COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

AGENDA TITLE:  ZMA 2004 – 07, Belvedere

 

 

SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:

 

Belvedere is a request to rezone approximately 206.682 acres from R-4, Residential to NMD, Neighborhood Model District, to allow up to 775 dwelling units, with an overall density of 3.74 dwelling units per acre, ranging from a density of 1.6 dwelling units per acre in some areas to 9.4 dwelling units in others.  The property, described as Tax Map 61 Parcels 154, 157, 158, 160 (portion) and 161, Tax Map 62 Parcels 2A (portion) 2B (portion), 2C, 3, 5, and 6A, and Tax Map 62A3 Parcel 1, is located in the Rio Magisterial District on the east side of Rio Road (Route 631) immediately east of the Southern Railroad. 

 

 

STAFF:  Dougherty, Cilimberg

 

 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE:

August 3, 2005 (Work Session)

August 10, 2005 (Public Hearing)

      

 

 


PROPOSAL:

 

The applicant is seeking to rezone property totaling approximately 206.682 acres from R-4 Residential to NMD, Neighborhood Model District, with proffers.  The applicant’s request has undergone some revision during the course of review, and the current proposal seeks to allow a range of 602 to 775 residential dwelling units along with two community centers and supporting commercial uses.

 

BACKGROUND: 

 

On January 13, 2004 the Planning Commission held a pre-proposal work session with representatives from the Belvedere Station Land Trust. At that meeting several substantive issues were identified by staff and changes were requested by the Commission. On February 10, the applicant met with the Planning Commission a second time in a pre-proposal work session to follow up on the requested changes. That process provided the applicant with additional feedback from the Planning Commission.  During both pre-proposal work sessions, the applicant expressed willingness to attempt to accommodate the Commission’s requests and recommendations. However, certain requests and recommendations were not reflected in the applicant’s subsequent submission materials. On June 29, 2004, the Planning Commission held a third work session, providing the applicant further direction as requested in addition to much of the same feedback that had been previously conveyed.  The first public hearing for the project was held on December 7, 2004 and a second hearing was held on March 29, 2005.  At the conclusion of each of these hearings, the Planning Commission requested an additional work session, due in part to the size of the project, access issues, Comprehensive Plan issues, and unresolved archeological issues related to the Free State community. The applicant asked for deferrals at each hearing, but did not agree to additional work sessions. In advance of both the March 29, 2005 and June 28, 2005 hearings the applicant submitted plans that continued to have issues of substance, did not fully respond to staff or Commission requests and comments, and did not fully meet the technical requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, particularly the Code of Development which had been thoroughly reviewed with the applicant.  Following the March 29, 2005 hearing, staff and Planning Commissioner Rodney Thomas worked with the applicant to identify key issues to be resolved.  Many issues were discussed and some were addressed, but documents submitted for review in advance of the June 28 hearing did not address certain issues as had been requested. 

 

On June 28, 2005, the Commission recommended denial of the rezoning request by a 3-2 vote and identified the following substantive reasons for its recommendation:

 

- The right-of-way for the Northern Free State Connector is reserved for the County to purchase rather than reserved for dedication upon demand by the County.

 

- The applicant’s commitment to affordable housing places the responsibility for providing such housing on individual, future owners of carriage house units and provides no enforcement mechanism.

 

- The right-of-way problem created because the applicant does not have the 58 feet that staff and VDOT had indicated would be required to accommodate Belvedere Blvd. between the Fairview Swim Club and land owned by Philip Brown.

 

DISCUSSION/FINDINGS:

 

The staff’s June 28 Executive Summary (Attachment A) contains its detailed analysis and findings.  To summarize;

 

Staff identified the following factors favorable to this rezoning request:

 

1. With NMD zoning, the proposed form of the development more closely embodies Neighborhood Model Principles than a conventional R-4 development. 

 

2. Open space is interspersed throughout the development, alleviating what otherwise might be an overly intensive development pattern.

 

3. The applicant has conducted a Phase I and initiated a Phase II survey of the historic Free State Community as requested at the December 7, 2004 public hearing.

 

4. The applicant is showing the correct street section (curb, no gutter pan, and multi-use trail) recommended for the Northern Free State to match Phase I of the Meadow Creek Parkway.

 

5. The greenway dedication across Belvedere will be an important addition to the Rivanna Trail system.

 

6. The proffer to contribute $10,000 for a pedestrian bridge across the Rivanna River to Darden Towe Park is a meaningful contribution to the County’s larger trail system and connectivity.

 

Staff identified the following substantive issues remaining with the proposal (Those also cited by the Planning Commission in its action are so noted.):

 

1. While a plan has been provided showing how Belvedere Boulevard could be accommodated within a 56’ right-of-way between the Fairview Swim Club and land owned by Philip Brown, no commitment to providing this right-of-way has been made.  (Also cited in Planning Commission action.)

 

2. The right-of-way for the Northern Free State Connector is reserved for the County to purchase rather than reserved for dedication upon demand by the County.  (Also cited in Planning Commission action.)

 

3. The alignment of Belvedere Boulevard from Rio Road to Roundabout #1 does not accommodate a future widening, as requested by engineering staff.

 

4. The applicant has not demonstrated that the residential to non-residential mix is appropriate at this location.

 

5. The applicant’s commitment to affordable housing places the responsibility for providing such housing on individual, future owners of carriage house units and provides no enforcement mechanism.  (Also cited in Planning Commission action.)

 

6. Regarding the Village Green, conflicts remain between the general development plan and graphic representations offered in the Code.

 

7. Preservation Areas have been decreased to 3.1 acres (from 83.4 acres) and Conservation Areas have been increased to 91.2 acres (from 10.3 acres).

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

For the reasons noted in this Executive Summary, staff and the Planning Commission have not recommended approval of this rezoning.  This summary is offered for the Board’s information and reference for its work session and public hearing.  Should the Board resolve the substantive issues, technical and clerical corrections to the application plan, proffers and code of development will need to be made before the Board can take favorable action on this rezoning.

 

View PC minutes of June 28, 2005
View PC actions letter
View June 28, 2005 executive summary and attachments
View Rezoning Staff Reports and Minutes

            March 29, 2005 staff report and and public hearing minutes

            December 7, 2004 staff report and public hearing minutes

            August 31, 2004 work session

            February 10, 2004 work session

            January 13, 2004 work session

Return to regular agenda