The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZMA201000001 Executive Summary Zoning Map Amendment 2011-04-20COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA2010 -01 Pantops Ridge SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Rezone approximately 37.5 acres from PD -SC Planned Development Shopping Center to R -15 Residential zoning district to allow 399 residential units for a density of 11 units /acre. STAFF CONTACT(S): Graham, Cilimberg, Echols, Grant, Davis, Kamptner LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: April 20, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On January 11, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Pantops Ridge rezoning request. The Commission, by a vote of 5:1, recommended denial of ZMA 2010 - 00001, Pantops Ridge. In response to the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant submitted revised proffers. DISCUSSION: The denial recommendation was based on the nine factors identified in the staff report as unfavorable, with comments revised and made during the Planning Commission discussion. The factors unfavorable are listed below followed by the current status in italics: Factors Unfavorable: (Current status follows in italics) 1. The proposed density exceeds the density recommended in the Pantops Master Plan. The Pantops Master Plan suggests that approximately 300 units should be built on the areas within the Project designated as urban density and neighborhood density. The revised proffers propose 399 units, which is a reduction from the 562 units originally proposed. However, the density exceeds the density recommended in the Pantops Master Plan. 2. There is no commitment to retain Green space shown on the Pantops Master Plan. The applicant modified the wording of Proffer 7 which relates to Green Space; however, no commitment has been made to provide a Central Green and Green Space along the eastern property line to protect environmental features of the site as recommended in the Pantops Master Plan. 3. Because a plan of development was not submitted for the Project, there is insufficient information to determine whether the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Pantops Mater Plan, would be met by this rezoning. A plan of development has still not been provided. As part of their deliberation after the public hearing, the Commission determined that, although a plan of development is not expressly required for an application for R -15 zoning, the failure of the applicant to submit a plan of development was an unfavorable factor because, without a plan, there was insufficient information to determine whether the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Pantops Master Plan, would be met by this rezoning. The relevant goals are environmental protection, design around a Central Green, the provision of amenities, the location of the mix of housing types and a pedestrian orientation. Proffer 3 provides for a mixture of housing types with a minimum amount of certain housing types being required at full build -out. 4. No updated traffic study has been provided for this application; however a significantly lessened traffic count was computed due to the change in use from shopping center to R -15. Without a traffic study, requirements of the state's Chapter 527 traffic study regulations have not been met and needed transportation improvements resulting from the development cannot be confirmed, including the proposed relocation of Hansens Mountain Road. (Traffic count computed by W/W Associates per Exhibit A of the proffers) The applicant has not provided a traffic study. Instead, he has proffered to conduct one as part of the first site plan or subdivision plat. Proffer 1. f. is not adequate and is not a substitute for the analysis and assessment of impacts for the Commission, Board and VDOT to review. A complete traffic study would identify issues or impacts not addressed by the list of items provided in the proffer and may contain information that requires additional decisions by the Commission, Board and VDOT regarding transportation impacts and improvements. Proffer 1.f. is in need of substantive and technical changes. (See Attachment B) 5. The proffers obligate the County or VDOT to acquire any needed land for the relocation of Hansens Mountain Road utilizing funds proffered by the applicant without a commitment by the applicant to attempt to acquire this land themselves. This puts the County or VDOT in the position of potentially needing to condemn land owned by multiple property owners in order for the proffer to be executed. Proffers 1. a., b., and c. have been revised to no longer obligate VDOT to acquire needed land for relocation, and now require the applicant to seek to acquire any needed right -of -way and associated easements. These proffers are also revised to require the Owner to pay the County's costs of acquisition or condemnation if the applicant is unable to purchase the right -of -way. No measure is provided for the County to assess whether the applicant has exhausted all resources before asking the County to condemn. The Commission recommended that the need for the County to condemn should be used as a last alternative or last resort at the applicant's expense (See Action Letter). 6. There is no commitment to accommodate transit in the development, nor is there a commitment of any funding for public transit services. Proffer 9 now provides for a bus stop turnoff with a bench. There remains no commitment of any funding for public transit services. 7. There is no commitment to provide affordable housing. There is still no commitment to provide affordable housing. Based on the County's Affordable Housing policy in the Comprehensive Plan that states 15% of the residential units should be affordable, 59.85 affordable units would be needed at full build out. In the alternative, the applicant may provide cash in lieu of built units, which, based on past practice, could be allocated as each market -rate unit is constructed. 8. There is no commitment to address the development's impacts on public facilities as provided in the Comprehensive Plan. The County is authorized by Virginia Code § 15.2 -2303 to accept cash contributions to address impacts to public facilities generated by new residential development. As stated in Appendix B (Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities) to the Land Use Plan Section to the Comprehensive Plan, when land is rezoned for residential uses, "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." The public facilities that can be addressed by a cash contribution under the Policy are schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety. The Policy also allows the impacts to these facilities to be addressed through in -kind improvements and other means, and entitles an applicant to credits for not only in -kind improvements but for other reasons as well. The proposed relocation and construction of Hansens Mountain Road may be one such in -kind improvement that addresses, at least in part, the impacts of this rezoning on transportation. The Commission believed the proffer to relocate Hansens Mountain Road should be a credit in determining the cash proffer obligation. However, the applicant has otherwise not proffered to offset the development's impact to transportation, schools, parks, libraries and public safety through cash proffers as per the County policy or other means in lieu of cash. Discussion of the project's impact on transportation is provided in #4 above. The project will have the direct impact of generating approximately 52 elementary school pupils, 24 middle school pupils, and 21 high school pupils if fully developed. These numbers are based on 25 single family detached units, 225 single family attached units, and 149 apartment units as proposed by the applicant. The public facilities closest to this development that it's new residents will most directly impact are the Darden Towe Park, the downtown library, and the fire /rescue stations located in the City off of the 250 Bypass as well as the County Police Department on Fifth Street. Cash Proffer Amounts per dwelling unit Single Family Detached (SFD) _ $18,700.00; $467,500 Single Family Attached /Townhouse (SFA/TH) _ $12,700.00; $2,857,500 and Multifamily (MF) _ $13,200.00; $1,966,800 Total: $5,291,800 These cash proffer figures are based on the 2010 data. Staff is working on updating these figures with the 2011 data, which is not available yet.) 9. Proffers are in need of substantive and technical changes. Staff and the County Attorney's office have reviewed the attached proffers and recommend that the revised proffers remain in need of substantive and technical changes. Although the applicant has not addressed all of the unfavorable factors, the applicant has requested that the Board hear this proposal and act. See Attachment B for a summary of recommended changes to the proffers. RECOMMENDATION: After conducting a public hearing, staff recommends that the Board deny ZMA 2010 -00001 with the attached proffers Attachment A). ATTACHMENT: Attachment A: Proffers, dated March 23, 2011 Attachment B: Summary of recommended changes to the proffers