COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE

PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY

 

Project Name:  ZMA 05-17 Biscuit Run

Staff:  Claudette Grant

Planning Commission Public Hearing:  May 29, 2007

Board of Supervisors Work Session:   July 11, 2007

Scheduled Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: August 8,  2007

Owners: Forest Lodge L. L. C., Elizabeth Breeden, and Biscuit Run, L. L. C.

Applicant:  Forest Lodge L. L. C. , with LeClair Ryan as the contact, Torti Gallas & Partners, Inc. as the land planners and Collins Engineering as the consulting engineer

Acreage: 828+ acres

Rezone from: R1, and R2 Residential  to NMD Neighborhood Model District

TMP:  TM: 90 P: 5, TM: 90 P: 6D (portion), TM: 90 P: 17D, TM: 90 P: A-3, TM: 90 P: A1-1, TM: 90 P: A1-1E, TM: 90A P: 1A, and TM: 90A P: 1B.

Location: Between the east side of Old Lynchburg Road and the west side of Route 20; adjacent and to the south of the Mill Creek subdivision, adjacent and to the west of the intersection of Avon Street, Extended and Route 20 and includes 981 Old Lynchburg Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903. (See Attachment A)  

By-right use:  R1, and R2

Magisterial District:  Scottsville

Proffers:  Yes

Proposal:  The applicant proposes to rezone approximately 828 acres from R1, and R2 residential to NMD Neighborhood Model District. Approximately 2,500 - 3,100 residential units and a neighborhood center, which would include commercial, office and community uses are proposed.   

Requested # of Dwelling Units:  3,100                           

 

DA (Development Area): Neighborhoods 4 & 5

Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Density

 

Character of Property:  The site is primarily undeveloped, wooded with a lot of over grown shrubs/plants. There are streams and tributaries, as well as rolling terrain, some of which are fairly steep slopes on the site.  

Use of Surrounding Properties: Single family residential, mobile home complex, school, recreation facility, and farm land/open space.

Factors Favorable:

1.   This project proposes mixed-use development generally meeting a number of principles of the Neighborhood model.

2.   The road connection from Old Lynchburg Road to Route 20 creates an additional east and west connection in this portion of the County.

3.   This development will add additional commercial/retail uses to a portion of the County that lacks retail shopping options; particularly as residential development in this portion of the County continues to be built.

4.  The layout and design of the proposed plan attempts to protect some of the natural resources.

5.  The applicant proposes to provide proffers toward much needed transportation improvements to this portion of the County and in the City.

6.  A school site for an elementary school (or learning center) has been proffered.

7.  A large district park site has been proffered.

8.  Cash for a greenway connection northward, playing fields at the district park, cash for transit and provision of temporary shuttle service, cash for new regional library and cash for a fire engine and ambulance has been proffered.

 

Factors Unfavorable:

1.       The six outstanding issues outlined in the outstanding issues section on page 9 of this report need to be appropriately addressed.  The applicant has committed to do so.

 

RECOMMENDATION: Provided that the six outstanding issues identified in the outstanding issues section of this report on page 9 are resolved as recommended by staff prior to the Board of Supervisors’ meeting and that the value of the proffers in addressing the project’s impacts are deemed adequate, staff recommends approval of ZMA 2005-000017 Biscuit Run, inclusive of revised proffers, code of development and application plan.  Staff also recommends approval of the two waivers and modifications to Zoning Ordinance requirements for parking and loading study and for lot layout.

 

 

 

ZMA 2005-000017 Biscuit Run

Request for approval of various waivers

 

PETITION

PROJECT: ZMA 2005-00017 / Biscuit Run

PROPOSAL:  Rezone approximately 828 acres from R-1 Residential (1 unit/acre), and R-2 Residential (2 units/acre) to NMD Neighborhood Model District - residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses. Maximum number proposed residential units: 3,100. Commercial uses proposed also.

PROFFERS:  Yes

EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:  Neighborhood Density Residential in Neighborhoods 4 & 5-residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses.

ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes

LOCATION: Between the east side of Old Lynchburg Road and the west side of Route 20; adjacent and to the south of the Mill Creek South subdivision, adjacent and to the west of the intersection of Avon Street, Extended and Route 20 and includes 981 Old Lynchburg Road, Charlottesville VA 22903.

TAX MAP/PARCEL: 90/5, 90/6D (portion), 90/17D, 90A/3, 90A1/1, 90A1/1E, 90A/1A, and 90A/1B.

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville

 

CHARACTER OF THE AREA

The property is located in the southeast area of the intersection of Interstate 64 and Fifth Street Extended (Rt 631) between the east side of Old Lynchburg Road and the west side of Route 20; adjacent and to the south of the Mill Creek South subdivision, adjacent and to the west of the intersection of Avon Street, Extended and Route 20 and includes 981 Old Lynchburg Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903. Uses adjacent and near to the site include single family residential, mobile home complex, school, recreation facility, and farm land/open space. Some of the area is undeveloped with woods and the Biscuit Run Creek. There are several residential subdivisions located nearby as well as Interstate-64.

 

SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL

The applicant has proposed a development with between 2,500 to 3,100 residential units, 150,000 square feet of commercial/office uses, a 12 acre school site, and a 402 acre district park that is located in an adjacent area zoned rural, which is not part of the rezoning request. The total acreage of the rezoning request is approximately 828 acres.  The neighborhood center, which will provide retail, office and civic and civic support uses for the community will be of a neighborhood scale, not regional, and is proposed to be located towards the eastern portion of the site near Route 20 where a majority of the residential density for this development is proposed to be located.

 

BACKGROUND

Over the last year the Commission has held the following work/information sessions for the Biscuit Run project:

                                    •           March 7, 2006  - Information Session

                                    •           March 21, 2006 - General conformity of the proposed rezoning to the Comprehensive Plan

                                    •           April 18, 2006 - Environmental Issues

                                    •           June 13, 2006 - Scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis

                                    •           November 14, 2006 - Information Session for revised plan

                                    •           December 19, 2006 - Applicant provided an overview of the traffic impact analysis addendum (TIA) and transportation proffers

                                    •           January 16, 2007 - Staff’s review, analysis and comments regarding the revised plan, code of development and proffers not related to transportation.

                                    •           January 30, 2007 – Staff’s review, analysis and comments regarding the traffic impact analysis addendum (TIA) and transportation proffers.

                                    •           February 6, 2007 – Follow up and status of outstanding issues.

                                    •           February 10, 2007 – Open House (Opportunity for the public to ask questions of Planning Commission, Developer and Staff)

                                    •           February 27, 2007 – Follow up and discussion of outstanding issues that needed to be addressed prior to a public hearing.

                                    •           March 27, 2007 – Planning Commission public hearing.

                                    •           April 4, 2007 – By a vote of 6:0, the Board of Supervisors referred its previously scheduled April 11th work session on the application back to the Planning Commission. They requested the Commission look at transit funding/usage, and suggested the applicant look at how they may do something for their own locally generated transit system.

DISCUSSION

At the March 27th public hearing, the Planning Commission recommend denial of ZMA-2005-00017, Biscuit Run, based on a number of unresolved issues raised by staff in its report and by the Planning Commission.

 

The following quotes those unresolved issues as defined at the Planning Commission hearing and provided in the March 27th Commission Action Memo. The sections in bold describe the current status of each issue:

 

  1. “As described by Attachments E & J (of the March 27, 2007 staff report) the lack of details on the plan and code of development makes staff analysis difficult.”

 

  1. “The current proffers are not consistent with the application plan and code of development dated December 12, 2006.”

The revisions submitted by the applicant are much improved in terms of       consistent information between the application plan (See Attachment B), code of development (See Attachment C) and proffers (See Attachment D); however, there remain technical matters that will need to be fixed prior to the Board of Supervisor’s action. 

 

  1. “Substantive and technical issues still remain with the proffers.”

The applicant has been working with staff to resolve the substantive issues, which will be further discussed below.  While technical issues still remain to be completed, the applicant and staff have been working to resolve these issues and staff believes they can be resolved prior to meeting with the Board of Supervisors.

 

  1. “Issues described in Attachments E, J & L (of the March 27, 2007 staff report) are still outstanding.”

The revisions address the outstanding substantive issues, but technical matters still need to be resolved.

  1. “A revised (application) plan, code of development and/or proffers needs to be submitted. The revised information should be submitted to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.”

 The applicant has submitted a revised plan, code of development and proffers.

  1. “It should be made clear that the list reiterated by Mr. Cilimberg, although it was a blueprint for further work, did not resolve major substantive issues that are still outstanding, including among other things the cash amounts in the proffers.” 

 

  1. “The following summary addresses the points discussed by the Commission as reiterated by Mr. Cilimberg:

 

§         The Commission is generally satisfied with the Application Plan, but wants the plan to specifically reflect preservation areas not to be disturbed, and conservation areas and the conditions of their disturbance and restoration.  The Commission also asked that the plan show the connection to Mill Creek South in a location that would provide acceptable vehicular connection in the future.  The applicant indicated agreement to do these things.”

Sheet 3 of 10 of the plans depicts the preservation and conservation areas and page 34 of the COD describes these areas. The revised plan also shows the connection to Mill Creek South, although staff is concerned as to whether this location is too steep to provide an acceptable vehicular connection and proper intersection with Stoney Creek Drive (no intersection shown). The applicant agrees and is further addressing this.

 

§         “The Commission requests a plan to phase or sequence the development so as to understand the order of development and its relationship to the provision of infrastructure as well as enable the best management of grading and storm water management by the County.  The applicant indicated agreement to build the through road from Route 20 to Route 631 (inclusive of the Southwood Connector) and to provide pedestrian and bicycle connection from Mill Creek South to the District Park as part of the initial development of the project.  The applicant did not indicate a willingness to provide a sequencing plan for the full development.”

Sheet 10 of 10 of the plans is a phasing plan for the development provided by the applicant. Page 47 of the COD also describes the phasing. However, there is no set schedule to the phasing plan. The applicant has indicated that he is in the process of revising the COD to provide more detail as to how phasing will take place. The plan shows the proposed road from Route 20 to Route 631. Proffer 6 D describes how the Southwood Connector road will be provided. Staff agrees with the applicant’s intent in this proffer commitment, although staff and the applicant agree that the wording may need additional modifications for clarity. Staff also notes that the specific location of the road off-site on the Southwood Mobile Home Park property will need to be determined at the time of its construction based on the particular conditions in existence at that time. The applicant agrees that the proffers should be revised to include flexibility regarding the specific location of the road.  

 

§         “The Commission requests a full Phase I Archeological Study be completed prior to grading/disturbance of the site and necessary measures to avoid resources be employed based on the findings of the study.  The applicant indicated agreement to conduct such a study for potential “hot spot” areas identified in the Phase I reconnaissance survey and those areas necessary to meet other Federal permitting requirements as they may be applicable.”

The applicant has committed through proffer 10 to conduct a Phase I Historic Resources Survey prior to commencing land disturbance of any potential historic features identified on Sheet 8 of the General Development Plan. Staff notes that when the applicant’s consultant completed a Phase IA reconnaissance survey, the consultants estimated that approximately 40% of the property has the potential to contain archaeological resources. Considering the Phase 1A reconnaissance survey included only 49 randomly selected shovel tests, staff has felt it would be reasonable to assume that more historic resources are located within Biscuit Run than the 13 sites identified on Sheet 8 (2 are off-site). Furthermore, page 3 of the COD states that “ruins from a mid-19th century farmstead, including a family graveyard, will be preserved and protected, incorporating an historic context for the new community.” For this reason, staff has recommended a wider sampling, not limited to the 13 sites identified on Sheet 8, based upon a systematic Phase I survey and that it should be conducted and submitted to the Director of Planning with recommendations for treatment. Even if the Phase I survey is to be limited to the 13 sites on Sheet 8, staff has found in comparing Sheet 8 to Sheet 7, which is the Overall Conceptual Grading and Storm Management Plan, that five of the resources are located in areas to be graded. As a result, only eight resources will be protected. Staff feels more commitment from the applicant regarding identification and protection of these resources is necessary to address the intent. The applicant has indicated a willingness to work with staff to resolve this.

 

§         “The Commission requests that the necessary additional monies to build the green way connection northward from the northern property boundary be provided. The applicant indicated agreement to do this.”

The applicant has provided $100,000 in cash in proffer 1B to build the off-site extension of the green way.

 

§         “The Commission has mixed feelings as to expectations for affordable housing.  The majority of the Commission agrees that at least 10 percent affordable housing be provided in Biscuit Run and that credit for off-site housing in Southwood’s redevelopment could be accomplished through either actual down payment assistance funding and/or funding of their development plans. If Southwood does not end up developing, the Commission wants the money to be provided for a similar project to Southwood or the full 15 percent affordable housing be provided in Biscuit Run.  The applicant indicated agreement to do this.”

Proffer 2 provides at least 10 percent affordable housing on the Biscuit Run site and provides the option for credit for off-site housing in Southwood’s redevelopment and/or deign services. Proffer 2C (1) addresses the following option, should Southwood not develop in a timely manner: it allows the Albemarle County Housing Office the opportunity to disburse any cash contributions made under proffer 2C for the purpose of developing or redeveloping any housing located in the County that meets the County’s definition of affordable housing at such time.       

 

§         “The Commission wants 12 usable acres to be provided for the Learning Center.  The applicant indicated agreement to do this.”

The applicant has provided 12 acres for the Learning Center site.

 

§         “After some discussion and varying opinions, the Commissioners agree that they do not request additional funding to offset the Biscuit Run impact on middle and high schools.  The Commission agrees that this is the kind of thing that the Board really needs to pay attention to in developing a proffer policy (as well as parks).”

See Cash Impacts and Proffer Values section that follows on page 8 of this report.

 

§         “The Commission agrees with the applicant’s commitment to donate 92 acres of land plus right-of-way and utilities for a District Park and $200,000 to fund the master plan for the park’s development.  The Commission does not feel that additional funds for park improvements are necessary.”

Proffer 1F (1) provides 402 acres of land, right-of-way for road and utility service to the District Park. Proffer 2F (2) provides $200,000 in cash to fund the master plan for the park’s development.  The applicant has also committed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) cash for each dwelling unit constructed on the property, up to an aggregate maximum contribution of $1,550,000.00 to Albemarle County, for funding of design and construction of one or more soccer, lacrosse or other playing fields.

 

§         “The Commission wants, as a minimum, the North Pointe proffer regarding grading to be committed for Biscuit Run. The applicant indicated agreement with this.”

The applicant is working further with engineering staff on wording for this type of proffer to further address stormwater management and erosion control.

 

§         “In addressing transportation impacts, the Commission agrees with the physical improvements the applicant has proposed in the proffers.”

 

§         “Regarding cash proffers to address transportation impacts,  the Commission suggested that the issue be revisited with the idea of the applicant proffering more cash to address impacts and that cash be collected in a single fund to better allow the Biscuit Run related transportation impacts to be addressed as needed (rather than be collected in multiple funds where Biscuit Run’s proportionate share of the improvements to be constructed will sit until government funding for the remainder is available to undertake the particular project).  The applicant indicated agreement to consider changes in their commitment, but not likely at the levels noted by VDOT in their latest comments.”

The applicant has combined the previous proffer called Cash Proffer for Area Transportation Projects (improvements to Route 20 and Old Lynchburg Road) and Owner’s Share of Other Off-Site Improvements and increased this pool of money by $1.4 million to provide the current proffer of $7,750,000.00 for off-site transportation improvements and other area transportation projects.  For each dwelling unit constructed on the property, the owner shall contribute Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) cash, up to an aggregate maximum contribution of $7,750,000.00 to Albemarle County, toward funding any of the following improvements:

                                                                                                  i.      signal improvements at Avon Street and Southern Parkway;

                                                                                                ii.      signal improvements on Old Lynchburg Road at State Route 631 and 5th Street;

                                                                                              iii.      installation of signals at State Route 20 and I-64;

                                                                                              iv.      lane addition on Old Lynchburg Road at Old Lynchburg Road and Country Green;

                                                                                                v.      lane addition on Old Lynchburg Road at Old Lynchburg Road and Mountain Wood;

                                                                                              vi.      lane addition on State Route 20 at State Route 20 and PVCC;

                                                                                            vii.      lane addition and bridge expansion on 5th Street at I-64 and 5th Street;

                                                                                          viii.      bicycle lanes on Old Lynchburg Road (2-lane section), and/or on State Route 20 and Avon Street;

                                                                                              ix.      spot improvements for State Route 20 and Old Lynchburg Road;

                                                                                                x.      widening State Route 20, and

                                                                                              xi.      frontage improvements along State Route 20 and Old Lynchburg Road above those required in connection with individual site plans for the property.

 

VDOT has estimated a higher amount of funding ($10.4 million) needed based on widening Route 20 South to 4 lanes between Route 53 and the Biscuit Run entrance. However, that improvement beyond Mill Creek Drive is not listed in any current County or VDOT plan and it is unknown whether such an improvement will be acceptable to the County. The $7.75 million proffered is adequate based on current plans, but is less than identified by VDOT based on 4 lanes for Route 20 from Route 53 to Biscuit Run. (See Attachment J)

 

§         “The Commission wants the applicant to make a greater commitment to transit. The applicant indicated agreement to consider changes in their commitment.”

The applicant has committed a cash contribution of Three Hundred Twenty-Three Dollars ($323.00) for each dwelling unit constructed, up to an aggregate maximum contribution of $1,000,000.00 to Albemarle County, for capital and/or operating expenses related to the extension of public transit service to the property and its surrounding area. The applicant has also proffered to construct 6 public bus stops, including a “kiss and ride” facility, car sharing service, and a temporary shuttle service.

 

§         “The Commission wants to see agreements reached for the connector road through Southwood. The applicant and the Southwood owner indicated this will be accomplished very soon.”

The applicant has provided a signed memorandum of contract between the applicant and the Southwood owner (See Attachment E).

 

§         “The Commission agrees that, at a minimum, the master sewer phasing plan should be covered by agreements between the applicant and ACSA and RWSA.  ACSA representatives anticipate these agreements.”

The applicant is working with ACSA regarding a memorandum/agreements that would resolve this concern. Unsigned agreements are attached. (See Attachment F) This information will be presented to the ACSA Board on May 24th for their execution.

 

§         “The Commission agrees with the proffer regarding phasing the retail portion of the development and does not see the need for the applicant to provide leased space for a library, but it does want a cash commitment towards library development in the southern urban area.  The applicant indicated a willingness to do this.”

Proffer 8 addresses phasing of Retail Development and Proffer 9 provides a cash contribution in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand dollars ($500,000) to the County to be used toward construction of a new regional library.

 

§         “The Commission agrees with the applicant’s commitment to apply for critical slope waivers for roads in the project.”

 

8.      “One Commissioner felt that a proffer should be made for fire/rescue because 7,000 additional residents would necessitate an ambulance and an additional engine.”

In proffer 12, the owner agrees to contribute cash in the amount of Eight Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($875,000) to the County to be used toward the purchase of a fire engine and an ambulance serving the property and its surrounding area. 

 

9.      “Some Commissioners thought the actual proffer values may be lower than the applicant said they are committed to provide and the difference may allow the applicant to commit more to transportation.”

See Cash Impacts and Proffer values section that follows below.

  

10. “Regarding transportation, the Commission feels a full commitment to the City of Charlottesville’s request should be provided, inclusive of $1.5 million to fund Old Lynchburg Road improvements as well as $250,000 for ITS and funding towards the Sunset/Fontaine Connector.”

The applicant is providing cash in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) for use by the County and City of Charlottesville for ITS improvements as described in proffer 6 F. Proffer 6 G describes a cash contribution that the applicant is providing as follows: for each dwelling unit constructed on the property the owner shall contribute Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) cash, up to an aggregate maximum contribution of $1,550,000.00 to Albemarle County, for funding construction of the Fontaine/Sunset Avenue Connector Road per the Area B Study. The applicant/owner has also provided a proffer for improvements to Old Lynchburg Road (City Section) in the amount of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) cash for each dwelling unit constructed on the property, up to an aggregate maximum contribution of $1,550,000.00. 

 

CASH IMPACTS AND PROFFER VALUES

 

Since the Commission’s work session on Biscuit Run 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 Comprehensive Plan or identified in the CIP (e.g. school site in the development), the value of land/facilities proffered off of the development site that are called for in the Comprehensive Plan or identified in the CIP (e.g. school site on another piece of property) and the value of proffered services or other recommendations in the Comprehensive 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 Comprehensive 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 Comprehensive 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.

 

At this point before a Cash Proffer Policy is adopted, staff will look at each project on a case by case basis to determine cash impact based on the accepted methodology and compare it to the quantifiable values of proffers offered by applicants for which the Board has indicated they will allow credits.  Attachment H provides a calculation of cash impact of the Biscuit Run project based on:  1) the number of units by type used in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), numbers that are not assured as they are not proffered, and 2) the total number of units using the single family detached rate.  In both cases, the affordable units are subtracted away in the calculations based on the proffered on-site options of 10% (with the remaining 5% off-site) and 15%.  Attachment G provides the applicant’s calculated proffer values for Biscuit Run which have been agreed to by staff.

 

The resulting calculations yield a range of between $35.5 million and $48.8 million in impact as compared to a value for proffers of $30.9 million.  It is likely that the real cash impact of this project will be in the mid to upper $30’s million as the project is proposed for a mixture of dwelling unit types and, even if it did not, all 3,100 units could not be single family detached and fit on the site under the application plan. 

 

As for the difference between the calculated cash impact and the values of quantifiable proffers, qualitative aspects of the project might be considered to determine if they appropriately cover the difference.  As the Board has not as yet provided direction on this, staff is unable to advise on credits for qualitative aspects.

 

Staff does note, however, that the project generally meets principles of the Neighborhood Model and commits to LEED certification or eligibility to receive such certification for some of its residential and commercial buildings.

 

WAIVERS AND MODIFICATIONS

 

The applicant has requested the following two waivers and modifications to Zoning Ordinance requirements.

1)      Waiver for parking and loading study

2)      Waiver for lot layout

Attachment I provides the request and the analysis and recommendations for the waivers. Staff supports the waivers to the zoning ordinance.

 

OUTSTANDING ISSUES

 

The applicant has provided resolution to several outstanding issues, but the following items are still in need of resolution: The bold section following each outstanding issue describes the resolution staff recommends prior to the Board of Supervisors consideration of this application.

 

1)      Application Plan, Code of Development and Proffers.

Technical matters need to be addressed and fixed.

2)      Location of Mill Creek South connection.

The connection needs to be in a location that provides acceptable design for vehicular access and proper intersection with Stoney Creek Drive. The applicant agrees and is further addressing this.      

3)      Plan to phase or sequence the development so as to understand the order of development and the timing and location of Southwood Connector Road.

While the applicant has provided a phasing plan, there is no set schedule to the plan. The applicant has indicated that he is in the process of revising the COD to provide more detail as to how phasing will take place. The proffer language also needs to be clarified regarding when the Southwood Connector Road will be built. The applicant agrees and is working with staff on this.   There also needs to be some flexibility as to where the road will be located off-site and the applicant agrees.

4)      Further commitment regarding identification and protection of archeological and cultural resources.

Staff feels more commitment regarding identification and protection of these resources is necessary.  In particular, staff is concerned that five of the 13 previously identified sites are located in areas shown for grading.  The applicant has indicated a willingness to work with staff to resolve this.

5)      Commitments to grading at least equivalent to those made for North Pointe.

The applicant is working further with engineering staff on this, particularly as regards stormwater management and erosion control.

6)      Sewer agreement.

Execution of documents is planned for the May 24th ACSA Board of Director’s meeting.

  

In addition, decision will need to be made regarding the adequacy of proffers in addressing the project’s cash impacts.  Generally, the cash value of the proffers offered, not considering the value of the qualitative aspects of the project, fall short of the cash impacts of the project by $5 million or more.  More particularly, the off-site transportation cash proffers for County projects, not including transit, while adequate based on current plans, fall some $2.65 million short of what VDOT estimated as being needed based on potential Route 20 widening improvements.

 

SUMMARY

 

Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this re-zoning request:

 

1.   This project proposes mixed-use development generally meeting a number of principles of the Neighborhood model.

2.   The road connection from Old Lynchburg Road to Route 20 creates an additional east and west connection in this portion of the County.

3.   This development will add additional commercial/retail uses to a portion of the County that lacks retail shopping options; particularly as residential development in this portion of the County continues to be built.

4.  The layout and design of the proposed plan attempts to protect some of the natural resources.

5.  The applicant proposes to provide proffers toward much needed transportation improvements to this portion of the County and in the City.

6.  A school site for an elementary school (or learning center) has been proffered.

7.  A large district park site has been proffered.

8.  Cash for a greenway connection northward, playing fields at the district park, cash for transit and provision of temporary shuttle service, cash for new regional library and cash for a fire engine and ambulance has been proffered.

 

Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this re-zoning request:

1. The six outstanding issues outlined above need to be appropriately addressed.  The applicant has committed to do so.

In addition, a decision needs to be made regarding the adequacy of the value of the proffers in addressing the project’s cash impacts.

RECOMMENDATION

 

Provided that the six outstanding issues identified above are resolved as recommended by staff prior to the Board of Supervisors’ meeting and that the value of the proffers in addressing the project’s impacts are deemed adequate, staff recommends approval of ZMA 2005-000017 Biscuit Run, inclusive of revised proffers, code of development and application plan.  Staff also recommends approval of the two waivers and modifications to Zoning Ordinance requirements for parking and loading study and for lot layout.

 

ATTACHMENT A:      Tax Map

ATTACHMENT B:     Revised General Development Plans, dated April 20, 2007

ATTACHMENT C:     Revised Code of Development, dated April 20, 2007

ATTACHMENT D:     Revised Proffers, dated April 20, 2007

ATTACHMENT E:      Memorandum of Contract, dated May 18, 2007 

ATTACHMENT F:      Memorandum from Gary Fern, dated May 16, 2007, Agreement, Memorandum of Understanding, Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Director’s May 24 Agenda

ATTACHMENT G:     Revised Proffer Cost Summary

ATTACHMENT H:     Cash Impact Summary

ATTACHMENT I:       Waiver request, dated February 1, 2007 and Analysis dated March 19, 2007

ATTACHMENT J:      Electronic mail and draft memorandum from Joel Denunzio, dated May 15, 2007

ATTACHMENT K:     Memo from Joseph Letteri, dated April 2, 2007

ATTACHMENT L:      Letters to adjacent property owners, dated May 8, 2007

ATTACHMENT M:     Presentation plans, dated May 2, 2007

 

Go to next attachment

Return to exec summary