HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201200002 Staff Report 2013-04-09COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 201200002, Riverside Village
Staff: Claudette Grant
and SP 201300001, Riverside Village
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
April 9, 2013
To be Determined
Owner(s): Gordonsville Realty Investments, Inc.
Applicant: Gordonsville Realty Investments, Inc. with
Justin Shimp, P.E. of Shimp Engineering, P.C. as the
contact.
Acreage: 18.67 acres
Rezone from: R-1, residential to NMD, Neighborhood
Model District with proffers. A special use permit is
proposed under Sections 30.3.05.2.1(2),
30.3.05.2.2(1), and 30.3.05.2.2(3) of the zoning
ordinance for fill of land in floodways.
TMP: 07800000005800
By -right use: The R-1 district allows residential uses
Location: Located on the west side of Stony Pointe
up to 27 dwelling units with bonus density/clustering
Road/Route 20 and the east side of Free Bridge
provisions for the entire parcel and 14 units with a
Lane/Route 1421, approximately 350 feet south of
bonus density/clustering provisions for the area
the intersection of Route 20/Elks Drive.
designated for development in the Comprehensive
Attachments A and B
Plan..
Magisterial District: Rivanna
Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Rezone 18.67 acres from R-1 zoning
Requested # of Dwelling Units: Maximum 112
district to NMD zoning district with special use
permit request under Sections 30.3.05.2.1(2),
30.3.05.2.2(1), and 30.3.05.2.2(3) of the zoning
ordinance for fill of land in floodways. The maximum
number of residential units proposed is 112. Five (5)
buildings proposed with a mix of residential and up
to 50,000 square feet of commercial uses. Some
floodplain disturbance for parking and recreational
areas. (Attachment C)
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 3 — Pantops
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Greenspace —
Comp Plan Area.
undeveloped areas; Neighborhood Density
Residential — residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting
uses such as religious institutions, schools and other
small-scale non-residential uses; and River Corridor —
parks, golf courses, greenways, natural features and
supporting commercial and recreational uses.
Character of Property: Undeveloped, mostly
Use of Surrounding Properties: Elks Lodge, Rivers
wooded with flood plain and stream buffers
Edge office park, and residential uses.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
ZMA request:
ZMA request:
1.The form of development of the property as a
1. The density proposed is considerably higher than
mixed use development is consistent with the
what is recommended in the Pantops Master Plan
land use recommendations in the
(PMP).
Comprehensive Plan and the goals for
2. The proposed square footage for non-residential
development in the County.
uses is higher than what is recommended in the
2.Will provide employment opportunities and tax
PMP.
revenues to the County.
3. Impacts are shown in the floodplain, such as
3. A future interconnection is shown to the
stormwater facilities, parking area, and the
adjacent property.
construction of a picnic pavilion is describes in the
4. Park land, and funds for towards master
Code of Development.
4. Proposed road access and design to some blocks
ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, SP 2013-00001, Riverside Village
Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 09, 2013
Staff Report, Page 1
planning and construction, have been offered
may not provide adequate vehicular access,
parking, or fire -rescue access
5. Cash proffer amount is not consistent with the
SP request:
County's cash proffer policy.
[no factors favorable identified]
6. The Code of Development needs technical
revisions.
7. The proffers are in need of substantive and
technical revisions.
SP request:
1. The SP request would allow development in the
flood hazard overlay district which would not
normally be allowed.
2. The proximity of residences to floodwaters may be
a concern to future residents
3. The danger of settling and erosion in areas of fill
will be increased.
4. This would add to the cumulative effects
degrading the floodplain of the river.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff cannot recommend approval of ZMA201200002, Riverside Village because of
the unfavorable factors :
1. The density proposed is considerably higher than what is recommended in the Pantops Master
Plan (PMP).
2. The proposed square footage for non-residential uses is higher than what is recommended in the
PMP.
3. Impacts are shown in the floodplain, such as stormwater facilities, parking area, and the
construction of a picnic pavilion is describes in the Code of Development.
4. Inadequate street design for roads B and C
5. Cash proffer amount is not consistent with the County's cash proffer policy.
6. The Code of Development needs technical revisions.
7. The proffers are in need of substantive and technical revisions.
Staff recommends disapproval of the Special Use Permit request SP201300001, Riverside Village because of
the unfavorable factors noted above.
ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, SP 2013-00001, Riverside Village
Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 09, 2013
Staff Report, Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION: April 9, 2013
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village
SP 2013-00001, Riverside Village
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA201200002 and SP201300001 Riverside Village
PROPOSAL: Rezone 18.67 acres from R-1 zoning district which allows residential uses at a
density of one unit per acre to NMD zoning district which allows residential, mixed with commercial,
service and industrial uses at a density of 3 — 34 units/acre and special use permit under Sections
30.3.05.2.1(2), 30.3.05.2.2(1), and 30.3.05.2.2(3) of the zoning ordinance for fill of land in
floodways. 112 maximum residential units proposed for a maximum gross density of 6 units/acre for
the entire parcel and a maximum density of 11 units/acre for the area designated for development
in the Comprehensive Plan. Five (5) commercial buildings (up to 50,000 square feet) also
proposed. Some floodplain disturbance for parking and recreational areas.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Greenspace — undeveloped areas; Neighborhood Density Residential —
residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools and other small-
scale non-residential uses; and River Corridor — parks, golf courses, greenways, natural features
and supporting commercial and recreational uses in Neighborhood 3 — Pantops Comp Plan Area.
LOCATION: Located on the west side of Stony Pointe Road/Route 20 and the east side of Free
Bridge Lane/Route 1421, approximately 350 feet south of the intersection of Route 20/Elks Drive.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800000005800
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The site is located on Route 20 north, adjacent to the Elks Lodge (to the north) and adjacent to Free
Bridge Lane and the Rivanna River (to the west). Floodplain and stream buffer associated with the
river are located on this site along with an unnamed creek that runs along the southern property
boundary of the site. The site is almost entirely wooded and changes in grade from an elevation of
380' at the northeastern corner down to the floodplain where it is an elevation of 320'. Uses
adjacent to the site include residential a single-family residence, Wilton Farm apartments, along
with the nearby Frost Montessori, the Fontana Subdivision, and Avemore located to the east,
across Route 20. Darden Towe Park is located to the north of the site and Rivers Edge office park
to the south.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant proposes to rezone 18.67 acres from R-1 to Neighborhood Model District to allow up
to 112 single family attached and detached units, townhouses, and multifamily residential units.
Commercial office and retail uses totaling approximately 50,000 square feet are also proposed for
the site. There are four buildings fronting Route 20 that could have a mix of commercial and
residential uses along with one building near the riverfront that is proposed with a mix of
commercial and residential uses. Access to the property would be from two entrances proposed on
Route 20, one entrance providing a street to serve the single family residential portion of the site
and a second entrance accessing a parking lot that would serve the mixed use block of commercial
and multifamily residential uses. An eight acre open space/park is proposed in the flood plain, and a
Rivanna River Walk/trail is proposed at the western boundary of the site. Parking, stormwater
management facilities and a picnic pavilion are proposed to be located in the floodplain area of the
site (See Attachment C: Application Plan) .
ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, SP 2013-00001, Riverside Village
Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 09, 2013
Staff Report, Page 3
The density proposed for the residential use is higher than the density recommended in the
Pantops Master Plan (PMP). Approximately 8.8 acres of the 18.67 acre parcel is in the floodplain.
The PMP recommends a density of 3-6 units per acre for the area outside of the floodplain, which
would allow for 30-59 units. This Zoning Map Amendment request is to permit up to 112 units, up to
two times the density recommended in the master plan. A special use permit application to allow fill
in the floodplain has been submitted along with the zoning map amendment request. The Planning
Commission has reviewed other similar rezoning and special use permit requests on this site (see
Planning and Zoning History section, below)
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant has not provided any justification for the request.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
There are no prior approvals for development on this property. However, a prior rezoning request
was reviewed on this property. ZMA200700024 was a similar to the current rezoning request in the
terms of the mix and form of development, the proposed density (which exceeded the
Comprehensive Plan recommendation) and the proposed fill in the floodplain (SP200700057 was
also requested simultaneously for fill in the floodplain). The Planning Commission held two work
sessions on the rezoning and special use permit requests. One was held on December 18, 2007
and the second one held on August 26, 2008. (See Attachment D for the last Action Memo). In
2007, the Planning Commission requested the applicant not to include the floodplain acreage in the
density calculation and use the 3-6 units per acre calculation to determine the net density. In 2008,
the Planning Commission again expressed concern that the proposed density would adversely
impact the floodplain. Staff continues to recommend no more than 59 units for the site as
designated in the PMP.
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Land Use Plan:
PANTOPS MASTER PLAN
The land use designations on this property are Neighborhood Density, River Corridor Overlay, and
Greenspace. The descriptions of these land use designations and insets of the Land Use Map and
Parks and Green Systems maps are below.
Neighborhood Density Residential — 3 — 6 residential units per acre with residential support uses
and limited non-residential uses. Neighborhood Density Residential areas will primarily accommodate
single family dwelling unit 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.
Neighborhood Density Residential areas accommodate small areas of non-residential land uses on
the scale of Neighborhood Service, to serve residential uses. This may include corner stores of less
than 4,000 square feet; live/work units above office and/or retail; small office buildings with less than
20,000 square feet; and studios/cottage occupations.
Greenspace — Sensitive environmental features including stream buffers, flood plain, and adjacent
slopes. Typically only passive recreation will occur in these areas or greenway trails. Also includes
open space areas that may be managed and owned by homeowners associations.
ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, SP 2013-00001, Riverside Village
Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 09, 2013
Staff Report, Page 4
Land Use Plan Parks & Green Systems
Darden Towe Park/Stony Point Road (Cascadia/Fontana/Avemore) Neighborhood
Free Bridge Lane -Focal Point of River Corridor
The Rivanna River Corridor includes the portions of the Riverside Village property adjacent to the
river. The corridor designation is shown on the Framework Plan as an overlay to underlying land use
recommendations to stress river -orientation and uses. Where there is no underlying land use
designation for development and for the remainder of the corridor of the river through Pantops, a
linear park and trails are in development. The Parks and Green Systems Plan calls for several access
points along the River and a trailhead (major access point) as a feature of the linear park in and
around the Free Bridge and Riverbend portions of the park.
This area offers the best river walk possibilities along Free Bridge Lane adjacent to the Rivanna River
and includes the properties between Free Bridge Lane and Route 20 North, south of a stream and
Darden Towe Park. Free Bridge Lane as a river walk may mean future limitations to vehicular access.
This area could include a recreational focus associated with the River Corridor, with possible canoe
rental and other recreational opportunities.
The Master Plan identifies neighborhoods and centers in Pantops. Recommendations for
the residential neighborhood where Riverside Village is located include (with staff comments
in parentheses:
Maintain the residential character of existing neighborhoods. (this site is undeveloped
and recommended for residential—the proposed use is predominately residential)
Allow for Neighborhood Density and Urban Density residential uses with a
Neighborhood Service (NS) center. (this proposed density exceeds that
recommended in the PMP)
Protect the rural scenic qualities of Route 20 from the northern edge of the
development area south to Elks Drive/Fontana Drive where development along
Route 20 should transition to an urban character to the City of Charlottesville. (n/a)
Preserve stream corridors and flood plain in this neighborhood and allow for
pedestrian paths in those areas, where natural features allow. (the floodplain is
impacted by this proposal)
In conjunction with proposed transportation improvements, provide for
pedestrian/bike/transit improvements as a high priority. (sidewalk and trail
improvements are being proposed)
Preserve natural systems adjacent to the river while enhancing this area of Pantops
with mixed use development including shops, cafes, and residential uses above.
Frame and enhance views to the river. (the applicant is proffering floodplain area for
use as park. Some of floodplain area impacted by the development proposal)Provide
ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, SP 2013-00001, Riverside Village
Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 09, 2013
Staff Report, Page 5
access to the greenway through use of stairs and walkways where topography will
allow. (walkway/trail being provided to Rivanna River greenway)
Open Space Plan:
The Open Space Plan identifies major and locally important stream valleys and adjacent critical
slopes as significant environmental resources located on this site. There is also a perennial stream,
floodplains, and wooded areas located on the property as well. The plan shows a river walk area
adjacent to the Rivanna River. The trail is located along the western border of the site. Protection of
these environmental resources is an important element of the Comprehensive Plan. There is
proposed grading on critical slopes. The applicant has been advised that a critical slope waiver is
needs to be granted to permit this work and that it should be submitted and reviewed as part the
rezoning request. That applicant has decided to not submit this request at this time.
Neighborhood Model -The Neighborhood Model describes the more "urban" form of development
desired for the Development Areas. It establishes the 12 Principles for Development that should be
adhered to in new development proposals.
Pedestrian
There is proposed system of sidewalks and trails providing access to
Orientation
the adjacent Rivanna River greenway and to Route 20. Although this
principle is met staff is concerned that the proposed pedestrian mews
proposed to serve blocks 2A,B, and C will function as alleys and do not
provide for a comfortable walking environment for pedestrians. This
principle is not fully met.
Neighborhood
Street trees and sidewalks are provided, along with parallel parking
Friendly Streets
along some of the streets. This principle is met.
and Paths
Interconnected
The development plan provides a road "stub -out" for a future
Streets and
interconnection to the Elks Lodge north of the subject parcel This
Transportation
principle is met.
Networks
Parks and Open
The Application Plan shows an area for open space/future park and a
Space
tree conservation area. This principle is met.
Neighborhood
This property is located in the vicinity of Avemore/Cascadia and
Centers
Pantops Shopping center. This principle is met.
Buildings and
With maximum heights up to 60 feet, it appears the proposed buildings
Spaces of
would be between 1-3 stories also with green spaces, and trees located
Human Scale
throughout the development this would be compatible with the human
scale; therefore, this principle is met.
Relegated
A majority of the parking is relegated. This principle is met.
Parking
Mixture of Uses
The proposed development provides an appropriate mix of uses.
However, the proposed total square footage of commercial uses with a
maximum of up to 50,000 square feet exceeds the expectations of the
PMP, which recommends small office buildings with less than 20,000
square feet. This principle is partially addressed. .
ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, SP 2013-00001, Riverside Village
Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 09, 2013
Staff Report, Page 6
Mixture of
A mixture of housing types is included with the proposed development
Housing Types
and proffers addressing affordable housing are now included with the
and Affordability
request. Per the Code of Development, the applicant proposes 16
affordable units. However, 15% of 112 residential units would be 17
affordable units. The proffers are in need of technical and substantive
revisions. This principle is partially addressed.
Redevelopment
This site is undeveloped. This principle does not apply.
Site Planning
There are important environmental features on the site such as the
that Respects
floodplain, stream buffers, and areas of critical slopes. Fill is proposed
Terrain
in the floodplain. Comments below address the need for protection of
the stream buffers and flood plain. More information is needed by the
County Engineer to review the special use permit request for fill in the
floodplain. A critical slopes waiver should be submitted and reviewed
with this rezoning. This principle is not addressed.
Clear Boundaries
This property is located entirely within the Development Area
with the Rural
Boundaries. This principle does not apply.
Areas
Economic Vitality Action Plan
The primary goal of the County's Economic Vitality Action Plan is to:
Increase the County's economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by
expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local
residents. This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local
residents and existing local businesses.
The proposed Riverside Village development would support the Plan by providing additional
employment, retail, office, and service uses for the residents who live within this development and
this portion of the County.
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district: The following section is an excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance:
Neighborhood Model Districts are intended to provide for compact, mixed-use development
with an urban scale, massing, density, and an infrastructure configuration that integrates
diversified uses within close proximity to each other.
The NMD is intended to be a flexible zoning district to allow development consistent with the goals
of the land use plan/master plan and the neighborhood model principles. The general form of this
proposal is consistent with the intent of the NMD district. The mix of uses within this development
will provide appropriate services and activities of a neighborhood and community scale. However
there are four major concerns:
The proposed residential density is significantly higher than recommended in the PMP. The
PMP recommends up to a maximum of 59 units (6 du/ac). This proposal calls for up to 112
units, two times the density recommended in the master plan.
The total amount of commercial square footage proposed (50,000) exceeds the amount
recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for area designated for Neighborhood Density
Residential (20,000). The additional square footage is not needed in this area, with
commercial areas already approved within the Cascadia development and with the large
amount of existing commercial space located just south of the site along Rt 20 and Rt. 250.
ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, SP 2013-00001, Riverside Village
Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 09, 2013
Staff Report, Page 7
A special use permit under Sections 30.3.05.2.1(2), 30.3.05.2.2(1), and 30.3.05.2.2(3) of the
zoning ordinance for fill in floodplain is needed for this proposal. Staff opinion is there is no
compelling reason to allow fill in the floodplain because the need for the proposed impacts
to the floodplain are due to the proposed residential densities and commercial square
footage that is significantly higher than what is recommended for this area in the Pantops
Master Plan. A lower density on the site could eliminate the need for the special use permit.
There are numerous technical and substantive issues/corrections with the application plan,
code of development and proffers that will need to be addressed before they can be in an
acceptable form for approval including, but not limited to, some road cross-sections which
may not provide adequate parking, fire rescue access or pedestrian accommodations. (this
is discussed in more detail later in the report). A critical slope waiver request should also be
submitted for review and acted on as part of the review and approval of this rezoning
request.
Public need and justification for the change:
The County's Comprehensive Plan supports development in the designated development areas
that is consistent with the use, density, and form recommended in the Plan. In general, the PMP
recommends development of the portion of this property that is outside the floodplain. An addition
of a mixed use development in this portion of the County could be beneficial for County residents
who wish to live and work in this portion of the County. However, this development proposes more
square footage of commercial uses than recommended in the PMP, and almost double the amount
of residential density than recommended in the PMP. Development activity is also proposed in the
flood plain areas that staff generally does not support and there is no clear justification from the
applicant why development activity needs to occur in the floodplain. While the form of development
is generally adequate, staff feels the share amount of development is more than recommended in
the PMP, and is not supportive of the overdevelopment of this particular site.
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources:
There are important environmental resources located on this site, such as critical slopes, a
perennial stream, floodplain, and wooded areas. The PMP deliberately designated a portion of this
site as greenspace to encourage the protection and preservation of sensitive environmental
features including stream buffers, flood plain, and adjacent slopes. Furthermore, the PMP provides
recommendations to protect and preserve these sensitive areas described in the PMP.
However, the following environmental issues remain a concern:
Although a picnic shelter is not shown on the application plan, the code of development and
other documentation provided describes a picnic shelter being developed in the flood plain.
Some details for this shelter are also described on the plan documents. Development of a
building or structure that is being proposed within the floodplain is not something staff can
support.
Stormwater facilities are shown within the floodplain. Staff does not believe stormwater
facilities should be located in the floodplain and the application plan should be revised to not
show stormwater facilities in the floodplain.
A parking area is shown within the floodplain. Staff does not typically support a parking area
in the floodplain.
While the applicant continues to show these disturbances in the floodplain area and has provided a
special use permit request for fill in the floodway, the applicant has not provided any compelling
justification for this disturbance. As previously stated in this report, and past worksessions,
reduction in density, as recommended in the PMP could eliminate some of the disturbance in the
floodplain.
ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, SP 2013-00001, Riverside Village
Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 09, 2013
Staff Report, Page 8
There are no impacts on cultural and historic resources.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services:
Streets:
An updated traffic study was provided and reviewed by the County Engineer and VDOT. As
expected, the intersection of Route 20 and Route 250 is failing under existing conditions. The
applicant states that this intersection has such a high volume of traffic that the impacts from the
subject site are approximately 3% taken in total. However, the County Engineer notes that for the
crucial left turning movement onto Route 250, it is 12% (34/287), or 17% (60/343) for the right turn
movement. Because this is significant, the County Engineer recommends the applicant provide
improvements to this intersection and signal. The current structure of the proffers only provides
cash for master planning and improvements to the future park area adjacent to the site.
The Application Plan shows several deficiencies related to interior roads. As shown on the
application plan, blocks 2A, 2B, and 2C do not appear to have road frontage. Section 14-403 of the
Subdivision Ordinance states that each lot within a subdivision shall have frontage on an existing or
proposed street.
The Application Plan has several deficiencies related to interior roads. The applicant is requesting
approval of Roads "B" and "C" as private streets. While it appears road "B" could be a private street
with some design modification recommended by the County Engineer, staff is concerned with the
design concept for access Road C which is intended to serve Blocks 2 A -B.
As shown on the application plan, blocks 2A and 2B do not appear to have road frontage. Section
14-403 of the Subdivision Ordinance states that each lot within a subdivision shall have frontage on
an existing or proposed street. Road C is intended to serve portions of Blocks 2A and 2B. Road "C"
is described as a pedestrian mews, designed for pedestrian and bike travel and no vehicular traffic,
except for emergency access. Vehicular access and parking to serve these blocks would be from
alleys located at the rear of the lots. This Mews road concept does not meet the definition a street
and therefore does not provide frontage to the lots in these blocks. Alleys are also not considered
streets and cannot provide frontage to lots under the zoning ordinance. Planning and engineering
staff are concerned that this concept (with alley and mews design) for providing access to these
blocks/lots may not be able to adequately accommodate traffic demands, parking needs and
provide adequate emergency access to lots/units. There is no specific lot layout provided for these
blocks at this time to determine if vehicular access, parking and emergency access can be
accommodated within these blocks and/or on the lots.
Staff cannot support the request for Road C to be a private road as proposed at this time. Staff
could support approval of Road B as a private if design modifications were made to the satisfaction
of the County Engineer (See Attachment E for VDOT comments).
Schools:
Students living in this area would attend Stony Point Elementary School, Burley Middle School, and
Monticello High School.
Fire and Rescue:
This site will be covered by the City Fire/Rescue station.
Utilities:
ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, SP 2013-00001, Riverside Village
Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 09, 2013
Staff Report, Page 9
The Albemarle County Service Authority has indicated that they do not have comments at this stage
of review. This project is in the water and sewer service jurisdictional area and both services are
available.
Cash Proffer Policy:
The county cash Proffer Policy states that:
It is the policy of the County to require that the owner of property that is rezoned for residential
uses to provide cash proffers equivalent to the proportional value of the public facilities deemed
necessary to serve the proposed development on the property. Accordingly, the Board will
accept cash proffers for rezoning requests that permit residential uses in accordance with this
policy. However, the Board may also accept cash, land or in- kind improvements in
accordance with County and State law to address the impacts of the rezoning.
Because of the broad range of unit types (SFD, SFA, TH, and apartments) and total units (33 to 112
units), and flexibility to mix unit types within each block, it is difficult to determine what the potential
cash proffer amount would be under the cash proffer policy. Using the minimum number of units
proposed for development (33 units, 16 apartments and 17 single family detached units), a total of
$574,812 would be contributed to the CIP. The applicant has offered $500 per unit to be used
toward improvements to the proposed park area adjacent to the development (112 units * $500 =
$56,000) and the $30,000 for park master planning, resulting in total contribution of up to $86,000.
However, the applicant wishes to receive credit for the first $30,000 contributed to the Park Master
Plan. In other words, the $500 per unit contribution would begin with unit number 61.and yield 52
units *500 = $26,000. There is a significant difference between the proposed contribution and the
contribution recommended per the County's cash proffer policy.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties:
Surrounding properties are already experiencing a change in character with new development that
has occurred in this area. The existing Wilton Farms apartments, Fontana, and Avemore
developments located to the east of the proposed Riverside Village project will experience the
physical changes of this site's wooded character with development along with additional traffic
generated from this project.
The increased residential density and commercial square footage requested over what is
recommended in the PMP is a substantial change that could impact the surrounding properties with
additional traffic. The proposed impacts to the environmental resources on the site also has impacts
on surrounding properties and the surrounding ecosystem.
PROFFERS
The applicant has provided proffers. (See Attachment F) The proffers are in need of substantive
and technical fixes. The following describes the proffers provided:
Proffer 1. Park Land Dedication: As shown on the Application Plan, the Owner is offering the
County for public use, an 8 -acre of land for a park and open space resource, which is located in the
floodplain of the Rivanna River. The Owner will construct a Class B trail through the park land.
Proffer 2. Affordable Housing: The Owner will provide 15% of the total residential units
constructed on the property for affordable housing in the form of for -sale and/or for -rent
condominium or apartment units. Technical corrections are needed in the Code of Development
and to make it consistent with this proffer to provide 15% of the total units as affordable units.
Proffer 3. Cash Proffer for Park Master Plan: The Owner proposes to provide a $30,000 cash
contribution to the County for the funding of a master plan for the 8+acre park shown on the
ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, SP 2013-00001, Riverside Village
Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 09, 2013
Staff Report, Page 10
Application Plan. If there are remaining funds left from the Master Plan, the County can retain this
for the use of parks and recreation projects and improvements.
Proffer 4. Cash Proffer for Park Projects: The Owner proposes to provide to the County $500.00
in cash for each dwelling unit constructed on the property (up to $56,000) for funding parks and
recreation projects and improvements within the Park Area shown on the Application Plan and in
general accord with the park's master plan. In addition, the Owner shall receive a "credit" for the
first $30,000 (this is the cash amount recognized in proffer 3 that would be owed to the County as
previously described in proffer 4. If the $30,000 cash proffer amount provided to fund the Park
Master Plan Proffer 3) is not enough, the County can apply a portion of the cash proffer described
in this proffer 4 to fully fund the Park Master Plan. If the County chooses, it can substitute facilities
shown on the Park master Plan or locate facilities shown on the Park Master Plan elsewhere in the
Pantops Growth Area. With the credit for the $30,000 contribution for the park planning taken into
account, the net cash proffer amount would be $26,000..
Staff would note that under the County's cash proffer policy, using the minimum number of units
proposed for development (33 units, 16 Apartment and 17 single family detached units), a total of
$574,812 would be contributed to the CIP and could be made available to fund a broader range of
CIP projects, including important park improvements and/or transportation improvements in the Rt.
20/US 250 corridors.
Proffer 5. Frontage Improvements: Per the recommendation of the PMP, this proffer proposes
that the Owner construct turn lanes and improvements along Route 20, to the extent of the subject
property's frontage only, as shown in the Application Plan, and designed and constructed to VDOT
standards.
In summary, the main substantive issue not addressed with the proffers is the lack of provision for
adequate cash proffers consistent with the county's cash proffer policy. These contributions could
help to mitigate some of the existing failing traffic conditions at the US 250 and Rt. 20 intersection
and which could also contribute to addressing other impacts to schools, emergency services and
the like. The draft proffers also have a number of technical deficiencies, such as typographical
errors, inconsistent information, and need to be in acceptable proffer language/form as per the
recommendations of the County Attorney and the Housing Director.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. The general form of development of the property as a mixed use development is
consistent with the land use recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan and the
goals for development in the County.
2. Will provide employment opportunities and tax revenues to the County.
3. A future interconnection is shown to the adjacent property.
4. Park land, and funds for towards master planning and construction, have been
offered.
Staff has found the following factors unfavorable to this rezoning:
1. The density proposed is considerably higher than what is recommended in the
Pantops Master Plan (PMP).
2. The proposed square footage for non-residential uses is higher than what is
recommended in the PMP.
3. Impacts are shown in the floodplain, such as stormwater facilities, parking area,
and the construction of a picnic pavilion is describes in the Code of Development.
ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, SP 2013-00001, Riverside Village
Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 09, 2013
Staff Report, Page 11
4. Proposed road access and design to some blocks does not provide adequate
vehicular access, parking, or fire -rescue access.
5. Cash proffer amount is not consistent with the County's cash proffer policy
6. The application plan and code of development need technical revisions.
7. The proffers are in need of substantive and technical revisions.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff cannot recommend approval of ZMA201200002, Riverside Village because of the
following unfavorable factors:
1. The density proposed is considerably higher than what is recommended in the
Pantops Master Plan (PMP).
2. The proposed square footage for non-residential uses is higher than what is
recommended in the PMP.
3. Impacts are shown in the floodplain, such as stormwater facilities, parking area, and
the construction of a picnic pavilion is describes in the Code of Development.
4. Inadequate street design for Roads B and C
5. Cash proffer amount is not consistent with County's cash proffer policy
6. application plan and code of development are need of technical revisions.
7. The proffers are in need of technical revisions.
Staff can recommend approval of this proposal provided certain changes are made in the
application plan and proffers;
1. The proposed residential density is revised to be consistent the
recommendation of the Pantops Master Plan.
2. The proposed square footage of the non-residential use is reduced to be
more consistent with the recommendations of the Pantops Master Plan
3. Impacts to the floodplain are removed, including the stormwater facilities, parking
area, and the construction of a picnic pavilion as describes in the Code of
Development.
4. Roads B and C are constructed to public or private road standards as recommend
recommended by VDOT and/or the County Engineer.
5. Provide cash proffer amounts consistent with the County's cash proffer policy.
6. Numerous substantive and technical corrections are made to the application plan,
code of development and proffers to the satisfaction of Director of Planning.
Staff Comment on SP 201300001-Reauest for Fill in the Floodwav in the NMD
Neighborhood Model District
Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
A floodplain study has not been provided, so this is not certain, but adjacent property impacts are
unlikely.
Will the character of the zonina district chanae with this use?
The topography will change with the filled in areas. The flood hazard overlay district will be reduced
if the county supports the fill. FEMA will allow the fill at the county's direction, which will reduce the
floodplain accordingly.
ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, SP 2013-00001, Riverside Village
Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 09, 2013
Staff Report, Page 12
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
No. This fill in the floodplain allows more residential development where none is currently permitted
(in the floodplain). The fill also support total development in excess of that recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan
Will the use be in harmonv with the uses permitted by riaht in the district?
No. This fill in the floodplain allows more residential development where none is currently
permitted.
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance?
Yes.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is
approved?
Areas built in fill which become saturated are more susceptible to erosion and settling.
These residences will be built at the limit of the adjusted floodplain, which will grow over time as
the river watershed area develops. The proximity of floodwaters will be alarming to these
residents, and may generate complaints to the county in future. It is also possible that the
floodplain could grow to incorporate these residences.
Site specific impacts can be small in scale with the river, but the cumulative effects of such fill
areas can be significant.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factor favorable to this request:
1. Staff has not identified any favorable factors to this request:
Staff has identified the following unfavorable factors.
1. This allows development in the flood hazard overlay district which would not normally
be allowed.
2. The proximity of residences to floodwaters may be a concern to future residents
3. The danger of settling and erosion in areas of fill will be increased.
4. This would add to the cumulative effects degrading the floodplain of the river.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends disapproval of the special use permit because of the following unfavorable
factors:
1. This allows development in the flood hazard overlay district which would not normally
be allowed.
2. The proximity of residences to floodwaters may be a concern to future residents
3. The danger of settling and erosion in areas of fill will be increased.
4. This would add to the cumulative effects degrading the floodplain of the river.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Zoning Map Amendment:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village with the changes in the
application, code of development and proffers as recommended by staff..
ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, SP 2013-00001, Riverside Village
Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 09, 2013
Staff Report, Page 13
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map amendment:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village based on the issues
identified by staff. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state
the reason(s) for recommending denial.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Special Use Permit:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP 2013-00001, Riverside Village. Should a commissioner
motion to recommend approval, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending approval.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP 201300001, Riverside Village based on the
recommendation of staff.
ATTACHMENT A: Tax Map
ATTACHMENT B: Location Map
ATTACHMENT C: Application Plan, dated May 21, 2012, Revised February 19, 2013
ATTACHMENT D: Action Memo Letter, dated September 9, 2008
ATTACHMENT E: Letter from Joel DeNunzio. dated Julv 2. 2012 and Electronic Mail from
Megan Oleynik, dated March 22, 2013
ATTACHMENT F: Proffers, dated February 19, 2013
ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, SP 2013-00001, Riverside Village
Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 09, 2013
Staff Report, Page 14