HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200700001 Staff Report Zoning Map Amendment 2007-09-12COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 07-0001 Hollymead Town
Center Area A-2
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
July 24, 2007
Owners: H M Acquisition Group, LLC
Acreage: 44.5 acres
TMP: TMP 32-42A, 42C, 44(portion), 45
portion) and TMP 46, Parcel 5
District: Rio
Proposal: To rezone 47 acres from RA to NMD to
construct 1,222 dwelling units, 104,000 sq. ft of
retail, 179,000 sq. ft. of office, and an 80,000. ft.
hotel (363,700 sq. ft of non-residential total).
DA (Development Area): Hollymead Community
Character of Property: The subject property lies
west of Route 29, south and west of Area B of the
Hollymead Town Center (Harris Teeter and Target)
and north and east of a tributary of Powell Creek
which flows from the location of the Deerwood
subdivision toward Route 29. The terrain rises up
from behind Target and Harris Teeter to a ridge and
slopes downward to a tributary of Powell Creek. A
half section of Meeting Street has been constructed
on the property. The majority of the area has been
cleared, graded, and prepared for development.
Staff. Elaine Echols, AICP
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
September 12, 2007 (work session scheduled for 8/8)
Applicant: H M Acquisition Group, LLC represented
by J.P. Williamson
Rezone from: RA (Rural Areas) to NMD
Neighborhood Model District)
By -right use: 7 residential lots or agricultural uses.
Proffers: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 1222
Comp. Plan Designation: Town Center
Use of Surrounding Properties: Area B, to the east,
contains Target and Harris Teeter. Area D, to the
north and west, has been subdivided into 94 town
house lots with another 60 subdivisions anticipated in
the near future. Area C, to the north, is bounded by
Route 29 and takes primary access off of Timberwood
Boulevard. In Area C to the north, a number of site
plans are under review or projects have begun
construction to bring 55,000 square feet of office and
retail, 7,800 square feet of restaurant space, a 67,000
square foot assisted living facility, and 42 townhouses,
with a number of other Area C projects in the
planning stage. Deerwood subdivision lies to the
West.
RECOMMENDATION: Without resolution of a number of outstanding issues, staff cannot
recommend approval. Should the PC wish to recommend approval of this proposal to the Board, staff
recommends that this recommendation be based on resolution of outstanding issues before the Board
acts on this rezoning.
STAFF PERSON: ELAINE ECHOLS
PLANNING COMMISSION: JULY 24, 2007
ZMA 07-01 Hollymead Town Center — Area A-2
PROPOSAL
H.M. Acquisition Group is proposing that a total of 78 acres (the Rural -Area zoned land remaining in
the area designated as the Hollymead Town Center (HTC)) be rezoned to two different zoning
classifications. These areas have been separated into Area A-1 (31 acres south of Town Center Drive)
and Area A-2 (the remaining area in the town center generally laying to the west of Area A-1 and
Area B (Target and Harris Teeter). On April 3, 2007 the Planning Commission recommended
approval of Area A-1 to be rezoned for RA to PDMC (Planned Development Mixed Commercial).
With Area A-2, the applicant would like to rezone 44.5 acres from RA to NMD to allow for 1,222
dwelling units, 104,000 sq. ft of retail, 179,000 sq. ft. of office, and an 80,000. ft. hotel (363,700 sq. ft
of non-residential total). Attachment A is an overall map of the Town Center, Attachment B is the
Code of Development including renderings and block identification plan, Attachment C is proffers.
BACKGROUND
The applicant brought this proposal to Planning Commission work sessions on December 5, 2006 and
March 6, 2007. At that time, the staff report outlined a number of outstanding issues and oversights
that the applicant agreed to address. (See Attachment D for the December 2006 and Attachment E for
the March 2007 action memos). With a commitment to resolve those issues, the applicant requested
guidance from the Commission as to the appropriateness of uses proposed on Meeting Street, at the
core of the Town Center. The Commission provided guidance and requested that the applicant reduce
the number of townhouses fronting on Meeting Street and to achieve traditional Main Street form on
Meeting Street with a majority of the lower floors fronting Meeting Street to contain non-residential
uses. The applicant has responded to this direction and other direction detailed in the action memos.
The applicant's current proposal is reviewed specifically later in the report.
When the Area A-1 request was heard by the Board on June 13, 2007, the Board requested that both
the A-1 and A-2 proposals come to the Board together in a work session and public hearing. Area A-1
and Area A-2 are scheduled to go before the Board of Supervisors in a work session on August 8.
Both requests are tentatively scheduled to go before the Board of Supervisors for public hearings on
September 12, 2007.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
In 1998, a comprehensive plan amendment for the HTC was submitted. In 2001, this Comprehensive
Plan amendment was approved with the "Conceptual Master Plan and Design Guidelines for the
Hollymead Town Center" (hereafter referred to as "the Guidelines".)
Four rezonings for separate sections of the HTC were submitted in 2001 and 2002 and three of the
four were approved in 2003. The applicant for the portion not rezoned (Area A) requested indefinite
deferral of action on Area A in 2003. Due to the high residential density and mixture of uses directed
by the Guidelines, the applicant for Area A requested to break this 78 acre rezoning request into two
different proposals: Area A-1 with 31 acres to be rezoned to Planned Development Mixed
Commercial (to be developed similarly to Area B along Route 29 as prescribed by the Guidelines)
and Area A-2 with 47 Acres to be rezoned to Neighborhood Model District to allow for higher
residential density and to better accommodate the form of development envisioned with the
Guidelines.
N
In addition to the construction of 300,000 square feet of commercial space already developed in Area
B (Harris Teeter and Target), site plans for the other rezoned portions of the town center are under
review or have been approved. Area D, which lies across the western boundary of Area A (Lockwood
Drive), has been subdivided into 94 townhouse lots with a number of townhouses under construction
and additional building permits issued. Another subdivision of 60 townhouses lots is anticipated in
the near future. Several site plans are in the process of being reviewed or are awaiting ARB approval
or have been approved in Area C and D to bring 55,000 square feet of office and retail, a 7,800 square
feet of restaurant uses, a 67,000 square foot assisted living facility, and another 42 townhouses.
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Land Use Plan shows that the subject property is located in the Hollymead Community and is
designated as Town Center, defined as a compact, higher density area containing a mixture of
businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces, attracting activities of all
kinds at a density of 6.01-34 dwelling units per acre. In addition, the Town Center designation is
accompanied by the "Conceptual Masterplan and Design Guidelines for the Hollymead Town Center"
a document that was approved with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that allowed the Town
Center. The Guidelines provide limits to the development potential the Town Center can support
based on the extensive traffic study performed with the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
The number of dwelling units approved with rezonings in Area B, C, and D total 332. The total
permitted in the Town Center is 1,680. That leaves 1,348 units that could be absorbed by Area A. The
applicant proposes 1,222 dwelling units in Area A-2, 126 fewer than the Guidelines allow. The total
amount of non-residential square footage permitted in the Town Center is 1,297,944. Previous
rezonings in Areas B, C, and D requested the development of 625,000 square feet of non residential.
278,000 square feet of non-residential uses are proposed in Area A-1. That leaves 394,944 square feet
of non-residential space to be developed. The applicant is proposing that Area A-2 contain up to
363,700 square feet of non-residential uses, which is 26,244 square feet under the maximum allowed.
South of Powell Creek, in an area not included in the Town Center Comprehensive Plan designation,
the applicant is showing development in Blocks Al, B3, and B4. The Comprehensive Plan designates
this area as industrial service. The area can be included in the A-2 rezoning request, however, the
applicant was asked to remove any provision of residential uses in these blocks and only request uses
of an industrial service nature for those blocks, given the industrial service designation in the
Comprehensive Plan. The requested changes were made in part. This is the type of oversight which
will need to be corrected. At the end of this report, staff has compiled a list of such oversights and
outstanding issues that should be made by the applicant prior to the Board work session in August if
the Commission should recommend approval with this understanding.
3
Conformity with the Neighborhood Model
The following section outlines staff's updated analysis of the Neighborhood Model.
Pedestrian In keeping with the Guidelines for the Town Center, the application plan
Orientation shows a Linear Park that begins in Area B (Target) and extends across Area
A and Area D. This park creates a walkable connection from primarily
residential areas to Meeting Street and the larger commercial areas along
Route 29. The applicant has widened this park through Area A-2, providing
a 100X 300' park bordered with sidewalks, adding to the character and
variety of quality spaces proposed along the Linear Park throughout the
Town Center. The largest parking area in Block A is bisected by a
landscaped pedestrian connection that leads from the greenway trailhead
around a proposed pool and clubhouse at the greenway's edge, across the
parking area toward an intense mix of uses. (The trailhead in Area A-2 is
complimented by a separate trailhead the applicant proposes at the southeast
corner of Area A-1). This same area of parking includes a curved pedestrian
connection that is bounded on either end by a pocket park. These
connections provide convenient and intuitive pedestrian facilities that will
support pedestrian orientation Across Block B. To complete this connection
across Meeting Street into Area A-1, the applicant has extended the median
far enough south of the traffic circle on Meeting Street to provide a sheltered
crossing. Where pedestrian movements are funneled toward streets, the
applicant is providing sheltered crossings by extending the park and
pedestrian network into the streets and providing mid -crossing pedestrian
zones within the 10 -foot wide planted median at the center of Meeting
Street. This principle is met.
Neighborhood Streets on the application plan include sidewalks, planting strips, street trees,
Friendly Streets and and on -street parking. Along Meeting Street, the application plan shows
Paths coordinated crossings with hardscape amenities. The applicant is illustrating
the Linear Park with a sidewalk a minimum of 10 feet wide through the park
separating into two 5 -foot wide sidewalks to surround the Linear Park's
largest open space). This principle is met.
Interconnected Streets The applicant has responded with a mix of streets and the linear park that
and Transportation responds to this principle of the Neighborhood Model and generally reflects
Networks the Masterplan Guidelines. Traffic will be funneled to Meeting Street (the
widest thoroughfare proposed in the Town Center) as it connects into
Timberwood Boulevard and leads to Airport Road. Meeting Street includes
on -street parking, a bike lane, and a travel lane in each direction. As a last
resort, the on -street parking on Meeting Street could be removed in the
future, if necessary, to facilitate traffic movement on Meeting Street. Parking
on -street could also potentially be prohibited during rush hours. The
applicant is proffering to complete a road connection between Route 29 and
Dickerson Road by extending Town Center Drive. The applicant is also
showing a future connection to Willow Glen, a proposed rezoning along
Dickerson Road and adjacent to Town Center Drive.
Regional transportation findings resulting from the Places 29 Masterplan that
impact Area A-2 are discussed immediately after the Neighborhood Model
analysis. This principle is met.
Parks and Open The applicant proposes that 10.7 acres or 20 % of Area A-2 be left
Space undisturbed or developed as open space and amenity areas. The application
plan includes the inclusion of a large usable open space in the Linear Park
100'X300') and a 105'X105 level area along the greenway to include a
basketball court and small dog park. The application plan also includes
smaller tot lot areas, pocket parks, and three formal plazas areas around the
traffic circle that connect through or between buildings and other portions of
Area A-2. The applicant proposes to dedicate to the County a 7.6 acre area
with a minimum of 50 feet of buffer along the edge of a tributary of Powell
Creek in Area A-2. This area is delineated on the application plan and
includes 5 acres. The Zoning Ordinance requires certain fixtures such as tot
lots when applying for the residential density the applicant proposes. The
applicant has submitted a request to waive the Open Space and Recreation
Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in substitution for amenities detailed
in the Code of Development. To serve 1,222 units, the zoning ordinance
would require that approximately eight tot lots and four full court basketball
courts be built to supply the development with recreation amenities. These
are guidelines that the Commission is allowed to vary. The current proposal
includes greenway area, 2 tot lots, pocket parks, pool and clubhouse,
basketball court and dog park which will provide a variety of recreational
uses. The form of development allowed through the Town Center Guidelines
prescribes a more dense and urban form. Therefore, full recreation
requirements prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance for more conventional
districts cannot be achieved. Prior to the Board of Supervisors moving
forward with a proffer policy, staff had estimated that an additional $600,000
would be needed to address recreational impacts not provided on the site for
facilities such as baseball fields and other open space uses. The applicant has
proffered an additional $600,000 ($500 / unit), in keeping with staff's
estimate. Given this additional commitment, it appears the applicant has
successfully amended his proposal to provide a variety of outdoor amenities
and cash to support off-site recreational demands this development creates.
Parks and Recreation have one minor concern: the applicant has located a
dog park adjacent to a basketball court. These uses need to be separated.
With the applicant adjusting the Code of Development and plan prior to
Board review, this principle will be met.
Neighborhood The Guidelines identify Meeting Street as the Neighborhood Center and as
Centers where the greatest mix of uses is expected. With its vehicular traffic,
intensive mix of uses, on -street parking, sidewalks and street trees, and
connection with the Linear Park, Meeting Street offers a mix of amenities,
retail, and residential uses unified across the street. These elements will
allow Meeting Street to serves as the center of the Hollymead Town Center,
as intended by the Guidelines. The smaller parks, along with the pool and
clubhouse provide additional neighborhood centers. This principle is met.
Building and Spaces The applicant met with the Architectural Review Board on June 4, 2006
of Human Scale where the applicant agreed to make recommended revisions. The primary
issue was the height and variation of the taller building proposed. The
applicant has reduced the maximum height from 100' to 65'. The applicant
has also made recommended revisions with respect to how the ultimate
height of buildings adjacent to or across the street from each other would be
coordinated. All other human scale issues have been previously addressed.
This principle is met.
Mixture of Uses The applicant proposes 1,222 dwelling units, an 80,000 sq. foot hotel,
179,700 of office space, and 104,000 of mixed-use commercial uses. This
approach allows the Town Center to function much like a town, in close
proximity to the regional service uses provided in Area A-1 and Area B.
This is in keeping with the Guidelines. This principle is met.
Relegated Parking The applicant has worked to relegate parking from streets by proposing
buildings that line the street and provide surface and structured parking
behind. Also, the applicant is working with the topography to provide one
level of parking below the ground / street level of larger buildings along the
eastern side of Meeting Street and residential buildings in Block B-2. In
conjunction with the applicant's plan to provide structured parking, the Code
of development provides guidelines for where such structures will be
situated, the maximum number of spaces they will contain, and design detail.
This is approach is appropriate for the zoning district requested. This
principle is met.
Mixture of Housing The applicant is providing a variety of housing types including townhouses,
Types and condos, and apartments. The applicant is proffering to provide 20%
Affordability affordable housing with at least 40% of that for sale. This would equate to
244 affordable units total with 98 of those being offered for-sale. This is
amount of affordable housing in an increase since the Commission reviewed
this proposal and in excess of the Board's goal. However, the applicant has
also proffered a buyout provision. Through the proffer, the applicant is only
guaranteeing that 5% of the units will be built as affordable. The buyout
provision would allow for the remaining 15% to be covered with they
buyout" provision at the applicant's discretion. The Housing Director has
said that this is not an acceptable rezoning for such an extensive use of the
bu out rovision.This principle is not met.
Redevelopment This principle does not apply.
Site Planning that The area proposed for development was mass graded with land sloping
Respects Terrain toward the rear of the property along a tributary of Powell Creek through a
provision of the Zoning Ordinance as it applies to land zoned Rural Areas.
The applicant is proposing to work with the terrain created through previous
earth moving by building terraced townhouses and other building forms into
the grade. This principle is met.
Clear Boundaries This principle is not applicable on the site under review for rezoning.
with the Rural Areas
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS
On June 4, 2007, The Architectural Review Board voted to forward the recommendation of no
objection to the Planning Commission, noting strategies to help limit the visual impact of the
proposal. Some of those strategies, such as limiting the building height to 65 feet are reflected in the
Code of Development. However, the applicant has failed to address the following ARB directives:
1. Articulate building facades with bays, projections, and recesses; use building forms that
include stepped heights within individual buildings, step building heights between buildings to
reduce scale and transition better to shorter buildings below Meeting Street, use upper story
setbacks.
2. Provide large trees along both sides and in the median of Meeting Street. Provide large trees,
and sufficient planting area for the large trees, between Area A2 and Area B.
Through review of the site plan and certificate of appropriateness, the ARB will review the
applicant's proposal for addressing item #1 above. However, the application plan does not
show landscaping between Area A-2 and Area B (where the greatest difference in height
between buildings will be visible from the Entrance Corridor). Further, the area remaining
between A-2 and Area B for such plantings is only a 20 -feet wide slope. The applicant has
not made a revision to the plan to show the plantings requested by the ARB and it appears
sufficient room will not exist to provide the plantings requested. The plantings are intended
to soften the difference between Area B buildings (all one story) and area A-2 buildings (up
to 65' tall on the ridge).
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district:
The NMD is intended to provide for compact, mixed-use developments with an urban scale,
massing, density, and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within close
proximity to each other within the development areas identified in the comprehensive plan.
The proposal meets the intent of the Neighborhood Model District.
Public need and iustification for the
The County's Comprehensive Plan supports rezoning proposals which are in conformity with
recommendations for use, density, and form. The proposal is in conformity with use, density, and
form recommended in the Land Use Plan. The land proposed for development has been mass graded
through a provision of Rural Area land zoning. It has sat in a denuded state for over two years,
allowing for erosion and generation of sediment.
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources:
The proposal does not impact cultural and historic resources. With respect to impacts to the natural
environment, the plan delineates required buffer setbacks along Powell Creek (100 feet for perennial
section and 50 feet for the intermittent tributary thereof).
Public need and justification for the change:
Given the amount of undeveloped retail square footage already approved in the County by rezoning,
staff does not readily identify a public need or justification for the rezoning. Development of the
property and associate biofilters and stormwater management facilities will provide run off with less
sediment.
VA
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Transportation
The initial traffic study for the Town Center anticipated a two-lane cross section for Meeting Street.
The Places 29 Master Plan traffic modeling is indicating that future traffic volumes in the Town
Center would increase significantly if Berkmar Drive crosses the Rivanna River and Meeting Street
and Berkmar Drive connect. Therefore, the County's Traffic Engineer and VDOT have expressed a
desire for the full cross section of streets projected as needed by the traffic modeling to be
accommodated with this plan. The Berkmar — Meeting Street parallel road has been modeled as part
of Places 29 as a two-lane and four -lane facility. That is, traffic modeling has been performed to
illustrate the effects on the overall transportation network if the road is built as a two-lane road or a
four -lane road. The modeling suggests that a four lane facility works to capture more traffic from U.S.
29. VDOT is recommending that the road be a four -lane facility. However, staff believes the road can
function as a three -lane facility: a travel way in each direction with a turn lane in the middle. The
applicant has accommodated a four -lane section for Meeting Street from Timberwood Boulevard to
Abington Drive (southernmost intersection of Meeting Street within the Town Center). This tapers
down to three lanes as it crosses Powell Creek (one lane in each direction and a middle turn lane).
The applicant has proffered to build or bond the remaining transportation improvements identified
with the initial Town Center traffic study. It is critical, given the significant number of uses provided
in the Town Center, that the infrastructure improvements remaining at the Town Center are built prior
to additional commercial square footage being approved. As discussed in more detail under proffers
below and given the poor performance of proffered road construction at the Town Center to date, staff
is recommending that the improvements outlined in Proffer 2 be completed within one year of zoning
approval for Area A-2. Staff also recommends that the applicant commit to request no building permit
until both streets have been constructed and completed.
It should be noted that the applicant is providing a form of development specifically directed by the
Comprehensive Plan that will provide a significant number of County residents with the ability to live
close to mixed-use and regional commercial and office services and generate less traffic on roads and
alternative facilities outside of the Town Center.
Schnnk-
Pupils from the new development would attend Baker Butler or Hollymead Elementary Schools,
Sutherland Middle School, and Albemarle High School.
Fire, Rescue, Police:Fire and Rescue service will be provided through the Hollymead Fire
Station which is temporarily located near the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport until the
station (under construction) is completed later this year. Police officers use this facility as a
satellite office when they are on -patrol.
Water and Sewer
The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has determined that sufficient capacity for the A-2
development does not exist. The applicant has met with the Authority to determine the extent of the
deficiencies in service. The two parties are working on an agreement similar to that prepared for
Biscuit Run. The director of the ACSA will be attending the July 24, 2007 Planning Commission
public hearing. The ACSA comments are as follows:
1) "The lack of capacity issue remains unchanged as there was very little change in the overall
number of residential units and non-residential square footages. We did note a shift in the total non-
residential square footage from office to retail space."
2) "Paragraph 4e under Cash Proffer shall be deleted. The original 10" diameter sewer was
constructed using funds from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to provide wastewater
service to the Charlottesville — Albemarle Airport."
3) "A detailed phasing plan is required showing the number of residential units and non-residential
square footages in each section and the schedule for constructing each section."
4) "The ACSA is in the process of arranging a meeting with Octagon Partners for the
purpose of negotiating an agreement for the increase of capacity in the existing sewer
system."
An agreement between the applicant and the ACSA is needed before this rezoning can be
recommended for approval to the Board of Supervisors.
Stormwater Management
A stormwater management plan was established for the entire Town Center for the construction
period. This consists of large ponds that are able to accommodate large volumes of runoff. These
ponds will remain and the applicant proposes additional facilities including nearly an acre devoted to
biofilters and additional stormwater management ponds to mitigate stormwater runoff from this
development.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties:
The developed adjacent properties include the Town Center, Forest Springs Mobile Home Park, and
Deerwood Subdivision. Impacts, other than traffic, light, and noise associated with mixed us
development, are not anticipated.
Linear Park and Interconnections
At the last work session, the Commission directed staff to pursue a better transition from very narrow
and steep stairs in Area B (Target and Harris Teeter) with those proposed in Area A and the Linear
Park and other amenities beyond. Staff discussed the stairs with the County Engineer who concluded
that the stairs in Area B are constructed as the site plan indicated they should be. That is, they are
constructed to the satisfaction of the County's site plan regulations. Also, the Building Inspector has
determined that because they are not part of any ingress or emergency egress for any structure, they
are not governed by the Building Code.
Staff worked to set up several meetings with each representative. Unfortunately neither representative
was able to meet simultaneously. However, staff has met with each representative individually. The
Area A — 2 applicant indicated that he would work to provide a better set of stairs and walkways on
his property, but that he did not think it was his responsibility to amend the stairs on his neighbor's
property. The Area B owner agreed to allow the Area A-2 applicant onto his property to complete
improvements to the steps, but has said he would not commit to improving the stairs since the County
approved the design. While staff believes improved stairs in Area B are desirable and would better
facilitate pedestrian traffic between Area A-2 and Area B, the steps in Area B are acceptable
according to County regulations and the obligation of the Area A-2 applicant should be to provide the
desired stairs and walkways on their property.
E
Urban Heat Island and Sustainabilit
At the last work session, the Commission agreed the applicant's Code of Development should
provide sustainable design strategies. The applicant has added a number of strategies to the Code of
Development (Page 37) to address solar orientation and impact, stormwater management, and
sustainability generally. The applicant has said he would like to receive a 5% reduction in his per unit
proffer for each dwelling unit meeting an EnergyStar or LEED certification. This may be an
acceptable incentive for the private development of energy efficient buildings. The Board of
Supervisors will have to determine if the applicant's strategy is acceptable.
Waivers and Modifications
The applicant is requesting 13 waivers and modifications of the County Code. These requests are
covered in Attachment F. Staff has no objection to the requested waivers and modifications; they are
necessary to implement the Neighborhood Model. In many cases, the applicant has provided an
acceptable alternative to the County Code. However, minor issues remain with the waivers and
modifications. However, these issues are not so great that they cannot be addressed before the Board
of Supervisors reviews this request in a work session.
PROFFERS (Attachment C)
1. Affordable Housing: The applicant is proposing to provide 20% of the units proposed as
affordable units. This includes a commitment to offer 40% for -sale and the remainder for -rent.
However, this proposal is in conjunction with a buyout provision that would allow the applicant to
actually construct 5% affordable housing and pay for the rest (through cash contributions to the
County toward affordable housing programs). The Housing Director has said that the Hollymead
Town Center is a place where affordable housing should be constructed and that the applicant needs
to commit to actually providing more than 5% of the units as affordable housing. This proffer is not
yet acceptable.
2. Road Improvements: The applicant has proposed a loose proffer that falls short of committing to
build the remaining roads included in the HTC Comprehensive Plan Amendment traffic study. The
applicant proffers to build or bond the remaining road improvements anticipated at the Town Center.
Staff does not support the option to bond rather than build the roads. The option of bonding rather
than building the roads is unattractive because, should the County call the bond, it would require extra
County engineering staff resources to manage the project, along with all other ongoing legislative
reviews. A firmer commitment to build the roads prior to additional square footage being approved
appears suitable given the track record of previous proffered improvements at the Town Center. Staff
recommends that this request should not move forward unless the applicant is committed to
constructing the remainder of the roads (identified in the proffer) within one year of this request being
approved by the Board. This proffer is not yet acceptable.
3. Public Transit Stops: The applicant proffers to complete "at least two public transportation stops"
to include 200 square feet of paved area and two benches on the subject property. The location of
these stops will be determined at the site plan stage. Though the applicant is not proffering any cash
for transit service in Area A-2, the applicant's proffers for Area A-1 include a $50,000 per year for 10
years for transit service. (The applicant has responded to the Commission's request that the area be
designed transit -ready) This proffer is acceptable.
10
4. Cash Proffer: The applicant is proffering to meet the Board's target figures for cash proffers to
address the impacts of new development. This project contains only townhouse/condo and apartment
dwelling units and the applicant is proffering the appropriate figures, $11,900 and $12,400
respectively. The applicant's proffer includes an itemized list of credits he feels he has earned through
other improvements and commitments. The proffers are an unacceptable vehicle for a proffer credit
analysis and cannot work as proposed. With two exceptions, none of the credits the applicant is
requesting are eligible for a credit under the Board's policy. See cash proffer credit summary at the
end of this analysis. The proffer amount is acceptable; the inclusion of various credits proposed by the
applicant is not acceptable.
5. Greenway: The applicant proposes to contribute 7.6 acres along a tributary along Powell Creek.
This land, though adjacent to the creek, is developable. The applicant proffers a minimum of 50 feet
on either side of the Powell Creek tributary. This proffer is acceptable.
6. Community Park: The applicant proffers a 10,000 square foot (approx. 1/4 acre) park in Blocks A-
1, B-3, B-4, or C-6. As these blocks are located at the edge of the development, this proffer is not that
valuable. Further the amount proffered would provide enough room for a pocket park, not a
community park. Further, should the applicant want to provide a pocket park in the locations
identified, the detail and commitment for such a park should be contained in the Code of
Development, not a proffer. This proffer should be removed. Staff asked the applicant to provide for
the small pocket park at the end of Lockwood Drive to be reserved for dedicated to the County upon
demand by the County for the future use for civic displays such as a memorial or statue. However, the
proffer states that the dedication is on the periphery and not the pivotal location staff identified. This
proffer is not acceptable.
7. Recycling Center: The Capital Improvements Program identifies a need for a recycling center to
be constructed in the northern Development Area. The applicant has proffered to provide 35,000
square feet (nearly an acre) for the facility to be located at the Town Center. This is the amount of
space identified by the Chief of Planning as needed accommodated the center. However, the applicant
is asking for a credit for three acres in conjunction with the proffer. He is proffering over two acres
less than that. Staff believes the applicant needs to commit to either 35,000 sq. feet or three acres and
so the appropriate credit can be determined. The proffer needs to clarify that the applicant owner shall
pay for the survey of the land to be dedicated and that the land may be used for County purposes
other than a recycling center should the land not be needed for that use in the future. This proffer is
acceptable so long as the applicant understands that he will only be credited for 35,000 sq. ft. of land
and not 3 acres as he proposes to be credited for).
8. Recreational Facilities: The applicant is proffering $500.00 per unit for recreational impacts, in
addition to the Board's per unit contribution to address the impacts of new development. This would
amount to $614,000 if every dwelling unit proposed at the Town Center is constructed. This
contribution would be in addition to the variety of recreational facilities that applicant is providing
within the Town Center and the per unit proffer expected by the Board. This contribution would help
to fund the expansion and maintenance of off-site recreational facilities, such as Chris Green Lake
Park. This proffer is acceptable.
9. Phasing Plan: The applicant proffers a phasing plan that addresses the A-2 project by proffering to
obtain 100 building permits for A-2 prior to authorizing construction of any non-residential space.
The applicant proffers to obtain 600 building permits prior to the authorization by the County to
complete 200,000 square feet of non-residential space. This phasing plan makes an attempt to
guarantee that non-residential development will not grossly outpace residential construction.
11
However, when Area A-1 request was heard by Board of Supervisors on June 13, 2007, the Board
directed the applicant to tie the non-residential development in A-1 to the residential development in
A-2. The applicant has not responded to this request with the most recently submitted proffers. Staff
will work with the applicant to provide the appropriate solution. This proffer is not yet acceptable.
The following information describes the status of proffers for this project based on the current Board
proffer policy intent:
BOS PROFFER EXPECTATION LESS VALUE OF CURRENT PROFFERS
14,078,400 - $107,392 = $13,971,000
Cash Proffer Policy Expectation = $14,078,400 (1222 units (townhouse, condo, multi family)
less 61 (5% affordable units the applicant is committing to provide) = 1161 X cash proffer by unit
type:
TH 136 X $11,900 = $1,618,400
MF 525 X $12,400 = $6,510,000
CNDO 500 X $11,900 = $5,950,000
1161 $14,078,400
Value of Current Proffers = $107,392
Greenway Land = 7.6 acres X $12,800 (RA land per acre) _ $97,280
Recycling Center Land = .79 acres X $12,800 (RA land per acre) _ $10,112
107,392
The following issues are still outstanding:
VDOT comments conflict with Places 29 proposal for Meeting Street cross section and
Powell Creek
A commitment is needed to complete roads in a timely fashion rather than bonding their
completion.
A commitment to construct more than 5% affordable housing, or at least give the Housing
Director discretion to accept cash in lieu of units.
Water and Sewer service to the area are inadequate and assurances from ACSA need to be
provided that appropriate agreement has been reached regarding this development as it relates
to water and sewer.
A commitment in the Code and plan or additional landscaping area between Area B and Area
A-2 is needed to soften disparity in building heights. (ARB request)
A phasing commitment that ties A-1 and A-2 together was requested by the Board, but is not
contained in the proffers.
Additional detail requested to appear in the Code in order to support requested waiver
remains unaddressed.
12
Cash proffers need to be put in an acceptable form that assures the equivalent of the per unit
proffer amounts are being provided and any allowable credits to the per unit commitment can
be properly administered.
Conclusions and Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION: Without resolution of these outstanding issues, staff cannot
recommend approval. Should the PC wish to recommend approval of this proposal to the
Board, staff recommends that this recommendation be based on resolution of these outstanding
issues before the Board acts on this rezoning.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A — Overall Plan of Town Center
ATTACHMENT B — Code of Development
ATTACHMENT C — Proffers
ATTACHMENT D — December 5, 2006 Work Session Action Memo
ATTACHMENT E — March 6, 2007 Work Session Action Memo
ATTACHMENT F — Waiver Analysis
13