Run development. wide and 650 long that the applicant proposes Charlottesville Catholic School is across Rio to tie into the future greenway trail along the Road from this project. Single family homes line Meadow Creek Parkway. Rio Road toward the south. The entrance to the Stonehenge neighborhood lies 1,500 feet to the south of this property along Rio Road. RECOMMENDATION: The Commission is asked to review staff's analysis and provide some additional direction related to the Neighborhood Model, affordable housing approach, and proffers. STAFF PERSON: SEAN DOUGHERTY PLANNING COMMISSION: August 28w2, 2006 ZMA 04 -22 Treesdale Park PROPOSAL, The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) is requesting a rezoning from R -4 to PRD to allow for three multi - family buildings containing 90 units on 6.6 acres with proffers. In order to address traffic impacts from this development, the applicant is proposing the signalization and upgrade the intersection of Pen Park Lane and Rio Road. The applicant also proposes a right -in right -out entrance onto Rio Road at the north end of the property. The applicant is proposing 15 % of the units will be provided at the Board's affordable housing rate. The applicant plans to apply for assistance from the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program, a federal program that serves families at or below 60% of the Area Mean Income. Given federal application constraints, the applicant may not apply for federal tax credits to provide additional affordable housing, prior to the proposed rezoning. More discussion of this dynamic is found later in the report. The applicant has not previously submitted proffers. Attachment A is the Application Plan, Attachment B includes site sections requested by the Commission, Attachment C is renderings from the Village Square Neighborhood, Attachment D is proffers and Attachment E is the action memo from the previous work session and Attachment F is relevant portions of the Jones and Jones Study for the Meadow Creek Parkway, which was adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in September 2001. PETITION PROJECT: ZMA 2004 -0022, Treesdale Park PROPOSAL: Rezone 6.60 acres from R4 zoning district which allows residential uses (4 units per acre) to PRD (Planned Residential District) - which allows residential uses (3 - 34 units /acre) with limited commercial uses. This request proposes a total of 90 units and no commercial uses. Density is proposed at approximately 14 units per acre. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE /DENSITY: Urban Density Residential (6.01 -34 units /acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: The property is located in the Rio Magisterial District at 640 E. Rio Road, south of Towne Lane on the west side of East Rio Road. TAX MAP /PARCEL: Tax Map 61, Parcels 182, 183, and 183A BACKGROUND This project was first reviewed by staff during the Fall of 2004. During the past two and a half years, the applicant had made several revisions to their original plan in response to staff's comments and changing affordable housing needs in the community. In October 2006 the Commission held a work session on the request and gave the applicant direction on a number of items including ways to reduce impacts on adjacent neighbors, reduce the overall massing, and integrate the proposal into the neighborhood as much as possible. Since that work session, the applicant has retained the same number of units proposed, but reoriented K the location of buildings to reduce their overall impact on the Village Square neighborhood and provided some additional information not available at the last work session. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY Prior to 1980, the property had an R -2 zoning classification. In 1980, the zoning classification was increased to R -4. The property is currently zoned R -4. In 2000, as a response to a special use permit request for Charlottesville Catholic School and other rezoning requests proposed along Rio Road, the Planning Commission said that it is not appropriate to intensify the development along Rio Road until the Meadow Creek Parkway is complete or underway. This was due largely to the fact that Rio Road carries a much higher traffic volume than it is designed to, impacting safety and convenience for users, particularly those who reside along the road. The Parkway is on scheduled to begin construction in June of 2008. The Parkway is targeted for completion in the Spring of 2010. PURPOSE OF WORKSESSION This work session provides an opportunity for the Commission to review the applicant's changes and discuss any other outstanding issues associated with the request. CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE AND DENSITY The subject property is located in Neighborhood Two and contains an Urban Density Designation. This designation provides a residential density of 6 -34 units per acre. Urban Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate all dwelling types as well as institutional uses such as places of worship, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers including day care centers and preschools. The applicant is proposing a density of 13.63 units per acre in three multifamily buildings with a community center. The proposal is within the density range anticipated in this area. Another specific recommendation from the Comprehensive Plan is: Consider the land use and park /open space recommendations of the Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, May 2001, by Jones and Jones, for the areas adjacent to or near the Meadow Creek Parkway /Rio Road corridor. Developable portions of the area along Rio Road studied for the Meadow Creek Parkway were recommended to increase in density due to the transportation system the Parkway will provide and the proximity to the City of Charlottesville. (See Attachment F for the relevant portions of the Jones and Jones Meadow Creek Parkway study). Given the significant slopes at the rear of this property, the area closest to Rio Road (where the applicant is proposing development) was given the Urban Density designation. Due to the steep slopes to the back of the subject property, the area to the back was recommended to be open space. The density and residential type with supporting use (community center) is in conformity with the Land Use Plan. 3 GENERAL LAYOUT AND INTERCONNECTIONS The applicant's proposed layout and vehicular access approach that responds to the Comprehensive Plan designation for density, and proposes to provide adequate access to Rio Road. The plan provides large, usable and well - connected open spaces that work to support a larger system of trails and parks. Specifically, the applicant proposes to connect to the Stonewater development and Pen Park Lane to the south and the applicant proposes a pedestrian connection to the greenway trail associated with the Meadow Creek Parkway. Staff finds the applicant's approach to layout and interconnections is appropriate. CONFORMITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL Pedestrian The applicant is providing sidewalks along the Rio Road frontage. Orientation These sidewalks lead to the interior of the property with sidewalks perpendicular to Rio Road in three locations. In general, the proposed sidewalk network is ample and intuitive. The applicant is also proposing dedicate land to the County for a connection from the property to the greenway trail that is planned with the Meadow Creek Parkway. The applicant has proffered to dedicate a 400' X 70' "connector" parcel to the County. Staff believes the applicant should provide a public access easement over the portion of the property between Rio Road and the proposed dedication so that a fully public connection can be made from Rio Road and the greenway trail which leads to the Meadow Creek Parkway trail. Neighborhood This principle is addressed. The applicant proposes installing Friendly Streets and sidewalks along Rio Road. The applicant's proposal to tie into the Paths Meadow Creek Parkway greenway trail represents a neighborhood friendly path. Interconnected The applicant proposes connecting into the proposed Stonewater Streets and development to the South. Connection to the north and Village Square Transportation have been determined to be infeasible given that Village Square is Networks built out and the only potential connection is topographically challenging and contains a sewer line that would significantly constrain any road design. As mentioned above, a public access easement should be provided across the property to join Rio Road with the greenway trail. Parks and Open The applicant proposes a community green that is 100 feet wide and Space 160 feet long. The applicant's earlier plan worked to preserve a number of large trees. However, the redesign, which orients buildings away from Village Square, necessitates the removal of some of these trees. The only trees that are proffered to be protected are at the rear of the property. The applicant should review the proposed redesign, determine how at least some of the existing mature trees can be retained and provide assurance those trees will be incorporated into the development to maintain as much continuity between the Village Square neighborhood in terms of mature tree canopy. Neighborhood This principle is addressed The applicant proposes a community Centers center that would be available for meetings, neighborhood functions, and may potentially offer day care. Other centers in the area include Pen Park, Charlottesville Catholic School, Waldorf Montessori School, Charlottesville First Assembly and Covenant Church of God. The proposal to connect to the greenway along the Meadow Creek Park way through this site, beginning near the proposed community center increases the functionality of the center and would support a activities associated with the Meadow Creek Parkway greenway and park. Building and The applicant proposes three story structures above ground. Below Spaces of Human ground, the applicant proposes parking. Buildings on either side of the Scale community green frame the space and prove a spatial enclosure in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. B y reorienting the buildings perpendicular to Towne Lane in Village Square the massing impact on Village Square is reduced; the longer side of buildings is broken up with deep setbacks to the building face. Proposed balconies and other articulations further open and soften the building face. The applicant has not proffered the architectural renderings and this building is not located in an Entrance Corridor. (The entrance corridor alignment is proposed to follow the Meadowcreek Parkway between Neighborhood Two and Charlottesville. To provide further assurances regarding the architecture, the applicant could proffer to appear before the ARB for an advisory review prior to submitting a site plan. Relegated Parking This principle is addressed The applicant proposes underground parking, which will completely relegate that parking. In other areas, the applicant has relegated parking behind buildings or to the side, which is considered relegated in terms of the Neighborhood Model. Mixture of Uses This principle is addressed The applicant is proposing residential uses with a community center. Given the context and existing conditions, this principle is met. Mixture of Housing The applicant is proposing that 15% of the housing be offered for -sale Types and or for rent. The applicant intends to apply for tax credits in order to Affordability provide more affordable housing. However, the applicant cannot apply for those credits unless they have the zoning to allow the development. Once the applicant receives the entitlement desired, an application for tax credits will be submitted. If the Treesdale project is selected to receive funding, the applicant may return to amend the proffer. At the same time, the applicant has said that once they get to the implementation and financing, it may be that they do not have the money needed to offer additional affordable housing and may need to sell the property and use the market rate value and further AHIP's mission elsewhere. This discussion is continued directly under "AHIP's Affordable Housing Approach" below. Redevelopment This principle is addressed The site contains two houses. The applicant has previously proposed to include one house. This proposal does not retain either house. The applicant has sufficiently documented each structure and has proposed to utilize what might be salvageable. Site Planning that The applicant proposes using the grade to provide underground Respects Terrain parking. The applicant is not proposing to significantly impact the critical slopes that lie to the rear of the property. A critical slopes waiver covering a small area will need to be processed with the ublic hearing. Clear Boundaries This principle is addressed This parcel is not close to any edge of the with the Rural Rural Areas. Areas Question for the Commission: Are staff's recommendations highlighted in bold type above appropriate direction for the applicant? Staff believes the applicant should: provide an access easement connecting the greenway trail dedication area to Rio Road determine what existing trees can be preserved and proffer to retain them or demonstrate that they cannot be saved. consider proffering to appear before the ARB for an advisory review prior to submitting a site plan. submit a critical slopes waiver with the materials to be submitted for a public hearing. G Open Space Plan The Open Space Plan shows this area as partially wooded and identifies no other significant features. TRANSPORTATION The recommendations of the Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report (Attachment F) indicate that Pen Park Lane should become an intersection with the roadway crossing over Rio toward the western side of Rio Road and extending to and stopping at park space along the Meadow Creek flood plain. This recommendation also includes a road that is parallel to Rio. The applicant, through working with other landowners in the area, is providing a connection from their property to a proposed traffic light at Pen Park Lane in keeping with the Meadow Creek Parkway urban development recommendations of the Jones and Jones study. The final report also indicates that the character of Rio Road, given the increase in density supported by the Comprehensive Plan, will function more like a city street, with additional traffic signals and a slower travel speed. The Meadow Creek Parkway will provide the convenient and direct route from Neighborhood Two to the nearby City of Charlottesville. TIMING AND INFRASTRUCTURE As mentioned above, Rio Road is significantly impacted by local and regional traffic. 2005 VDOT traffic counts showed that 26,000 vehicles travel the road per day. In general, a road that carries more than 10,000 trips per day would be evaluated by VDOT for upgrades and/or widening. Due to the plan to construct the Meadow Creek Parkway and the existing narrow right of way and rural character of the facility, Rio Road has not been proposed to be widened (excluding sidewalks). If the property were to be developed by -right with 24 units (assuming townhouse construction), the project would add roughly 230 vehicle trips per day onto Rio Road (based on standard trip generation figures). If developed to the density proposed with the rezoning (90 apartment units), the project would add 585 vehicle trips per day. Without the Parkway, VDOT is concerned that Rio Road is below an acceptable level of service and that adding more vehicles will further degrade the level of service. Currently, the level of service on Rio Road is an E, with A being an excellent level of service and F being the lowest level of service. Based on discussion with AHIP staff, and depending upon the final outcome of requests for federal funding, AHIP could provide housing in this location no earlier than fall of 2009. This is slightly ahead of the Meadow Creek Parkway's projected completion in spring 2010. At a minimum, VDOT will require the intersection of Pen Park Lane to be improved and that the applicant's connection to be made. At the last work session, the Commission requested that the applicant provide details on how the intersection of Rio Road and Pen Park Lane will be improved and a connection to it made. The applicant has not provided those details, but has said this work is being coordinated and may be prepared to discuss it at the work session. The applicant has indicated they are working with two other developers connected to the intersection (the developer of Stonewater, a by -right development adjacent to Treesdale Park and the owner / future developer of a parcel in the City of Charlottesville that will take access off of Pen Park Lane) and will have the details and needed agreement regarding its upgrade and signalization finalized before the Commission is requested to act on the request. VA TRANSIT Staff has reviewed the proposal with Charlottesville Transportation Service Staff who indicated service to the area is not currently anticipated. The applicant has proffered to provide a transit shelter and stop and enough land for a bus to pull off the road to accommodate transit when it is provided to the site. The applicant has proffered to design the site's interior to accommodate Jaunt and CTS On- Demand Link type services which use smaller transit vehicles. Given the size of the parcel, the connection too the Meadow Creek Parkway greenway where transit stops will be provided, staff believes the applicant's approach to transit may be acceptable. If the property is developed with federal grants, the target demographic to reside in the project may be more dependent upon transit. The closest existing transit stop is located at the intersection of Greenbriar Drive, approximately 3/4 of a mile from the property. TREESDALE AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPROACH As discussed above, the applicant would like to apply for federal money to support the project. Application for such grants cannot be made until the needed zoning to support the proposal is in place. Therefore, the applicant's ability to receive the funding will be unknown until the property is rezoned. As a result, the applicant is proffering to provide 15% affordable housing in keeping with expectations for any rezoning. If, once the applicant can make application for a federal grant, AHIP is not selected for funding AHIP may not be financially able to develop the property. If that is the case, the property would be sold at a market rate and AHIP would use the proceeds to provide a project they could more confidently implement. The applicant has not provided a cash proffer in keeping with the Board's expectation to address the impacts of development. Question for the Commission: Is the approach acceptable? Staff believes AHIP's approach provides little oversight for how the project will eventually develop. If the applicant receives the federal funding desired, the applicant will provide 100% of the proposed housing for those making 60% or less of Area Mean Income (AMI). Previously, the applicant had proposed to provide half of the housing at a market rate and half at an affordable rate. Prior to that, the applicant had proposed housing for the elderly. AHIP now identifies that those making at or below 60% are an underserved segment of the local housing market. The mixture of housing types and affordability principle of the Neighborhood Model seeks to provide a dispersed variety of housing types. Without the housing type mixture or elderly concept previously proposed, the proposal may now conform less to the character the neighborhood. At the previous work session, the Commission indicated retaining continuity with the existing neighborhood was important. The Housing Director has said that the change is not a major concern for him, given the fact that no other housing like it exists in the area. Staff notes that the lack of transit service to the site may create constraints for those at 60% AMI, given the location and lack direct transit access and lack of services located nearby. The Housing Director shares this concern. The Board's approach to this request in terms of a per -unit cash proffer to address impacts may necessitate a Board work session prior to Board action. For rezonings generally, the Board has indicated that only market rate dwelling units are subject to a cash proffer to address impacts. However, should the applicant receive federal funding and provide 100% of the units to those making 60% AMI, all or most of the per unit cash proffer may be forfeited by the Board to advance affordable housing. The applicant has not provided a cash proffer to address impacts, should AHIP be unable to develop the property and it is sold. At a minimum, the applicant needs to provide the cash proffer to provide that cash in case the project is sold and provided at a market rate. The Housing Director will attend the work session to provide additional clarity on this issue. Question for the Commission: Should the applicant proffer the per unit cash expectation established by the Board to address the impact of new development? Staff believes the applicant should proffer the cash proffer in the case that AHIP cannot develop the property and has to sell it. However, staff recognizes there is no precedent for this cash proffers and this approach and the proposal may require a Board work session to finalize these details. UPDATE At the October 31, 2006 work session, the Commission requested that the following issues be addressed before this proposal comes back for a public hearing. Staff has provided an update on each issue: Noise: The applicant has moved a travel way, which was previously shown adjacent to Village Square, to the center of the site. Traffic issues: staff has provided a summary of the traffic considerations. Drainage issues: The applicant proposes a shared stormwater facility that will serve this property and the adjacent Stonehenge property. Stormwater runoff will be diverted to that facility, which will be in between Treesdale Park and Stonehenge, away from the existing Village Square neighborhood. Height of buildings: The applicant has not reduced the height of the buildings. The applicant has reoriented the buildings so that the smallest side is facing the existing neighborhoods. Safety: The Commission requested staff to obtain a copy of an accident report. This information has been requested, but has not been received by staff. VDOT in Richmond has indicated the information will arrive prior to the work session. Staff will forward that to the Commission as soon as it is available. GS Development plans across Rio Road in the City of Charlottesville that might take access off of Pen Park Lane: Staff has discussed the status of this project with City staff. No new proposal has been submitted to the City for the property. The applicant has indicated that an agreement to upgrade the Pen Park Lane among all parties involved with upgrading the intersection will be in place before the Commission reviews this proposal in a public hearing. Pedestrian traffic on Rio Road: The applicant will provide sidewalk and planting strip improvements along their frontage. The applicant will need to supply a proffer to dedicate these areas to public use with their next submission. Proposal being out of character with existing neighborhood: The applicant has worked to address this concern by moving buildings and travelways away from the adjacent Village Square. Staff believes the applicant's approach could be refined and perhaps a few units removed from the top floors to further reduce the massing. Crime and security concerns: AHIP has said that they are involved with the residents of their communities and that their residents do not pose crime and security concerns. In general, should a concern regarding crime or security arise, the County Police can respond to those issues. Where a trend of crime or security issues develops, the police have become involved by meeting with the concerned residents and increasing neighborhood monitoring. HISTORIC PRESERVATION Neither of the houses on the property is historically significant. The preservation planner requested that the applicant document the property with photos and scaled drawings. The applicant has responded to the satisfaction of the preservation planner. PROFFERS Proffer 1: Proffers that development will be in general accord with the application plan. Proffer 2: Proffers to complete a connection road between Treesdale Park and the adjacent Stonewater. The proffer also commits to install a traffic signal at Pen Park Lane and Rio Road. However, the applicant has not specified when this would be done. VDOT has indicated that it needs to be done to support Stonewater and Treesdale, so a timing commitment needs to be made. The proffer also includes a commitment to construct a right turn lane from Rio Road for the development. Previous and current engineering and VDOT comments have called for right and left hand turn lanes at the intersection of Rio and Pen Park Lane. The application plan shows this, but the proffers are not consistent with the plan. This needs to be addressed. Proffer 3: This proffer is a commitment to construct 15% of the housing as for -rent or for - sale (no minimum for either). The applicant's final program for affordable housing is yet to be determined. However, at a minimum the applicant must also form a proffer to address the Board's cash proffer expectation so that these impacts will be addressed if 10 AHIP is unable to develop the property. In keeping with recently accepted affordable housing proffers, the applicant should extend the period to identify an affordable housing buyer from 90 to 180 days. Also, the term for which for -rent affordable housing remains affordable should be increased from five years to ten years. Proffer 4: (the applicant skipped this number; the next proffer after Proffer 3 is Proffer 5) Proffer 5: The applicant proffers to dedicate land to the County for the purposes of connecting the greenway trail proposed behind the development to the Meadowcreek Parkway trail system. This should be accompanied by a public access easement between Rio Road to the land dedicated for a greenway. Proffer 6: The applicant proffers to construct sidewalk and pedestrian connections. This is not a proffer. Proffer 7: The applicant proffers to reserve an area for a future bus stop on Rio Road and to construct a bus stop with a small shelter. The applicant also proffers to design the site's minimal interior circulation network to accommodate smaller transit vehicles such as Jaunt. Proffer 8: The applicant proffers to create a stormwater management facility to share with the adjacent Stonewater subdivision. Proffer 9: The applicant proffers to construct the multifamily buildings proposed to "an EarthCraft Standard so as to be rated a minimum of "Certified" and the EarchCraft system ". Some additional information regarding the timing and mechanics (when the process of certification will begin) is needed. Proffer 10: The application proffers to designate areas as conservation areas and commits to preserve trees therein. These areas need to be delineated on the plan. Further, the applicant is proffering conditions on the conservation areas that would allow disturbance of the areas. Conclusions and Recommendations The Commission is asked to review staff's analysis and provide some additional direction related to the Neighborhood Model, affordable housing approach, and proffers. ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A - ATTACHMENT B - ATTACHMENT C - ATTACHMENT D - 11 12