HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200600019 Review Comments Waiver, variation or substitution requirement 2018-10-30Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper. Virginia 22701
October 30, 2018
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Tim Padalino
Re: Willow Glen — Special Exception Request
ZMA-2006-00019
Review #1
Dear Mr. Padalino:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Edwards designStudio, dated 18
September 2018, and offers the following comments:
1. Due to the limited information concerning roads provided on this plan, a thorough review
of the proposed public streets is not possible. Detailed comments will be provided during
the road plan/subdivision review process.
2. The entrance to the clubhouse on Heathrow Glen Circle, as previous discussed with the
designer is not acceptable due to sight distance concerns.
3. The proposed parallel parking along the Heathrow Glen Circle radius is not acceptable,
also due to limited sight distance.
4. Note that the subdivision/road plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road
Design Manual Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards,
regulations or other requirements.
If further information is desired please contact Justin Deel at (434) 422-9894.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
W oLkJ
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
Tim Padalino
From:
Rebecca Ragsdale
Division:
Zoning
Date:
October 22, 2018
Subject:
Comments on ZMA200600019 Willow Glen Variations
Usually variation requests are numbered for tracking purposes. The applicants request letter did
not number the requests. I have combined and numbered the requests below and made a
reference to the ordinance section that allows the variation and made other comments.
Requested Variations:
Zoning Comment/Reference to 8.5.5.3.a
16. Modification to the overall unit types and
Eligible variation under Section 8.5.5.3a(2). See
their arrangement; Reduction to approved
detailed comments below.
density
17. Modification to the existing setbacks and
Eligible variation under Section 8.5.5.3a(1). See
yard regulations; Modification to the
detailed comments below.
perimeter setback
18. Removal of double -frontage lots in
Eligible variation under Section 8.5.5.3.a(2). While
several blocks
some double frontage lots may have been
removed from the original application plan, there
are still remaining double frontage lots in Blocks 1
and 3 that will have to comply with 14-419 unless
modified by variation. This must be clarified.
19. Minor adjustments to private road layout
Eligible variation under Section 8.5.5.3.a(5)
20. Flexibility within Block 6 of the
Eligible variation under Section 8.5.5.3a(2) and
recreational amenities
Section 8.5.5.3a(4). See comments below.
No Variation required:
Modification to overall project phasing
Eligible variation under Section 8.5.5.3.a(3).
However, no phasing information is shown on the
original application plan or proposed plan.
Phasing is not a requirement. If the applicant
proposes phasing, this can be accomplished with
site plans and no variation appears to be needed.
8.5.5.3 VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES, AND STANDARDS OF DEVELOPMENTS
The director of planning may allow a site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development to vary from an
approved application plan, standard of development and, also, in the case of a neighborhood model district, a code
of development, as provided herein:
a. The director of planning is authorized to grant a variation from the following provisions of an approved plan, code
or standard:
1. Minor changes to yard requirements, build -to lines or ranges, maximum structure heights and minimum
lot sizes;
2. Changes to the arrangement of buildings and uses shown on the plan, provided that the major elements
shown on the plan and their relationships remain the same;
3. Changes to phasing plans;
4. Minor changes to landscape or architectural standards;
5. Minor changes to street design and street location, subject to a recommendation for approval by the
county engineer; and
6. Minor changes to the design and location of stormwater management facilities, minor land disturbance
including disturbance within conservation areas, and mitigation, all subject to a recommendation for
approval by the county engineer.
Sheet 5:
• General conditions must be numbered
• Conditions that are restating the ordinance must be removed.
• Height regulations are contained in the ordinance and should be removed from the table
and Condition #5 to avoid confusion at the time of site plan and building permit.
• Condition #4 should be deleted.
• Condition #7 regarding accessory structures that references of HOA regulating
accessory structures should be removed as it will not be enforced by the County.
• 1 do not understand condition #8 regarding the stepping wall.
• Based on the lot layouts and small lot sizes, I'm not sure if note # 6 can be achieved.
• Under specific conditions, the stream referenced is not shown on the plan.
• Note #3-1 don't understand this note.
Sheet 6:
This sheet must be updated to comply with the requirements of Section 19. The terms used
(greenspace, code of development) are Section 20A NMD terms that do not apply to PRD.
0 19.6.1 Not less than twenty-five (25) percent of the area devoted to residential use within any PRD
shall be in common open space except as hereinafter expressly provided.
o See section 4.16 for recreation requirements.
There appears to be open space in Block 1 that is not accounted for in the table.
The notes in the table are referring to NMD regulations and should be removed from the
sheet. The first note can remain and should be reworded to clarify that open space by block
is approximate and the per block minimums may vary +/- provided that the total required
open space is met within the project.
Other Comments:
• The future interconnection to TMP 32-56 is no longer shown on the application plan and an
alternative location for an interconnection to that property has not been provided. Planning will need
to determine if this is a major element of the plan that cannot be varied.
• Parking Data was not provided with the special exception and was provided on the previous
application plan.
Zoning Comments October 22, 2018 -Page 21
vjRGI13SQ`
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
October 16, 2018
Steve Edwards — Edwards designStudio
4836 Old Boonsboro Road, Lynchburg, VA 24503
stevekedwardsdesignstudio.com / (434)-531-7507
RE: Review Comment Letter #1 / Special Exception Request: Variations to the Approved
Application Plan for ZMA-2006-00019 (Willow Glen)
Mr. Edwards:
Members of Albemarle County staff and our partner agencies have reviewed your Special
Exception application (application materials dated 9/18/2018), which proposes Variations to the
approved Application Plan for Zoning Map Amendment ZMA-2006-00019 (as described in the
Written Narrative and as shown on the Special Exception Application Plan).
Review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. Community
Development Department (CDD) staff believe the following review comments should be addressed
through a resubmittal of revised application materials; without such revision and resubmittal, staff
will not be able to recommend approval. However, you have the right to request a Planning
Commission public hearing without revision and resubmittal, or to otherwise determine your course
of action (please see the attached "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter" document for detailed
information regarding possible next steps).
As always, CDD staff remain available to provide assistance and discuss this comment letter, and
any other aspect(s) of your applications, at your request.
Planniniv
The following CDD -Planning review comments are organized as follows:
• How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan
• Additional Planning comments
Comprehensive Plan:
Comments on how your project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan will be provided in the staff
report or Special Exception cover memo that will be prepared for this application. The comments
below may change based on direction from the Commission or Board and/or with subsequent
submittals.
Page 1 of 5
32C-02-0&-5
r 32.49H` 32C-0.2-OB-232�-42�4G
/ �-0432G42
233 32 G 3--43. 153 32
`` n. 7
/ 326-93--0�22�: �3-;45�932
,r sos 3 32•- 3'f^'i
32G-0
/ 32G_ 1.-� 32�G�43
/ 32- 3-3-3 ,1 g0 y�NNI
3655 32 0
32 C 3- I k G-43-=35' Y 6
13 1 32G-43--33
32-491 --38 ¢ Z' r 365
- B3653 32G-43--32.,..
n
e 369"
y 373•,
7 r
32 G-03--307 . {
381r. !
10+ 32G� 3--293
G-0 1-2-, r -
Up i i r. p o�� 32.4 a e393.
HYr. '.rrte., 397 3
;�. 32-49F 32G 3-.% 0
G-43-12`2�y83 0-
3570 1µ kC
87
c� 32 1183
M -0332 G
32C -03--
13
2G-63-13
15
' 116
1388 2 32 B -1
1387 3 32B-11"
.43$5 13'4 326- Z2'
- f - J 2'•�
1 J1-002�i 1' 8 � 32Bj1
Wa¢i'All& 326 'I �"2-.,c.
2d. ! ..
1379ii ti,.y., .► 7qK 2_J
378 •: 2
1
32-56 Y 140h1r
3418w
"Urban Density Residential "future land use designation (orange). From GIS -Web.
The properties involved in this application include Tax Map Parcels #32-49F, #32-49I, #32-49J, and
#32-49K, which are located within the Hollymead — Places 29 Comprehensive Plan Area within the
Albemarle County Development Area. The future land use designations for these properties, as
specified in the Places 29 Master Plan ("Master Plan"), is as follows:
Urban Density Residential —
This future land use 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, and includes the following types
of uses:
• Primark: multifamily and single-family residential, including two or more housing
types.
• Secondary: retail, commercial, and office uses that support the neighborhood,
live/work units, open space, and institutional uses. Retail, commercial, office, and
institutional uses are encouraged to locate in Centers so they are accessible to residents
throughout the surrounding area, and so they benefit from co -location with other
neighborhood -serving businesses. However, they may be located by exception in areas
around Centers designated Urban Density Residential provided they are compatible with
surrounding uses.
Proposal —
As described in the Written Narrative (dated 9/18/18), the Applicant is proposing the following
changes to the plan:
Page 2 of 5
1. Modification to the overall unit types and their arrangement
2. Modification to the existing Setbacks and Yard Regulations
3. Modification to the Perimeter Setback
4. Removal of double -frontage lots in several Blocks
5. Reduction to the approved density
6. Minor adjustments to the private road layout
7. Modification to the overall project Phasing
8. Flexibility within Block 6 of the recreational amenities
Additional Planning Comments:
1. Special Exception Application: Please submit documentation of the applicant's authorization to
apply on behalf of the owner as required by Zoning Ordinance Section 33-44(A) and (C).
2. Private Streets: In consultation with County Engineer Frank Pohl, CDD staff have identified
issues regarding the proposed configuration and design of some proposed private streets. Please
review CDD -Engineering's detailed review comments (attached).
If Trudeau Court is varied from a dead-end private access way (as shown on the approved ZMA
Application Plan) to a private street with (future) interparcel connectivity, it would be subject to
applicable private street design standards. As an example, one consequence of this proposed
variation would be that the perpendicular on -street parking shown on the Special Exception
Application Plan would not comply with the applicable design standards.
3. Interparcel Connectivity: The "Possible Future Interparcel Connection" in Block 4 should be
revised. A future interparcel connection should be provided at the end of this proposed private
street ("Trudeau Court"), and should be shown and annotated as such on this ZMA Application
Plan, in order to preserve an important element of the previously approved ZMA application
plan and to preemptively address what will be a future requirement during the site planning
process.
4. Sidewalk: A proposed sidewalk is show meandering between proposed Block 1 and the
proposed ROW. In consultation with VDOT, staff recommend that the sidewalk either be
located entirely in the right of way and reconfigured to be straight, or be located entirely in the
Open Space (with a curvilinear configuration if so desired).
5. Open Space: Some of the open space areas have very specific labels (such as "Tot Lot" or
"Potential Pool" or "Central Green"). It is not necessary to specify the exact intended use of
these open space areas on the ZMA Application Plan, and doing so may lead to complications
during the subsequent Site Plan process if these areas are labeled with such specificity.
To avoid potential future complications and to allow for flexibility during the Site Plan process,
staff strongly recommend that these open space areas be labeled as "open space" or "amenity
space" on the ZMA Application Plan.
6. Lot Con a uration: Block 3 contains double -frontage lots. This could be addressed and resolved
by providing a minimum of twenty (20) feet of Open Space between the rear portions of those
lots and the right of way ("Trudeau Court").
Page 3 of 5
7. Proffers: Page 2 of the Written Narrative refers to amended proffers. Proffer terms for Willow
Glen cannot be modified through this Special Exception request for Variations. However, staff
acknowledge that application ZMA201600013 has been submitted and is under review, and
could potentially result in amended proffers for Willow Glen (if ZMA201600013 is
approved/adopted).
Review Process: Staff believes the questions, issues, and concerns identified in this comment
letter should be addressed through revision and resubmittal of the proposed application plan and
project narrative, to demonstrate compliance with County Code requirements or to otherwise
demonstrate a commitment to addressing and mitigating the potential impacts associated with
these questions, issues, or concerns. As noted above, without such revision and resubmittal,
staff will not be able to recommend approval. Please see the attached "Action After Receipt of
Comment Letter" document, and please contact me with any questions or requests for
assistance you may have after reading that document.
9. (Advisory) Additional Future Permitting Requirements: If this Special Exception request for
Variations is approved, the proposal would require an application for a Site Plan Major
Amendment and an application for a Subdivision Plat (and corresponding Easement Plat) to be
submitted and approved.
CDD Staff can provide additional guidance on any additional applications and approvals which
may be required if this Special Exception request for Variations is approved (such as a Water
Protection Ordinance (WPO) Plan / VSMP Plan amendment or replacement, and/or a Road Plan
amendment or replacement).
Zoning:
CDD -Zoning review comments were not available at the time this letter was completed. CDD -
Zoning review comments will be provided by Rebecca Ragsdale and promptly forwarded to you
upon receipt.
Engineering:
The following CDD -Engineering review comments (below) were provided by County Engineer
Frank Pohl, P.E., C.F.M. on 10/15/2018; the County Engineer has entered a review status of
"Requested Changes."
1. Trudeau Court includes a proposed future interparcel connection. Through streets shall meet
private street standards, which must also meet VDOT standards. Perpendicular parking cannot be
located on private streets with interparcel connection.
2. Intersection of Trudeau Court and Prestwick Glen Drive must meet private street standards. The
through movement should be from Prestwick to Trudeau with a 90 -degree turn.
3. Remove perpendicular parking from the end of Prestwick Glen Drive at the Trudeau Ct.
intersection. Vehicles cannot back into the line of traffic.
4. Trudeau Ct. shall meet VDOT standards.
5. Dumpster pads shall be relocated to avoid trucks backing into private streets.
Albemarle County Fire & Rescue:
Fire -Rescue review comments were not available at the time this letter was completed. Fire -Rescue
review comments will be provided by Shawn Maddox and promptly forwarded to you upon receipt.
Page 4 of 5
VDOT:
VDOT review comments were not available at the time this letter was completed. VDOT review
comments will be provided by Adam Moore and promptly forwarded to you upon receipt.
Action after Receipt of Comments:
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified in the attachment "Action
After Receipt of Comment Letter."
Please contact me if you would like to set up a meeting to discuss this comment letter or any other
aspect of your proposed project, or to share any questions or requests for assistance you may have.
My phone number is (434) 296-5832, x. 3088, and my email address is tpadalinogalbemarle.ora.
Sincerely,
Tim Padalino, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning Services
Page 5 of 5
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
FIRST SET OF COMMENTS
Your Special Exception application has a submittal date of September 24, 2018 and was deemed to be
complete on October 4, 2018. County Code §18-33.48(E) requires review and recommendation by the
Planning Commission within 45 days after a Special Exception application is deemed complete, and
County Code §18-33.49(D) requires review and action by the Board of Supervisors within 90 days after
a Special Exception application is deemed complete, unless the applicant requests deferral pursuant to
County Code §18-33.52.
Therefore, your project has been scheduled for review and recommendation by the Planning
Commission (PC) on November 13, 2018 (which is the last scheduled Commission meeting within the
45 -day timeline from the date your application was deemed to be complete) and also scheduled for
review and action by the Board of Supervisors on December 12, 2018 (which is the last scheduled
Board meeting within the 90 -day timeline from the date your application was deemed to be complete).
However, as explained in the corresponding review comment letter, staff recommends changes to your
proposal to help you achieve approval; without these changes, staff cannot recommend approval.
Therefore, if you would like the review process for your Special Exception application to continue with
the possibility of a staff recommendation for approval, you must request deferral pursuant to County
Code §18-33.52. Such a deferral would temporarily stop the applicable 45 -day and 90 -day timelines,
and would provide you the time to revise and resubmit your application in response to information
provided in the review comment letter.
If you choose not to request deferral, staff will take your application materials as originally submitted
to the Planning Commission on November 13, 2018 and to the Board of Supervisors on December 12,
2018, but without a recommendation of approval. Instructions for requesting a deferral are outlined
below.
Within one week, please do one of the following:
(1) Request deferral pursuant to County Code §18-33.52
(2) Proceed to Planning Commission on and Board of Supervisors on December 12, 2018
(3) Withdraw your application
Revised 10-9-18 MCN
(1) Deferral request
To request deferral, you must submit a request in writing to defer action by the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors. The request may be made by email. You may request a deferral for up to 36
months from the date your application was accepted for review, or no later than September 24, 2021.
(This is based on the Board of Supervisors' September 5, 2018 action.) However, all outstanding
information necessary for Planning Commission action would have to be submitted no later than May
24, 2021, and in accordance with the published submittal schedule. (See Section 18-33.52 of the
Albemarle County Code.)
(2) Proceed to Planning Commission on November 13, 2018
At this time, you may request that your application proceed to the Planning Commission for review and
recommendation on November 13, 2018. With this option, staff will take your application materials to
the Planning Commission as originally submitted, but without a recommendation of approval.
(3) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Failure to Respond
An application shall be deemed to be voluntarily withdrawn if the applicant requests deferral pursuant
to subsection 33.52(A) and fails to provide within 90 days before the end of the deferral period all of
the information required to allow the Board to act on the application, or fails to request a deferral as
provided in subsection 33.52(8) or (C).
Revised 10-9-18 MCN