Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201900004 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2020-04-27COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 April 27, 2020 Mr. Charlie Armstrong — Southern Development 142 South Pantops Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22911 CharlesAgsouthern-development.com / (434)-245-0895 Mr. Don Franco, P.E. — Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc. 914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902 DFranco(aroudabush.com / (434)-977-0205 RE: Review Comment Letter #3 / ZMA-2019-00004 (Breezy Hill) Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Franco: Members of Albemarle County staff and our partner agencies have reviewed your application materials (as revised and resubmitted on March 2, 2020) for Zoning Map Amendment ZMA-2019-00004, which is a request to rezone a total of approximately 84 acres from Rural Areas zoning district (which allows residential uses at a density of 0.5 unit/acre) to R4 Residential (which allows residential density of 4 units/acre, with the potential for additional units if bonus factors are applied), with proffers. You requested to go straight to the Planning Commission after your submittal in March, however, I wanted to provide the updated comments to you since the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the timeline for the public hearing at the Planning Commission. This letter will only include those comments that are outstanding concerns. As always, CDD staff remain available to provide assistance and discuss this comment letter, and/or any other aspect(s) of your application, at your request. Thank you. Respectfully, Megan Nedostup, AICP Principal Planner I Community Development Department I Planning Division Page 1 of 4 CDD—Planning Growth Capacity and Transportation (Kevin McDermott): 1. Discussions with Jaunt regarding the potential for effective transit service in this corridor over the next ten years have resulted in a determination that it is unlikely transit service could be effectively delivered for the proposed funding. There is little capacity for non -local funds to be matched with the proposed $50K and the cost of service would be much higher than $50k/year. Demand for service in this corridor is also currently very low and low residential density makes it very difficult to deliver convenient service. 2. The traffic impacts of the proposed development, with the proposed proffer, are minimal, although additional traffic will be added to the already congested corridor of US 250. Funded improvements such as the diverging diamond at Exit 124 and intersection improvements at US 250 and Rt 20 (Stoney Point Rd) will be complete by the time this development reaches build - out and should result in an overall improvement from current conditions in the corridor. Other recommended improvements will remain incomplete for the foreseeable future. This includes various capacity and safety improvements on US 250 between the Charlottesville City Line and Black Cat Rd which will be impacted by traffic generated by the proposed development. The proffered signal upgrades essentially result in no additional negative traffic impacts from the proposed development at the intersections of US 250 and Rt 22 and Milton Rd. The VOR Master Plan is clear in its statement that `It is essential that all of the US 250 improvements be constructed before new development occurs. " The Master Plan directive should continue to be considered even if the specific impact from this proposed development is minimal. Density: 3. The proposed number of dwelling units (160) and subsequent density (1.9 units/acre gross density; 2.5 units/acre net density) exceed the recommended density as articulated in the Village of Rivanna Master Plan, and as recommended by the Planning Commission at the July 30, 2019 PC Work Session. Concept Plan: 4. Notes regarding the special exceptions should be removed from the concept plan. These are separate actions. 5. The standard for the multi -use trail has not been identified or has a commitment been made for the standard of the trail. This trail should be a Class -A type 2 standard per the engineering design standards manual. In addition, it does not appear that there is adequate room outside of the right of way for this trail combined with the enhanced landscaping/treatment recommended in comment f below to address the impact of the stormwater management facility. 6. The roads have not been identified as public or private. A note should be added to the plan to identify the classification. If private roads are proposed, a private street request should be made in accordance with Section 14-233 and 14-234 of the subdivision ordinance. 7. There are areas within the designated blocks that contain preserved slopes. Lots should not contain environmental features such as preserved slopes. A commitment should be made the blocks and lots will be outside of preserved slopes and other environmental features such as flood plain and stream buffers. Page 2 of 4 8. Similarly, as above, a commitment has not been made to not allow grading within the stream buffer. Grading should be outside of buffer areas. 9. A commitment has not been made for the enhanced landscaping for the stormwater management facility proposed along Route 250. Information should be provided as to how the stormwater management facility will be visually mitigated as recommended in the December 18, 2019 comment letter. It does not appear that there is adequate room outside of the right of way for landscaping. 10. The proposed possible driveway for Block 6 across preserved slopes should be removed. This is not a permitted use per the ordinance. A special use permit will be required if a driveway is needed in this location. 11. The location of the entrance should be shifted to not impact the preserved slopes. This should be explored, and information should be provided to demonstrate that the preserved slopes must be impacted per the ordinance section below. Necessary public facilities . Public facilities necessary to allow the use of the lot, provided that the lot does not contain adequate land area outside of the preserved slopes to locate the public facilities and one or more of the following exist: (i) the land disturbing activity avoids impacts on other protected resources such as stream buffers or floodplain; (ii) the alignment of the public facilities is consistent with the alignment of public facilities depicted or described in the comprehensive plan; (iii) the disturbance is necessary to provide interconnection required by the Code or the applicable regulations of other public entities; or (iv) prohibiting the facilities from being located on preserved slopes will cause an unnecessary hardship. To the extent that public facilities are established on preserved slopes, the preserved slopes should be preserved to the maximum extent practicable consistent with the intent and purpose of this overlay district. Sidewalk, planting strip, and curb and gutter requests: 12. I listened to the podcast concerning rural section roads, and while one commissioner was in favor of possibly reducing pavement and not providing curb and gutter, a consensus was not made on these requests or the rural cross section. In addition, staff advised the Commission that while some of these improvements may be waived, that an equivalent pedestrian and drainage system should be provided. Staff does not agree that the proposed primitive trails are equivalent to sidewalks and provide adequate pedestrian access in the development, and therefore staff is unable to support these requests. See also comments from Engineering below. In addition, if the roads are public, VDOT requires sidewalks in the following circumstances: - If lots are less than 1/4 acre, sidewalks are required on both sides of the street with over 400 ADT. - If lots are between 1/4 acre and '/2 acre, sidewalks are required on one side of the street with over 400 ADT. - If lots are over '/2 acre then sidewalks are not required. Albemarle County Schools (Rosalyn Schmitt): 1. Schools (Rosalyn Schmitt): Regarding this proposed project's potential impacts to Albemarle County Public Schools, CDD-Planning staff have coordinated with ACPS staff. The following Page 3 of 4 comments and analysis (below), including concerns about building capacity at Stone -Robinson Elementary School, are derived from that coordination: The proposal includes a maximum of 160 new dwelling units. The subject property is within the Southern Feeder Pattern, and residents of the proposed Breezy Hill neighborhood would attend Stone -Robinson Elementary School, Burley Middle School, and Monticello High School. Burley Middle School and Monticello High School both have adequate capacity to accommodate additional students. However, Stone Robinson Elementary is projected to be at its building capacity by the 2021/22 school year which will make accommodating additional students difficult. Comment from Rosalyn Schmitt on Response: First, the applicant's analysis from the 2019 LRPAC report is accurate. However, since that report was finalized, we enrolled an additional 70 students this school year at Stone Robinson, 60 more than we anticipated. This unexpected increase was mostly from new development and have influenced our updated enrollment projections which we conducted in the fall. Here is the latest data: http://esb.kl2albemarle.org/attachments/f4e47Ob2-052b-456c-82b6- fle8aOd2fb3c.ydf. Please note, we have modified how we are illustrating pre-k figures. They are now reduced on both the enrollment and the capacity side of the calculations. So total enrollment and building capacities may look widely different from previous versions, but the net difference (capacity conflicts) are calculated the same as previous versions. Second, he mentions using census data to calculate student yield. The yield rates we previously submitted are based on a detailed comparison of the county's real estate records as compared to student addresses. We never received data about the type of dwelling unit, but with that information our methodology would be more accurate than the one he has proposed. Proffers: Zoning Comments (Francis MacCall)- See Attached Comments Albemarle County Engineering (Frank Pohl): 1. A flood study will be required to determine the limits of floodway and base flood elevation (BFE) prior to VSMP, subdivision or site plan approval [18-30.3.13(C)I]. Note that the study will need to be submitted to FEMA for review and the map must be updated. It is recommended this process is started as soon as possible as a'map correction based on more accurate data submission. 2. Documentation that existing ponds meet current SWM construction standards will be required during VSMP review. 3. It is recommended that all SWM treatment will be provided on site. A commitment should be made to address this comment. 4. It is recommended that 2-layer ESC measures are provided along Carroll Creek side of the project. A commitment should be made to address this comment. 5. It is recommended that no ESC measures will be located within the 100-ft stream buffer. A commitment should be made to address this comment. 6. The application includes a request to waive curb and gutter. How will road drainage be routed to the existing wet ponds without inlets and piping? 7. I am concerned SWM facilities will be proposed after the rezoning in locations not shown on the application plan (e.g. in the stream buffer). Page 4 of 4 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Megan Nedostup From: Francis MacCall Division: Zoning Date: 04/03/2019 Subject: Review Comments for ZMA2019-00004 Breezy Hill The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above -noted application. 1. General Development Plan a. Retitle the plan to BREEZY HILL REZONING CONCEPT PLAN b. The front page references GREE SPACE as stream buffer, floodplain, preserved steep slopes, open space, and recreation areas. • Is the recreation areas, the pocket park and trails? If so, describe it as such or list pocket park and trails specifically. c. As pages 3 and 4 appear to be the pages that will be relied on as the concept plan they should be identical when it comes to the areas that are the green space per the description on Page 1. The physical area appears to be the same, but the references on both pages are mixed. Page 3 shows open space, pocket parks and trails, and Page 4 shows does not reference the pocket park. d. On sheet 3 in the legend there is reference to the Blocks sizes as being approximate and being allowed to be varied by up to 15%. 15% of what? I do not believe we are able to calculate 15% of an approximate size that has not even been listed. e. There does not appear to be an actual Block Boundary shown on Sheet 4 of 5 even though the key references one. 2. Proffers a. Proffer #1 should be titled Concept Plan and should be worded as follows: The Property shall be developed in general accord with the plans titled "Breezy Hill Rezoning Concept Plan (the Zoning Review Comments for ZMA201900004 "concept plan"), prepared by , dated , and last revised and shall reflect the following major elements as shown and noted on the plans: . ??? . ??? • Etc. b. For b) The plan shows the Emergency access with a note EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY (TO OPEN PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE 31ST BUILDING PERMIT) Suggested revision "Emergency vehicle access point at Running Deer Drive; the access is to be installed prior to the issuance of the 31st building permit. • Will there be a commitment to not use the emergency vehicle access as a construction entrance? If so, incorporate that into this portion of the proffer. c. For c) Make sure the language on the plan reflects this language so that it is clear when review of development occurs. d. For d) Road Typologies - what does this mean, Is this the "Typical Section" on sheet 1? If so, specify, so there does not have to be an interpretation of what a typology means. e. For f) Clarify what trail, multi -use path and pedestrian path typologies mean. Is this the trail specification note on sheet 1 or is there more? If so, specify, so there does not have to be an interpretation of what a typology means. f. For g) Does buffer mean stream buffer? If so, revise to say stream buffer g. For h) The plan should reference the density in units per acre. The plan only notes the total number of lots.