HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201800012 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2019-05-03COUNTY OFALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
May 3, 2019
Nicole Scro
912 East High Street, Suite C
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Ms. Scro:
Fax (434) 972-4176
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for a zoning map amendment (ZMA) for the Galaxie Farm
development. 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. Our comments are provided below:
General Application Comments:
1. Density proposed is still over what is recommended within the Comp Plan/Master Plan for this
area. The Planning Commission recommended that the proposal stay within the
recommendations of the Comp Plan at the worksession. See Comment #2 below regarding the
"half unit" proposal.
2. The Zoning Ordinance contains definitions for dwelling and density that does not permit a "half
unit" or cottage unit to be counted less than one for density purposes. In some developments in
the County, "carriage" houses do not count against the density of a development as they are
considered accessory to the primary dwelling unit. However, these accessory units are
generally afforded a square footage smaller than the 1,600 sf proposed in the applicant's
"cottage" cluster regulations, and the proposed "cottages" would not be accessory to any
primary residential developments. As discussed in a meeting with you, the question of types of
units and density and to treat different types of housing differently, is something that needs to be
addressed within the Comp Plan and Housing Policy. Section B on Sheet 10 should be removed
from the application plan set.
L)we+tung- ui�it.- A single unit pmviding complete_ independent living facilities for one (1) or more
persons; including pear ent provisions for living_ sleeping, eating_ cooking and sanitation.
esideKtial de?2sin- (gross); The total slumber of &A-elling units -within a development di�-ided by.
the Lross residential area and expressed in d-yelling units per acre -
Res ray density The total number of & ellin-� units ,��-Ythin a development divided by the
net residential area and expressed in d-%velling units per acre.
3. The narrative proposal describes an increase of 9 dwelling units more than the comprehensive
plan's recommended density. These units are proposed to be affordable dwelling units as
justification for the increased density. However, the comprehensive plan lists a 15% of units
affordable housing strategy for all rezonings, and does not afford bonus density for this
requirement. The narrative states "it is common practice to only provide 15% affordable housing
above the total number of units that would have been allowed by -right" (page 15 of
Response...). However, the County does not administratively apply bonus density beyond the
recommended comprehensive plan density.
4. If the application is following the regulations within the ordinance for PRD, all setback
regulations, etc should be removed from Sheet 7 that are already listed in the ordinance. These
include Notes A and C. Notes D, F and G are deviating from what is listed in the ordinance, and
a modification request and justification should be submitted per 8.2(b).
b. Uai-vo s a& modificafrons_ An applicant may request that and- requirement of sections 4. 5. 21. 26
and 32_ or the applicable planned development district regulations be waived or modified by the
board of supervisors_ as follows:
.Submittal of request for ivaiyer or modif cation. If the applicant requests such a waiver
or modification as part of the application plan, the applicant shall submit its request in
writing as part of the application plan, and shall demonstrate how. the findings required
by subsection 8.2(b)(3) Aould be satisfied_
2_ Timing of request_ Notwithstanding any regulation in sections 4; _ 21; 26 or 32
establishing a procedure for considering a waiver or modification_ any. request for a
waiver or modification shall be reviewed and considered as part of the application plan_
provided that an o-�xner v�i in a planned development tnay request a waiver or
modification of any requirement of sections 4; �. 21; 26 or 32 at any time, under the
procedures and requirements established therefore.
FindiNgs. In addition to making the findings required for the granting of a waiver or
modification in sections 4. 5. 21_ 2 6 or 32. a waiver or modification may be granted only
if it is also found: (1) to be consistent with the intent and purposes of the planned
development district under the particular circumstances, and satisfies all other applicable
requirements of section 8: (ii) to be consistent �,idth planned development desiam
principles: (iii) that the waiver or modification would not adversely- affect the public
health; safety or general welfare.- and (iv) in the case of requested modification_ that the
public purposes of the original regulation would be satisfied to at least an equivalent
degree by the modification_
4. Express ivaiver or modification. Each waiver and modification must be expressly
granted and no "-aver or modification shall be deetned to have been granted bV
implication_ L Y
Application Plan:
Planning/Zoning (Megan Nedostup; Lea Brumfield):
1. Roads labels should be listed on all sheets. It is difficult to flip between sheets for Notes
referencing certain streets on Sheet 7.
2. Road C should show right of way all the way to the property line, for future dedication to the
County for a connection, if needed.
3. Road A section should show the planting strip and sidewalks that start just east of Road D.
4. Indicate which streets are private and which are public. Is it possible for Roads B and C to be
public to allow for a possible future connection to adjacent properties? Also, if private streets are
proposed, a request and justification for those streets if they are serving single family detached
lots should either be provided with the rezoning, or will be required during the site
plan/subdivision stage.
5. Remove area for development out of the stream buffer in Block 1. In addition, a note should be
added to the application plan that states that no lots are permitted within the stream buffer. In
addition, preserved slopes that are on the County GIS are not being shown and units and lots
within Block 1 will impact these slopes. Show the slopes on the application plan.
6. Provide information in the Notes for the Open Space Blocks on what is to be permitted in the
block/open space as it relates to recreation and possible structures.
7. Sheet 6 should include a chart indicating the acreage of the recreation and open space areas.
Also what type of open space are where. The title indicates "preservation areas", however as
defined by the Zoning Ordinance, preservation is preserved, without any manmade features.
This does not seem to be the intent of any of the open space areas, and preservation should be
removed. Common Open Space is required per the PRD section of the ordinance, and that is
the term that should be used.
8. Note B on Sheet 7 should be revised to state "porch" or "building face" rather than "entrance of
the applicable residence". This language is not consistent with other rezonings that have been
approved and it's not clear where the "entrance" may be, or if a front entrance is required.
ARB/Historic Preservation (Margaret Maliszewski):
1. Retaining the residence on 91-15 and incorporating it into the development would support the
Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving the county's historic resources. Character defining
architectural features include the front -gambrel roof, hipped -roof porch with battered posts and
brick piers, and shed dormers. The dwelling, garage and two barns were considered
contributing to the historic district, though the carport was not.
2. All the structures on 91-15 shall be fully documented in photos and drawings prior to any
demolition.
3. Lighting note #1 on sheet 7 is confusing. If the intent is for all lighting in the development to be
full cutoff, eliminate "per Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance". If the intent is simply to meet
lighting ordinance requirements, eliminate the entire note.
Transportation (Kevin McDermott; Adam Moore (VDOT): Comments have not been received to
date and will be forthcoming.
Fire/Rescue (Shawn Maddox):
1. What is the needed water pressure for the proposed use? Fire flow requirements are tied to
square footage, single family detached versus attached single or multifamily and construction
type. 1500 gpm is the minimum unless there are sprinklers.
2. The proposed design provides a second means of ingress/egress however it is on the same
road, Route 20. Not all roads/alleys shown on the plans have a clear travel width of 20'. Any
travel way that serves as the primary means of providing service to a dwelling unit must have
the required 20' This can be accomplished by increasing the pavement width to allow for
desired on street parking or through restriction of on street parking based on the proposed
pavement width.
3. Turning radii within the development shall not be less than 25' for those roads being used to
provide emergency service to the dwellings.
Engineering (Frank Pohl):
1. Private street authorization request is required [14-234].
2. Blocks 1 and 2 encroach into the stream buffer. Remove future lots from stream buffer.
3. Recommend a note on the application plan requiring onsite stormwater treatment to address
water quality compliance.
4. Parking on Road B may not meet VDOT requirements for required sight lines.
5. Sidewalks shown in Road D section should be included in the road easement or additional
access easements are needed.
6. Underground storage cannot be located under public or private roadways.
Waivers/Modifications/Exception:
1. Private streets serving single family detached lots require private street approval. A request
should be made if there are private streets. If not submitted with the rezoning, it will be required
with the site/subdivision application.
Planning
Planning staff's comments are organized as follows:
• How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan
• The Neighborhood Model analysis
• Additional comments from reviewers (See attached)
Comprehensive Plan. Comments on how your project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan will be
provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report that will be
prepared for a work session or public hearing.
The properties are within the Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan area and are
designed as Neighborhood Denisty Residential that allows for residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting
uses such as places of worship, schools, public and institutional uses and small-scale neighborhood
serving retail and commercial. In addition, a road is designated on the plan that would connect through
the properties.
A Center is designated on an adjoining property, and it is recommended that due to the number of
County owned properties, that a collaborative community process for a small area plan is needed in this
location.
Other portions of the Comp Plan that will be discussed further as part of the staff report include Historic,
Cultural, and Scenic Resources (see Margaret Maliszewski's comments), Development Areas,
Housing, Transportation, Parks and Green Systems, and Growth Management.
Neighborhood Model
General comments on how well the proposed development meets the principles of the Neighborhood
Model are provided here. More detailed comments may be provided at a later date if changes are made
and/or after more detailed plans are provided.
Pedestrian • The material of the sidewalk should be indicated on the sections, and this should
Orientation be stated as concrete.
As stated above, sidewalks and landscape strips should be provided for Road A.
Mixture of Uses
Neighborhood
Centers
• The proposal is for residential uses only, however there are a mixture of uses
within the immediate area including schools, assisted living, fire station, shopping,
and County owned land designated for institutional.
• In addition to the above, the Neighborhood Model principles for mixture of uses
discusses how Historic Properties should be respected and that a desire to
preserve these resources should be included. As stated above, there are historic
buildings on the property that should be considered to be incorporated into the
development.
• The Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan indicates that a Center
should be provided on a County owned property near the proposed properties. It
further discusses that a small area plan be developed to determine what type of
center would be appropriate on the County owned property. While the proposed I
properties do not include a center, they are important considerations as the
County considers how to develop their property.
Mixture of
. 15% affordable housing is offered, however most of the units will only be
Housing Types
provided if density is above the recommendations of the Comp Plan.
and
. A mix of housing types is permitted within all blocks, but nothing in the
Affordability
application requires a mix of housing types within the development, so the
development could end up being built to one housing type.
Interconnected
. As stated above, a right of way should be provided all the way to the property line
Streets and
for Road C for a possible future connection.
Transportation
Networks
Multi -modal
A pedestrian primitive trail is provided along the frontage of the property and bike
Transportation
lanes are provided for Road A.
Opportunities
Parks,
Open space is being provided along the stream buffers where a primitive trail will
Recreational
be located.
Amenities, and
Block A provides for an active recreation area.
Open Space
I
Buildings and Principle has been met.
Space of
Human Scale
7-
Relegated . Parking should be relegated to the back or side of buildings. It is unclear if a
Parking clubhouse is provided in Block 8 if there will be parking and if it will be relegated.
. 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.
Where front loaded garages are allowed, provide a setback from the garage to
the porch or front of the house (3-5 feet).
Redevelopment This proposal is on property that is currently not developed, therefore, this
principle does not apply.
Respecting
Terrain and
Careful
Grading and
Re -grading of
Terrain
Preserved slopes and stream buffer are located within Block 1. These slopes
cannot be disturbed and lots should be located outside of the slopes. In addition,
lots should be located outside of the stream buffer.
Clear Rural area is located across the street from this proposal. The buffer will mitigate
Boundaries the impact.
with the Rural
Area
Action after Receipt of Comments
Please indicate if you would like to move to a public hearing, or if you would like to address the
comments listed in this letter. If you would like to move forward with a public hearing, please request
this and a date will be scheduled.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for
your convenience online at
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/S
pecial Use Permit Applications/Special Use Permit Submittal and Review Schedule.pdf
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Prior to a public hearing with the Planning Commission the following fees must be paid:
$ 215.00 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$ 412.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per owner after
50 adjoining owners)
$ 627.00 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.
$ 412.00 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$ 1,039.00 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 phone number is (434)
296-5832, x. 3004, and my email address is: mnedostup@albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Megan Nedostup, AICP
Principal Planner
Planning Services