COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA 2010-00015, Cedar Hill Planning Commission Worksession: February 15, 2011 Public Hearing: Not scheduled Staff: Judith C. Wiegand, AICP Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: Not Scheduled Owner(s): C. Ray Beard, Trustee Acreage: 3.88 acres TMP: 032000000022I0 (portion) Location: West of US 29 North, approximately 2,000 feet south of Lewis and Clark Drive Magisterial District: Rio Proposal: to rezone 3.88 acres to allow construction of 58 apartment units in the area not now in use as part of the existing Mobile Home Park. (See Attachment A) DA (Development Area): Community of Hollymead Character of Property: the property is rolling terrain, with an industrial use (mini-storage warehouse) and a single-family residence located in the industrial portion along US 29, and a 70-unit mobile home park in the southwestern portion of the parcel. The northern area that is subject to this rezoning is vacant except for a few mobile homes in the northwest corner of the property. Applicant: Marcia Joseph, representing Mr. Beard Rezone: 3.88 acres of 25 acre parcel from R4 Residential (4 units/acre) to R15 Residential (15 units/acre) to allow for residential use By-right use: 16 units by-right and 23.28 units with Density bonuses. Proffers: None Requested # of Dwelling Units: 58 Comp. Plan Designation: The Places29 Master Plan designates this parcel Urban Density Residential, which is used in areas around Centers where multifamily housing with a gross density range between 6.01 and 34 units per acre is desired. Use of Surrounding Properties: The property to the north will be the site of the National College campus, the University of Virginia Research Park is located to the west, and the Northside Industrial Park is located to the south. US 29 forms the eastern boundary of the property. RECOMMENDATION: The Commission is asked to provide guidance to staff and the applicant on: compliance with the principles of the Neighborhood Model and what commitments are needed either on the Concept Plan or in the form of proffers.
STAFF PERSON: Judith C. Wiegand, AICP PLANNING COMMISSION: February 15, 2011 ZMA 2010-00015, Cedar Hill PETITION PROJECT: ZMA20100015 Cedar Hill PROPOSED: Rezone 3.88 acres of 25 acre parcel from R4 Residential (4 units/acre) to R15 Residential (15 units/acre) to allow for residential use PROFFERS: No COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) in the Hollymead Community ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: intersection of Cypress Drive and US 29 TAX MAP/PARCEL: 032000000022I0 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio CHARACTER OF THE AREA The property is rolling terrain with a mini-storage warehouse, single-family residence, and a 70- unit mobile home park currently located on it. The area proposed for the apartment buildings is currently vacant. SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The applicant states in the following in their application: This parcel currently exists with two different zoning districts. The mobile home park portion is zoned R-4 and the storage facilities are located on an area zoned Light Industrial. This request is to change 3.88 acres of the 21.13 acres currently zoned R-4 to R-15. The Light Industrial zoning will not change. The 3.88 acres proposed for R-15 zoning will allow construction of 58 apartment units, which will consist of one- and two-bedroom apartments. A private road will access the 58 units and will connect to Cypress Drive, the main road in the mobile home park. The result of this rezoning would be one parcel separated into three zoning districts, allowing residential uses with different densities on the largest portion of the parcel and industrial uses on the portion of the parcel fronting on US 29. In doing this, the applicant would preserve 70 units within the mobile home park on 17.25 acres. The reasoning behind this approach is to preserve the R-4 tax rate on the mobile home park section of the parcel and to rezone the portion of the parcel that is currently vacant. Because the tax rate increases as the value of the land increases, rezoning the entire residential part of the parcel to R-15 would likely result in the monthly rent for the mobile home tenants increasing, too. So, the applicant would like to rezone to R-15 only that portion of the parcel where the proposed new apartments would be. This rezoning proposal will help preserve 70 affordable housing units in Albemarle County. PURPOSE OF THE WORKSESSION This worksession provides an opportunity for the applicant and staff to obtain direction from the Planning Commission on several issues. Staff will work with the Applicant to incorporate this direction into the project prior to a public hearing before the Commission: Staff Report, Page 2
1. Compliance with the principles of the Neighborhood Model. 2. What proffer and/or plan commitments would the Commission like to see for this proposal? PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY ZMA 1979-00020 With the 1980 comprehensive rezoning, the LI and R4 districts were applied to this property. SP 1987-00026 In 1987, a special use permit was approved to allow the mini-storage warehouse on the portion of the property zoned Light Industrial. The permit was approved with the conditions that the building area be limited to 12,800 SF in the 4.85 acre portion of the parcel zoned LI; that all storage be enclosed, with no outside storage permitted; and that the entrance to the property be from the existing entrance to the Cedar Hill Mobile Home Park. SP 2003-00006 This SP was for an expansion of the MHP, but it expired before it was extended. SP 2005-00009 (approved July 6, 2005) This SP permitted expansion of the mobile home park from 77 to 109 lots. It has expired. The concept plan is included for reference (Attachment C) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Land Use Plan The Places29 Master Plan designates this parcel as Urban Density Residential. This designation is used in areas around Centers where multifamily housing with a gross density range between 6.01 and 34 units per acre is desired. The multifamily apartment units proposed are in conformity with the type and density of units recommended in the Master Plan. LEGEND Orange = Urban Density Purple = Office/R&D/Flex/ Light Industrial Lt. Purple = Light Industrial Blue = Institutional Yellow = Neighborhood Density Green = Privately owned open space/ environmental Striped = Centers Black dashed lines = proposed/proffered roads Dk. Red line = DA boundary Table LU2 Land Use Designations In Areas Around Centers includes the recommendation that areas designated Urban Density include two or more housing types in each development. The proposed rezoning would add a second type of unit, the proposed apartments, to the existing mobile home park. Staff Report, Page 3
Parks & Green Systems The Parks & Green Systems Map shows a Future Civic Space on this parcel (see excerpt below). These open spaces are intended to be focal points for development that is further than one-half mile from a Center; they may be parks, plazas, or other communal gathering places. The expectation for the civic space is that it would be open to all residents of the property under review. LEGEND Green Star = Future Civic Space Brown areas = critical slopes Green hatched areas = floodplains and stream buffers Black dashed lines = improvements to existing roads (US 29) and new roads Black circles = proposed at-grade pedestrian crossings on US 29 Orange line = existing multi-use path Dashed orange lines = proposed multiuse path Dashed purple lines = proposed bike lane Dashed blue line = proposed trail The Parks and Green Systems Map shows no trails or bicycle facilities on this parcel. There are some areas of steep slopes; however it is unclear which of these slopes might be impacted by this development. The applicant has been advised that a critical slopes waiver would need to be approved in order for these slopes to be disturbed. Once staff receives the information in the request for a waiver, staff will be able to determine which slopes might be disturbed and what the impacts of that disturbance would be. Staff will then be in a position to make a recommendation regarding possible approval of the waiver. There are no other environmental features that would require special consideration on the site. QUESTIONS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION 1. Should the proposed development conform to several noted principles of the Neighborhood Model? The proposed area for the rezoning is a narrow rectangular strip of land to the north of the existing mobile home park and to the south of the recently rezoned National College. The concept plan provided by the applicant, which at present the applicant does not intend to proffer, shows a single row of apartment buildings going up the hill that slopes west from US 29. Apartment buildings are separated by parking lots. This development pattern is reminiscent of that typically approved prior to adoption of the Neighborhood Model. In reviewing this proposal for consistency with the individual principles of the Neighborhood Model, staff concludes that the proposal needs to address several of the principles more effectively (ones that are met or that are not relevant are not included here). Staff Report, Page 4
Pedestrian Orientation and Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths. The development appears to have no pedestrian orientation. No sidewalks or areas for street trees are shown along the new internal roads that will be created as part of the new development. These roads cannot be required to provide sidewalks and street trees through the site plan regulations. In addition, there does not appear to be a place to which the residents could walk. Staff believes the rezoning should commit to pedestrian access along all internal streets and to all amenities within the new neighborhood. Interconnected Streets and Paths. The concept plan shows that access to the site would be provided by the street that ultimately connects the property to Northside Drive. The concept plan should clarify whether this will be a private or public street. A potential connection to the mobile home park on the western part of the site has been shown as pavement to be removed indicating that a roadway connection is not expected between the two developments. This, along with the lack of pedestrian paths connecting the proposed apartments to any portion of the mobile home park, does not provide appropriate interconnections or promote a neighborhood friendly environment. In addition, a sidewalk or multi-purpose path separated from the travelways by a wide tree lawn is to be built along this section of US 29 in the future. This sidewalk or path will provide access to future transit stops on US 29. Since the applicant owns the property between the property to be rezoned and US 29, staff believes that the new development should include pedestrian access to US 29 through the Light Industrial area. Staff believes that both vehicular and pedestrian connections should be committed to in order to facilitate creation of a neighborhood. Further, there is no connection shown between the new development and the National College site to the north. The approved application plan for National College shows a pedestrian connection to the Cedar Hill parcel. As shown on the Cedar Hill concept plan, no connection could be made due to the proposed grading on the Cedar Hill site. Since residents of the mobile home park may wish to attend classes at National College or work there, staff believes the development should be designed and graded to permit this connection to be made. Staff believes that this rezoning should commit to the same type of pedestrian interparcel connection as shown on the National College plan. Parks and Open Space. Open and/or green space is an essential part of a compact, walkable neighborhood. No open space is labeled on the concept plan in the area to be rezoned. Section 4.16, Recreation Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance gives minimum area and minimum facilities requirements, which would result in 0.19 acre of open space. The recreational amenity could be put anywhere on the site, including places that are inconvenient for the residents. The applicant has indicated verbally to staff that this proposed rezoning is the first phase of redevelopment of the entire parcel, but has given no indication of the scope or design of subsequent phases. As indicated earlier, adding a second type of housing is considered appropriate for the site; however, the applicant has shown that the apartments are to be physically separated from the mobile home park; there is limited pedestrian or vehicular connection between them. This is in conflict with the intent of the Neighborhood Model, which is to create a neighborhood one where all the uses are accessible to all residents and connected to one Staff Report, Page 5
another. Separating the two housing types will also make provision of a central civic space and recreational facilities difficult. Since both the mobile home property and the property to be rezoned are owned by the same individual, staff believes that the two developments should be integrated more than is are shown on the current plan. As noted above, the Places29 Master Plan also recommends a civic space on this parcel. The space shown on the current plan in the center of the row of buildings (the area with the TMP number, the proposed zoning district, and the acreage on it) may be intended as a central amenity. Staff believes that a central amenity to serve the entire property, not just the area to be rezoned, should be committed to in this proposal. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale. The Zoning Ordinance provides for a maximum of 65 feet in height for buildings in the R-15 District. Any building taller than 35 feet must be set back an additional 2 feet for each 1 foot of height. At this time, there is no information on the proposed building heights or information on scale and massing. Without this information, staff cannot evaluate the scale of the buildings or the relationship of buildings to the streets and parking areas. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability. Adding the apartments to the existing mobile home park parcel will provide two different housing types. However, the application does not indicate whether any of the new units will be affordable or whether any cash proffers will be made for any market rate units. The applicant has represented verbally to staff that all of the units will be affordable. Staff believes that this commitment needs to documented. Site Planning that Respects Terrain. The six proposed buildings and related parking shown on the concept plan are stepped up the grade on the site in a rigid pattern that shows little consideration for the terrain. There is no attempt to take advantage of the natural features of the site or to protect existing trees. Based on the concept plan presented (not proffered), staff is concerned that the site is not suitable for development at the density proposed. 2. Should commitments be made for certain design elements or is an unfettered R15 Zoning appropriate? The applicant has indicated that they would prefer not to proffer a plan with this rezoning in order to maintain enough flexibility to deal with changes that arise between approval of the rezoning and construction of the apartments. The applicant has also not yet provided draft proffers for staff and Commission review. As previously noted, based on the concept plan provided, staff is concerned that the conditions of the site will not accommodate appropriately the increase in density. At present, the property could be developed with 16 23 units using the R-4 zoning. An unfettered R-15 zoning would allow 58 to 77 units. High density requires particular attention to design in order to create liveable neighborhoods in the Development Areas. While a change in the shape and size of the area to be rezoned may better accommodate the density being requested, staff believes that, at a minimum, proffer/plan commitments need to be made that address the principles of the Neighborhood Model and result in development appropriate for the proposed area. Staff Report, Page 6
ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL CHANGES REQUESTED In addition to the items above, additional information will be needed on transportation (a 527 study is required), stormwater management, and other technical issues. The list of additional changes has been provided to the applicant. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests guidance from the Commission on the questions presented above. ATTACHMENT A: Location Map ATTACHMENT B: Concept Plan, dated December 20, 1010 ATTACHMENT C: Plan approved with SP 2005-00009 Staff Report, Page 7