HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300002 Executive Summary 2013-09-10COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA201300002, Pantops Corner
SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Rezone approximately 2.246 acres
from R -1 residential zoning district to HC
Highway Commercial zoning district. No
dwellings proposed. (See Attachment C in staff
report dated, July 16, 2013 (Attachment 1) for
Exhibits C -1 and C -2)
STAFF:
Claudette Grant
AGENDA DATE:
September 10, 2013
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On July 16, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Pantops Corner rezoning
request (ZMA201300002) (See Attachment I for staff report). As requested by the applicant and by a
vote of 6:0, the Planning Commission agreed to defer the rezoning request to September 10, 2013 to
allow the applicant time to submit additional information on traffic impacts for review by VDOT and
County staff and consideration by the Planning Commission.
The applicant responded to the Planning Commission by submitting a Volume Comparison Study
and revised proffers on August 5, 2013.
DISCUSSION:
The following is a status of the revised information submitted by the applicant:
New traffic Information:
The applicant submitted a Volume Comparison Study which summarized potential increases in
traffic volumes at the Routes 250/20 intersection for various types and sizes of developments.
The applicant's goal was to demonstrate that likely development proposals for this site would
result in trip generation scenarios that only create a small increase in overall traffic volumes at the
subject intersection (250/20). (See Attachment 11)
VDOT Comment — Troy Austin with VDOT commented that the submitted information is not
sufficient for VDOT to complete its review. No data was provided for the connection onto Route
250. The applicant needs to provide the following: an entrance analysis for each of the
connections to a State road, information regarding whether they are proposing to have turn lanes
and determine the impact of the turn lanes, determine whether the entrances will be full access,
determine sight distance, etc.
The County Engineer Comment — The County Engineer stated that this traffic study does not
provide the following: an analysis of levels of service, entrance turn lane warrants, physical
geometry for possible future improvements, or any other impact information. It contains a
comparison of ITE trip generation rates. It appears the applicant wants to develop this site in
ZMA 201300002
PC September 10, 2013
Executive Summary Page
small increments. The percentages provided in the study are based on an unknown total from the
250/20 intersection. Staff is not able to draw any conclusions based on the information submitted.
Other Outstanding Issues - Proffers:
The applicant has submitted revised proffers; however, the proffers remain in need of substantive
and technical revisions. (See Attachment III for revised proffers)
Proffer 1: This proffer is intended to establish the commitment for road interconnectivity to
adjacent parcels and, as drafted, addresses interconnection to TMP 78 -06. This proffer should
also address the interconnection to TMP 78 -5A (Road B or an equivalent continuous roadway)
shown on Exhibit C -1 and C -2. Also, the proposed proffer language related to the timing for
installing the improvements (ex., "contemporaneously with...), and expected design of the
improvements, is ambiguous and should be revised to provide a clearer understanding of when
the improvements (specifically Road A) needs to be installed, and what standards for design for
the road /travelway is expected. In addition, the last sentence should be removed because it sets
up the interconnection to tax map 78, parcel 6 only if the respective owners agree to share in the
road costs.
Proffer 2: This proffer is new and is intended to limit development on part of the rezoned parcel to
the connection of this parcel to US route 250. The concept of this proffer is acceptable; however,
the language is vague. It does not establish any standard for design or alignment for the
connection to US Route 250. The connection to US Route 250 should be through a continuous
roadway / travelway (Road B or equivalent) from Road A through TMP 78 -5A to US Route 250. It is
also recommended that the first clause of the proffer be revised from "No Certificate of
Occupancy ... shall be issued" (which puts a prohibition on the County) to "The Owner shall not
request that the County issue a certificate of occupancy for any building on the north side of Road
A until ... "which would place the responsibility on the applicant to comply.
Proffer 3: The applicant provided a proffer to address protection of the greenspace area identified
in the Pantops Master Plan which is located on the northeast portion of the site. After further
analysis, staff is of the opinion the existing regulations regarding floodplain and stream buffers will
adequately protect this area. This proffer could potentially create conflicts with current zoning
regulations, and accomplishes very little beyond what the zoning ordinance will require. Staff
recommends this proffer be eliminated.
Proffer 4: No comment on this proffer.
Proffer 5: This proffer needs to be revised to use the standard format for this type of proffer.
Proffer Form: The proffers need to be submitted on the correct proffer form.
Staff has discussed these comments briefly with the applicant, providing the applicant an opportunity
to address the comments prior to meeting with the Planning Commission again. The applicant has
requested to return to the Planning Commission without addressing the VDOT and engineering
comments related to the Volume Comparison Study.
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The proposed HC zoning can provide a more cohesive development for this property
and the adjacent existing HC zoning districts.
2. The proposed interconnections could be a benefit to the surrounding properties.
ZMA 201300002
PC September 10, 2013
Executive Summary Page 2
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The proffers need to be substantively and technically revised.
2. Traffic study information is incomplete and the adequate information as
requested by VDOT and the County Engineer needs to be submitted to
determine impacts of the rezoning and road interconnection to Routes 20, 250
and adjacent properties.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff does not recommend approval of ZMA201300002, Pantops Corner because of the
unfavorable factors listed above.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION — Zoning Map Amendment:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map
amendment with proffers:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2013 - 00002, Pantops Corner with proffers revised
substantively and technically to staff's satisfaction prior to the Board of Supervisor
public hearing submittal and any other reason(s) for approval.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map
amendment and proffers:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA2013- 00002, Pantops Corner with proffers based on
the unfavorable factors listed by staff in this Executive Summary.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment I: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 16, 2013
Attachment II: Volume Comparison Study, dated August, 2013
Attachment III: Proffers, dated Auaust 5. 2013
ZMA 201300002
PC September 10, 2013
Executive Summary Page 3