Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201900001 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2019-12-10December 16, 2019 Tori Kanellopoulos County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: ZMA-2019-00001 999 Rio Road — Response to December 6, 2019 Staff Comment Letter Dear Tori: Below are our responses to the December 6, 2019 Staff Comment Letter. The staff comments are noted in grey and the applicant responses are noted in black. 1. Parking: a. There appears to be sufficient parking spaces for the potential uses in this application. The applicant will need to determine the final amount/mixture of uses and unit types, and consider any space constraints for parking, at the site planning stage. The applicant may also apply for parking reduction requests during site planning. Noted. b. Given the change in unit type in building locations in Block 1, stand-alone parking should be allowed BR in both Blocks. There may be shared parking needed for townhouse guest parking and parking for the office space. The final lot lines can be determined with the site plan, however the stand-alone parking will allow more flexibility in the design. The COD has been revised to allow stand-alone parking in both Blocks 1 and 2. c. Reference to "parking structure" as an allowed use in the COD should be removed. No multi -story parking is proposed for this site. Reference to parking structures as an allowable use has been removed. The Applicant does not intend to construct any parking structures on the Property. 2. Lot and Building Regulations: There must be a maximum front setback in Block 1. This may be 40-45', as originally proposed, given the feedback that the commercial building be set back further from the road. However, there should still be a maximum setback, to ensure that the general design and layout is still kept. The maximum front setback in Block 1 has been revised from "None." to "50'." b. Remove the rows of "Allowable Gross Building SF" and "Maximum Building Footprint SF", as there are no regulations for these on Page 4 of the COD. The Lot Size row can be kept, as this is a standard regulation, and this makes it clear that there is no min/max. "Allowable Gross Building SF" and "Maximum Building Footprint SF" have been removed from the COD. 3. Uses: a. In the Code of Development, add a line for "Retail Store — Furniture" as a BR use in Block 1 and Not Permitted in Block 2. Note #2 for Table A should be kept, and this line should be added, to make it clear that Furniture Stores are allowed BR in Block 1. A line for "Retail — Furniture Store" has been added to the Allowable Uses table of the COD. This line is listed as `BR" (by -right) in Block 1, and "N" (not permitted) in Block 2. The Note referencing the fact that while retail generally is prohibited in both Blocks 1 and 2, a "Retail — Furniture Store" is allowed in Block 1 has been retained. b. Note that the only retail use allowed for this development, based on this COD, is a furniture store. Any future retail uses would only be allowed with another rezoning (ZMA) to change the COD to allow additional retail uses. Noted. This was intentional. 4. Green and Amenity space: a. Add the following note to Sheet 6 of the Application Plan: "There will be a minimum of 20 percent green and amenity space." This can be added to the existing note at the bottom of the page. The 20 percent requirement should be clearly stated. The above note has been added to Sheet 6 of the Application Plan. Thank you for ensuring that the twenty percent (20%) requirement is clearly stated. b. The Outdoor Plaza is listed in Table C of the COD, but is not shown on Sheet 6 of the application plan (green/amenity space). Please clarify if an outdoor plaza is being provided. It should either be referenced in both the COD and application plan, or the reference should be removed. All greenspace/amenity elements described in the COD must be ultimately included during the site planning stage, even if the location or size slightly changes. 2 Table C of the COD has been revised to state "Courtyard" rather than "Outdoor Plaza" so that the COD and Application Plan are consistent. An Outdoor Plaza may be constructed but it will depend on the eventual tenant of the commercial building proposed on the Property. c. Add the following note to Page 3 of the COD: "Signage shall be provided to prohibit vehicular traffic on the private street in Block 2, except for emergency vehicles." The above note has been added to the COD. However, the ability to construct bollards instead has also been added. The note reads, "Signage shall be provided to prohibit vehicular traffic on the private street in Block 2, except for emergency vehicles; or, bollards shall be installed." 5. Frontage: a. Zoning Ordinance definition of Frontage: "Frontage" means the continuous uninterrupted distance along which a parcel abuts a single adjacent road or street. Add a note in the COD to Table D that "Any primary residential structures in Block I shall face Belvedere Boulevard", or a similar note. This is to ensure that residential units in Block 1 face the street, and not inward. The above note has been added to the COD. b. All lots must have frontage on a street. In Block 2, the lots must have frontage with the ROW of the private street/amenity area. Therefore, the front of each lot must abut the private street ROW. Consider where the ROW would be located — it may also include the sidewalk. Below is an example diagram from Riverside Village, showing the setback measured from the ROW. L L0i Pa-NT1 LOWP9V{T BRD PAMS PERMEABLE PAVERS SEE DUAIL 2/C10 SEE DETAIL 3/C10 r3 RIVERWALK XING CROSS SECTION CIO SCALE: 1"=10' - - If lots in Block 2 abut both the private street ROW and Belvedere Blvd, they may be considered double frontage, and require some additional screening at the rear of the property (agent approved). 3 Understood. We believe the rear screening would be beneficial to both the residents of Block 2 and those driving along Belvedere Boulevard. However, this comment did make us reconsider the maximum allowable front setback (i.e. the distance from this right-of-way and the small homes facing such right-of-way). We revised the maximum allowable front setback from 15' to 40' to accommodate how the private street may be off -center and therefore a further distance from some of the homes versus others (see enclosed Illustrative Plan). 6. Street Sections: a. Remove "minimum setback" reference or add a note: "Minimum setback shall be per the Code of Development. Setback here is conceptual only." It appears that the minimum setback shown for the street sections does not line up with the COD. If a setback is going to be shown for the Conceptual Street Sections, it should match the COD requirement. -' TM 61-154B 10' �yubmitted 19 February 2019 i MINIMUM SETBACK Revised 29 April 2019 Revised 26 July 2019 REVISED 18 NOVEMBER 2019 The above note has been added to the Application Plan. Thank you again for the opportunity to clarify uncertainties and address concerns. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Nicole Scro 4