Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201900001 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2019-04-05LrRGtNh' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 April 5, 2019 Nicole Scro Gallifrey Enterprises 912 East High Street, Suite C Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-218-0513 RE: ZMA201900001— 999 Rio Road Dear Ms. Scro: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA201900001, 999 Rio Road. 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 or agency: Planning Comments (Tori Kanellopoulos) 1. Provide additional information about the types of pedestrian connections proposed through the parcel. What types of paths or sidewalks are these? Please note that if the single-family units are going to be subdivided for ownership/sale, then Section 14 (subdivision ordinance) sidewalk requirements will apply. 2. More definition of the proposed uses is needed. For example, what does retail include? What does general commercial service include? Uses need to be at an appropriate scale for this location. The Places29 Master Plan includes uses in these categories that would not be appropriate for the area. For example, commercial/regional retail includes big box stores. All permitted uses should be specifically listed. The Master Plan only includes examples. 3. There is not sufficient interconnectivity within the parcel. VDOT will only approve one entrance for this site. Therefore, there should be a more internal network of streets and/or pathways. If the proposed single-family units will be subdivided for ownership, then they will need street frontage per Section 14. There may be possibility for amenity - oriented lots as well. Blocks 1 and 2 should have greater interconnectivity — there are not sufficient paths or streets shown to connect them. 4. Interconnectivity: Is there any potential to connect to Fowler Ridge, either through a street or pedestrian connection? The deeds and surveys for this area are somewhat complex, however it appears that the County owns the strip of land between Fowler Ridge and this ZMA proposal. While a street connection would be preferred, a pedestrian connection would also enhance interconnectivity. 5. Recommendation: Include access to nearby bus stops via multiuse path in narrative since this is a Neighborhood Model goal. 6. Show more clearly on the application plan where the proposed multiuse path (MUP) connects to the existing path on Rio and the path on Belvedere Boulevard. 7. Are the proposed greenspaces and amenity spaces public or private? Who will have access? 8. Consider scale of proposal. Four stories or 45 feet may not be appropriate. While the Comprehensive Plan recommends up to four stories, this is somewhat of an infill development, and three stories appears to better fit the existing scale of the area. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends up to three stories for neighborhood retail, community and regional retail, and general commercial service. 9. Buildings should be set closer to the street (Rio Road), if possible. Drainage easement may preclude this. Please show the exact dimensions of the drainage easement (DB 3527 PG 469) on the application plan, to show the limits of building. 10. Maximum front setbacks of 40 feet are not consistent with Neighborhood Model principles. This may be to accommodate the drainage easement or another factor. Please include in the narrative and revise to smaller front setbacks if possible. 11. Include in the Code of Development any minimum or maximum lot sizes, if applicable. Otherwise add "lot size: no minimum". 12. Include information on Section 18-4.16 recreational requirements. Will this proposal use 18-4.16 standards at site plan stage, or use different requirements? 13. Include additional information on how greenspace and amenity areas are being calculated. It appears there is a request to reduce amenity space to 13% instead of 20%. Per definitions of "amenity" and "green space" in Section 18-3, it seems there is considerable overlap between the two types of spaces. It is not possible to tell if only 13% amenity area is being met, or if more is being met when counted as both amenity and greenspace, without additional information. Sidewalks may not count toward the total — a zoning determination would be needed. 14. There is a section in the Code of Development labeled "Architectural Standards and Landscape Treatment", which references the Entrance Corridor. Are there any additional architectural/landscape requirements in the COD? If not, that should be stated clearly. 15. Revise the Parking table on Page 3 of the Code of Development to show the range of spaces by use (as shown in narrative), and then show the total, instead of just showing the total. 16. Parking reduction request: Will be evaluated at the site planning stage by the Zoning Administrator. 17. Recommendation: In the Code of Development, regulate maximum building footprint, instead of square footage. 18. Please clarify: the Code of Development lists two buildings in Block 1, while the narrative lists three. 19. The Code of Development includes both single-family attached and townhomes. Since townhomes are a type of single-family attached, revise to just include single-family attached. 20. Please clarify the frontage buildout regulation in the Code of Development and what the intent of this regulation is. 21. Please clarify and revise the proposed Rio Road street section. 16 feet for the street trees appears to be unnecessary; 6-8 feet would be more appropriate. The multi -use path should be 10 feet, per Transportation Planning recommendations. Please address the large setback as well; this appears to be approximately 44 feet, which is above the 40 foot maximum in the Code of Development (also see Comment #11). 22. Revise existing conditions sheet to show ownership of Albemarle County for the emergency access easement between this parcel and Fowler Ridge. 23. In the narrative, address how the applicant would work with VDOT to improve the Belvedere/Rio intersection. For example, would the applicant coordinate with VDOT on ROW dedication, and is that potential loss of ROW considered in this application? Any additional details on meetings with and determinations from VDOT would also be helpful. 24. Include information in the narrative on any anticipated impacts on public facilities and services (beyond traffic — e.g. schools and fire/rescue); anticipated impacts on natural/cultural/historic resources; and anticipated impacts on nearby/surrounding properties. If there are none anticipated, include that reasoning in the narrative. 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 this property as Urban Density Residential in the Places29 Master Plan. 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-4 Residential to Neighborhood Model District is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use recommendations. Neighborhood Model Projects located within the Development Areas are 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. Revised comments may be given after additional information is submitted. Pedestrian Orientation This principle is partially met, and additional information is needed. The proposal includes extending the existing multi- use path (MUP) to connect the existing MUP along Rio Road with the MUP along Belvedere Boulevard. This promotes walkability to a mixed -use development. Additional information is needed on the location and types of pedestrian connections within the proposal. Please indicate if sidewalks will be provided internally. Mixture of Uses This principle is met, and additional information is needed. Both small-scale commercial and office uses and residential uses are proposed. Block 2 is proposed to be entirely residential, while Block 1 is a mixture of residential and retail/commercial/office/institutional potential uses. Additional information is needed on the types of potential uses, as the Places29 Master Plan is too broad. Neighborhood Centers This principle is not applicable. The proposal is not located in a center, however it is near several Neighborhood Service Centers. Mixture of Housing Types This principle is partially met. A mixture of housing types is and Affordability proposed, including multifamily housing and single-family attached and/or detached units. While the cottage -style single-family units are assumed to be less expensive than typical larger single-family units, they are not formally affordable units. There is no guarantee they will be affordable to residents at or below 80% AMI. Relegated Parking This principle is partially met. Parking is relegated from Rio Road, however there is significant area between the two blocks dedicated to parking. Consider a more internal street network that provides opportunities for relegated parking. A parking reduction was requested, which supports the Neighborhood Model principle of reducing parking and sharing parking when possible. Interconnected Streets and This principle is partially met, and additional information is Transportation Network needed. Consider both inter- and intra-parcel connectivity. If possible, there should be a connection to Fowler Ridge — which may be a street or pedestrian connection, depending on feasibility and community preference. More information is needed on the types of pedestrian connections within the parcel, and how the two blocks will be connected. Multimodal Transportation This principle is met and additional information is needed. Opportunities The existing MUP is being extended, which should be shown more clearly on the application plan. More information in internal pedestrian connections is needed. Recommendation to include access to Bus Route 11 in the narrative, as this access contributes to this principle. Parks, Recreational This principle is met and additional information is needed. Amenities, and Open Space There is not sufficient information to determine if an amenity space reduction request is required, as there is overlap with the greenspace requirements. The variety of green and amenity spaces contributes to the character of the proposal and provides future residents with multiple options for recreation. Buildings and Spaces of This principle is partially met. The scale of Block 2 Human Scale (residential/cottages) is appropriate for the location and context. However, the proposed building height of four stories in Block 1 does not appear to meet the scale of the area. A commercial and residential building for the area contributes to a mixed -use environment. A three-story building would better fit the context. See ARB comment as well. Redevelopment This principle is met. The existing structures on the property will not be preserved, in order to create a more cohesive development with a density within the Comprehensive Plan recommendation. This can be considered an infill development, given that this is an underutilized parcel surrounded by existing development. Respecting Terrain and This principle is met. Applicant will need to address related Careful Grading and ARB comment on retaining walls at rear of property. Regrading of Terrain Clear Boundaries between This principle is not applicable. The proposal is located well the Development Areas and within the Development Areas. the Rural Area Engineering (Frank Pohl) 1. Turnarounds for emergency vehicles may be required at the end of each parking area. Fire rescue stated this will be addressed during the site plan process. 2. Existing drainage easements and infrastructure may need to be relocated to accommodate proposed buildings at the corner of Rio Rd and Belvedere Blvd. 3. It is very difficult for me to make out the existing roadway improvements (i.e. curb/gutter line, EOP, entrance across Belvedere Blvd.). Please provide a line at the EOP or modify the hatching to provide better contrast on the rendered drawings. 4. Provide distances to proposed entrances from Rio Road. 5. Show drainage easements on proposed plans. 6. Will the need for a dumpster in both blocks affect parking? 7. The County prefers onsite treatment (or at least some %) versus purchasing of offsite nutrient credits. Address quality requirements in the stormwater narrative. 8. County GIS shows a wedge-shaped parcel (62G-01—A) owned by the Belvedere Neighborhood Association between the subject parcel and the Belvedere Blvd right-of- way. If the County GIS mapping is correct, an easement or land transfer will be needed for the northern entrance. If the parcel is shown correctly on County GIS, please correct the plan sheets to show this parcel. Please confirm. Fire/Rescue (Shawn Maddox) 1. Fire Rescue has no objections to the zoning map amendment. Site access, water supply and other fire code related items will be addressed during the site plan process. It should be noted that if the buildings are to exceed thirty feet in height that travel ways along one contiguous side of the building will have to be 26' of unobstructed width. SNM Zoning (Francis MacCall) 1. Please see attached comments. Architectural Review Board (Margaret Maliszewski) 1. Revise the Block 1 buildable area to extend along the full length of Rio Road East and Belvedere Blvd., relegating parking to the interior of the site. 2. A planting strip for large shade trees will be needed on the perimeter of all parking areas. 3. Proposed grading is shown inside the Block 1 buildable area on the plan. The pedestrian connection is shown inside Block 1 buildable area. The section shows street trees and path in the right-of-way. Coordinate the plans with the section regarding street edge, path and slope up to the building. 4. The site is described as mostly flat, but a retaining wall is shown at the rear of the site. Organize the development to eliminate the need for the retaining wall. Ensure there is sufficient planting area along the northeast side of the site. 5. The design of the 3-4-story building will need to carefully address scale and massing, not just in relation to the EC street, but also in relation to surrounding development. Compatibility without an over -scaled appearance will be required. VDOT (Adam Moore) 1. Please see attached comments. ACSA (Richard Nelson) 1. Please see attached comments. Building Inspections (Michael Dellinger) 1. No Objection. RWSA (Victoria Fort) 1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known 2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification Yes X No 3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known 4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) RWSA approval will be required for any proposed connections or other impacts to the existing RWSA transmission main on site. 5. A flow capacity certification from RWSA will be required prior to final site plan approval. Transportation Planning (Daniel Butch) 1. Shared -Use Path should be 10ft asphalt (or match existing 9 ft Shared -Use Path if less than 10ft) connecting Rio Rd E and Belvedere Blvd. 2. Internal pedestrian paths should connect to Shared -Use Path avoiding the need to utilize parking area for pedestrians. 3. Provide vehicular connectivity to Fowler Ridge if possible- which will be turned over to VDOT as public. Provide pedestrian connectivity prior to turn over. 4. Note that the intersection of Belvedere Blvd & Rio Rd E is being studied for long term planning improvements which could result in a potential R-cut or Roundabout improvements with potential Right -of -Way. 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 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 vkanellopoulos@albemarle.org and my phone number is 434-296-5832 ext. 3270. Sincerely, Tori Kanellopoulos Planner Department of Community Development enc: Action After Receipt of Comments VDOT, ACSA, and Zoning Review Comments Resubmittal Application