Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks rezoning for 750-unit Wigginton Road project; traffic proffers remain unclear
Summary
A petitioner is asking to amend Lynchburg's future land use map and rezone roughly 53 acres to allow up to 750 residential units; planning staff and commission cited required road improvements and said proffers lack clarity on timing and financial commitment.
City planning staff on Feb. 25 briefed council on a petition to amend the future land use map and rezone about 53 acres along Wigginton Road to permit up to 750 residential units in a development called the Village at West Point.
The petitioner originally requested R-3 medium-density residential zoning and later revised the request to R-2 (low-medium density) for one parcel and proposed a redeployment of other parcels; planning staff said planning commission recommended approval on Feb. 12 but conditioned that the city will need to address Wigginton Road improvements.
What the petition proposes: Planning staff described two conceptual plans that together would allow up to 750 units consisting of 600 condominiums, 75 town homes and 75 patio homes. Staff noted the conceptual plan is subject to market-driven changes.
Traffic, proffers and timing: Staff said the traffic study submitted by the petitioner estimates the development would generate about 4,900 new daily trips on Wigginton Road, more than doubling current volumes for that segment (about 4,100 trips). The study flagged needed mitigations at three locations, including a traffic-signal or roundabout at the US-501 Southway ramps at Wigginton Road, an extended left-turn lane at Wigginton and Old Forest Roads, and additional left-turn lanes into the site.
Staff told council that the proffers submitted to planning commission lacked clarity on timing and financial specifics; staff received an updated proffer set the day before the work session and said it would continue negotiating the wording and the petitioner's financial commitment prior to the March 11 public hearing. Staff also said the petitioner had proposed a cost-sharing, pro-rata approach on some improvements (example given in presentation: a 65% city / 35% private split for one improvement), but staff has not received total cost estimates.
Council questions and related items: Council members asked about adjacent commercially zoned parcels and whether commercial development was expected; staff said no commercial development is currently pending on the nearby commercial parcel. Council members also discussed tax-increment financing (TIF) and other ways to channel new tax revenue toward infrastructure; staff said the city has rarely used TIF for residential-only projects and would consider options but noted revenue from purely residential developments traditionally flows to the general fund.
Next steps: The petition will appear before council for a public hearing and action on March 11; staff said they will continue to work with the petitioner on clearer proffers and cost estimates before that hearing.
Ending: Planning staff asked council to review the updated proffers and noted that staff will return with revised language and financial detail ahead of the March 11 public hearing.
