|
Staff Report:
The applicant is proposing amendments to the Planned
Residential Development (PRD) district in conjunction with a
development he is planning in Marshall. The applicant has
filed a Comprehensive Plan Amendment related to the planned
development, which is currently pending as an incomplete
application. Although staff is generally aware of the
proposed development, no detailed proposal has yet been
received. The applicant intends to apply for the project
utilizing the PRD provisions, as proposed to be amended
herein.
The PRD district is a special district available through
rezoning. It is intended to facilitate predominately
residential development, with limited commercial uses also
authorized. The PRD district has been used at five
locations in the County: Brookside, Vint Hill, Cedar Brooke,
Raymond Farm (unbuilt), and Freedom Place (unbuilt). It is
important to keep in mind that the proposed revisions would
apply to the district as a whole, and could potentially
affect existing PRD developments; particularly should they
seek to amend existing approvals.
A detailed staff commentary on each of the applicant’s
proposed changes to the PRD regulations is provided as
Attachment 1.
In general, staff finds many of the proposed changes
unnecessary, and in some cases confusing or contradictory
with existing language. Much of the newly proposed
language adds detailed language related to waivers of
utility requirements, parking, open space, yards, etc. at
various locations throughout the PRD regulations. Staff has
no objections to allowing such waivers, but the PRD district
language already allows the Board to modify all provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance as part of
the rezoning. Staff does agree that it would be
appropriate to add language to the PRD regulations expanding
the Board’s waiver ability to include technical requirements
contained in the Design Standards Manual (DSM). At the time
the PRD district was drafted, the DSM did not exist.
Staff is also concerned that because the applicant’s
proposed language emphasizes certain types of available
waivers throughout the regulations, the revised language
could be read to suggest that other waivers are not
available. The proposed language also, in several cases,
states that certain waivers are available to developments
with particular elements, such as traditional neighborhood
design or regional stormwater, implying that such
modifications are not available to all PRD developments.
While the applicant’s proposed project may include
traditional neighborhood design and regional stormwater, it
is not clear that these elements would also be desired at
every location in the County. Certainly, existing projects
approved under the PRD district do not include such
elements, but still received many waivers with the
approval.
Another issue raised by the proposed changes is that they
seem to be drafted in support of details of the planned
Marshall project, asking the Board to prejudge certain
elements without review. For example, the current PRD
ordinance would allow regional stormwater management as part
of the development, but the language proposed by the
applicant actually gives preference to regional stormwater
management in the PRD district. Staff agrees that regional
stormwater management may be the desired approach in certain
areas of the County, particularly in Marshall, but we do not
agree that it is the desired approach at all locations
throughout the County, so to favor it in the PRD district
seems inappropriate, given the PRD district’s county-wide
application. Likewise, language related to open space seems
to promote the idea of an open space reduction. Such
reduction is already available, and an applicant can make
the case for its appropriateness in the context of a
particular development proposal. The language proposed by
the applicant, however, seeks to conclude that such a
reduction is a good thing if a project is traditional in
character, prejudging the proposal without allowing review
of the proposal.
A third concern staff has with the applicant’s proposed
changes is the use of language out of context with the
remainder of the district. For example, the language
requires a “Code of Development,” a document the new Mixed
Use (MU) district requires. But, as expressed, the
requirements for a Code of Development for a PRD district do
not seem to be the same as that for a MU district, creating
confusion. It is not clear that the proposed language adds
anything to the Ordinance, as the Ordinance already
specifically requires design guidelines and architectural
controls in any case.
Staff prepared an alternative set of changes to the PRD
regulations, taking the issues and clarifications suggested
by the applicant’s language and incorporating them in a way
that staff believes is more helpful and consistent with the
overall goals of the PRD district.
Status
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed text amendment on January 29, 2009. At that time,
the applicant indicated that they supported the alternative
language proposed by staff in lieu of the language changes
they had originally proposed. The Planning Commission
unanimously recommended approval of the alternative language
on February 26, 2009.
|