HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201900001 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2019-12-06CL01 Alii�rf
.-..
kr .�
�IRGi�1�'
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
To:
Nicole Scro
From:
Tori Kanellopoulos - Planner
Division:
Planning Services
Date:
December 6, 2019
Subject:
ZMA201900001 — 999 Rio Road
The following are recommended revisions and advisory comments to the November 18, 2019
resubmittal of ZMA201900001. All application materials (including a revised Code of
Development and Application Plan, based on the recommended changes below) must be
received no later than Monday, December 16, 2019, in order to keep the Planning Commission
public hearing date of January 14, 2020.
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.
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.
c. Reference to "parking structure" as an allowed use in the COD should be
removed. No multi -story parking is proposed for this site.
2. Lot and Building Regulations:
a. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
b. Add a note in the COD to Table D that "Any primary residential structures in
Block 1 shall face Belvedere Boulevard", or a similar note. This is to ensure that
residential units in Block 1 face the street, and not inward.
c. 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.
E
LOW PANT - \— BRO PAYERS
PERMEABLE PAVERS SEE DETAIL 2/C19
SEE DETAIL 3/010 e
1 RIVERWALK KING CROSS SECTION
\. LI J SME: 1 "=1 a' — —
i.
d. 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).
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.
TMP 61-154B
10'-"ubmilted 19 February 2019
i MINIMUM SETBACK Revised 29 April 2019
Revised 26 July 2019
REVISED 18 NOVEMBER 2019