HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201600003 Executive Summary Zoning Map Amendment 2013-12-11 Attachment B
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE AGENDA DATE:
ZMA-2012-003. Out of Bounds December 11, 2013
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: ACTION: X INFORMATION:
Rezone a 9.42 acre property from R-1 Residential
(1 unit/acre)to NMD Neighborhood Model District which CONSENT AGENDA:
allows residential (3-34 units/acre) mixed with ACTION: INFORMATION:
commercial, service and industrial uses. Maximum of 56
residential units with the preservation of an existing
residence on 0.68 acres for a proposed density of 6 ATTACHMENTS: YES
units/gross acre. No commercial is proposed.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Graham, Benish, Brooks, Roberge, Yaniglos
Presenter(s): Megan Yaniglos
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
BACKGROUND:
On November 13, 2013, the Board of Supervisors heard the above petition and voted to defer the application at the
applicant's request. The Board stated that the proffers needed to be revised to coordinate the timing of the traffic signal
improvements with VDOT's replacement schedule and to clarify the owner's obligation to maintain a downstream drainage
channel within the Canterbury Hills neighborhood.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant has revised the proffers to reflect changes desired by the Board. Proffer 4 has been amended to provide
that the Owner will modify the traffic signal at the intersection of Barracks Road and Georgetown Road to
accommodate the extension of Georgetown Road into the project either when requested by VDOT or as a condition to
the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy,whichever occurs sooner. This amendment will allow VDOT to ensure
that this new leg of the signal will be upgraded in conjunction with the remaining legs of the signal under VDOT's
current replacement schedule.
Proffer 5B has been amended to clarify the Owner's obligations to maintain the downstream drainage channel in the
Canterbury Hills neighborhood. The revised proffer establishes deadlines by which needed repairs will be performed,
requires the Owner to submit an inspection report to the County Engineer, allows the County Engineer to require
repairs to be performed in less time than proposed by the Owner if deemed necessary, and provides that the
maintenance and repair work will be performed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. These revisions will improve
the enforceability of Proffer 5B.
Proffer 5C has been amended to clarify the Owner's commitment to contribute 5%of the cost of the construction of
new drainage improvements associated with the drainage channel that are initiated by the Canterbury Hills Association
or an impacted property owner. The revised proffer requires that the Association or the impacted property owner
provide the Owner with written notice of the proposed improvements and their cost before construction begins, and that
the Owner provide that same notice to the County Engineer. The revised proffer also obligates the Owner to make its
5% contribution within 60 days after receipt of proof of payment for the construction. Lastly,the revised proffer provides
that these new improvements will become part of the Owner's maintenance and repair obligations under Proffer 5B.
These revisions also will improve the enforceability of Proffer 5C.
The applicant also is proposing a credit for the by-right lots under the cash proffer and has adjusted Proffer#3 to allow
for this credit. The applicant has provided a by-right subdivision plat(Attachment X) showing a total of nine lots allowed
by right under the current R-1 zoning. Staff as reviewed the plat, and finds that the development of 9 lots is feasible.
The owner also made some minor technical changes at staff's request. The proffers have been reviewed by the
Zoning, Engineering and Planning staff and the County Attorney and are in an acceptable form for approval.
1
Attachment B
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The applicant has addressed the expectations of the Board of Supervisiors and staff recommends that the Board approve
ZMA2012-003 Out of Bounds inclusive of the proffers dated November 18, 2013 and signed November 25, 2013
(Attachment A), and the Code of Development dated 8/26/2013 (Attachment B).
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Proffers Dated November 18,2013
B- Application Plan Inclusive of the Code of Development-Revision Date 8/26/2013
C- Executive Summary November 13, 2013
D- Subdivision Exhibit Plat
Planning Commission minutes
Return to agenda
2
Attachment>E
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE:
CPA 2015-02 Fiscal Impact Advisory January 26, 2016
Committee and Planning Commission
Recommendations on Cash Proffer Policy ACTION: X INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: CONSENT AGENDA:
Amendment to the Maximum Cash Proffer ACTION: INFORMATION:
Policy
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Bill Fritz, Steven Allshouse REVIEWED BY:
PRESENTER(S):
Bill Fritz
LEGAL REVIEW:
"[Filled in by Legal reviewer-Yes/No]"
BACKGROUND:
The County adopted a Cash Proffer Policy on October 10, 2007. This policy establishes maximum cash proffer amounts
per residential unit based on unit type. The intent of the policy is that cash proffers address impacts to identified public
facilities generated by new residential development. The amounts contained within the policy were based on the amounts
contained in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and Capital Needs Assessment(CNA). The amounts and projects in
the CIP and CNA change over time which necessitates the need to recalculate the figures in the Cash Proffer Policy. In
addition,the Code of Virginia has been amended since the County adopted the original Cash Proffer Policy. The County
may now only consider those projects that expand capacity. The change in the State Code alone would necessitate the
need to recalculate the figures in the Cash Proffer Policy. The Board of Supervisors directed the Fiscal Impact Advisory
Committee(FIAC)and Planning Commission to recalculate the maximum per unit cash proffer amount and to provide
recommendations regarding potential revisions to the credits available to applicants. The actions and recommendations of
FIAC and the Planning Commission are outlined in the attachments listed below.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Critical Infrastructure. Prioritize, plan and invest in critical infrastructure that responds to past and future
changes and improves the capacity to serve community needs.
DISCUSSION:
FIAC and staff reviewed the CIP and CNA to determine what projects expanded capacity and therefore were eligible
for inclusion in a Cash Proffer Policy. The County has adopted Cost Revenue Impact Model (CRIM)that attempts to
account for revenues received from development and the costs associated with development. Staff updated CRIM to
account for various changes including population density based on dwelling unit type, changes in school enrollment
numbers and traffic generation. Using the updated CRIM and CIP/CNA numbers an updated maximum per unit cash
proffer amount was generated. The new numbers are dramatically lower due to the fact that the CIP/CNA is primarily
a maintenance program. When the policy was originally developed all facilities in CIP/CNA that served a development
were included in calculating the proffer amounts. Because now only projects that expand capacity may be included,
and relatively few expansion projects are in the CIP/CNA, the amounts are significantly lowered.
The Board of Supervisors also requested that FIAC and the Planning Commission discuss possible credits. The
recommendation of the both bodies was to make limited changes to the policy now. The recommendation is to
acknowledge existing practice which is to give credit for the level of by-right development that exists on the property
prior to rezoning. Both bodies have expressed a desire to continue conversations about additional credits. The
Planning Commission has expressed the need for the Board of Supervisors to provide further guidance on the
purpose of credits. The discussion on credits, beyond those agreed to already by FIAC and the Planning Commission,
is not part of this review. Those discussions will occur in later meetings and depending on the outcome of the
discussions further revisions to the policy may be appropriate.
FIAC and the Planning Commission have also stated that the County should investigate models other than
CRIM for determining the impact of new development on infrastructure. FIAC in particular has expressed
Attachment E
interest in studying dynamic models that may more accurately capture benefits and costs of development. The
existing charter for FIAC allows them to investigate other models and they have stated a desire to begin that
work soon. Just as with credits, this issue is not before the Planning Commission at this time. It will be the
subject of future discussions and possible amendments to the policy.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The lower cash proffer amounts will reduce the amount of funds received as the result of each individual rezoning
application. However, FIAC has discussed that the lower amounts may result in an increase in the number of
rezonings which may offset the reduction in amount received in any individual rezoning. The impact of credits will
be analyzed on a project by project basis.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The changes in the State Code and the County's CNA/CIP necessitate the need to amend the existing policy. The
policy should be amended or as an alternative to amending the policy, the cash proffer policy could be repealed and
eh County could evaluate the impacts of each rezoning application on a case by case basis. If the County amends the
policy staff recommends:
1) Retitle Policy to"Proffer Policy to Address Impact to Public Facilities Resulting from Residential Rezoning."
2) Amend the maximum per unit cash proffer amounts to:
o SFD-$4,918 (2014 value was$20,987)
o SFA/TH-$3,845 (2014 value was$14,271)
o MF-$5,262 (2014 value was$14,871)
3) Amend the current adjustment method to the maximum per unit cash proffer amount by dwelling unit type to a
bi-annual adjustment based on the Board's adoption of the updated 5 year CIP and 10 year CNA.
4) Amend the calculation method of per unit cash proffer to exclude dwelling units that could be developed by-
right using existing zoning.
If the Commission prefers to recommend repealing the existing policy, staff notes a cash proffer policy is not
required. The policy could be repealed in part to eliminate any specific maximum cash proffer, and provide only that
the cash contribution be reasonable. If the policy was repealed in its entirety, County staff will resume a project by
project analysis of impacts, as done before the Cash Proffer Policy was adopted
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A—Board Directive Memo
Attachment B—Report of FIAC
Attachment C—Action of the Planning Commission
Attachment D—Summary of FIAC and Planning Commission recommendations
Attachment E—Recalculation of Per-Unit Cash Proffer Amounts by Dwelling Unit Type
Attachment F—Revised Cash Proffer Policy