PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY

COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE

Project Name:  ZMA 2007-0011 Patterson Subdivision; Waivers requested of curb & gutter and sidewalk & planting strip street requirements

Staff:  Rebecca Ragsdale

Planning Commission Public Hearing: 

October 16, 2007

Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:

December 12, 2007

Owners:    Emile Bethanne Patterson & J. Daniel Patterson

Applicant: Clifford H. Fox

Acreage: 3.521 acres

Rezone: R1 Residential to R6 Residential

TMP:   TMP 55-63

By-right use: 1 dwelling unit per acre residential uses, potentially up to five units with bonus/clustering provisions; supporting uses permitted in R-1 such as schools, churches, and clubs by special use permit.

 

Magisterial District: White Hall

Proffers:    Yes

Proposal:  Single Family subdivision   

Requested # of Dwelling Units:  14, gross density of 3.9 units/acre; net density of 4.9/acre

DA (Development Area):  Community of Crozet

Comp. Plan Designation:  CT 3 Urban Edge in the Crozet Master Plan

Character of Property:   Rural residential with an existing house

Use of Surrounding Properties:  rural residential, Gray Rock North subdivision

Factors Favorable:   

1.       The rezoning is consistent with the Crozet Master Plan recommendations.

2.       The applicant provided affordable housing.

 

Factors Unfavorable:

1.       Cash proffers do not meet Board expectations.

2.       The applicant has not made proffer commitments to features of the concept plan provided. However, the maximum number of residential units and provision of open space is proffered.

3.       Affordable housing proffers must be clear on the number of affordable units proffered and the proffer to provide accessory apartments is not enforceable.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:   

Staff can only recommend approval of this rezoning if the Board’s cash proffer expectations are met, if commitments are made to features of the application plan, and affordable housing proffers are revised. With these changes, staff could recommend approval of the rezoning; however, staff cannot recommend approval of the street waivers.  The Commission is asked to take public comment and the applicant requested a public hearing on this project. The applicant may ask that this meeting be treated as a work session and then request a deferral until outstanding issues can be resolved. If the applicant requests action, staff must recommend denial until outstanding issues can be resolved.

 

 

 


 

 

 

STAFF PERSON:                                                                         REBECCA RAGSDALE

PLANNING COMMISSION:                                                         October 16, 2007

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS                                                        December 12, 2007

 

 

ZMA 07-12 PATTERSON SUBDIVISION

Waiver of Section Curb and gutter Sections 14-410 H & I

Waiver of Section 14.422 E Sidewalks & Planting Strips

 

 

PETITION 

PROJECT: ZMA 2007 - 00011 Patterson Subdivision

PROPOSAL:  Rezone 3.52 acres from R1 - Residential (1 unit/acre) to R6 - Residential (6 units/acre) to allow for up to 14 dwelling units.

PROFFERS:  Yes

EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:  Community of Crozet; CT-3 Urban Edge: single family residential (net 3.5-6.5 units/acre) supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses

ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No

LOCATION: Between Lanetown Road and Lanetown Way approximately 400 yards from the intersection of Mint Springs Road, Lanetown Road, and Railroad Avenue.

TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 55, Parcel 63

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall

 

CHARACTER OF THE AREA

The property is 3.521 acres in size, with an existing house that dates to 1900, and is zoned R1 Residential.  Properties adjacent to the north and west are zoned R1 and are low density residential, similar in character to the Patterson property. To the south and east of the property is the Grayrock north subdivision, which is zoned PRD and developed as single family homes on an average lot size of ¼ acre, approximately 4 dwelling units per acre. (Attachment A-Zoning and Attachment H-Aerial Map)

 

BY-RIGHT USE OF THE PROPERTY

The current zoning of the property is R1 Residential. R1 zoning allows 0.97 units per acre and minimum lot sizes of 45,000 square feet, or 30,000 with clustering, and a density of 1.45 units per acre under standard provisions and minimum lot sizes of 30,000 square feet, or 20,000 square feet under bonus provisions.  Since the property is 3.521 acres in size, up to 5 dwelling units may be possible with clustering/bonus provisions.

 

SPECIFICS OF PROPOSAL 

The applicant is proposing to rezone to the R6 Residential zoning district but has not provided a detailed rezoning plan. The concept plan provided by the applicant has not been engineered and it is the applicant’s intent to commit to certain aspects of the plan through proffers. Details would be finalized with site development plan or subdivision plat applications. At present, there is no proffered plan or identification of features from the concept plan that would be proffered. Proffers have been submitted and are provided as Attachment B.

 

The applicant has provided a conceptual lot layout, including 12 lots, two of which would have two-single family attached units, for a total of 14 residential units. (Attachment G-Concept Plan) The conceptual layout includes approximately 0.80 acres designated for open space adjacent to Lanetown Road and provisions for stormwater management adjacent to Lanetown Way. The green/open space is proposed for dedication to the County and parking has been provided at the end of the 40’ public road proposed. 

 

APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST

The applicant has indicated that this project would provide a range of housing stock that will include affordable accessory units.

 

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:

 

Crozet Master Plan

The property is located within a Neighborhood as defined in the Crozet Master Plan, at the edge of the northwestern edge of the Crozet Development Area. The northern boundary of the Community of Crozet follows Lanetown Road adjacent to this property. (see inset below and Crozet Master Plan Attachment I)

 

 

Crozet Master Plan Place Type and Built Infrastructure Map

  


 

 

 

 

The property is designated CT3-yellow within a Hamlet[1] as shown on the Crozet Master Plan. The Edge areas are intended to support neighborhood centers with predominantly residential uses, especially single family detached. The Crozet Master Plan specifies net density rather than gross density as a guide for rezonings. The Zoning Ordinance requirements are based on gross density so both calculations are provided in this report. Net residential density recommended in the plan is 3.5-4.5 units per acre. The plan provides a recommendation of up to 6.5 units per acre if they are accessory apartments added for 50% of the residential stock. Lot sizes of 10,000 square feet are recommended in CT3 areas with 1-2 story structures at street level.

 

 

The applicant is proposing 14 units and the range of units suggested by the plan are 10-13 units for this property, or up to 18 with provisions for additional affordable/accessory apartments. The proposed net density is 4.9 units/acre and this is within the guidelines for this property in the Master Plan. This is a gross density of 3.9 units/acre. The breakdown of net density based on the Crozet Master Plan is provided below.

 

 

 

 

Patterson Subdivision

 

 

Crozet Master Plan

Patterson Subdivision

 

Crozet Transect Density

Acres

Net Acres

Min

Max

Max Plan Units*

Units

Net Density

CT 3 (Min 3.5, Mid 4.5, Max*6.5/acre)

3.521

2.82

10

13

18

14

4.97

Notes: Net acreage is 80% project area.

 

 

 

 

 

* Density of 6.5 units per acre in CT 3 only if 50% accessory/affordable units added

 

 

 

 

Minimum, Mid, and Maximum Crozet Master Plan Suggested Units are determined by multiplying the CT 3 suggested

densities for each CT type. For example, CT 3 Mid is equal to 2.82 x 4.5, which equals 13 units.

 

 

 

                         

 

 

The Green Infrastructure map in the Master Plan reflects open space resources and shows proposed greenways behind neighborhoods, along the ponds in Gray Rock and to Lanetown Road. The intent is to provide access for these neighborhoods to Downtown and other park destinations. (See inset below.)

 

            Crozet Master Plan Green Infrastructure Map

Text Box: Site

 

 

 

The applicant has proposed an active recreation area/park of approximately 0.80 acres adjacent to Lanetown Road. (Attachment G & H ) This greenspace area is not shown on the Green Infrastructure plan, however is an appropriate greenspace/amenity to serve the proposed development on the Patterson property. It is proposed as a public park, however, it does not meet Parks and Recreation requirements for a public park.

 

 

 

Neighborhood Model

The Neighborhood Model describes the more "urban" form of development desired for the Development Areas. The following is an assessment of this proposal’s consistency with the Neighborhood Model’s 12 principles:

 

Pedestrian Orientation

The applicant is proposing two alternate street sections, either a rural road section to serve the development with pedestrian access on only one side of the street as a trail or an urban section with a sidewalk on only one side. As proposed, neither is a workable approach to providing pedestrian access. The trail does not meet County standards and the section is not acceptable to VDOT. This issue is discussed in more detail in the waivers section. This principle is not met.

Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths

New projects within the Development Areas are expected to have curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planting strips as features of streets servicing new development and this is a requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant has requested a waiver of this requirement, submitting two alternative street sections for County review. (Attachment C) One proposes a rural section with a trail on one side and the other proposes an urban section with a planting strip and sidewalk on one side. The waiver is discussed below. This principle is not met.

Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks

VDOT recommends that only one entrance be provided to this relatively small property through Lanetown Way, through Gray Rock North and that there be no access through the property to Lanetown Road. The parcel is relatively small and interconnections would only be anticipated to properties to the east, however the applicant has not provided this on the concept plan and it is a requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. However, it appears that this principle could be met.

Parks and Open Space

The applicant is proposing a 0.80 acre greenspace/field that would serve this development and be located adjacent to Lanetown Road. It has been proposed for dedication to the County but the Parks & Recreation Department believes it should be maintained by a homeowners association and does not meet their requirements for a County park. Staff believes that the area designated for greenspace is adequate in size. Typically, it is better if these amenities are centrally located within developments. However, this site on the edge of the Development Area and the park is proposed as a transition to the Rural Area edge. This principle is met.    

Neighborhood Centers

Downtown Crozet and Old Trail, with its proposed center, appear to be the closest neighborhood centers. The proposed park area serves as a focal point within the development. This principle is met.

Building and Spaces of Human Scale

The applicant is proposing a residential development under R-6 zoning, which allows a maximum building height of 35 feet and front setbacks of 25’. Typically, shallower setbacks are more in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. Street trees and sidewalks provide a greater sense of enclosure and if these are provided, then this principle could be met.

Mixture of Uses

 

Given the Crozet Master Plan designation of CT3, non-residential uses are not expected on this property. This principle is met.

Relegated Parking

 

The applicant’s concept plan does not demonstrate how parking will be provided and whether garages would be associated with the single family units. There is no information for staff to comment on this principle.

Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability

The applicant is proposing single family units, accessory apartments to be associated with half of the single family units, and four single family attached units as affordable. This principle is met.    

Redevelopment

The property is redeveloping from rural residential to density in keeping with the Crozet Master Plan and the existing house will be demolished. This principle is met.

Site Planning that Respects Terrain

The site is relatively flat and topography is shown on the aerial exhibit submitted by the applicant. (Attachment I) No conceptual grading has been provided. There is no information for staff to comment on this principle; however, it appears this principle could be met.

Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas

Lanetown Road delineates the edge of the Rural Areas. The park area of the development is located adjacent to the Rural Area boundary as a transition between the Development Area and Rural Area. This principle is met.

 

Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district

 

The applicant has requested a rezoning to R6 Residential and the intent of that district in the Ordinance and lot and setback requirements are provided here:

 

 This district (hereafter referred to as R-6) is to provide a plan implementation zone that:

-Provides for compact, medium-density residential development;

(Amended 9-9-92)

-Permits a variety of housing types; and

-Provides incentives for clustering of development and provision of locational, environmental and developmental amenities.

R-6 districts may be permitted within community and urban area locations recommended for medium-density residential use in the comprehensive plan. (Amended 9-9-92)

 

 

The R-4 Zoning district was also discussed with the applicant and has been suggested as more appropriate by neighboring property owners. The intent of the R-4 district is essentially the same as R-6, except that it notes that it is intended to provide for compact, medium density, single family development. However, both districts allow attached units. The applicant is proposing a gross density of 3.9 dwelling units per acre but would like flexibility in lot size so is requesting R6 Zoning, which allows a minimum of 4,840 square feet with bonus/clustering provision.

 

Staff supports the request for R-6 Zoning and believes the applicant’s proposal meets the intent of that zoning district and the applicant is proffering to limit the number of units to 14, which assures density will not exceed what could be developed under R4 Zoning.

 

Anticipated impact on public facilities and services

 

Environmental & Stormwater Management-  

There are no environmental resources on this property that would be impacted by the proposed development. There is not enough information on this plan for engineering comments regarding the stormwater areas shown on the concept plan. (Attachment H-Concept Plan) The applicant would be expected to meet all requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance at site plan or subdivision application. It appears that these provisions of the ordinance could be met on site but could affect the applicant’s ability to achieve the maximum of 14 units proposed.

 

Streets – The property has access to both Lanetown Road and Lanetown Way, through Gray Rock North. VDOT recommends that only the connection to Lanetown Way be made because the proposed connection to route 684 is less that 200 feet from the closest intersection and that is not a desirable situation. VDOT also has concerns about the perpendicular parking proposed at the end of the road to serve the proposed development and the typical road sections provided by the applicant.  (Attachment E-VDOT comments)

 

Schools – Students from this development would impact Crozet area schools and likely attend Crozet Elementary School, Henley Middle School and Western Albemarle High School. Cash impacts are intended to provide for impacts to schools.

 

Fire, Rescue, Police –The Crozet Volunteer Fire Station and the Western Albemarle Rescue Station provide fire and rescue services to the area.  The planned Ivy Area Station will also augment services provide by the existing fire and rescue stations in Crozet. Albemarle County 5th Street Office Building houses the County’s Police Department, although the police patrol all areas of the County. Fire Rescue has requested that the applicant verify adequate fireflow with site development/subdivision plans.

 

Utilities – This property is in the Albemarle County Service Authority’s jurisdictional area for water and sewer service. There is a 6” water line on the north side of Lanetown Road and an 8” sanitary sewer line in Lanetown Way. Final water and sewer plans are required for ACSA approval. The sewer plans will also have to include offsite plans and easements for that portion crossing properties of others.

 

 

Anticipated impact on cultural and historic resources

Existing structures on the property would be demolished with this proposal and the existing structure on the property has not been determined significant.

 

Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties

Neighbors within the adjoining Grayrock North development have expressed concerns about this proposal changing the character of the area and also about Lanetown Way serving as access to it. In the Development Areas, however, development is expected and this property is designated CT3 in the Crozet Master Plan. Staff believes that impacts can be mitigated.

 

Public need and justification for the change

The change in zoning is consistent with the CT3 designation of the Land Use Plan and would provide for residential capacity in a Development Area.

 

PROFFERS

The applicant has submitted six proffers (Attachment B). They are summarized here with staff comments.

 

  1. Maximum Number of Units-The applicant has proposed limiting the number of dwellings to 14 total with the proposed development, which staff supports. However, it should further specify that only 4 of those units will be single family attached.

 

  1. Affordable Housing-The applicant intends to providing affordable housing, however it is unclear whether the applicant intends to proffer 3 or 4 units. The affordable units are proposed as single family attached. The County’s policy is that 15% of the total number of units would be provided as affordable and 15% of 14, the total number of units proposed is 2.10. The proffers should be revised using standard language and clarifying how many units are actually proffered.

 

  1. Affordable Accessory Units-The applicant has proffered to provide affordable accessory units with half of the 10 single family units proposed. It is not clear whether accessory apartments meeting the zoning ordinance definition are provided or if the applicant intends to provide accessory type units, such as apartments above the garage.  The Zoning Ordinance defines accessory apartments as “A separate, independent dwelling unit contained within the structure of and clearly subordinate to a single-family detached dwelling, as distinguished from a duplex or other two-family dwelling” and supplemental regulations also apply. If it is to provide accessory apartments as defined in the ordinance, a proffer to build the units can be enforced but not a provision to ensure that they are occupied with low-to –moderate income individuals.

 

  1. Open Space Dedication to the County- The applicant is proposing to proffer approximately 0.80 acres of open space propose in the development, adjacent to Lanetown Road, to the County for parks and recreation purposes. The Crozet Master Plan does not designate a park on this property and Parks & Recreation would not accept the open space dedication, based on the following reasons:

o        To access the area, the public would have to enter through a private development, which could become programmatic for the residents of that development and the County.

o        Given its location, it would be utilized more by the residents, and not the general public.

o        The size of the field limits its use and by whom.

o        In general, the size and location is more suitable for the residents as open space and it would be difficult to justify placing it under County ownership and including it in the County’s maintenance program.

 

  1. Lanetown Road Access restricted- The applicant is proffering to close the existing access to Lanetown Road with development of the property, which was a requirement of VDOT. Access for the property would be provided via Lanetown Way. This is provided as a proffer since no proffered plan has been provided.

 

  1. Cash Proffers-The applicant has not proffered the cash amount per market rate unit expected by the Board’s policy. An amount of $30,000 is offered, which is $3,000 per market rate unit.  There are 10 market rate units proposed and the Board’s expectation for single family detached is $17,500 per unit. The applicant is proffering a reduced amount since the open space area is proposed for dedication to the County, however it is not shown on the Crozet Master Plan and not eligible for credit based on the Board’s policy.

 

 

WAIVERS

 

The applicant has requested waivers for curb and gutter and sidewalks and street trees, since they are only proposed on one side of the street.

 

Curb & Gutter waiver

Sections14-410 H & I set forth the requirement and design standards for curb and gutter in the development areas. Section 14-410 I contain the findings that must be made to support a modification of these requirements. These sections are provided below.

 

H. Curb, curb and gutter, sidewalks and planting strips. In the development areas, streets shall be constructed with curb or curb and gutter, sidewalks and planting strips. Sidewalks and planting strips shall designed and constructed in compliance with section 14-422.

 

I. Waiver of requirement for curb or curb and gutter. The requirement for curb or curb and gutter may be waived by the commission as provided in section 14-225.1. A request for a waiver may be made prior to or with submittal of a preliminary plat or with an application to rezone the land, as follows:

 

2. Consideration and findings. In reviewing a waiver request to allow a rural cross-section (no curb and no curb and gutter) instead, the commission shall consider:

 

(i) the number of lots in the subdivision and the types of lots to be served;

The street would serve no more than 14 residential units on 12 lots. Lots could be as small as 4,840 square feet under R6 Zoning.

 

(ii) the length of the street;

The street as shown on the concept plan provided by the applicant is approximately 400 feet long.

 

(iii) whether the proposed street(s) or street extension connects into an existing system of streets constructed to a rural cross-section;

The proposed road connects to Lanetown Way, which is an existing rural cross section in Gray Rock, which is developed with quarter acre to one-third acre lots.

 

(iv) the proximity of the subdivision and the street to the boundaries of the development and rural areas;

Lanetown Road is within the Crozet Development Area boundary and this street section would be located within the development area.

 

(v) whether the street terminates in the neighborhood or at the edge of the development area or is otherwise expected to provide interconnections to abutting lands;

The street as proposed terminates within the proposed development at a proposed parking lot intended to serve the park and single family attached units.

 

(vi) whether a rural cross-section in the development areas furthers the goals of the comprehensive plan, with particular emphasis on the neighborhood model and the applicable neighborhood master plan;

It has not been demonstrated how the proposed rural cross-section would further the goals of the neighborhood model. Adequate pedestrian facilities are not provided for under the applicant’s two cross section options.

 

(vii) whether the use of a rural crosssection would enable a different principle of the neighborhood model to be more fully implemented; and

The rural cross section does not further implementing the Neighborhood Model.

 

(viii) whether the proposed density of the subdivision is consistent with the density recommended in the land use plan section of the comprehensive plan.

The density of the proposal is in keeping with the Crozet Master Plan.

 

In approving a waiver, the commission shall find that requiring curb or curb and gutter would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest; and granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, to sound engineering practices, and to the land adjacent thereto.

It has not been demonstrated how a rural cross section would further public, health, safety, and welfare. Given the size of the lots and that no engineering has been done to support the concept plan, curb and gutter may be needed for stormwater reasons and  the required Subdivision Ordinance streetscape is important in implementing the Neighborhood Model.

 

Recommendation:

Staff does not recommend approval of this waiver.

 

 

Sidewalk & Planting Strips Waiver

Sections14-422 A, B & C of the Subdivision Ordinance set forth the requirements and design standards for sidewalks and planting strips, which specify that a 5’ concrete sidewalk and 6’ planting strip should be provided on both sides of a street, with the planting strip between the curb and sidewalk. (Attachment F) Street trees and sidewalks provide a greater sense of enclosure and this is important in creating a Neighborhood Model form of development. The applicant has proposed conventional lots on a rural section with deeper setbacks than what staff typically sees for a rezoning in the development areas, staff believes sidewalks and planting strips should be provided. Because the applicant has not provided a workable alternative street section design and the curb and gutter waiver is not recommended, staff has not done a detailed analysis of this waiver. The ordinance section is provided as Attachment F for the Commission’s reference.

 

 

Recommendation:

Staff does not recommend this waiver.  

 

 

SUMMARY:

Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this rezoning and special use permits requested:

1.      The rezoning is consistent with the Crozet Master Plan recommendations for density.

2.      The applicant has provided affordable housing.

 

Staff has identified factors unfavorable to this request:

1.      Cash proffers do not meet Board expectations.

2.      The applicant has not made proffer commitments to features of the concept plan that has been provided. However, the maximum number of residential units and provision of open space is proffered.

3.      Affordable housing proffers must be clear on the number of affordable units proffered and use standard language. The proffer to provide accessory apartments is unclear, does not define the type of units to be provided, and does not specify mechanisms for the provision of the proposed units.

 

 

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

 

ZMA 2007-00

Staff can only recommend approval of this rezoning if the Board’s cash proffer expectations are met, if commitments are made to features of the application plan, and affordable housing proffers are revised. With these changes, staff could recommend approval of the rezoning; however, staff cannot recommend approval of the street waivers.  The Commission is asked to take public comment and the applicant requested a public hearing on this project. The applicant may ask that this meeting be treated as a work session and then request a deferral until outstanding issues can be resolved. If the applicant requests action, staff must recommend denial until outstanding issues can be resolved.

 

Curb & Gutter and Sidewalks & Planting Strips Waivers

Staff does not recommend approval of these waivers. 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

A.      Zoning Map

B.     Proffers

C.     Waiver/street section request

D.     Engineering Comments

E.     VDOT comments

F.      Subdivision Ordinance Section 422

G.    Concept Plan

H.     Aerial Map with Greenways & proposed park shown

I.        Crozet Master Plan Place Type & Built Infrastructure Map

 Return to PC actions letter


 

[1] Correct 12/3/07 to correctly reflect Hamlet designation, not Neighborhood.