STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: June 6, 2006
ZMA 2005-00014 Poplar Glen – Phase 2
With critical slopes waiver request
The area to be rezoned is located on the south side of Ivy Road (Route 250), approximately ¼ mile from the intersection of the 29/250 Bypass and Route 250 West. (Attachments A and B) The applicant is requesting to rezone 3.636 acres from R-1 – Residential to PRD – Planned Residential Development Zoning District to allow for approximately 28 townhouse residential units.
PROJECT: ZMA 2005-00014 Poplar Glen Phase 2
PROPOSAL: Rezone approx. 3.636 acres from R-1 Residential zoning district which allows (1 unit/acre) to PRD Planned Residential District zoning district which allows residential 3-34 units per acre with limited commercial uses. Approximately 28 townhouse units proposed.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential – residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses and Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses in Neighborhood 6.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: The south side Ivy Road (Route 250), approx. 1/4 mile from intersection of 29/250 Bypass and Route 250 West.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 60H/A2 (formally Tax Map 60 parcels 32, 35A and 35)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
Specifics of Proposal:
The applicant proposes a Planned Residential Development made up of 28 townhouses on 3.636 acres as shown on Attachment C. A walking trail is proposed that would interconnect this development to the Poplar Glen Phase 1 project. There are approximately 1.5 acres of open space in this project. Some of the open space consists of a garden area and an arbor with seating.
The applicant has requested a critical slopes waiver request. The internal private street can be approved administratively. Most of the analysis for the project occurred with the first staff report which is found in Attachment G.
Conclusions from Worksession of April 25, 2006
The following is a list of the issues discussed during the prior work session with a description of what the Planning Commission agreed to and the status of how the applicant addressed each issue:
● Is the density consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
The Commission agreed that the density was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, even though density shown was on the low-side due to the topography.
The density remains the same as presented at the work session.
● Is the design and layout appropriate for the development?
The Commission generally agreed that the design and layout was satisfactory, but needed additional information on the drainage issues before making a final decision.
As previously stated, the applicant and adjacent property owner have worked on an agreement regarding the drainage issues, but the adjacent owner has not signed the agreement.
● Are the interconnections proposed by the applicant appropriate?
The Commission agreed that the applicant was providing appropriate interconnections. During the work session the Planning Commission and applicant agreed that the applicant will relocate the pedestrian pathway to an area at the dead end of the road between units 27 and 39.
The applicant will provide the revised pedestrian pathway location on the application plan.
● Is the drainage resolution satisfactory in dealing with flooding on the adjacent property?
The Commission asked for additional information on the drainage since the drainage issues were still being worked out between the applicant, adjacent property owners and engineering staff. The applicant and adjacent property owner have worked on an agreement regarding the drainage issues. Although the adjacent owner has not signed the agreement, the applicant has proffered to detain some stormwater from the adjacent University Heights property.
Staff believes the applicant is providing some resolution of the drainage issue that is above and beyond what is required by the County Ordinance.
● Is the applicant making appropriate provisions for affordable housing?
The applicant agreed to increase the proffer amount to a cash contribution of $66,000 for the affordable housing program in lieu of providing four (4) affordable housing units. The Commission found this to be acceptable.
The revised proffers reflect this change.
The applicant is providing three proffers, including cash contributions totaling $155,600. The breakdown of the contributions is as follows: $89,600 (28 units x $3,200/unit) will be for Capital Improvements and $66,000 (4 units x $16,500/unit) will be for the affordable housing program. The Owner has also agreed to record a Supplemental Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Poplar Glen Townhomes, and agrees to not only treat and attenuate runoff from the Poplar Glen Phase 2 development, but also four (4) or more acres of off-site drainage from the adjacent University Heights property. Regarding the drainage proffer, the applicant is providing more than the County can require in an attempt to resolve the flooding problems occurring downstream at Mr. Matthews’ property. Proffers have been recently revised to reflect the applicant’s increase in the affordable housing cash contribution and to clarify the drainage issues. The proffers appear to be substantively okay; however, the legal form will need to be verified by the County Attorney.
PRIVATE STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district
The purpose and intent of the Planned Residential Development (PRD) district is to encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and toward impact on the surrounding area in land development. More specifically, the PRD is intended to promote economical and efficient land use, an improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical development, and creative design consistent with the best interest of the county and the area in which it is located. The existing Residential (R-1) zoning district recognizes the existence of previously established low density residential districts in communities and the urban area. This district provides incentives for clustering of development and for low density residential development in community areas and the urban area.
The existing R-1 zoning would not permit the level of residential development on the site that is being proposed. The densities proposed in the Poplar Glen Phase 2 development are relatively consistent with Urban Density Residential and the Neighborhood Density Residential as described in the Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan.
Public need and justification for the change The County’s policy for encouraging development at higher densities within the Development Areas provides a public need and justification for the request. Form and design are as important to a successful project, though, as the density.
PRIVATE Anticipated impact on public facilities and servicestc \l 2 "Anticipated impact on public facilities and services"
Transportation –An additional 164 vehicle trips per day are expected from this development. Route 250 is capable of absorbing this additional traffic with minimal impact.
Water and Sewer - Water and sewer are available to serve the site.
Schools - Children from this development would attend Greer Elementary School, Jouett Middle School and Albemarle High School. Using the County’s multipliers for townhouse development, a total of 7 children are anticipated with the 28 units.
Stormwater Management – An underground stormwater facility is shown at the northern portion of the site. This stormwater facility will not only handle the runoff from the subject property, but also some of the runoff from the adjacent University Heights property which is causing flooding problems at the adjacent property owned by Mr. Matthews.
Other Capital Facilities – One CIP project would serve this development - a new fire/rescue building in the Development Area. The CIP calls for three new facilities like this, one of which would be located in the Route 250 West/Ivy Road Area (in Fiscal Year 2007). While Poplar Glen Phase 2 is located in this area and while the additional townhouses will intensify the demand for the new station, this site is an inappropriate site for a fire/rescue station.
The County has no cash proffer policy. In Poplar Glen Phase I (Stillfried Lane Townhouses), the applicant proffered a total of $3,000 cash per dwelling unit to the County for funding Capital Improvements or affordable housing programs, and conceivably, this proffer money could go towards the new fire/rescue station. The applicant has offered a cash proffer for Phase II of $3,200 per dwelling for funding Capital Improvements which could be used to fund the new fire/rescue station.
Fiscal impact to public facilities – A fiscal impact analysis is provided as Attachment E. As is typical with residential rezonings, the fiscal impact is greater than the revenue generated to pay for services.
Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources – This site is mostly undeveloped. With the exception of one house, this site is made up of trees and low overgrown shrubs on it. There are some steep slopes and areas on this site that for the most part the developer will not build on. However, for the areas of critical slope disturbance, the developer has requested a critical slope waiver. There do not appear to be any cultural or historic resources located on this site.
Staff and the Director of Housing have reviewed and discussed the affordable housing proffer and agree that it is appropriate given that it would be cost prohibitive to provide affordable units in this development given the few number of units provided.
Critical Slope Waiver
As previously noted, the applicant has requested a critical slope waiver, which has been reviewed. There are no engineering concerns. (See Attachment F)
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to the rezoning request:
1. The rezoning is primarily in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Residential uses are supported by a pedestrian network, public services (schools, fire, and rescue services) and close proximity to shopping and employment.
3. The applicant is contributing to the affordable housing program.
4. The applicant is providing some potential interconnection opportunities.
5. The applicant is detaining some stormwater from the adjacent property, which is located southeast of the subject property and up the hill, in order to help resolve drainage problems on the adjacent property located north of this site.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. Due to the difficult topography, the proposed development underutilizes the development potential of this site.
2. Some areas of critical slope will be impacted.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and proffers with the following expectations:
1. The final application plan will reflect a pedestrian path in the location discussed during the Planning Commission worksession.
2. Approval of the proffers as to form by the County Attorney.
Staff also recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver.
Return to July 5 executive summary