The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZMA201900003 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2019-08-29COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 August 28, 2019 Kelsey Schlein Shimp Engineering 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22903 kelseva,shimn-enaineerinii.com / 434-227-5140 RE: ZMA201900003 Royal Fern; 3" Submittal Dear Ms. Schlein: Staff has reviewed the third submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA201900003, Royal Fern. There are 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. Ensure the code references in the proposed proffer statement match the existing code. The definitions section of the zoning ordinance was recently amended, and that amendment caused changes in other sections of the code as well. (For example, in section 24.2.1(1.), the use previously known as "automobile laundries" is now identified as "car washes.") 2. There is a discrepancy in the language used for identifying the uses of Block 5. The tables on sheet 2 and sheet 9 call out the proposed uses as "office/residential." However, the map of the block layout on sheet 9 identifies the uses as commercial/service/residential. Please clarify the proposed use of the block and use one consistent label. 3. Affordable housing is proposed as a part of the application plan. What is the proposed method of tracking for this affordable housing during the site plan and subdivision stages of development? 4. Is it proposed for the non-residential blocks/uses to comply with section 4.20 of the zoning ordinance? Currently, only section 4.19 is identified in note 2 on sheet 2; however, 4.19 is only for residential uses, and 4.20 regulates setbacks and stepbacks in the commercial and industrial districts. In addition, are the stepback requirements of 4.19 proposed as well? Note 2 only mentions setbacks. These comments apply to the notes and tables on sheet 9 as well. 5. Are the parking requirements for this project proposed to comply with section 4.12 of the zoning ordinance? 6. On sheet 7 of the application plan, in the "permitted uses" column of the table, it is stated that "residential and commercial buildings" are permitted within the restricted parking area; however, on sheet 2 in the uses table, Block 1 is identified for residential uses only. Please clarify this discrepancy between the two tables. 7. Note 1 under non-residential uses on sheet 9 states that the commercial/service area building footprint shall not exceed 60,000 square feet. Does this note only apply to the Block 5 which is labelled as "commercial/service," or is it intended to apply to Block 4's commercial shopping center area as well. The similar note on sheet 2 only states that "no single building footprint shall exceed 60,000 square feet." Please clarify this discrepancy. 8. A crosswalk is shown on sheet 8 to provide access across Old Lynchburg Road from Block 1 to Blocks 2-5. However, it is not shown on sheet 11. Please revise the application plan to address this discrepancy. 9. On sheet 13, it appears the width of the proposed Country Green Road cross-section should be 25.5'. In addition, is any landscaping proposed along the Mountainwood Road pedestrian improvements? 10. On sheet 14, it appears the width of the proposed 5t1i Street cross-section should be 33.5'. In addition, is any landscaping proposed along the 5' Street multi -use path? As an Entrance Corridor, it is likely that the Architectural Review Board will require landscaping along this route. In addition, why is the landscaping strip 5' wide rather than 6' wide in this location. 11. Where are the standards for one-way shared -use paths coming from? In discussions with VDOT, it does not appear that VDOT has standards for one-way shared -use paths. 12. Self -storage is not an appropriate use for the Community Mixed -Use land use designation. Light warehousing, as it is also known as, is not a listed use that is recommended within the Community Mixed -Use part of the Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan, page 33. 13. Please be advised that site plans and VSMP plans, as well as subdivision plats, are required for townhouse -style, attached single-family developments. 14. The following language was provided by Stacy Pethia, the County's Housing Planner, to provide more clarity on the affordable housing note on sheet 2, in line with the County's housing policies: "The first and last sentences of note #1 are fine, but sentence #2 should be replaced with: The units will rent at a rate set by the Albemarle County Community Development Department so that rent payments, less the cost of tenant provided utilities, are affordable for households with incomes no greater than 80% of area median income, as determined annually by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)." Planning - Transportation Comments pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt. County Transportation Planner, Kevin McDermott, kmcdermottkalbemarle.org. Zoning Division, Community Development Department Please see the attached comments from Kevin McCollum, kmccollum(a,albemarle.org. Engineering & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department Please see the attached comments from the County Engineer, Frank Pohl, fpohIgalbemarle.org. Virginia Department of Transportation Comments pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by County staff. VDOT contact — Adam Moore, adam.mooregvdot.vir inia.gov. Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) Please see the attached comments from Margaret Maliszewski, staff planner for the ARB, mmaliszewskigalbemarle.org. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit to address the comments and concerns noted above, please use the attached form. There will be a fee for the next submittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience online at: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/Community Development/forms/schedules /Special_ Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.pdf Notification and Advertisement Fees It appears the notification fee has been paid. 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 areitelbachgalbemarle.org, and my phone number is 434-296-5832 ext. 3261. Sincerely, Andy Reitelbach Senior Planner Planning Division, Department of Community Development enc: 1. Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Form 2. Review Comments from the Zoning Division 3. Review Comments from the Engineering Division 4. Review Comments from the Architectural Review Board FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# Bv: Resubmittal of information for k» Zoning Map Amendment .N PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED: ZMA2019-00003 Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser Print Name FEES that may apply: Date Daytime phone number of Signatory ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request $194 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,688 ❑ First resubmission FREE ® Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $1,344 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $1,881 To be Daid after staff review for Dublic notice: Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $215 + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.08 for each additional notice + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (averages between $150 and $250) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 Revised 11/02/2015 Page 1 of 1 Review Comments for ZMA201900003 Project Name: ROYAL FERN Date Completed: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 DepartmentJDivision/Agency: Review Status: Reviewer Kevin Mccollum ILI rnn 7nninn See Recommendations 1- Proposed Proffers to Address Impacts — Sheet 3- The sentence "The application plan is also proffered with this rezoning request-" is not needed as the application plan will become part of the zoning of the property and therefore this sentence is redundant and unnecessary- - Make sure all the dates on the proffer statement and application plan are correct including any revision dates and Zoning Ordinance dates. 3. Clean up the map legends on Sheets 6-9 of the Application Plan so that the scale of the legend matches what is shown on the maps. Review Comments for ZMA201900003 Project Name: ROYAL FERN Date Completed: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status: Reviewer Frank Pohl nn Fnnin rinn No Objection Review Comments for ZMA201900003 Project Name: ROYAL FERN Date Completed: Sunday, August 25, 2019 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status: Reviewer Margaret Maliszewski El r-nn APR Requested Changes 1 _ The previous concern about the potential difficulty of designing a storage building with an appropriate appearance for the EC stands_ The applicant has indicated that they will look to precedents of approved self -storage facilities along the EC - Architecture within the E s is intended to relate to the immediate context, so previous approvals aren't necessarily relevant_ _ The street section on 5th Street includes no trees_ Street trees are required_