HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201800019 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2019-02-01COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176
February 1, 2019
Kelsey Schlein
Shimp Engineering
912 E. High St.
Charlottesville, VA 22903
kelseykshimp-en ing eering com / 434-227-5140
RE: ZMA201800019 Proffit Road Townhomes
Dear Ms. Schlein:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA201800019, Proffit Road Townhomes. 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.
Review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. Our comments are provided below:
Planning — General Application Comments
1. Provide an updated project narrative stating the proposed impacts to schools; police and fire service; and
transportation infrastructure. In addition, provide additional information on nearby uses, especially across Proffit
Road to the north.
2. The application narrative, in a section called "Proposed Proffers to Address Impacts," states that a maximum
allowable density for 40 dwelling units is shown on the application plan, although a written proffer statement is
not included with the application. Because this rezoning is not for a planned district, anything shown on the
application plan will not be a proffered commitment without a written proffer statement. Please clarify the intent
of this section of the application narrative.
3. Please provide a title to the conceptual plan indicating if it is a conceptual plan, a block plan, an application plan,
a site plan, or some other type of plan.
4. In the Site Data on the Cover Sheet:
a. Indicate what the land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan is for this property, as well as what is
allowed within this land use designation.
b. Revise the Zoning designation from "RA" to "R-1 Residential."
c. As the maximum number of units proposed in the Use Table is 40, include what both the gross and net
density would be, to clearly illustrate whether this proposal meets the intent of the comprehensive plan
land use designation.
d. Whether this property is within a water supply watershed.
e. Whether there is any stream buffer on this property.
5. Add a line to the Use Table on the Cover Sheet stating the proposed maximum density per block based on each
blocks acreage.
6. The Use Table states there is a proposed maximum number of units. Is there also a proposed minimum number of
units?
7. Please clarify the housing type proposed for this project. The narrative and the conceptual plan state that
townhouses are proposed. However, the Use Table states that all uses allowed in the R15 zoning district would be
allowed in this development.
8. Is interconnectivity with adjacent parcels proposed on this site? The arrows representing the proposed streets are
unclear as to their intent. Is pedestrian interconnectivity proposed? Interconnectivity and the internal
transportation network were brought up several times at the community meeting, including the routes that busses
and firetrucks would take, and whether there would be trails connecting to Forest Lakes or other nearby
developments. Indicate whether the roads are proposed to be stubbed out for future interconnection or to be
completed with a cul-de-sac. Also, there appears to be an existing curb cut on Regent Street to the south of this
property, which could provide for future interconnection with the neighborhood to the south.
9. Please show proposed parking areas on the conceptual plan. Is any on -street parking proposed? The location and
amount of parking in the development was a major concern raised by neighbors at the community meeting.
10. The conceptual plan states there will be some recreational space in Block 2, and the Zoning ordinance requires
recreational area for attached, single-family homes. However, there is nothing on the block plan on sheet 2
indicating where this recreational space would be located, especially as the Use Table would also allow for
additional residential units in block 2.
11. Because the request for private streets and double -frontage lots mentions amenity -oriented lots, it appears there is
a proposal for recreational spaces. However, no amenities are shown or otherwise indicated within the block plan.
12. Please clarify whether any proposed open space will be privately owned or dedicated to public use.
13. The cross-section in Appendix 3 of the Places29 Master Plan for this road section shows an 8" curb between the
travel lane and the landscaping strip. Update the cross-section on the cover sheet to include this 8" curb.
14. There is a cross-section shown for the Proffit Road frontage. Are any cross -sections proposed for the internal
street network?
15. Community members also raised concerns about buffering the neighboring properties, including hedges along the
property lines.
16. On the old plat provided with the application, there appears to be an old road crossing this property, going toward
the south. Is there an easement on this road?
17. The property across Proffit Road to the north is currently under review for a rezoning as well. The entrances
between that development and this project would have to meet VDOT standards.
18. Please be advised that site plans and VSMP plans, as well as subdivision plats, are required for townhouse -style,
attached single-family developments.
Comments regarding Private Streets Request
1. Although this request discusses amenity -oriented lots, it is unclear on the conceptual plan what and where those
amenities are, especially as the conceptual plan states that residential uses would be allowed in Block 2. Provide
greater clarity on the locations of the amenity -oriented areas.
2. Relegated parking is discussed in this request; however, relegated parking is not shown anywhere on the
conceptual plan or discussed in the project narrative, so it is unclear where such parking would take place.
3. It is unclear whether the streets, especially Road B and Road C, are proposed to be terminated with cul-de-sacs, or
stubbed out for future interconnection. Please clarify on the conceptual plan.
4. More detail is required on the conceptual plan for staff to adequately analyze this request.
5. See Engineering comments for additional information needed in order to justify the private streets.
Comments regarding Double -Frontage Lots Request
1. The conceptual plan needs to provide more information on the location of the proposed double -frontage lots, to
determine where those lots would be placed within the development and whether there is the required landscaped
buffer area for the site.
2. Provide a clearer layout of the proposal showing the double -frontage lots, the street network, and where those lots
are fronting, versus where they are obtaining their access.
3. Is this request for double -frontage lots only for Road B, or does it include lots along other streets as well? If it is
only for Road B, is this request only for that portion west of Road A, where the landscape buffer is shown, or does
it include all of Road B?
4. More detail is required on the conceptual plan for staff to adequately analyze this request.
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.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies Tax Map Parcel (TMP) 03200-00-00-03500 as Urban Density Residential land use.
This classification calls for primary uses to consist of residential uses at gross densities between 6.01-34 dwelling
units/acre. Secondary uses in this classification include supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools,
commercial, office and service uses. The proposed rezoning from R-1 Residential to R-15 Residential is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan land use recommendations.
Neighborhood Model
Projects located within the Development Areas are typically reviewed for consistency with each of the Neighborhood
Model Principles found in the Comprehensive Plan. Comments are provided below on relevant aspects of the
Neighborhood Model. More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed plans are provided.
Pedestrian Orientation
This principle is partially met with the information that was provided. No sidewalks are
specifically shown on the block plan that was provided, either along Proffit Road, or
along the internal streets. However, the cross-section provided on the cover sheet for
typical right-of-way dedication does show a 6' sidewalk, with the block plan on sheet 2
stating that the area along Proffit Road is for right-of-way dedication for the Proffit
Road section. Please indicate whether sidewalks will be provided internally. Although
cul-de-sacs are not specifically shown on the conceptual plan, the arrows representing
the proposed streets also do not indicate whether interconnections with adjacent
properties are proposed. The concept plan demonstrates that the project will be
developed in a block format. Although the dimensions of the blocks are not clearly
defined, the narrative states that the blocks are 200' in width, which is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for maximum block length.
The Comprehensive Plan supports pedestrian interconnections between adjacent
parcels, as well as sidewalks internal to a development.
Mixture of Uses
This principle is not met. The Use Table on the Cover Sheet is currently unclear. In the
"Allowable Uses" row, it states that all by -right uses and special uses listed in the
Zoning Ordinance for the R-15 Zoning District will be possible within the development.
However, the row titled "Block Description" in the table states that the blocks will only
be residential and recreational. In addition, the narrative states that only townhouse -
style residential units are proposed for this development. Please verify if these two uses
are the only ones that are intended.
See Zoning comments for additional comments regarding the Use Table.
Neighborhood Centers
This principle is partially met. The conceptual plan provides block 2 as a central area,
with the narrative stating that this block is "central to the development and defined by
its recreational purpose." However, the narrative and the conceptual plan both state that
Block 2 could have residential uses, which would limit the recreational potential of the
block. In addition, if residential uses were included in this block, the layout suggests
that the units would front along Road A, separating the recreational areas of Block 2
into two disjointed areas, one on either side of the development.
Mixture of Housing Types
This principle is partially met. The Cover Sheet clearly explains that all uses permitted
and Affordability
by right and through special use permit in the R-15 Zoning District will be possible
within the development, subject to other County Code requirements. This will allow for
a mixture of uses and housing types (e.g. single family, multifamily, etc.). However, the
project name indicates that this development will consist only of townhouses, which is
further confirmed by the project narrative stating that the intent is for a development of
approximately 40 townhouses. Please clarify the proposed housing type in this
development.
Relegated Parking
This principle is not met. It appears that new residential buildings adjacent to Proffit
Road in Block 1 may be close to the public right-of-way. The request for double -
frontage lots submitted with the ZMA application states that the houses in the northwest
portion of the project will front on Proffit Road, with access from the proposed private
road B.
However, the conceptual plan does not identify any parking lots or parking spaces, and
the project narrative does not mention relegated parking or the orientation of the
proposed townhouses in relation to the street frontage. Staff cannot verify that adequate
area will exist to provide parking in a relegated manner. Revise the plan to show where
parking will be provided. Consider the following:
• Parking should be relegated to the back or side of buildings.
• 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).
Interconnected Streets and
This principle is not met. The conceptual plan does not demonstrate that the
Transportation Networks
development will include street stub -outs to the properties to the east and west. The
arrows shown on the plan do not provide clarity on whether those streets are proposed
to be stubbed out or if they will include cul-de-sacs at the end of the streets. In the
future, if those properties are redeveloped, the opportunity to create interconnections
between streets could be available if cul-de-sacs are not installed. In addition, there is
only once access currently shown to this proposed development, as the required second
access way is emergency fire access only, which would limit general use of that
travelway.
Multimodal Transportation
This principle is partially met. The conceptual plan shows right-of-way dedication along
Opportunities
Proffit Road, with the cross-section for this area shown on the cover sheet. This cross-
section includes a 6' sidewalk. This dedication would allow for both pedestrian and
vehicular travel in a safe and convenient manner. However, no other sidewalks or
pedestrian connections are shown on the plan, or discussed in the project narrative.
The proposed right-of-way reservation along Proffit Road is consistent with the
Places29 Master Plan's recommendations as shown on Figure 4.8 Future Transportation
Network.
The Long Term Transit Network map (Figure 4.9 of the Places29 Master Plan) does not
designate any future transit service being provided down profit Road adjacent to the
subject parcel. However, the plan does call for future local collector transit service to
be provided along Worth Crossing and Leake Square, which are located approximately
two -hundred and fifty feet (250') to the west of the subject parcel. The plan also calls
for a future bus rapid transit (BRT) route along Route 29 to the west of the subject
parcel. Therefore, nearby access to public transit will be possible in the future.
It does not appear that bike lanes will be installed within the development, as they are
neither shown in the conceptual plan nor discussed in the project narrative.
Parks, Recreational
This principle is partially met. The conceptual plan designates an area of proposed open
Amenities, and Open Space
space in Block 2 that is centralized within the developed portion of the property
adjacent to new residential lots. This area appears to provide some space for
recreational opportunities that will serve the neighborhood residents.
However, the Use Table and the project narrative both state that residential uses could
also be allowed within Block 2, so that Block 2 would not necessarily be all
recreational. Please verify and further clarify block 2 uses in the narrative.
Buildings and Spaces of
This principle is partially met. The conceptual plan shows right-of-way dedication
Human Scale
using the typical cross-section along Proffit Road; however, no sidewalks are shown
along the internal street and vehicular travelway network. In addition, there may be no
central open space area as residential uses are allowed within Block 2, according to the
Use Table.
Redevelopment
This principle is met. The property currently contains one single-family residential
structure. The rezoning request will allow for redevelopment of the parcel at a higher
density than the current use, in accordance with the Urban Density Residential land use
classification recommended by the Places29 Master Plan.
Respecting Terrain and
This principle is met. The property does not contain any environmental features, such
Careful Grading and Re-
as steep slopes, floodplain, or stream buffer. Any grading that would occur must meet
grading of Terrain
the requirements of Albemarle County Code during the site plan stage of any potential
development plan.
Clear Boundaries Between
This principle is not applicable to the request. The subject property is located within the
the Development Areas and
Places29 Development Area. No improvements or changes in use near any boundaries
the Rural Area
with the Rural Area are proposed.
Planning - Transportation
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by the County's Transportation Planner, Kevin
McDermott, kmcdermott(kalbemarle.org.
Applicant should be aware of the proposed residential development located across Proffit Road from this development.
Entrance locations for these two developments on Proffit Road will need to be coordinated. Staff recommends that the
developers discuss this prior to moving to site planning phase.
Zoning Division, Community Development Department
Please see the attached zoning comments from Francis MacCall, finaccallgalbemarle.org.
Engineering & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by the County Engineer, Frank Pohl,
fpohlkalbemarle.org.
No objection to the private road request for roads B and C, but I cannot support the request for road A unless VDOT isn't
willing to accept road A for some reason. Also, consider swapping the location of Road A with the Fire Access road so
that the Primary Entrance lines up (approximately) with the proposed ZMA2018-00006 primary entrance on the other side
of Proffit Road.
E911, Community Development Department
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by the E911 Division GIS Specialist, Andrew
Walker, awalker(kalbemarle.org.
Note that Road A, Road B, and Road C will require a private road name to comply with County's Road Naming and
Property Numbering Ordinance if there are three or more structures addressed using a road. Please consult the County's
Road Name Index to check your road names prior to submittal. The Index can be found here:
http://www.albemarle.org/albemarle/upload/images/webapps/roads/
We recommend providing three (3) candidate names for each road to our office (Geographic Data Services) for review, in
case your first choices are not acceptable.
Building Inspections Division, Community Development Department
No objection at this time.
Albemarle County Fire -Rescue
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by the Fire & Rescue plans reviewer, Shawn
Maddox, smaddox(&albemarle.org.
Fire Rescue has no objections to the zoning map amendment. Adequate access, emergency turn arounds and water supply
will be addressed during the site plan process.
Albemarle County Service Authority
Please see the attached comments from ACSA plans reviewer, Richard Nelson, melson(&serviceauthority.org .
Virginia Department of Transportation
Please see the attached comments from VDOT, Adam Moore, adam.moore&vdot.vir ig nia.gov.
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.
Resubmittal
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
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees is needed:
$ 282.00 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$ 215.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per owner after 50 adjoining
owners)
$ 497.00 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisors' public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing is
needed:
$ 282.00 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$ 779.00 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.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is
areitelbach(c-r�,albemarle.org, and my phone number is 434-296-5832 ext. 3261.
Sincerely,
Andy Reitelbach
Senior Planner
Planning Division, Department of Community Development
enc: Memorandum from Department of Community Development, Zoning Division
Memorandum from Albemarle County Service Authority
Memorandum from Virginia Department of Transportation
ZMA2018-00019 Action After Receipt of Comments
Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Form
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Andrew Reitelbach, Senior Planner
From: Francis MacCall
Division: Zoning
Date: January 31, 2019
Subject: Initial Review Comments for ZMA201800019 Proffit Rd Townhomes
The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above noted application.
1. It is recommended that the use table be laid out in a similar way to the ZMA2018-00006, minus the
affordable housing line. This will allow some consistent application of uses/dwelling types, # of units,
setbacks, build -to lines and stepbacks per block.
USE TABLE
BLOCK BLDCK A BLOCK B Total
ALLOWED USES
ALL USES LISTED UNDER SECTION 18.2.1 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE WILL BE
PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITHIN BLOCK A ALL USES LIST€D UNDER SECTION 1E2.2OF THE ALBEMARLE
COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE WILL BE PERMITTED THROUGH APPROVAL OF ASPECIAL USE PERMIT WITHIN
BLOCK A.
RECREATION, STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT FACILITIES,
PUBLIC UTILITIES, AND/OR
OPEN SPACE
AFFORDABLE UNITS
15%OF TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THE PROJECT WILL BE AFFORDABLE
MAXIMUM BOLDING HEIGHT
45'/4-STORIES
N/A
SETBACKS
FRONT MINIMUM: $' FROMRIGHT-OF-WAY
FRONT MAIMUM: 25' FROM RIGHT-CF•WAY
SIDE: 10' BUILDING SEPERATION UNLESS THE BUILDING SHARESACOMMON WALL
REAR: 20'
FRONF STtPOACKS
FOR EACH STORY THAT BEGINS ABOVE 40 FEET IN HEIGHT OR FOR EACH ST(IRY AROVE THE -MIRD STORY,
WHICHEVER IS LESS, THE MINIMUM STEPBACK SHALL BE 15 FEET
BUILD -TO -ONES
FRONT MINIMUM: S'
FRONT MOUMUM; 25' FROM THE RIGHT-QF-WAY OR THE EXTERIOR EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK IF THE
SIDEWALK IS OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT-Ok-WAY
GARAGE MINIMUM: FRONT LOADING GARAGE-18' FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAYOR THE EXTERIOR EDGE OF
THE SIDEWALK IF THE SIDEWALK IS OUTSJD€ OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. SIDE LOADING GARAGES' FROM THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY OR THE EXTERIOR EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK IF THE SIDEWALK IS OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT-OF-
WAY
GARAGE MAXIMUM: NONE
PROPOSED AREA OF BLOC(
5,2 AC
2.1 AC
7.3 AC
MINIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS
44
D
44
MINIMUM DENSITY BASED UPON AREA
8.5 DU/AC
D
6,01 OU/AC
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS
IU9
0
109
MAXIMUM DENSITY BASED UPON AREA
21 DU/A.0
0 DU/AC
15 DU/AC
PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL AREA/ OPEN SPACE
0.2 AC
21 AC
2 3 AC
The Density uonuses iiswd in toning ummage as -a can Oe used as pats dT ms rezoning excepT Ia roadway improvements and affordable Mousing.
Areas ind ude ROW 0dicwhon
Zoning Review Comments for ZMA201800019
2. Note that the standard parking requirements for any development will apply unless alternatives are
proposed as allowed per the Zoning Ordinance.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — Information from Service Providers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's
Site is in jurisdictional area for _X water X_ sewer water to existing structures only
not in jurisdictional area.
Distance to the closest water line if in the development area is _Site side of Proffit Road feet.
Water pressure is with gallons per minute at psi.
Distance to the closest sewer line if in the development area is 300 feet.
Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal
Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification Yes No
Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal
7.
Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary)
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper. Virginia 22701
January 29, 2019
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Andy Reitelbach
Re: Proffit Road Townhomes — Zoning Map Amendment
ZMA-2018-00019
Review #1
Dear Mr. Reitelbach:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated 17
December 2018, and offers the following comments:
1. The Department recommends coordination with the County and the applicant across
Proffit Road to determine a mutually agreed upon entrance location. The County has
stated that the first approved plan of any kind will determine the entrance location.
2. Note that the final site/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.
Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. 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,
l
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING