Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201800013 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2019-03-28County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Rd Charlottesville, VA 22902 Memorandum To: Kelsey Schlein, Justin Shimp From: Rachel Falkenstein Division: Planning Services Date: 3/28/2019 Subject: ZMA 2018-13 Rio Road West Previous comments: To clarify a previous comment - all disturbances to managed slopes on site will be required to comply with design standards from section 30.7.5; staff recommends these standards be applied across the grading of the entire site. Application Plan: • Sheet 3 of 8 contains the following note "Surface parking not be located less than 50' from edge of ROW". This note is unclear. Based on the plans I believe it is intended to mean that no surface parking is permitted within 50 feet of the ROW. If this is the case the note should be clarified and amended to allow parking under the building. Parking under the building would be considered "surface parking" unless it is located underground or on the second story of the building. • The location of utilities along the street front may impact the ability to install landscaping. • Sheet 5 of 8 references Page 11. No page 11 exists. • What will the Rio Rd street section look like in the interim? For instance, when the first CO is issued for this site - what features will be built along Rio Rd? Will the new sidewalk and street trees be in place at this time? Will the bike lane be restriped? Per previous comments, consider an "interim street section". • Please label dimensions for all features on Sheet 6 proposed street section (landscaping, bike lane, bike buffer, travel lanes, median) • If street lighting is proposed or contemplated it may be impacted by the street design. This may be an issue more appropriately addressed with the site plan. • The site section on sheet 7 shows a 4 story building height adjacent to greenway; the site section on sheet 8 shows 6 stories. Please clarify height of building as measured from greenway. Staff recommends a maximum height and/or stepbacks along the greenway. • The greenspace is located to the north of buildings. This will result in significant shading. Care will need to be taken during site plan review to select appropriate species. The Code of Development and any proffers should provide for adequate flexibility to allow design issues to be addressed during site plan review. • Access, particularly ADA access to the greenspace may be difficult; please clarify what standard the sidewalk will be built to. • Please note that the recreation requirements Section 4.16.2 are applicable to this site; substitutions may be requested during the site plan phase. COD • Consider including parking standards in the COD if you are contemplating an alternative parking schedule from what is currently required by the zoning ordinance TahlP A • Uses that are not already defined in the County's Zoning Ordinance should be defined in the COD • Accessory uses should be listed as a use in greenspace to allow for picnic shelters or similar types of uses (as you have noted on page 3 table B notes and page 6 table D notes); Table C • Include note about landscaping and canopy trees (page 5) in Table C. • Clarify language on Table C Amenity area % - is this % of total site area or % of block area? Architectural standards notes • Rephrase note 2 under Architectural standards to state that any structure visible from the EC shall be subject to Sec 30.6. TahlP D • This table is labeled D and G; please revise • For building height, what is a primary versus secondary building? How will these determined? • Add note or clarifying language that setback is measured from the edge of the future ROW dedication line for Rio Rd as shown on application plan Sheet 6; not current ROW • Consider stepback requirement for back of block 2 building; as measured from greenspace/amenity area • Table D notes stepbacks after the 41" floor or 50 feet. This should be clarified to indicate if this applies to the greater/lesser of 4`" floor or 50 feet • Note 1 references build -to -lines, but build -to lines are not defined; consider rewording this to state these features shall not encroach into min setback • What is meant by lot coverage? Is this impervious surface? Commitments Staff supports these commitments being provided as proffers, unless noted below. County Attorney review will be required prior to approval of final proffer language 1. Interconnected streets and transportation networks - This should be revised to remove language about adjacent property owner; we can't dictate terms for development of adjacent parcels with this rezoning. Staff recommends timing should be upon demand of the county. 2. Relegated Parking - A specific trigger should be identified for this. Staff recommends prior to issuance of CO for block 2 building. Also, proposed screening should be approved by ARB. 3. Amenity Area - the COD regulates this and a proffer is not needed. 4. Multi -Use Path - when will the multi -use path be completed? Staff recommends prior to issuance of CO for block 2 building. Staff supports dedication of the path upon demand of the county and also the area dedicated to the future linear park. 5. Stormwater Management - see previous comment from Frank Pohl - could 25% of the treatment be provided onsite without altering the design concept? 6. ROW Dedication - What is the timing of the dedication? Upon demand of the County? Are you constructing any facilities with this project such as widening the sidewalk or street trees? Waiver requests: 1. Staff could be supportive of waiver of the requirement of a mix of housing types; a mix of housing is provided within 1/4 mile of this area; Rio29 plan does not recommend single family or townhouses for this site. Is any affordable housing being provided? 2. Staff is not supportive of a waiver of the requirement for a mix on uses on this site. A mixture of uses and the form of buildings fronting along the street with relegated parking were both criteria for why this application received priority review. Construction of a single use storage building with surface parking in the front would not be consistent with the character and design recommendations of the Rio29 Small Area Plan. 3. & 4. Staff is of the opinion that waivers for minimum amenity spaces are not required for this site. The site is no longer designated urban density residential with the adoption of the Rio29 Small Area Plan and therefore is not required to have 20% amenity spaces. For areas having a land use designation not addressed in subsections 20A.9(b)(1) and 20A.9(b)(2), the recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the minimum area devoted to amenities. The applicant is clearly providing amenities consistent with the path and linear park shown on the small area plan. Further, if the applicant is providing wider sidewalks and landscaping along Rio Rd, this will provide additional public amenities associated with this site.