COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

AGENDA TITLE:

ZMA-2005-00017 Biscuit Run 

 

SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:

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

 

STAFF CONTACT(S):

Cilimberg, Echols, Grant

 

LEGAL REVIEW:   NO

 

 

AGENDA DATE:

July 11, 2007

 

 

ACTION:              INFORMATION:   X

 

CONSENT AGENDA:

  ACTION:             INFORMATION: 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:   YES

 

 

OWNER/APPLICANT PURCHASER:

Forest Lodge L. L. C., with LeClair Ryan as the contact, Torti Gallas & Partners, Inc. as the land planners with Collins Engineering as the consulting engineer is the applicant; Forest Lodge L. L. C., Elizabeth Breeden, and Biscuit Run, L. L. C. are the property owners.

 

BACKGROUND: 

On March 27, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request and recommended 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.

(See Attachment A)

 

At the Board of Supervisors meeting on April 4, 2007 the Board referred its previously scheduled April 11th work session on the application back to the Planning Commission for the applicant to address the unresolved issues with the Commission. The Board also requested that 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. On May 29, 2007, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing on the application. The Commission recommended approval of ZMA-2005-000017, Biscuit Run, inclusive of revised proffers, code of development and application plan, provided that the remaining outstanding issues identified in the staff report on page 9 (See Attachment B) and those discussed by the Planning Commission at the public hearing are addressed as recommended prior to the Board of Supervisor’s meeting. Each of these issues is noted in the following with the expectation of the Planning Commission in bold print and the current status in italics. 

 

§         Application Plan, Code of Development and Proffers.

Technical matters need to be addressed and fixed.  An inflation factor for cash proffers needs to be included.

While the applicant has addressed some of the technical matters, there are several that remain to be addressed. Staff has provided the applicant a letter referencing these matters. The applicant has proffered an annual adjustment in cash proffer in proffer 13 based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, United States City Average. The Board has indicated its preference for such annual adjustments to be based on the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index. 

§         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 general concept is that it be for pedestrian, bike and emergency access with the proviso that it is available for full public road access at the decision of the Board of Supervisors rather than the discretion of Community Development and that the time period within which this discretion could be exercised be 20 to 25 years rather than 15 years.

The revised plans do not show a change in location for the Mill Creek South connection. However, the applicant has since submitted additional follow-up information regarding this connection to the County Engineer. This additional information is being reviewed by the engineer and can be further discussed during the Board’s work session. Proffer 6. E. has been changed to reflect that the right-of-way shall be used for bicycle, pedestrian and emergency access to Biscuit Run until such time that the Board of Supervisors determines vehicular connection is required. The time period within which this discretion could be exercised is now 25 years.  

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

Phases A and D along with the Southwood Connector and the park access should be done first.  The remaining phases can be sequenced such that no more than 2 phases are underway at one time and a third phase could be started when one of the first two phases are 80 percent complete.  There also needs to be some flexibility as to where the road will be located off-site.

The phasing aspect requested by the Planning Commission has been addressed in the Code of Development. However, staff feels the wording is confusing regarding the sequencing of phases. Staff has requested that wording in the code be clarified to specifically state the request of the Planning Commission. Proffer 6.D. includes wording that provides flexibility regarding location of this road off-site, but this wording may need to be further clarified. 

§         Further commitment regarding identification and protection of archeological and cultural resources.

There will be a Phase I Study of all areas to be disturbed before any disturbance can take place.

Proffer 10 addresses this statement.     

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

Language provided by the County Engineer shall be used to include an erosion control plan for each phase and the accommodation of drainage out fall on adjacent properties through easements.

Proffer 5 does not address the accommodation of drainage outfall on adjacent properties through easements.

§         Sewer agreement.

Agreements were approved on May 24th and execution of documents with ACSA has been completed. 

Staff has received a copy of the final executed document.

§         There shall be one general transportation fund proffered on a per unit basis for all County transportation improvements inclusive of the Sunset/Fontaine connector.  ITS and Old Lynchburg Road improvements in the City and Transit will be in separate funds.  ITS and Old Lynchburg Road improvements in the City will be provided on a per unit basis.

This has been addressed in Proffers 6 C, 6 F, 6 G, and 7A.

§         The Transit Fund will be proffered with 1 million dollars available up front for at least 18 months as an incentive to provide funding for a regional Transit Authority.  The applicant’s local transit service shall be permanent rather than a 10 year commitment.

This has been addressed in Proffers 7A and 7E.

§         The Commission specifically requests that the inflation component be included in the proffers.

The applicant has provided proffer 13 in order to address this. The applicant has proffered an annual adjustment in cash proffer in proffer 13 based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. United States City Average. The Board has indicated its preference for such annual adjustments to be based on the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index.     

 

The Planning Commission also approved waivers for parking and loading study and for lot layout. Section 20A.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a parking and loading study be completed for a Neighborhood Model District application. This study provides parking details for the development. Due to the large size of the proposed Biscuit Run development, the applicant requested a waiver for the completion of these details until the site plan process. Section 20A.5 of the Zoning Ordinance requires preliminary lot lay-out for Neighborhood Model District applications. Due to the large size of the proposed development, the applicant also requested a waiver of providing the details of lot layout for this development until the site plan process. The applicant also submitted a request for waiver of need for required parking to abut lot it serves, dated June 13, 2007. The timing of this request is awkward, since the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval with conditions to the Board of Supervisors, for this rezoning request and waivers on May 29th. Staff recommends the applicant request this waiver during the site plan process.

 

DISCUSSION:

Based on the Planning Commission’s recommendations, staff feels a good part of what is still pending with the applicant is clarifying language in the proffers to appropriately convey and accomplish the Commission’s intent.  However, there still remain several substantive matters to be resolved:

 

·        The location of the Mill Creek connection, as previously mentioned, is still a work in progress. The applicant has provided additional information. This is currently under review with the County Engineer. Finding a location for the connection that is appropriate and feasible remains an open issue.

·        Staff supports proffer 6 G: Improvements to Old Lynchburg Road (City Section), but recommends that if the funds are not utilized with ten years that these funds be available to the City for a project identified in the southern City neighborhoods.

·        The applicant has submitted three special use permits for stream crossings, which are currently under review by staff.

·        The applicant has proffered an annual adjustment in cash proffers based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, United States Average, and the Board has indicated its preference for the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index.

·        Since the Commission’s public hearing on Biscuit Run, the Board of Supervisors has further clarified its intent for a Cash Proffer Policy and passed a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan.  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 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 also indicated that the only credits against the cash proffer expectations that will be accepted are for land or improvements related  to schools, parks, libraries, public safety and transportation projects identified in the Capital Improvements Program, the Comprehensive Plan and/or a Master Plan and that other proffers are to be considered outside the cash proffer expectations.  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 following information describes the status of proffers for this project based on the current Board proffer policy intent:

 

Cash Proffer Policy Expectation   =           $35, 546,500 (3,100 units of various types less 465 (15%) on-site affordable units X cash proffer by unit type) to $48,825,000 (3,100 units less 310 (10%) on-units X $17,500)

Value of Current Proffers =                        $18,144,691

Additional Cash Expectation =                   $17,401,809 to $30,680,309 

Among the credits the applicant has claimed that are outside the cash proffer policy expectations indicated by the Board to date are:

$5,345,600 for a district park

$200,000 for district park master plan

$2,500,000 for stream crossing to district park

$1,000,000 for Habitat for Humanity 

$2,293,050 for 15% of the East/West. Southwood Connector

$375,000 for 15% of the stream crossing for the East/West. Southwood Connector

$1,000,000 for Transit  _________

$12,713,650 not counted as credits

Generally speaking, the applicant’s cash, land and improvement proffers that are consistent with the Board expectations are not initiated until the 500th Certificate of Occupancy for the project.  The Board’s indications have been that per unit cash proffers should begin with the first residential building permit. 

 

As noted above, there is a difference of approximately $17.4 to $30.7 million between the applicant’s proffers meeting the Board’s expectations and the project’s cash impact.  The applicant has made other quantitative and qualitative commitments to the project and the County, including the district park, the road connecting Rt. 20 and Old Lynchburg Rd. (Rt. 631), cash for Habitat for Humanity, transit, LEED certified buildings and Neighborhood Model design that should be considered outside the cash proffer expectations.

 

Staff and the applicant need the Board’s guidance as to the adequacy of the applicant’s proffers as discussed above.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

The Planning Commission has recommended approval of this project with the expectation that issues identified by staff and the Planning Commission at the time of the Commission’s last public hearing would be addressed by the applicant.  While the applicant has addressed a number of those issues, the following are still outstanding:

·        Acceptable location of the Mill Creek connection.

·        Provision of $19,100 cash in lieu of each affordable unit not provided in the project.

·        Provision of annual adjustment in cash proffers based on the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index.

·        Provision of cash proffers that meet the Board’s expectations that new re-zonings will pay for the equivalent of their full impact, including provision at the time of the first residential building permit rather than the 500th Certificate of Occupancy. 

·        Adequacy of other quantitative and qualitative commitments made on the project that enhance this development and this part of the County and should be considered outside the cash proffer expectations. At the time of the Planning Commission’s public hearing these were generally found to appropriately supplement the cash being proffered.

·        Further technical fixes to proffer language to meet expectations of the Commission, including clarifying language regarding archeological work and commitments to grading, erosion control and drainage.  

 

ATTACHMENTS:

EXHIBIT A:     Action Memo, dated March 27, 2007

EXHIBIT B:     Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 29, 2007

EXHIBIT C:    Revised General Development Plans, dated June 12, 2007  (on file in Clerk's office)

EXHIBIT D:    Revised Code of Development, dated June 12, 2007 (on file in Clerk's office)

EXHIBIT E:     Revised Proffers, dated June 12, 2007

 

PC minutes of March 27 and May 29, 2007

Return to regular agenda