COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Request to rezone approximately 93 acres from PRD, R-6 with proffers, and RA to NMD on property located between Route 250 East and the Glenmore PRD.
Cilimberg, Graham, Echols
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
June 13, 2007
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
On March 13, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request. The Commission discussed the proposal and recommended approval provided that the applicant commits to the following items before the Board of Supervisors public hearing:
· Where the boundaries of the development abut single family residential lots, the developer should retain the existing mature trees to the greatest extent possible. Where existing trees cannot be maintained and accomplish the proposed plan, replanting is necessary to establish a buffer between the surrounding properties and the development.
· The proffers should be changed to allow $16,500 in cash at the site plan stage, in lieu of an affordable unit if the Housing Director says that the cash is preferred rather than the unit. This would be in addition to units for which cash-in-lieu of units has already been proffered.
· Accessory-type units should be limited to 30% of the maximum units provided.
· Restrictions and conditions should be added to the Code of Development to ensure that the structured parking doesn’t have negative impacts on other residential uses.
· Transit needs should be addressed.
The Planning Commission also approved several subdivision and site plan waivers. Permission to have private streets throughout the development was approved conditionally. The Commission said that, if VDOT did not allow sewer lines in the street, all streets but Steamer Drive and the street in front of the park could be made private; however, this would be possible only if all avenues with VDOT were exhausted first. The Commission said that Steamer Drive and the street in front of the park must be public because they provide access to the fire station and the public park.
The Planning Commission also briefly discussed recent information provided by VDOT about the preliminary results from the Northwest Fluvanna/Southwest Louisa Corridor Study: Eastern Albemarle Sub-Area Study which includes a recommendation to widen Route 250 to four lanes from the Shadwell interchange with Interstate 64 to Glenmore Way. VDOT has estimated the cost at $45 million and that Rivanna Village at Glenmore’s pro-rata share of that improvement would be $7.2 million. In the absence of any adopted plan for these improvements, the Commission did not know how to include this information in their analysis because the information was so new and it addressed a road improvement not endorsed by the Board to this point.
Since the Planning Commission’s public hearing, the applicant has worked to resolve outstanding issues:
· The proffers and Code of Development now include the alternative of providing $16,500 in cash at the site plan stage, in lieu of an affordable unit, if the Housing Director says that the cash is preferred rather than the unit. This would be in addition to units for which cash-in-lieu of units has already been proffered.
· Accessory-type units are now limited in the Code to no more than 30% of the maximum affordable units provided.
· Restrictions and conditions have been added to the Code of Development to ensure that the structured parking does not have negative impacts on other residential uses.
· Transit has been addressed to the extent that the development is transit ready.
All of these changes have either been made in the proffers (Exhibit A) or the Code of Development (Exhibit B). Also, since the Planning Commission approved the private streets conditionally and with the provision that easements must be granted to assure public right-of-passage over private streets, no changes to the Code or proffers were needed.
The only outstanding issue relative to the changes requested by the Planning Commission has to do with the boundaries of the development adjacent to existing residential areas. In particular, residents of the Magruder subdivision (houses that front on Pinewood Drive) wanted existing trees retained plus additional screening at the shared boundary. The Planning Commission concurred and the developer said they would preserve as many trees as possible and plant a screening buffer. Staff believes that the commitment to preserve as many trees as possible sets an expectation that the applicant will demonstrate what they can and cannot preserve and why. This would mean that the applicant would provide a grading and drainage plan showing the extent of grading and removal of trees for review by staff and concurrence. Where trees would be protected, a conservation plan would be filed.
The applicant believes that he has committed to try to preserve trees, but should not have to demonstrate what he can and cannot preserve, and has written into the Code of Development (pages 45-46) the following:
Adjacent to the existing single family detached houses in the Magruder Subdivision and the parcels along the eastern and southeastern edge of Rivanna Village, future development in Blocks B, G, H and K is limited to single-family detached houses (and/ or an assisted living use in Block G) to ensure a compatible lower density transition is created with the existing homes. To further enhance this compatibility, the Owner shall establish a twenty (20) foot deep Landscaping Strip. The Landscape Strip shall run the entire length of the Rivanna Village NMD exterior boundary line within Blocks B, G, H, and K.
Within the Landscape Strip, the Owner shall enhance the visual screening by planting a double row of evergreen trees on fifteen (15) foot centers along the length of the Landscape Strip, except where the Owner demonstrates that existing trees have been preserved. Where an existing tree has been preserved, the owner shall not be required to replant the double row of evergreen trees under the drip line of a preserved tree. Secondly, trees within the Landscape Strip shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible; however, the Owner may elect to remove any tree with the Landscape Strip so long as it is replaced with a double row of evergreen trees.
Staff understands that the applicant does not wish to get into a possible debate with staff in the future as to whether trees could be preserved with a different arrangement of uses at the boundary line. However, staff believes that the expectation of the Commission on behalf of the adjoining owners was that as many trees would be retained as possible. Staff cannot verify that the applicant can meet this expectation without information showing which trees would be affected by grading and drainage improvements and why they would be affected.
Regarding the Route 250 widening identified in the Northwest Fluvanna/Southwest Louisa Corridor Study: Eastern Albemarle Sub-Area Study, the applicant has not proffered any cash towards such improvements, although it has offered right of way dedication for future widening of Route 250 across the property’s frontage. Even if the applicant did proffer cash for these transportation improvements, without an adopted plan for widening of Route 250 staff does not know if this is a project that will ever take place and cannot advise that cash proffers would be used towards such improvements.
Glenmore Proffer for 27 Acres and Rivanna Village at Glenmore Proffer for 18.5 acres
As stated in the staff report, 27 acres was proffered to the County for a school or other public facility through the Glenmore rezoning in 1992. After much discussion with the Schools Division and Park Division, it was determined that a need for a school facility at this location does not exist; however a need for a community park in the eastern part of the County does exist. The applicant is proposing to provide a fully developed community park on 18.5 acres with new public streets providing access and surrounding the park. Approximately 3 acres is taken up in streets providing access to and surrounding the park. When asked, the Parks and Recreation Director said that he would rather the County receive a fully developed park of 18.5 acres with public street access than 27 acres of undeveloped park land that the County would then have to improve.
Accepting the proffer for the park land shown in the Code of Development for this proposal requires that the Board of Supervisors also deal with the Glenmore proffer. The County Attorney’s office has recommended that, if the Board believes this park proffer for Rivanna Village at Glenmore is acceptable, it adopt a resolution saying that by accepting that proffer, it deems the Glenmore proffer satisfied. That resolution is Exhibit C.
Cash Impacts and Proffer Values
Since the Commission’s public hearing on Rivanna Village at Glenmore, the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and endorsed moving forward with the development of a Cash Proffer Policy. In doing so, the Board has accepted the Fiscal Impact Committee’s methodology to determine the cash impact of residential development by dwelling unit type. Rounded off, the resulting calculated impacts that the Board has also accepted are $17,500 per single family detached unit, $12,400 per apartment unit and $11,900 per townhouse/condominium unit. It was also the consensus of the Board that, with the exception of affordable dwelling units, all new re-zonings will pay for the equivalent of their full impact as determined by the cash proffer calculations applied to the accepted per unit rates. The Board further agreed that when the number of unit types is not specified in a re-zoning, the single family detached rate should be used per total number of dwelling units.
The Board also agreed to allow credits against the calculated cash impact amounts for affordable housing in excess of the County policy, the value of land/facilities proffered on the development site that are called for in the Comp Plan or identified in the CIP (e.g. school site in the development, and the value of proffered services or other recommendations in the Comp Plan not otherwise anticipated in the CIP (ex. transit). Further, the Board agreed to allow credits for the value of other proffered land/facilities that are not called for in the Comp Plan or identified in the CIP (e.g. parkland not in CIP) and the value of impacts occasioned by the development and not included in the cash proffer calculations (e.g. road improvements beyond the CIP and Comp Plan which are necessitated by the development). The Board still needs to provide direction regarding whether credits will be allowed for more qualitative things such as Comprehensive Plan consistency (e.g. Neighborhood Model consistency or consideration of projects in a designated priority area called for in a Master Plan) and other design issues (e.g. LEED certified structures, public space in developments). Should these qualitative items be determined to warrant a credit, a methodology for quantifying their value will need to be determined. It was also the consensus of the Board that inflation factors should be included with proffers for cash, although the Board still needs to provide direction regarding which standard index should be used.
Based on this project’s number of units at a low and high end as provided by the applicant and subtraction of the 15% affordable units being proffered, staff’s estimate of the project’s cash impact would be between $4,047,600 and $5,957,600. (See Exhibit D) The applicant’s estimate of the value of their non-cash proffers as recommend by the Planning Commission total $4,123,109 for land and improvements, including the finished park, wetlands mitigation and right of way for the future widening of Route 250. (See Exhibit D) Staff does note that without more engineering plan details regarding the proffered improvements, staff cannot definitively verify the proffer values offered by the applicant. However, the Planning Commission has also recommended the applicant’s proffers of $3,500 per single family detached unit, $3,000 per townhouse unit and $2,500 per multi-family unit, which would yield between $893,500 and $1,277,500 in current dollars based on this project’s number of units at a low and high end as provided by the applicant and subtraction of the 15% affordable units being proffered. And, since the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant has further proffered an inflation factor for all of the per unit cash proffers.
Based on the applicant’s estimates, the total of the project’s non-cash and cash proffers as recommended by the Planning Commission would be within the range of its calculated cash impacts. While staff cannot confirm the actual value of the proffered public improvements, as important from staff’s perspective and in the Planning Commission’s recommendation is the quality of this overall project, which has been in the development process for roughly six years with numerous work sessions and extensive negotiations between the County, Glenmore community and developer regarding the project’s design and, most particularly, the provision of the community park. Furthermore, staff and the Planning Commission view this development as an excellent example of the Neighborhood Model that meets all of the Neighborhood Model principles articulated in the Comprehensive Plan.
This Executive Summary includes a set of waivers requested by the applicant which require Board of Supervisors’ approval. All waivers which do not require Board of Supervisors’ approval have already been granted or addressed by the Planning Commission or staff. Staff believes that all of the waivers, as modified in Exhibit E are appropriate.
Staff believes that this project has responded over the last six years to numerous requests of the County and the Glenmore community in both its design, resulting in an excellent example of the Neighborhood Model, and the provision of an important public facility, the community park. In addition to public land and improvement proffers, the applicant has proffered additional cash per unit and an inflation factor for the cash proffers. The only remaining issue from the Planning Commission’s recommendation is the applicant’s commitment for preservation of existing trees at the boundary of the development. Based on the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the applicant has otherwise met the expectations of the Planning Commission and staff can recommend approval of ZMA 2001-08, inclusive of proffers, General Plan of Development, Code of Development, and Waivers (Exhibits A, B, and E), if the Board finds that the project has appropriately addressed its impacts and that the applicant’s commitment for preservation of existing trees at the boundary of the development is acceptable. Staff also recommends approval of the Resolution in Exhibit C should the Board approve the rezoning.
EXHIBIT A: Signed proffers dated June 13, 2007
EXHIBIT B: Code of Development dated May 23, 2007 (on file in Clerk's office)
EXHIBIT C: Resolution Deeming Proffer 2 of ZMA 1999-016 Satisfied
EXHIBIT D: Rivanna Village at Glenmore Cash Impact Study 6/13/07
EXHIBIT E: Waivers and Modifications for Rivanna Village at Glenmore 6/13/07
View PC actions letter
View PC staff report and attachments
View PC minutes of July 18, August 29, and December 12, 2006 and March 13, 2007
Return to regular agenda