HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201800016 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2018-10-04COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
October 4, 2018
Mr. Justin Shimp, P.E. — Shimp Engineering
912 East High Street, Charlottesville, VA 20902
(434)-227-5140 / justinkshimp-en ine�ering co
EcoVillage Holding Inc. — c/o Mr. Tom Hickman
480 Rio Road East, Charlottesville, VA 22901
(434)-989-7083 / thickman56ggmail.com
RE: Review Comment Letter #1 for SP-2018-00016 (EcoVillage Charlottesville — Steep Slopes)
Mr. Shimp and Mr. Hickman:
Your request for Special Use Permit SP-2017-00016 (EcoVillage Charlottesville — Steep Slopes) has been
reviewed by members of Albemarle County staff and our partner agencies.
Review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. Currently,
Community Development Department (CDD) staff believe the various review comments should be
addressed through a resubmittal of application materials, prior to scheduling a public hearing with the
Planning Commission. However, you have the right to request a public hearing without revision and
resubmittal, or to otherwise determine your course of action. (Please note: the "Action After Receipt of
Comment Letter" document will be provided to you in the immediate near future; it is currently being
revised in response to the recent adoption of zoning text amendments to Section 33 of the Zoning Ordinance
which affect the review process timing and procedures).
As always, CDD staff remain available to provide assistance and discuss this comment letter, and any other
aspect(s) of your application, at your request. Please contact me with any questions and/or requests for
assistance you may have. I can be reached at tpadalino(a�albemarle.org or 434-296-5832, ext. 3088.
Sincerely,
Tim Pa alino, AICP I Senior Planner I Planning Services Division
enc: Resubmittal Form
Resubmittal Schedule
Page 1 of 10
Planning
In consultation with County staff and partner agencies, Planning staff has identified issues and questions
that you should be aware of; we remain available to assist you in addressing and resolving these issues,
which include the following:
General Comments:
• Intent of Steep Slopes Overlay District:
o When evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed disturbance of preserved steep slopes in
isolation (as opposed to evaluating it in combination with other elements of the overall proposed
development), Staff has some concerns relative to the "purpose and intent" as highlighted
below:
30.7 STEEP SLOPES OVERLAY DISTRICT
30.7.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT
"The purpose of this section 30.7 is to establish an overlay district on those lands within the
development areas of the county as delineated in the comprehensive plan which have steep
slopes and for which additional development design care and consideration must be given,
prior to permitted development occurring.
The board of supervisors finds that whenever steep slopes within the overlay district are
disturbed, their disturbance should be subject to appropriate consideration and care in their
design and construction in order to protect the integrity of the steep slope areas, protect
downstream lands and waterways from the adverse effects of the unregulated disturbance of
steep slopes, including the rapid or large-scale movement of soil and rock, or both, excessive
stormwater runoff, the degradation of surface water, and to enhance and preserve the character
and beauty of the steep slopes in the development areas of the county.
The board also finds that certain steep slopes, because of their characteristics, should be
preserved to the maximum extent practical, and that other steep slopes, whose preservation is
not required, should be managed. Preserved slopes are those slopes that have characteristics
that warrant their preservation by the prohibition of disturbance except in the limited
conditions provided in this overlay district. Managed slopes are those slopes where
development may occur, provided that design standards are satisfied to mitigate the impacts
caused by the disturbance of the slopes. "
o It has not been demonstrated that "appropriate consideration and care" has been given in regards
to important details such as site grading or re -grading, stormwater management, and mitigation
efforts. Specifically, concern remains with regards to the protection of downstream lands and
waterways and (in particular) excessive stormwater runoff.
Additional information should be provided to articulate site -specific and project -specific details,
in order for Staff to undertake a complete evaluation of the proposal's impacts and
appropriateness. This should include information (in narrative and graphic format) to show,
describe, quantify, and/or otherwise detail the proposed disturbance of preserved steep slopes as
well as any/all associated proposed mitigation practices.
o Staff acknowledge that some of these details will be addressed at an appropriate scale and level
of detail through the preparation and submittal of the required WPO/VSMP Plan, and/or
through any revisions of the Initial Site Plan in response to review comments provided on
10/3/2018 and/or in response to discussion at the community meeting on 9/27/2018.
Page 2 of 10
• Permissibility of Proposed Disturbance for "Private Facilities":
o It is unclear if all of the proposed disturbance(s) of the preserved steep slopes would be
permissible pursuant to the special use permit being requested, pursuant to Z.O. 30.7.4.b.2.1,
which states the following:
"The only use permitted by special use permit on preserved slopes are private facilities such as
accessways, utility lines and appurtenances, and stormwater management facilities, not
otherwise permitted by right under subsection (b)(1)(e), where the lot does not contain adequate
land area outside of the preserved slopes to locate the private facilities. "
o (Entrance and Access Way): County staff are waiting for, and relying upon, the future results of
the sight distance waiver request that will be submitted to VDOT for their review and action.
More generally, County staff will be looking for commentary and confirmation from VDOT
that the proposed relocation of the entrance and access way (which would constitute the vast
majority of the proposed disturbance of preserved steep slopes) is permissible, appropriate, and
beneficial. To date, it has not been confirmed that a.) the existing entrance is not acceptable or
permissible, or b.) that the proposed relocation is necessary.
o (Parking): Zoning staff have commented that the private parking required for the proposed use
is an eligible "private facility." Separately, it must also be clearly demonstrated that it is
necessary to locate private facilities proposed pursuant to Z.O. 30.7.4.b.2.1 within preserved
steep slopes because the lot otherwise does "not contain[ing] adequate land area outside of the
preserved slopes to locate the private facilities."
The project narrative indicates that EcoVillage's proposed alternative combination and
configuration of residential lots, "pedestrian streetscapes," non -vehicular circulation features,
and common open space features — combined with the approximately seventy (70) feet of grade
change that is not within the steep slopes overlay district — necessitates the location of private
parking spaces on the periphery of the site, thereby resulting in minor disturbance of preserved
steep slopes.
Please provide more information to confirm or clarify the necessity of siting the required
minimum parking spaces in a location that involves (requires) the disturbance of preserved steep
slopes.
• Characteristics of Preserved Steep Slopes which are Proposed to be Disturbed:
o There is a lack of clarity regarding the extent to which these steep slopes are natural, and
regarding the extent to which these steep slopes have been "manufactured" (if at all).
Specifically, in meetings with the applicants and with County staff, statements have been made
that some of these slopes were created or otherwise previously modified during the construction
activities associated with the implementation of Rio Road East.
• Conceptual Plan:
o The corresponding Initial Site Plan (SDP201800056) was used as the "conceptual plan" for this
special use permit application. Although these are separate applications, the special use permit
and the initial site plan have a fundamental interdependence. Potential revisions to the site plan
will substantially affect the special use permit proposal, and vice versa. If any revisions to the
site plan are anticipated, especially those involving the entrance, access road, stormwater
management, and/or preservation ("maintenance") of wooded areas, it would be critically
important to consider such changes during the evaluation of the special use permit.
o There is a similar interdependence with the (impending) Water Protection Ordinance Plan.
Grading and stormwater management issues which will be dealt with in full detail on the
Page 3 of 10
WPO/VSMP Plan may substantially affect the special use permit proposal (and staff evaluation
of it), and vice versa.
o Please also provide additional information (in narrative and graphic format) to identify any/all
associated proposed practices to mitigate any disturbance of preserved steep slopes, either
through landscaping, stormwater management best practices, low impact development, or other
materials or methods.
o Consideration should be given to developing and submitting a "conceptual plan" document
specifically for this SP application, which could address these issues related to the proposed
disturbance of preserved steep slopes at the same level and detail as a site plan, landscape plan,
or WPO plan, but which would be evaluated separately from the actual site plan, landscape plan,
or WPO plan. If the site plan (SDP201800056, or subsequent final site plan) is officially
considered to be the "conceptual plan" for SP201800016 that could potentially lead to
complications and timing issues.
Community Meeting:
Staff acknowledge that the required Community Meeting was conducted at the County Office Building, in
conjunction with the Places29-Rio Community Advisory Committee regular meeting on Thursday,
September 27. The community meeting included discussion of the following questions, issues, and
:K�31LK�3111T.1i
Stormwater Management: Current conditions include significant issues with stormwater runoff
affecting downslope properties. Concerns were raised about the potential for this proposed new
entrance and access way, and associated tree clearing and grading activity, to exacerbate an already
problematic stormwater situation. Discussion also included the possibility of using the proposed
disturbance as an opportunity to address and improve the stormwater runoff situation in that
immediate vicinity. The applicants expressed their willingness to coordinate with neighbors and
address concerns, including the intention to "over -spec" the underground stormwater retention
equipment in order to capture and retain more stormwater on site than would otherwise be required.
Access and Connectivity: Questions were raised about the northern "emergency" vehicular access,
and also about the proposed public connection(s) through the site (including if the connection
would accommodate bicycles or just pedestrians).
Comprehensive Plan
Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
(Comp Plan) are provided below; additionally, comments regarding conformity with the Comp Plan will
be provided to the PC and BOS as part of the staff report.
The property is located within a portion of the County that is included in the Places 29 Master Plan. The
subject properties are designated for "Neighborhood Density Residential" future land uses, which
envisions single-family detached and attached housing with a gross density range between 3-6 units/acre.
The proposed disturbance of preserved steep slopes in order to locate and develop private facilities for the
proposed development is an activity that would be inconsistent with certain Comprehensive Plan goals,
objectives, and/or recommendations.
o For example, Strategy 5c in the Natural Resources chapter encourages the protection of steep slopes
in the Development Areas that are shown for preservation on Master Plan maps.
However, such activity (proposed disturbance of preserved steep slopes) may potentially allow for the
overall development of the proposed EcoVillage project to be realized in ways that support and advance
Page 4 of 10
other Comp Plan goals, objectives, and/or recommendations. Potential examples (subject to regulatory
review and subject to revision by the applicants) include the following:
o Enabling compact new residential development (inclusive of affordable housing) within the
Development Area, as encouraged by Strategy 1 a in the Growth Management chapter, and by
Objective 5 of the Development Areas chapter.
o Supporting site planning features that embody Neighborhood Model Principles contained in
Objective 2 of the Development Areas chapter, such as compact/cluster development and open
space; pedestrian orientation ("walking streets"); and relegated parking.
In summary, the proposal would have significant inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan if the
disturbance was not directly related to the overall development, including the necessity to relocate the
entrance to a different location that is acceptable to VDOT, as well as the numerous sustainable and
unconventional concepts which would embody and advance Neighborhood Model principles in the
Development Areas (As described below). When evaluated in the context of the overall development
proposal for EcoVillage, the proposal represents a complex combination of favorable and unfavorable
factors relative to Comprehensive Plan policies.
Neighborhood Model:
In 2001, the County adopted the Neighborhood Model. The Neighborhood Model was developed to guide
the "form" of development. The Neighborhood Model recommends that the Development Areas and new
development have twelve characteristics. General comments on how well the proposed development meets
the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model are provided below. More detailed comments may be
provided at a later date if changes are made and/or after more detailed plans are provided.
The only directly -applicable Neighborhood Model principle is "Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading
and Re -grading of Terrain." The proposed disturbance of preserved steep slopes, when analyzed in
isolation, does not support or advance this principle.
However, when analyzed more comprehensively in the context of the overall proposed EcoVillage
development, the relegation of vehicular parking to the outer edges of the site (and the resulting
disturbance of preserved steep slopes) helps to advance several Neighborhood Model principles, including
(but not necessarily limited to): Pedestrian Orientation; Relegated Parking; Parks, Recreational Amenities,
and Open Space; Mixture of Housing Types and Affordable Units; and Multimodal Transportation
Opportunities.
Zoning
The following written review comments were provided by Zoning staff on 10/4/2018 regarding the above
noted application.
"Zoning has no objection to the proposed disturbance of the preserved slopes to accommodate the
entrance, travel ways and parking for the proposed development. Review of any proposed condition(s) will
be needed prior to report to PC."
Engineering
No written review comments have been received from Engineering Division staff. Engineering review
comments will be forwarded upon receipt.
CDD-Engineering's review and approval of the proposed disturbance of preserved steep slopes are
critically important for the evaluation of this special use permit, considering the County Engineer's
Page 5 of 10
knowledge and expertise in grading, erosion and sediment control, and stormwater management (among
other pertinent issues).
VDOT
No review comments for SP201800016 have been provided by VDOT to date. Any review comments
received by VDOT will be forwarded upon receipt.
As noted above (page 3), VDOT's approval of the proposed entrance (and approval of the prerequisite
sight distance waiver) are critically important for the evaluation of this special use permit. Because the
proposed disturbance of the preserved steep slopes is directly related to the proposed relocation of the
vehicular entrance to a location that is more suitable relative to VDOT standards, it is essential to
understand VDOT's positions on the sight distance waiver, the commercial entrance, and other related
details.
Albemarle Fire -Rescue
Shawn Maddox of Albemarle County Fire — Rescue provided the following comments on 9/19/2018:
"Fire Rescue has no objections to the special use permit application."
Action after Receipt of Comments:
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified in the "Action After Receipt of
Comment Letter." As noted above (page 7), due to the Board of Supervisors' action on 9/5/2018 to adopt
zoning text amendments to Section 33 of the Zoning Ordinance which affect the timing of review
processes, it appears that your application must be deferred until you resubmit revised application
materials.
More detailed information (including a revised "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter") will be
provided to you in the immediate near future, regarding the new procedural requirements for resubmittals
and deferrals.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form(s). There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The
resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Prior to scheduling public hearings with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees is
necessary:
$602.00 = Cost for newspaper advertisement for Planning Commission public hearing
$215.00 = Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per
owner after 50 adjoining owners)
$817.00 = Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing for SP201800016
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board
hearing is needed, as follows:
$602.00 = Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing for SP201800016
$1,419.00 = Total amount for all notifications for SP201800016
Page 6 of 10
Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the PC and BOS public hearings may be paid at the same
time. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners
need to be notified of a new date.
Page 7 of 10
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
An updated "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter" document which reflects the newly -adopted
procedures in Section 33 of the Zoning Ordinance will be provided in the immediate near future. Thank
you for your patience.
Page 8of10
FOROFFICEUSEONLY SP#orZ_MA#
F� Amount S Dut,: Paid 5V who? fteceiot # Ck# BY:
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or it
Zoning Map Amendment
PROJECTNUNIBER._SP_ 0[& Gro 1 PROJECT-NkME., R4qIkk4E,
❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request X Resubmittal Fee is Not Hequired
Community Development Project COprdinatOr
Jj— 4u P
Signature Date
Name of Applicant
Signature
FEES
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit — original Special Use Permit fee of $1,075
❑ First resubmission
❑ Fach additional resubmission
(Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,150
First re -submission
❑ Lach additional rcqubrri155ion
i Resubmittal fees for original 'Zoning 141ap Amendment fee of $2,689
FoFirst resubmission
❑ Each additional resubmission
Resubmittal fees for original 'Zoning Nlap Amendment fee of $3,703
❑ First resubmission
0 F:ach additional resub"ssiou
❑ Defcrral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request —Add'I notice fees will be required
Phone Number
Date
FREP
S538
•li.EE
$1,075
FREE
$1,344 ---
$194
To be paid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission
and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing
a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent proper"- owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice
are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will he
provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and mast he paid before the application is heard by a puhiic bod}.
MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLEMAYMI NT ATCOMMUNITY MUN1TY DEVELOPMENT COULTER
JP- Preparing and TnJi ling or dcli%cring up to fifty (50) notices $215 + actual cwst of first-class postage
$ I.00 lnr cacti additional notice r actual
+' Preparing and mailing or delivering Bach n� tipC aftcv Filly {5t)) cost of first-class postage
~ Lcgal ad4•eitiscxwnt (published twice in the newspaper forcacti public hearinAc�tu.t] costg) Itoininnim of S2W for total nt 4 puhlicatinns
County of Albemarle Department of Community Develapinent
4tll McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice. (434) 296-5832 Fax- (434) 972-4126
1,2417 Page 1 of]
Page 9 of 10
Albemarle County, Virginia
2018 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal
Schedule
Resubmittal Dates
Comments to applicant
for decision on whether to
proceed to Public Hearing
Payment Due for Public
Hearing Legal Ad
Planning Commission Public
Hearing Date*
No sooner than
Monday
Wednesday
Friday
Tuesday
Dec 18 2017
Jan 17
Jan 26
Feb 20
Wednesday, Jan 3
Jan 31
Feb 9
Mar 6
Tuesday, Jan 16
Feb 14
Feb 23
Mar 20
Jan 29
Feb 28
Mar 16
Apr 10
Feb 05
Mar 7
Mar 16
Apr 10
Tuesday Feb 20
Mar 21
Mar 30
Apr 24
Mar 5
Apr 4
Apr 6
May 1
Mar 19
Apr 18
Apr 27
May 22
Apr 2
May 2
May 18
Jun 12
Apr 16
May 16
Jun 1
Jun 26
Apr 30
May 30
Jun 1
Jun 26
May 7
Jun 6
Jun 15
Jul 10
May 21
Jun 20
Jun 29
Jul 24
Jun 4
Jul
Jul 13
Aug 7
Jun 18
Jul 18
Jul 27
Aug 21
Jul 2
Aug 1
Aug 10
Sep 4
Jul 16
Aug 15
Aug 31
Sep 25
Jul 30
Aug 29
Aug 31
Sep 25
Aug 6
Sep 5
Sep 14
Oct 9
Aug 20
Sep 19
Sep 28
Oct 23
Tuesday Sep 4
Oct 3
Oct 5
Oct 30
Sep 17
Oct 17
Oct 19
Nov13
Oct 1
Oct 31
Nov 9
Dec 4
Oct 15
Nov 14
Nov 20**
Dec 18
Oct 29
Nov 28
Dec 21
Jan 15 2019
Nov 5
Dec 5
Dec 21
Jan 15 2019
Nov 19
Dec 19
Dec 21
Jan 15 2019
Dec 3
Jan 2 2019
Jan 4 2019
Jan 29 2019
Dec 17
Jan 16 2019
Jan 25 2019
Feb 19 2019
Jan 72019
Feb 62019
Feb 82019
Mar 52019
2019 Dates are tentative; shading indicates a different year
*Public hearing dates have been set by the Planning Commission; however, if due to unforeseen circumstances the
Planning Commission is unable to meet on this date, your project will be moved to the closest available agenda
date.
**Off -date to accommodate holidays.
Dates in bold Italics fall on a Tuesday due to a holiday.
Page 10 of 10