Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201800012 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2018-11-02COUNTY OFALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 November 2, 2018 Nicole Scro 912 East High Street, Suite C Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm Ms. Scro: Fax (434) 972-4176 Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for a zoning map amendment (ZMA) for the Galaxie Farm development. We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be addressed before we can recommend favorably on your ZMA request. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are provided below: General Application Comments: 1. Staff recommends that the application go to a worksession with the Planning Commission to get feedback on the proposed density that is above the recommended density within the Comprehensive Plan. See further comments on the density in the Planning/Zoning comment section. 2. The application for the development appears to be proposing it's own set of requirements, which is something the Neighborhood Model allows for, however there are requirements within the PRD that states the regulations and requirements in the ordinance. If you are deviating from any of the stated requirements under PRD, a special exception for all of those deviations will be required, if they are available to be modified. Review of the regulations which you are proposing should be compared to the requirements of the PRD to determine what special exceptions are needed. 3. The plan shows development on County owned property which is not a part of the rezoning application. The parcels shown in the Galaxie Farm rezoning include: - TMP 91-15, owned by Jasper or Millie Haynes, - TMP 91-9, owned by David or Anna Marie Witmer, and - TMP 91-11, owned by County of Albemarle. The project as proposed in the Galaxie Rezoning Written Narrative describes contract purchasing for only two of these three parcels: 91-15 and 91-9. Under Section 33.15(A), a zoning map amendment may be filed by, "An owner, a contract purchaser with the owner's consent, or the owner's authorized agent." As no contract has been initiated for Parcel 91-11, this zoning map amendment may not be approved as currently proposed. Either provide a plan that contains all of the requirements and can stand on it's own without County property, or submit documents displaying the purchase contract for the County property. 4. The proffers offered cannot be excepted under the state code unless it is specifically attributable to an impact from the development. At this time, the transportation proffers cannot be determined to be specifically attributable. • The affordable housing policy under the Comp Plan will need to be addressed through other means, as it is not allowable as a proffer, even if there is evidence of it being specifically attributable, under the state code. However, the proposal must also specify delivery timing for those units. • For transportation, a TIA should be submitted to determine the impacts to the local intersections. 5. A statement should be provided as to how the proposal specifically addresses impacts to schools, parks, transportation, and safety (police and fire). Application Plan: Planning/Zoning (Megan Nedostup; Lea Brumfield): 1. A connection should be considered from this development to Avinity. There is an exsiting right of way that is platted to the property line in Avinity. This will involve connecting through school property, and a pedestrian and bike connection with a future right of way dedication should be explored at a minimum. 2. The Southern and Western Master Plan shows a greenway trail along Route 20. This should be provided for along the frontage. 3. All lots are required to have frontage on a public or private street. It is unclear what classification of roads are being proposed. If there will be lots that will not have frontage from a public or private street, then this should be addressed in the application plan. There have been other developments that have "amenity oriented lots", that could be used as a starting point for language to address this. 4. The narrative states there will be a "boardwalk" in Block 2. Please clarify if Road F is a "boardwalk" and what the materials will be for the access to Block 2. Also, see comment #2 above regarding frontage for lots. 5. PRD has regulations stated for height, building separation, and setbacks. If you are deviating from the requirements, a special exception is required if available to be modified. a. Height is stated as a max of 65 feet, however the Comp Plan recommends a max height of 3 stories. Block 5 allows for a max of 50 feet which could equate to 5 stories. In addition, PRD states that there is a minimum stepback required for any story that begins above 40 feet in height or for each story above the third story, whichever is less as provided in section 4.19. The application does not address this requirement. b. There is a minimum building separation of 10 feet. Note H states 6 feet, which does not meet this requirement. c. Setbacks are required under 4.19 for PRD. A maximum setback should be stated with in the application plan. 6. Remove area for development out of the stream buffer in Block 1. In addition, a note should be added to the application plan that states that no lots are permitted within the stream buffer. 7. Note `I' seems to be an error as it states that the maximum number of units shall not exceed 1. In addition, the number of units in the chart on sheet 7 equal 112, not 130 as requested. 8. Block 8 indicates that there is a maximum structure height and a setback. Provide information on what is to be provided in the block as it relates to recreation and possible structures. 9. Provide a statement on the recreation to be provided. Will it be in conformance with 4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance as required in PRD? Or are other amenities proposed? How will amenities be addressed? 10. The phasing aspect of this proposal does consider the future development of the County property at TMP 91-11 separately from the initial development of parcels 91-15 and 91-9. However, as currently submitted, the first phase relies on the second phase for open space requirements and internal connections. As the property designated towards the second phase is not under purchase contract, this first "phase" must independently meet all zoning requirements, including the open space and interconnectivity requirements listed in comment 11 below. 11. The two parcels under purchasing contract total 13.36 acres. Under Section 19.6.1, the PRD must provide 25%, or 3.34 acres of common open space. Excluding the land included in the second phase, the total proposed green space consists of 3.01 acres, which does not meet the minimum 25% open space requirement. Including the uncontracted 1.51 acres of County parcel towards the proposal, the three parcels total 14.87 acres. This results in a required 3.72 acres of open space. The current proposal, including the second phase of development on County -owned land, devotes 3.58 acres towards open space. This does not meet the required 3.72 acres of open space required by Section 19.6.1. 12. The proposal as currently submitted with contract signatures for TMPs 91-15 and 91-90 does not show phasing for access to existing dwellings at 107, 117, and 130 Galaxie Farm Lane. Nor does it show access for the dwelling on TMP 91-10 (167 Galaxie Farm Lane). These dwellings currently rely on Galaxie Farm Lane for access, which is removed in the proposed plan. The connections impacts to these three residential dwellings is not addressed in the project proposal. Additionally, the dwelling at 133 Galaxie Farm Lane is not shown on the current proposal. Unless the County -owned parcel is under purchase contract, this dwelling must be shown on the proposal. 13. The two lots under purchase contract, 91-15 and 91-9, totaling 13.36 acres, allow 13 dwelling units by -right under the current R-1 zoning. A maximum density of 6 dwelling units per acre are recommended under the comprehensive plan designation of Neighborhood Density Residential. Excluding 3.01 acres of land under the Water Protection Ordinance stream buffer to leave 10.35 buildable acres, the maximum density would equate to 62 dwelling units. 14. The narrative proposal lists two different acreages of County land in its calculation. On the first page, the proposal states "the proposed maximum density is 130 units, which amounts to 8.74 units per acre (assuming Blackbird Property plus 1.51 acres of County Property.)" However, the calculations under "Consistency with Comprehensive Plan" list a total of 15.22 acres, which would require 1.86 acres of County -owned land. The inclusion of 1.51 acres of County Property in the proposal allows for a total of 14 by -right dwelling units under the existing R-1 zoning. Excluding 3.01 acres of land under the Water Protection Ordinance stream buffer to leave 11.86 buildable acres, the maximum density would equate to 71 dwelling units. However, the inclusion of 1.86 acres of County Property allows for a total of 15 dwelling units under the existing R-1 zoning. Excluding 3.01 acres of land under the Water Protection Ordinance stream buffer to leave 12.21 buildable acres, the maximum density would equate to 73 dwelling units. The proposed maximum density of 130 dwelling units, equates to a total of 11.5 dwelling units per acre, nearly double the recommended maximum density. This is an extremely high number over the recommended maximum density. Staff recommends this be discussed in a worksession with the Planning Commission. ARB/Historic Preservation (Margaret Maliszewski): 1. The residence, garage, and barns on TMP 91-9 are contributing resources in the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. Retaining the residence and incorporating it into the new development would support the Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving the county's historic resources. The residence, garage and barns should be fully documented in photos and drawings prior to demolition of the outbuildings. 2. Rt. 20 is an Entrance Corridor and a Virginia Byway. The corridor and byway designations are intended to preserve and enhance the aesthetics and natural beauty of the roadway. The preserved stream buffer can help support this goal and maintain an appropriate appearance along the corridor. Dense vegetation buffering the view of the new development from the highway is appropriate. 3. The narrow width of Rt. 20 and the minimal width and simple appearance of driveways providing access to properties off the highway are major contributors to the scenic character of the corridor. Widened entrances and widened roads (the 66' right-of-way for Road A, for example) and added turn lanes on Route 20, together with the associated loss of existing wooded area, will erode the scenic quality of the highway. Measures for significantly limiting these impacts should be pursued. 4. Any safety fencing/railing along the highway and entrance road should incorporate traditional fencing materials and design. 5. Density of the landscape in the stream buffer will determine the degree of ARB review required on the internal blocks of the development. 6. The application notes that cottages will front on a boardwalk adjacent to the open space. The plan should be clarified to show the general location of the boardwalk and cottages, and a conceptual detail/image of the boardwalk, so that the potential impacts of this form of development can be better assessed. Transportation (Kevin McDermott; Adam Moore (VDOT): 1. Recommend development of a TIA to analyze impacts to local intersections and develop mitigation measures (turn lanes) for site access. 2. Bike Lanes required to be a minimum of 5 feet when not adjacent to gutter pan. Inspections (Michael Dellinger): 1. Caution is needed when moving property lines that existing structures will now need to be fire rated construction due to proximity to line. Fire/Rescue (Shawn Maddox): 1. A second entrance will be required based on the density. 2. Travel ways serving as the primary means of access to a structure shall be a minimum of 20' clear unobstructed travel width. 3. If any structures in the development will be 30' or higher then travel ways shall be increased to 26' of unobstructed width. Engineering (Frank Pohl): 1. The draft proffer statement states all road improvements shall be designed to applicable VDOT standards. However, street sections and layout provided do not appear to meet VDOT standards. Refer to VDOT Appendix B-1 for road design standards. 2. Sidewalks must be within an easement or within the right-of-way. 3. Roads G&H — fire rescue will need to confirm width is adequate. Minimum width of alleys is 12-ft with a minimum easement width of 20-ft [County Design Standards Manual]. If these 'roads' are intended to provide lot frontage, they must meet private road standards. 4. Fire rescue requires a second means of access when a certain number of SF and/or attached units are constructed. Confirm thresholds with fire rescue. 5. The intersection of Road B and Road F does not appear to meet VDOT standards. 6. Provide a brief narrative to address how stormwater management requirements will be satisfied. 7. A road plan and VSMP application will be required. A mitigation plan will be required for stream buffer impacts. Proffers 1. As stated above, proffers as drafted cannot be accepted. Below are comments on the transportation proffers if the proposed improvements are found to be specifically attributable to the development, based on the requested TIA. 2. Road Improvements a) Page 3 of the current proffer statement notes "Until such time as the County determines to submit the Galaxie Farm Lane Connection for public dedication, the Owner shall be responsible for all maintenance..." The County does not submit roads for public dedication. The applicant must submit the road for public dedication. b) The applicant must specify the requirements of the "completion" of Galaxie Farm Lane Connection. c) Galaxie Farm Lane Connection is currently proposed to be completed "prior to the completion of ninetieth (90th) certificate of occupancy." The proposal should read "prior to the issuance..." Additionally, postponing completion of the Connection until the 90th certificate of occupancy will result in poor access for Blocks 7, 6, and 5. Waivers/Modifications/Exception: 1. Private streets serving single family detached lots require private street approval. A request should be made if there are private streets. Planning Planning staff's comments are organized as follows: • How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan • The Neighborhood Model analysis • Additional comments from reviewers (See attached) Comprehensive Plan. Comments on how your project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report that will be prepared for a work session or public hearing. The properties are within the Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan area and are designed as Neighborhood Denisty Residential that allows for residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses such as places of worship, schools, public and institutional uses and small-scale neighborhood serving retail and commercial. In addition, a road is designated on the plan that would connect through the properties. A Center is designated on an adjoining property, and it is recommended that due to the number of County owned properties, that a collaborative community process for a small area plan is needed in this location. The proposal request density above what is recommended within the Comp Plan, but provides for a portion of the road that is shown. Other portions of the Comp Plan that will be discussed further as part of the staff report include Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources (see Margaret Maliszewski's comments), Development Areas, Housing, Transporation, Parks and Green Systems, and Growth Management. Neighborhood Model General comments on how well the proposed development meets the principles of the Neighborhood Model are provided here. More detailed comments may be provided at a later date if changes are made and/or after more detailed plans are provided. Pedestrian Orientation Mixture of Uses Neighborhood Centers Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks Multi -modal Transportation Opportunities The material of the sidewalk should be indicated on the sections, and this should be stated as concrete. Will lighting be provided? If so, please note that full cut-off fixtures are required per Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance. As stated above, at a minimum a pedestrian and bike connection should be made between this development and the right of way that is provided to the property line in Avinity. The proposal is for residential uses only, however there are a mixture of uses within the immediate area including schools, assisted living, fire station, shopping, and County owned land designated for institutional. In addition to the above, the Neighborhood Model principles for mixture of uses discusses how Historic Properties should be respected and that a desire to preserve these resources should be included. As stated above, there are historic buildings on the property that should be considered to be incorporated into the development. The Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan indicates that a Center should be provided on a County owned property near the proposed properties. It further discusses that a small area plan be developed to determine what type of center would be appropriate on the County owned property. While the proposed properties do not include a center, they are important considerations as the County considers how to develop their property. 15% affordable housing is offered however this needs to be accomplished outside of a proffer. Also, the timing of the affordable housing needs to be addressed. A mix of housing types is permitted within all blocks, but nothing in the application requires a mix of housing types within the development, so the development could end up being built to one housing type. As stated above, a connection to Avinity should be explored with schools to this development. In addition, there are questions concerning the existing houses being served currently by Galaxy Farm Road that access needs to be addressed. The proposed road improvements are described as shown on the application plan show bicycle lanes on Road A, proposed to be bonded prior to the creation of the 50'h lot. This relies on the contract purchase of the County -owned property for bicycle access, as no bicycle access is shown on Road B or any connector roads. Bike and pedestrian access should be provided along Road B and further connect to Avinity. A shared use path along the frontage of Route 20 should be provided as shown in the Master Plan. Currently CAT is considering a new Route that would service Mill Creek Drive. If there are opportunities to provide a pedestrian and bike connection to Mill Creek via Founder's Place, these should be explored. Parks, . Required open space is currently not being met on the properties for consideration Recreational for the rezoning. Block 8 contains area for open space that is not on a parcel Amenities, and being rezoned. See comments above. Open Space I . Open space is being provided along the stream buffers where a trail will be located. The type of trail should be stated and a section should be provided. Buildings and I Maximum setbacks need to be provided Space of Stepbacks need to be provided Human Scale Provide rules for relegation of parking (see relegated parking comments below). Relegated �� Parking should be relegated to the back or side of buildings. Parking Front loaded garages should be the exception. There are a number of blocks that allow for front loaded garages. Alleys should be explored to be provided in lieu of front garages. Parking areas located adjacent to the street should be screened from streets. Where front loaded garages are allowed, provide a setback from the garage to the porch or front of the house (3-5 feet). Redevelopment . This proposal is on property that is currently not developed, therefore, this principle does not apply. Respecting . There are preserved slopes located within Block 1. These slopes cannot be Terrain and disturbed and lots should be located outside of the slopes. Careful . Information should be provided that retaining walls in the development should Grading and meet the design standards required for the disturbance of managed slopes in Re -grading of section 30.7.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Terrain Clear . Rural area is located across the street from this proposal. The buffer will mitigate Boundaries the impact. with the Rural Area Action after Receipt of Comments Your project has been scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission for December 18, 2018 which is 77 days from the date your application was accepted for review. State Code requires a 90-day review by the Planning Commission unless the applicant requests deferral. Due to the holiday's, this needs to be scheduled prior to the 90 days in order to comply with State Code. As you will read in this comment letter, staff recommends changes to your project to help you achieve approval. Without these changes, staff cannot recommend approval to the Planning Commission. If you would like to address the comments you must request deferral by November 19, 2018. Please note that you can submit revisions even if you defer your application. If you choose not to request deferral, staff will take your project to the Commission as originally submitted, but without a recommendation of approval. Instructions for requesting a deferral are in the attached "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter." Resuhmittal If you choose to resubmit after requesting deferral, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience. Notification and Advertisement Fees Prior to a public hearing with the Planning Commission the following fees must be paid: $ 215.00 Cost for newspaper advertisement $ 412.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) $ 627.00 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing needed. $ 412.00 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $ 1,039.00 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors 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. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My phone number is (434) 296-5832, x. 3004, and my email address is: mnedostup@albemarle.org. Sincerely, I # Megan Nedostup, AICP Principal Planner Planning Services DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �rRGINI°' ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER FIRST SET OF COMMENTS Your project has been scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission for December 18, 2018 which is 77 days from the date your application was accepted for review. State Code requires a 90-day review by the Planning Commission unless the applicant requests deferral. Due to the holidays, this needs to be scheduled prior to the 90 days in order to comply with State Code. As you will read in this comment letter, staff recommends changes to your project to help you achieve approval. Without these changes, staff cannot recommend approval to the Planning Commission. If you would like to address the comments you must request deferral by November 19, 2018. Please note that you can submit revisions even if you defer your application. If you choose not to request deferral, staff will take your project to the Commission as originally submitted, but without a recommendation of approval. Instructions for requesting a deferral are outlined below. Please do one of the following by November 19th: (1) Request deferral, as required by Section 33.521, in these instances: a. If you would like to resubmit to address comments on the application and you have not deferred to date. b. If you would like to take staff recommendation for a worksession with the Planning Commission (2) Proceed to Planning Commission public hearing on December 18th, 2018. (3) Withdraw your application (1) Deferral requested 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, which is October 3, 2021. (This is based on the Board of Supervisors' September 5, 2018 action.) However, all outstanding information Revised 10-9-18 MCN necessary for Commission action must be submitted by June 3, 2021, according to the published schedule. (See Section 18-33.52 of the Albemarle County Code.) (2) Proceed to Planning Commission Public Hearing on December 18th, 2018 At this time, you may request that your application proceed to public hearing with the Planning Commission on December 18, 2018. With this option, staff will take your project to the 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. Resubmittals As stated above, a deferral does not preclude you from resubmitting the application to address changes based upon the comments. If you would like to resubmit after you defer, you may do so following the resubmittal schedule. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your submittal. The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.) 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(B) or (C). Fee Payment Fees paid in cash or by check must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator. Fees may also be paid by credit card using the secure online payment system, accessed at http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=21685. Revised 10-9-18 MCN 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 No sooner than* COB Auditorium Monday Wednesday Friday Tuesday Dec 18 2017 Jan 17 2018 Jan 26 Feb 20 Wed Jan 03 Jan 31 Feb 09 Mar 06 Jan 15 Feb 14 Feb 23 Mar 20 Jan 29 Feb 28 Mar 16 Apr 10 Feb fly Mar 07 Mar 16 Apr 10 Tue Feb 20 Mar 21 Mar 30 Apr 24 Mar 05 Apr 04 Apr 06 May 01 Mar 19 Apr 18 A r 27 May 22 Apr 02 May 02 May 18 Jun 12 Apr 16 May 16 Jun 01 Jun 26 Apr 30 May 30 Jun 01 Jun 26 May 07 Jun 06 Jun 15 Jul 10 May 21 Jun 20 Jun 29 Jul 24 Jun 04 Thu Jul 05 Jul 13 Aug 07 Jun 18 Jul 18 Jul 27 Aug 21 Ju102 Aug01 Aug10 Sep 04 Jul 16 Aug 15 Aug 31 Sep 25 Jul 30 Aug 29 Aug 31 Sep 25 Aug 06 Sep 05 Sep 14 Oct 09 Aug 20 Sep 19 Sep 28 Oct 23 Tue Sep 04 Oct 04 Oct 05 Oct 30 Sep 17 Oct 17 Oct 19 Nov 13 Oct 01 Oct 31 Nov 09 Dec04 Oct 15 Nov 14 Nov 20 Dec 18 Oct 29 Nov 28 Dec 21 Jan 15 2019 Nov 05 Dec 05 Dec 21 Jan 15 2019 Nov 19 Dec 19 Dec 21 Jan 15 2019 Dec 03 Jan 02 2019 Jan 04 2019 Jan 29 2019 Dec 17 Jan 16 2019 Jan 25 2019 Feb 19 2019 Jan 07 2019 Feb 06 2019 Feb 08 2019 Mar 05 2019 Bold italics = submittallmeeting day is different due to a holiday. Dates with shaded background are not 2018. 2019 dates are tentative. `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.