Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201800003 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2019-02-06Southwood January 7th Resubmittal General Application Comments: 1. Work Session Document: In progress. One -page summary of Aug 7 work session attached for reference. 2. Page 12: Addressed. 15% affordable housing now shown. 3. Pages 6-7: Addressed. Transect has been changed to Character Area, and 5 is now most intense and 1 least intense. 4. The Code of Development needs to be separated out from the Context & History and be its own free-standing document. Code of Development: 1. Pages 9-10 (initial section): Not fully addressed. Some of these elements are still under Pages 9-10 (in the initial section, not COD). 2. Page 9 (initial section): Addressed. UDR now listed as 34 du/acre. 3. Page 12: Not fully addressed. a. Between 23-68 affordable units listed for both blocks. b. Affordable units are counted as those sold/rented to any current Southwood tenants, but there should be a note saying they will still be affordable per the definition (less than 30% of a person's income etc.). c. Rental units are affordable for at least 10 years. Is this sufficient? Maybe a way to ensure that any rented to any current Southwood residents would always be affordable for those residents (that is, until they move)? d. Clarify that the units will be provided at Southwood and not in the city or regionally 4. Page 13: Addressed. Carriage units are limited to 50% GFA. 5. Page 13: Addressed. Home Occupations A and B are now listed separately under residential uses. 6. Local Traffic Impact Study: Not fully addressed. The daily vehicle trip count limit does not appear to be in the COD. It is 5,000 trips/day. 7. Page 13: Addressed. Home Occupations are now listed under residential uses. 8. Page 14: Addressed. Religious uses are now allowed in both blocks. 9. Page 18: Not fully addressed. Remaining questions. a. Parking is still listed as 200' from the parcel, not the building. i. Also, there needs to be a reasonable way to measure and enforce this with future applications. Any precedents? b. Safe pedestrian access is not specifically outlined here. It appears to be in other sections of the COD (e.g. green/open space), but seems worth having a note about it here. 10. Page 18: Somewhat addressed? a. Public way now written as framework streets, although somewhere it should say which streets are public or private. b. Parking with 5+ spaces must be behind the front building wall. I assume the typical Section 4 and 32 screening requirements apply as well. c. Shared parking per 4.17: Do shared driveways already count (does that mean parking one car behind the other)? 11. Page 11: Not fully addressed. a. Now shown on A.2.01 on the application plan- tree buffer along Block B. b. COD does not indicate if undisturbed or not. c. 30' measured from the property line. d. Planting standards not complete: Last paragraph ends with "within" but does not contain a measurement. e. These standards seem complicated and a significant amount of extra review. Perhaps revise to an assortment of small trees/shrubs etc. along the length of the trail, etc. 12. Page 11: Addressed. Now says amenity facing lots "front of the lot facing...". 13. Page 7: Not fully addressed. a. Maximum building height: C3/4/5 max height is 4 stories. Recommend a maximum building height in feet as well. b. Maximum building footprint: C5 = 30,000 sq. ft. (same); C4 = 20,000 (same); C3 = 10,000 (smaller); C1/2 = 5,000 (larger). c. Neighborhood service destination: Seems to be in line with Rio29 SAP. The SAP has a building height of 3-6 stories for the core area. It also has a stepback for 4 stories/50' along boulevards and 3 stories/40' along avenues. Uses include retail, hotel, institutional, office, and MFH. 14. Pages 7-9: Not addressed. Now called Regulation Note D (PG 7), it does not have a diagram, and it is unclear exactly what this would like (and who would be responsible for maintaining it). Is this meant to be for trails? 15. Page 7 Note 131: Not fully addressed. a. Stepback is only listed as 10', not 15'. b. The stepback needs more detail. Is it only for C5? Is the stepback for a fourth story? 16. Page 7: Not fully addressed. a. There are now maximum front setbacks for C4 and C5. b. Note D needs clarification, see comment #14. 17. Page 7: Not fully addressed. a. C3/4/5 now require garages to be side -loaded or relegated to the rear of the building. However, these regulations seem to only apply to framework streets. 18. Page 7: Not fully addressed. a. Notes A and C still refer to `exceptions' allowed by internal ARB. i. The "5% deviation" note seems to have a similar issue. b. Side corners are still included, and are not clearly defined and do not appear to be necessary. c. Note D needs to be clarified/illustrated. Seems to be allowing large setbacks in C4/5. Application Plan: 1. Application Plan: Not addressed. Sheets A1.01 and A1.02 are not consolidated. Attachment E was referred to in an email (from Whitney McDermott on 1/15/19) but has not been officially submitted. 2. Application Plan: Not addressed. Standards not shown, although F/R comments seem to be fine with waiting until site plan stage. Planning/Neighborhood Model: Pedestrian Orientation: 1. Not fully addressed. Two sections: a. Page 7: Stepbacks/setbacks i. Stepbacks appear to only be for C5 and only be 10'. Difficult to read as note- should be a row of stepback requirements. ii. No maximum setbacks for side setbacks and rear setbacks for C4/5. b. Page 17: Sidewalks/planting strips i. Planting strips are still insufficiently wide for trees (4'). ii. It is not clear that sidewalks must be 8' if there is no planting strip. iii. Multi -use paths are not shown here. A trail section could be provided and may make Page 11 more clear. c. Lighting: Note in comment response that will be addressed at SDP stage. Mixture of Uses: 2. Page 18: Not fully addressed. a. Parking with 5+ spaces must be behind front of buildings on framework streets, but other streets are not addressed here. Assuming County requirements would be used for screening. Neighborhood Centers: 3. Page 7: Not fully addressed. See previous comments on number of stories, stepbacks and setbacks. a. Pages 6 and 11: Include description and requirements for a civic gathering place in Block B. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability: 4. Page 12: Not fully addressed. a. There is now a requirement for 15% affordable housing. b. There does not seem to be a mixture of housing types required (they are allowed, but not explicitly required/distributed). Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks: 5. Pages 16-17 and Proffer: Not fully addressed. a. Pages 16-17: There does not appear to be language in the COD regarding cul-de- sacs. Applicant notes that they will try to avoid cul-de-sacs at site plan stage. Page 16 discusses connectivity overall. b. Proffer: Proffer has language for greenway trail connections, which would be public trails. Multi -modal Transportation Opportunities: 6. Page 17 and Parking Waiver: Not fully addressed. a. Page 17: None of the street sections require bike lanes, therefore there are not designated bike lanes for Hickory Street. Proposed bikes lanes are only 4', and should be 5'. Bike lanes should be required for Hickory Street and not optional. b. Parking Waiver: Mentions the possibility of an additional bus stop. This information should also be in the COD itself. Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open Space: 7. Addressed. There were no comments in this section. See 4.16 waiver request. Buildings and Space of Human Scale: 8. Page 7 and 18: Not fully addressed. See previous comments on character areas and relegated parking. Relegated Parking: 9. Pages 7 and 18: At least partially addressed. a. Page 7: There is now a 3' setback requirement for garages from the primary structure. Garages must be in side or rear yards in C3/4/5, however only for framework streets. b. Page 18: Screening seems to be according to County ordinances (32, 4), however there could be a note indicating such. Redevelopment: 10. Addressed, does not apply to this phase. Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading and Re -grading of Terrain: 11. Page 9 (initial section): Not addressed. Needs to be moved to the COD (e.g. on Page 10 or 11). Clear Boundaries with the Rural Area: 12. Page 11: Not fully addressed- see previous comments on buffer area. Still no note if undisturbed buffer. New Comments: General Comments: 1. How many phases are anticipated within Phase 1? The initial sections in the document talk about "village by village" development. 2. Pages 12-13 in the initial section show more than half of the total units as being multifamily. Throughout the initial section (e.g. initial PG 17 and 18), residents appear to prefer single-family homes that have some private yard/greenspace. Later it does say that residents are willing to have more shared space in order to have more housing (initial PG 20), however it still seems that SF is preferred over MF. It could be difficult to run a business or have urban agriculture in a MF unit. Maybe these are meant to be more market rate, with residents mainly in SF? 3. The distinction between framework and other streets seems confusing. Certain regulations only apply to framework streets, and therefore any additional streets would have separate and less stringent requirements. 4. Will there be an HOA for the neighborhood, and therefore an HOA fee? 5. Is the second point of access going to displace the existing soccer field? 6. What if some residents do not want to move, even after Phase 1 is complete? Are they allowed to remain in their existing dwelling units if that is their preference? Page 4: 1. The distance from the center of Block A to the center of Block B is only 0.3 miles, which is likely a 7-8 minute walk, instead of 15 minutes. Page 6: 1. Generally: Are these meant to be overall descriptions, or something enforceable? These standards seem better codified elsewhere, especially Page 7 (Character Areas) and Page 11 (Open Space requirements). 2. More information on `basement level' dwellings toward Old Lynchburg Road. Are these underground on one side? Meant to be market -rate or affordable? Page 7: 1. Generally: This seems complex for enforcement and review. May also be difficult for potential developers of outparcels to understand all of the requirements. It is recommended that some of these regulations be removed from the COD and instead included into a Southwood Internal ARB guidelines/regulations. The COD could then state that an internal ARB will be established prior to the first building permit and consist of a majority (60%?) of existing Southwood Residents. Also, any building permit would require a letter of approval by the SW ARB prior to approval by the County. Work should be done, however, to ensure that residents themselves are able to understand and enforce the proposed regulations. 2. Building Height: Should include feet and not just number of stories. 3. Front setbacks: a. Is this to allow for patio seating space/other pedestrian amenities? Rio29 SAP allows smaller setbacks (3-10' in the core area). 4. Porch/appurtenance setback: a. Is this necessary? Seems to already be covered by building setbacks. b. Some of these minimums are less than the front setbacks- is that allowed? Front porch and stoop culture is great, however maybe the building setback just needs to be smaller, to cover both buildings and porches. 5. Garage Setback: 18' should be from the back of sidewalk. Parking should not be over the sidewalk. 6. Note G and Rear Setbacks: a. This note seems unclear and difficult to review/enforce. 7. Street Facing Building Length: The lengths proposed are too large. The DCD has a maximum of 200', this should be used for C-5. C-4 and C-3 should be limited to 150' and C-2 and C-1 should be 100'. This should also be clarified that the building subjected to the length requirement are for commercial and multi -family. 8. Note J and Building Plane Variation: a. 100' seems relatively short to require all of these fagade variations (a row of 5 townhomes would likely exceed that). Seems like most buildings and rows of buildings would already have some variation. b. This applies to all character areas, so this could be difficult to review and enforce. Is it needed? Can it be their internal ARB? 9. Note K and Fagade Height Variation: a. Seems like there should be a maximum building height (in feet). Or is this somehow treated like our Section 4 height exceptions for parapets etc.? b. The applicable length is confusing. The fagade height variation is supposed to be for the length of contiguous building(s), however Fagade Height Variation Applicable Length is listed as 150', and Max Street Facing Building Length is listed as 300' for C5 (same issue with C4). c. Is this section needed/reasonably reviewable and enforceable? Can this be their internal ARB? 10. Note 3: Should this be stated as the first floor shall be built to commercial building standards instead of 12' height? Page 10: 1. First paragraph: It seems confusing to say greenspace is 20% of the gross acreage and amenities are 20% of the gross acreage, as the total percent of both is 29%. 2. Developable acreage in block summary: Should be 24.13 by my calculations, not 24.60. Page 11: 1. General: These green spaces seem somewhat small (e.g. not large enough to accommodate a soccer field, which is important to residents). Especially for C2/3/4. 2. Landscaping requirements for Pedestrian Connection Area and the Trail Buffer: Something more general would be simpler to enforce, such as a variety of trees/shrubs interspersed along the trail or something like that. Page 13: 1. Flex Use Structures: Is there a limit to the number of flexible use structures on a single parcel? What if there are more than 2 bedrooms? Are they also eligible for SP's? 2. Would it be simpler to just have Flex Units, instead of having all three types? Page 14: 1. Third paragraph: Do we already have a provision like this? How would this work? Page 15: 1. Note A: Should say: "Use may be permitted only in Character Area C-3 of Block A" Page 17: 1. General concerns with variable lane widths and lanes present, as well as bike lanes and street trees (placement and sufficient space). 2. Specify which street sections will be public and which private. 3. Suggest that the sidewalk on one side and planting strip locations notations be removed and dealt with at subdivision/site plan stage. Cannot support the waiver/modification for the whole project without reviewing at a more detailed level. 4. Response letter states that planting strips less than 6' the tree would move to back of sidewalk, however the sections do not match this language and state less than 4'. 4' is not sufficient for a street tree as recommended in the County's planting list. Page 18: 1. The curb cut section seems confusing. It appears difficult to enforce and limits flexibility for development and outparcel sales. Only 5 curb cuts are allowed on Road IA for C3/4/5, and a variation would be needed in the future to change this. 2. The curb cut section appears to have conflict with the character area regulations. he character area street facing building length requires a minimum passage width of 20' for C4/5, seemingly to allow for access. The curb cut restriction prevents even alleyways. Perhaps VDOT entrance requirements would cover having excessive entrances along this stretch? 3. The 200' radius should be measured from the building, not the lot. There needs to be a reasonable way to measure and enforce this with future applications. 4. Also, previous comments that safe pedestrian access (paths, sidewalks) be provided from parking to the use have not been included. 5. Shared parking ordinance reference of 4.17.10 is not a section. Clarify what section you are referencing (I believe this should be 4.12.8). 6. What is "alley parking"? Is this parallel parking in the alley, or would this be parking on a lot off an alley? More information is needed for this kind of parking.