Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201800019 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2018-12-14COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 December 14, 2018 Greg Powe Powe Studio Architects 208 Third Street NE Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP201800019 Greenfield Terrace Dear Mr. Powe: Fax (434) 972-4176 Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for a Special Use Permit to build 33 multifamily units at Greenfield Terrace in the Northwest Quadrant and Flex Zone within the Rio29 Small Area Plan area. We have some questions and comments which we believe should be resolved or included as conditions of approval before your proposal goes to public hearing. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are provided below. Comments are organized as follows: 1. Major aspects of the Special Use Permit and application that must be addressed, likely through a resubmittal. 2. How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan, including the Rio29 Small Area Plan. 3. Additional comments from reviewers. Special Use Permit 1. Fire/Rescue's comments must be addressed regarding having a turnaround in the parking lot, as the travel way is greater than 150'. A new layout/concept plan is needed. 2. Include in the narrative if there is access to Station Lane for residents of Greenfield Terrace. Based on DB 3271 PG 101, it appears TMP 45-158 is included in the access easement. Planning The following comments related to planning matters have been provided by Tori Kanellopoulos: Comprehensive Plan: Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided below. Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. This application contributes to several goals within the County's Comprehensive Plan. Providing multifamily units adds to the desired diversity in housing options available in the County. The proposal is providing greater than the 15% affordable housing policy in the Plan, contributing to additional options for residents at or below 80% of the area median income. The units are a mixture of market rate and affordable, and are all built to the same standards and appearance. The proposal is providing higher density housing within the Development Areas. There are future opportunities to connect to the expanding greenway and trail network in the Rio29 area. The proposed parking reduction and access to transit also contribute to the goal of moving towards additional multimodal transportation options. This application is also consistent with the goals of the Rio29 Small Area Plan. The following comments are provided by section of the SAP: Connectivity: Greenfield Terrace is an existing Local Street. Although a cul-de-sac is not an ideal street type for this area, VDOT standards require public streets that do not connect to another public street to be cul-de-sacs. There is potential for connectivity with Station Lane, which is a private street. Given that this street is outside of the core area, it is intended to be a quieter street with fewer amenities. As the area redevelops, there may be future opportunities on adjacent parcels for a more vibrant street environment. Residents are already able to walk to the Northside Library, which will continue to be an important community gathering place for the area. There is access to the CAT bus system, which may be enhanced over time. Character: This proposal is in the Flex Zone of the Rio29 area. At three stories, the building height is within the two to five story range. A stepback is not required. The closest front section of the MFH building is set back 5' from the right of way. Given the topographic and site constraints, it would not be possible for the entire building to front along the edge of Greenfield Terrace. The front of the building also includes an amenity space, which is a desirable secondary front. The building incorporates facade breaks, large windows and balconies, and avoids blank walls. Surface parking is relegated behind the building and should be screened. Given that this building does not front along a major street, a commercial use could be challenging to incorporate. However, future adjacent parcels may develop into small commercial uses. The use of modernist architecture adds to a more interesting built environment. The proposal incorporates both affordable and market rate housing, which have the same standards and architectural style. Conservation: The Northtown Trail would run adjacent to Greenfield Terrace along Berkmar Drive, providing recreation and transportation opportunities for residents. There are future connectivity opportunities with other areas of Rio29 and the City of Charlottesville as well. The property is adjacent to the proposed natural area on County -owned property to the east of the site. Future opportunities for trail connections to this natural area should be considered. The planned linear park would be directly across the street. The applicant is proposing at least one area of recreation space for the MFH building and will be providing additional details during this application process. Planning Comments: To be addressed during the Special Use Permit process: 1. Provide a sidewalk on both sides of the connector road, from Greenfield Terrace to the parking lot. 2. Clarify how many areas for recreation are being provided. One of the site layout sheets appears to show one, and another shows two. The recreation area in front of the building appears to be steep, and could be challenging for residents to use, unless some grading will be done. 3. Include in the narrative if there is access to Station Lane for residents of Greenfield Terrace. Based on DB 3271 PG 101, it appears TMP 45-158 is included in the access easement. 4. The edge of the parking lot should be fully screened from the existing townhomes on the adjacent parcel. Provide additional trees or shrubs for screening. 5. Recommendation: Include bike racks for residents. This could be included at the site plan stage as well. This was listed as a consideration in the narrative. 6. Recommendation: Now that the Rio29 SAP has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors, it could be helpful to update the narrative to use Rio29 SAP language. It could also be helpful to include a map or other visual section from the SAP in the narrative, to replace the Urban Density land use shown from the previous Comprehensive Plan designation. To be addressed during the Site Plan process: 1. Affordable housing density bonus request: This will be addressed during the site plan review process, as the request is included under 18-18.4.3 (R-15 bonus factor). This is applicable to the SP phase as well, as providing 15% (or more) affordable housing is a favorable factor to the application. 2. Private street standards are subject to County Engineer approval and review. Public street standards are subject to VDOT approval and review. 3. During the site plan process, several applications will be needed. A Boundary Line Adjustment will be needed to vacate the boundary of TMP 45-157 and 158, so that the MFH building will be entirely on one lot. An easement plat will be needed for any easements. An initial and final site plan will be needed for the MFH building. A VSMP plan and road plan will be needed for Engineering. The final site plan will be the last application in this process. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Francis MacCall: 1. Conformity with Zoning Ordinance shown on Concept Plan for SP's: a. For the request to reduce the onsite parking requirement from 58 to 54, staff has identified that the use of nearby mass transit and possibly on street parking may be the best avenues to pursue. My initial reaction is that the onsite reduction appears feasible. It is recommended that the final analysis for this modification take place at the initial site plan stage. Please follow the process and provide the information needed as directed in Section 4.12.2 C (1) of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18). As part of any initial site plan application please provide analysis outlined in Section 4.12.2 C (1) and 4.12.12 Transportation Demand Management (TDM). b. If trees or buffer areas are to remain, a conservation plan will be necessary at the site planning stage. c. Suggested major elements to be identified on the plan for condition (a): building, parking, and buffer location. Engineering The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Frank Pohl: 1. Access road from the cul-de-sac to TMP 04500-00-00-16700 shall meet private street standards, including a dedicated access easement. Parking lot from development shall 'tee' into the private street with a stop condition to allow free -flow through the private street. 2. Regarding VSMP permitting, this project can be grandfathered if all 3 conditions of 9VAC25-870-48 are met. a. 9VAC25-870-48. Grandfathering i. Any land -disturbing activity shall be considered grandfathered by the VSMP authority and shall be subject to the Part II C (9VAC25-870-93 et seq.) technical criteria of this chapter provided 1. A proffered or conditional zoning plan, zoning with a plan of development, preliminary or final subdivision plat, preliminary or final site plan, or any document determined by the locality to be equivalent thereto (i) was approved by the locality prior to July 1, 2012, (ii) provided a layout as defined in 9VAC25-870-10, (iii) will comply with the Part II C technical criteria of this chapter, and (iv) has not been subsequently modified or amended in a manner resulting in an increase in the amount of phosphorus leaving each point of discharge, and such that there is no increase in the volume or rate of runoff, 2. A state permit has not been issued prior to July 1, 2014; and 3. Land disturbance did not commence prior to July 1, 2014. Entrance Corridor/Architectural Review Board The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by Heather McMahon (ARB2018-137; Advisory Review): 1. Motion: Mr. Van Der Werf moved to recommend that the ARB forward the following recommendations to the Planning Commission: a. Because the conceptual site plan and architectural design suggest that a development of the illustrated size, scale, form and layout can be constructed with an appropriate appearance for the Entrance Corridor the ARB has no objection to the request for the special use permit. b. Mr. Hancock seconded the motion. c. The motion carried by a vote of 5:0. 2. The ARB also offers the following comments to be addressed with the future site plan submittals: a. Provide retaining wall heights, materials and colors for review. b. Provide dimensioned elevations and floorplans as well as material and color samples for the primary walls and basement for review. c. Provide window -glass specifications for review and the standard window -glass note on architectural elevations: Window glass in the Entrance Corridors should meet the following criteria: Visible light transmittance (VLT) shall not drop below 40%. Visible light reflectance (VLR) shall not exceed 30%. d. Provide vegetative screening to mitigate views of the proposed parking from the EC. e. Indicate locations of mechanical equipment, including a roof plan if roof -mounted equipment is proposed. Show how the visibility of such will be eliminated from the EC. f. Provide standard mechanical equipment note to future site plans: Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated. g. Provide a lighting plan for review. h. Revise the site layout to provide trees 40' on center along the driveway, clear of utilities and easements. i. Ensure that there are no conflicts between proposed tree placement and extant or proposed underground utilities and their easements. j. Provide two additional interior parking trees. k. Provide large shade trees on the north, south, and east perimeters of the parking area. 1. Provide a layered landscape of medium-sized trees and shrubbery to soften the appearance of the south elevation. in. Provide a landscape plan that includes plant species and sizes as well as quantities. n. Provide the standard plant health note on the landscape plan: All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant. o. Provide adequate tree protection fencing should be shown on future site plans submitted for review. p. Confirm that the main stairwell on the east elevation is not visible from the Entrance Corridor by providing a view from Rio Road West. If it is visible, provide additional materials, color samples, configuration and details on the stairwell feature for review. Fire/Rescue The following comments related to fire/rescue have been provided by Shawn Maddox: To be addressed during the Special Use Permit process: 1. A turn around shall be provided if the travel way exceeds 150', as shown for the parking lot (279'). 2. Turning radius into the parking area may also need to be addressed. 3. Due to the height of the structures, the travel way (in the parking lot) will need to be 26' of clear travel width and located no closer than 15ft to, and no farther than 30ft from, the building. This must also continue for one contiguous side of the structure. To be addressed during the Site Plan process: 1. No parking in the cul-de-sac. No Parking signs will be required. a. Planning follow-up: There needs to be sufficient turnaround space for a fire truck. It may be feasible to have some parking spaces on the cul-de-sac. There may also be opportunities for parking on the public street (Greenfield Terrace). 2. No parking on the private street shown. No Parking signs will be required. 3. Other items to be addressed during site plan include hydrant spacing, FDC location, and Knox box location. VDOT The following comments from VDOT have been provided by Adam Moore: l . It is our recommendation that No Parking signs be provided along the existing cul-de-sac, as there is a high likelihood that some apartment residents will choose to park there blocking the turnaround for emergency services and maintenance crews. 2. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. 3. The final form of the proposed entrance to Greenfield Terrace can be approved at the site plan stage. Building Inspections The following comments from Inspections have been provided by Michael Dellinger: 1. Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height require a separate building permit. Walls exceeding 4 feet in height require a stamped engineered design also. 2. Will require another accessible parking space. ASCA The following comments from ACSA have been provided by Richard Nelson: No objection. Water and sewer are on site and there are not any known capacity or pressure issues in the area. SP Conditions Staff has not fully drafted conditions to date for this special use permit, due to the potential changes that need to occur and additional information requested. Once conditions are drafted, staff will send it out to you. Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter" which is attached. Resuhmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience online at http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community_ Development/f orms/Special_ Use Permit_Applications/Special _Use _Permit _ Submittal_ and Review_ Schedule. pddf Notification and Advertisement Fees Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees is needed: $350.00 Cost for newspaper advertisement $215.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) $565.00 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. $350.00 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $915.00 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 email address is vkanellopoulosgalbemarle. org Sincerely, Signature Tori Kanellopoulos Planner, Community Development enc: Action After Receipt of Comments Resubmittal Schedule Resubmittal Form