Request to rezone approximately 17.10 acres from RA, R-1, and R-4 (existing zoning) to R-4 with proffered plan and other proffers
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
August 8, 2007
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
On March 17, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request. The Commission discussed the proposal and recommended disapproval for the following reasons:
1. The “form” is not in keeping with the Neighborhood Model; however, it is similar to the previously approved Fontana subdivision and is the last phase of that development.
2. The density is not in keeping with the Land Use Plan, but, it is similar to the previously approved subdivision and is the last phase of the development.
3. Curb, gutter, and sidewalks on the west side of Fontana Drive extended are not proposed.
4. Off-site drainage improvements in the developed part of Fontana are not appropriately provided to deal with run-off from this new section.
5. Although bonds are being held in the applicant’s name, the applicant has not agreed to complete all improvements in Phase 4B before beginning on Phase 4C because he has sold the lots in Phase 4B to a builder and no longer controls the ownership.
6. Traffic conditions on Fontana Drive have not been addressed.
Other issues of Planning Commission concern related to the Monticello viewshed and the need for curb, gutter, and sidewalks on the portion of Fontana Drive from Route 20 to its current terminus. Several waivers had been requested which were not approved by the Commission. These waiver requests were for interconnections to the east, and curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees on three of the new streets instead of just one of the new streets.
Since the Planning Commission met, the applicant has worked to resolve many of the outstanding issues. He has changed the cross-section of Fontana Drive to show curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planting strips and has provided for appropriate drainage improvements. He has proffered that his covenants will contain restrictions on façade color and roof material, in keeping with the Monticello Design Guidelines. He has increased his proffer for affordable housing and made a cash proffer for impacts of the new units. He has provided additional information to the County Engineer regarding ways to deal with drainage, which have been approved by the County Engineer. He has added Phase 4B to the list of phases for which he proffers to complete before submitting a grading plan for erosion and sediment control. All of these changes have either been made in the proffers (Exhibit A) or the proffered rezoning plan (Exhibit B).
The applicant did not offer to make any changes to the already constructed part of Fontana Drive that goes through the existing Fontana subdivision. This street is a rural section with shoulders and ditches. He said that, to widen this street and add curb and gutter would require redoing the drainage system and affecting the front part of 26 adjoining owners’ lots. It is possible that right-of-way acquisition would be necessary. Staff had not recommended this change to Fontana Drive to the Planning Commission.
After the Planning Commission’s March public hearing on this project, the Board of Supervisors has began work in earnest on establishing a cash proffer policy. They set an expectation that all residential rezonings will mitigate impacts to schools, libraries, parks, fire and rescue, and transportation at a level of $17,500 per single family detached unit. It was also the consensus of the Board that, with the exception of affordable dwelling units provided, all new rezonings will pay for the equivalent of their full impact as determined by the per unit cash proffer calculations. The Board said that, unless there was only a small difference between the number of units allowed by-right and the number proposed for rezoning, the cash proffer would be expected for all proposed units.
The applicant could build 9 units by right, which is a little more than ¼ the number of units proposed. He has subtracted 9 units from 34 to result in 25 units for which cash proffers and affordable housing proffers are made. Staff does not believe that 9 units is small enough difference between the number of units allowed by-right and the 34 proposed.
For mitigating impacts to public facilities, the applicant is making for a cash proffer of $17,500 per unit for 25 units for a total value of $437,500. This amount distributed over 34 units yields a per unit proffer of $12,867.65. The expected proffer of $17,500 for 34 units would yield $595,000. The applicant’s proffer is $157,500 short of the Board’s expectation.
In addition, the applicant has proffered $19,100 per unit for 3.75 units (15% of 25 units). The resulting calculation yields a value of $ 71,625 for cash in lieu of affordable units. Since cash instead of affordable units is being proffered to meet the affordable housing policy, staff believes that $19,100 should be provided for 5 (15% of 34) units for a total of $95,500. The applicant’s proffer for affordable housing is $23,875 short of the Board’s expectation.
Board Policy Relative to Receipt of Signed Proffers and Plans
The applicant submitted signed proffers and a rezoning plan on July 19, 2007 for this public hearing. The plan showed 35 units instead of 34 units, which is the number reviewed by the Planning Commission. The proffers indicated that only 34 of the 35 lots would be developed. Staff noted to the applicant that this change was problematic in terms of implementation of proffers. For that reason, the applicant resubmitted a rezoning plan on July 30, 2007 showing only 34 lots. These 34 lots are slightly different in configuration than the ones viewed by the Commission; however, the plan is basically the same.
Minor changes to the proffers were needed which were made by the applicant by July 30, 2007. However, since that time, the County Attorney’s office has advised that some of the previously provided language would need to be dropped due to changes in state law regarding cash proffers. Because the applicant is in Europe, he was not able to provide original signed proffers by the date established by the Board of Supervisors and faxed the proffers instead. He has said that he will provide the original on Monday, August 6. While the changes requested by the County Attorney’s office and original signatures can be accommodated prior to the public hearing, the Board will need to decide whether its policy relative to final proffers has been satisfied.
The staff report includes a set of waivers requested by the applicant which were not approved by the Planning Commission. Because the requested district is not a planned district, and because the applicant did not make an appeal of the Commission’s action on the waivers within 10 days of that decision, the Board cannot approve the waivers with the rezoning. If the rezoning is successful, though, the applicant will need to make application for a critical slopes waiver from the Planning Commission in order to build the development as shown on the proffered plan. The applicant will also need to seek waivers from the Commission for curb, gutter, and street trees on the two short cul-de-sacs which are accessed by the Via Florence which is an existing street.
Based on the expectations of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, staff recommends denial for the following reasons:
1. The applicant did not offer to make changes to the already constructed part of Fontana as desired by the Commission. It should be noted that, although desirable, staff has not recommended these changes due to the difficulties in achieving them.
2. The applicant has not proffered to pay for the full cash impact of the proposal as expected by the Board of Supervisors.
3. The applicant has not proffered to fully provide for affordable housing with units or cash as set out in the County’s affordable housing policy.
EXHIBIT A: Signed proffers dated July 30, 2007
EXHIBIT B: Rezoning Plan dated July 30, 2007
PC actions letter
PC staff report
View PC minutes of August 15, 2006, March 20, 2007 and April 17, 2007
Return to regular agenda