COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

AGENDA TITLE:

ZMA 2007 – 004 Oakleigh Farm

 

SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:

Request to rezone 8.82 acres from R-6, residential to Neighborhood Model District, in order to provide 109 dwelling units and up to 28,800 square feet of commercial space.

 

STAFF CONTACT(S):

Cilimberg, Echols, Grant

 

LEGAL REVIEW:   NO

 

 

AGENDA DATE:

December 12, 2007

 

ACTION:     X          INFORMATION: 

 

CONSENT AGENDA:

ACTION:             INFORMATION: 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:   YES

 

OWNER/APPLICANT PURCHASER:

Oakleigh Albemarle, LLC/with Terra Concepts, P.C. c/o Steve Edwards as the contact.

 

BACKGROUND: 

On October 30, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Oakleigh Farm rezoning request. Staff and the Commission recommended denial of the rezoning request by a vote of 7:0 for the following reasons (See Attachment I):   

 

  1. Impacts on public facilities that would result from this proposal are not adequately addressed through the provision of the standard cash proffer or otherwise through cash, land or in-kind improvements.
  2. The provision of a buffer along the common property line with Heritage Hall have not been provided.

3.       The lack of affordable units to be physically located in the project.

 

Other outstanding issues:

1.       Timing of payment for affordable units.

2.       Provision of an easement to the adjoining property.

3.       Correct wording problems in the proffers.

4.       Correct the Code of Development as requested by staff.

5.       Impacts on public facilities; and

6.       ARB comments need to be addressed.

 

DISCUSSION:

On November 16, 2007, the applicant submitted new proffers, code of development and application plan in an attempt to address outstanding issues noted by staff and the Planning Commission. Staff reviewed this submittal and provided comments on the proffers to the applicant on November 30, 2007. However, staff cannot verify the status of the outstanding issues, as signed proffers were not submitted on December 3 in accord with the Board’s policy. As of staff’s comments to the applicant on November 30, 2007, the status of the outstanding issues was as follows:

 

1.                   Timing of payment for affordable units.

The applicant has responded with revised proffers that provide affordable housing dwelling units equal to at least seven and one-half percent (7.5%) of the total residential dwelling units within the project. In order to reach the 15% affordable requirement, the other 7.5% would be paid in a cash contribution equivalent to ($19,100) for each unit. This proffer language is confusing. More specifically, timing of payment for affordable units is inconsistent. Timing of payment to the County is described in one section of the proffer as prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the unit (s). There are other sections of this proffer that should describe timing of payment that do not.     

2.                   Provision of an easement to the adjoining property.

The applicant has submitted a copy of a proposed agreement between Oakleigh and Berkmar Crossing regarding easements for access, landscaping and grading/construction. Staff does not have an executed agreement yet, but understands the applicant is working on this. 

3.                   Make the proffers and Code of Development consistent with regards to limitations on the amount of retail square footage that would be available in the development (14,400 square feet)

The applicant no longer has language in the proffers that relate to limitation of the retail square footage on the site; however, page 26 of the Code of Development describes a non-residential gross square-footage (gsf) range of 7,200 – 28,800 with a note that explains the non-residential gsf of no more than 14,400 gsf can be used for retail uses. This issue is addressed. 

4.                   Correct wording problems in the proffers.

            As previously mentioned in item 1 above, the proffers are still in need of language/technical resolution.

5.                   Correcting the Code of Development as requested by staff.

Some minor technical revisions still need to be completed to the Code of Development.

6.                   Impacts on public facilities that would result from this proposal are not adequately addressed through the provision of the standard cash proffer.

The applicant has provided proffer 2: Cash for Capital Improvements Program, which describes the owner contributing cash to the County in the amount of $17,500 for each single family detached dwelling unit and $11,900 for each single family attached dwelling unit constructed within the property that is not an affordable dwelling unit. The applicant is also providing condominiums which would be considered apartment units. Apartment units cash proffers are not provided.

7.                   The provision of a buffer along the common property line with Heritage Hall had not been provided.

The applicant agreed to try to make contact with Heritage Hall representatives in Roanoke. Staff has not received any new information regarding this issue.                                   

8.                   The lack of affordable units to be physically located in the project.

As previously stated in this Executive Summary, the applicant has agreed to provide 7.5% affordable units on site. In order to meet the 15% affordable housing requirement, the applicant has also agreed to provide cash in lieu of for 7.5% of the affordable units. The Director of Housing finds this acceptable; however, the Planning Commission requested the affordable units be physically provided within the project.

9.                   ARB comments need to be addressed.

           The applicant has made revisions to the tree preservation proffer that address staff concerns; however, for clarification purposes staff makes the following request: The revised proffer extends the bonding period to 5 years and starts the bonding period upon issuance of the first residential building permit. The applicant has explained that this represents the point at which the vast majority of the site work will be completed. Because site work can continue beyond this time, and because building construction can also impact trees to remain, this starting point seems too early. The trees would be best protected by a bonding period that starts with the issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy. 

 

           In addition, page 43 of the Code of Development (top of page, letter “e”) indicates that the “Arborist shall conduct regular Integrated Plant Management (IPM) visits during the growing season for 3 to 5 years to inspect for insect, disease, nutrient or environmental problems.” The arborist’s time period should correspond to the bonding period, so that a professional arborist monitors the trees in question throughout the period of potential impact.      

 

Staff has approved a parking modification request for this project.  

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning request. While the applicant has attempted to address the outstanding issues noted by staff and the Planning Commission and staff reviewed the applicant’s new submittal and provided comments, the applicant failed to submit signed proffers in accord with Board policy on December 3, 2007. Therefore, staff recommends the Board defer action on this rezoning. Furthermore, as the Commission has not had the opportunity to review the information submitted after its action, staff cannot verify that the reasons for the Commission’s recommendation have been fully addressed without this application being referred back to the Planning Commission.

 

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment I: Planning Commission Action Memo, dated October 30, 2007           

Attachment II: Code of Development, dated November 16, 2007 and Application Plan, dated April 30, 2007, revised November 16, 2007 (on file in Clerk's office)

Attachment III: Proffers, dated November 16, 2007
Return to PC actions letter