HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202000007 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2020-07-23COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434) 296-5832 Fax (434)972-4176
July 2, 2020
Ms. Valerie Long
Williams Mullen
321 E. Main St., Suite 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902
vlong@williamsmullen.com / 434-951-5709
RE: ZMA202000007 RST Residences
Dear Ms. Long:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA202000007, RST Residences. 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.
Review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. Our comments are provided below:
Planning — General ZMA Comments
1. It appears that the only frontage for this property is from U.S. Route 29, Seminole Trail. How does the applicant
intend to reach the subject property from Ashwood Boulevard, including the construction of the proposed
entrance? There is a parcel of land owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia located between the Ashwood Blvd.
public right-of-way and TMP 46-109. The applicant will need to either own that land or otherwise have an
easement or some other right of access for the proposed entrance to cross that parcel, as this parcel is not a part of
the right-of-way. Staff has found a deed that appears to apply to that parcel, TMP 46135-1D (see attached deed),
which also includes additional restrictions and conditions on the use of that property. Also, note that TMP 46135-
1D is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, and may be subject to an application plan.
2. ZO 18-19.7: In the PRD zoning district, any building over 40 feet in height or three stories, whichever is less,
requires a stepback of 15 feet, as provided in 18-4.19. The "two -over -two" townhouse units are described as being
four stories in height. These units will require a stepback of 15 feet, or a special exception request will need to be
submitted to waive or modify that requirement.
3. Provide more information on the design of the "two -over -two" townhouse units. The narrative says that these
units contain garages for each unit. Does each individual unit, the top unit and the bottom unit, have its own
garage space? In addition, is the garage its own story/level of the building? Or is the bottom unit's kitchen and
living room on the same level as the garages?
4. ZO 18-19.6.2/ ZO 18-4.16: Provide more information on the recreational facilities proposed to be included in this
development. Recreation requirements mandate a minimum of 200 square feet be provided per dwelling unit.
With 370 units proposed, 74,000 sq. ft. of recreational space is required. It does not appear that this requirement is
met with the amenity space shown on the application plan.
a. Separate out the calculations of the proposed recreational space from the other open space areas, such as
the vegetative buffers, so it is more clear what amenities and open space are being provided and where
(there can be some overlap), and to ensure there is space to accommodate the minimum 25% required.
b. Identify the locations of the required recreational facilities. The proposed amenity spaces do not appear
large enough to accommodate these facilities. According to 18-4.16.2, a minimum of eight tot lots of at
least 2,000 sq. ft. each is required and a minimum of four %-court basketball pads of 30 ft. by 30 ft. each
is required.
c. Submit substitution requests if other facilities are desired so that staff can evaluate to ensure adequate
facilities are provided.
5. Provide the acreage of the cemetery delineated on the property. Is the cemetery a separate parcel?
6. Depict the Managed Steep Slopes across all sheets of the application plan. Managed Slopes are a zoning district,
and staff needs to have a clear understanding of their location in order to adequately review the plan, as there are
design requirements for areas of managed slopes. See ZO 18-30.7.
7. It is indicated that the proposed "two -over -two" units will be sold as condos. Be aware of ZO 18-4.5 for
requirements regarding condominiums.
8. Is there any proposed subdivision that will occur with this development? Any lots created by subdivision will
need to meet the requirements of ZO 18-4.6 and the Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 14.
It is likely that a boundary line adjustment (BLA) plat would be needed to vacate the property line between TMPs
46-108 and 46-109. (This vacation is not required at the rezoning stage but is something to be aware of at the site
planning stage if the zoning map amendment is approved.)
9. Is the open and amenity space proposed to be privately owned (such as by an HOA) or dedicated to public use?
10. Remove the parking and building envelopes from the areas of preserved steep slopes on the application plan
sheets. Preserved steep slopes cannot be disturbed.
In addition, several of the retaining walls and associated grading appear to be very close, or even directly adjacent
to, areas of preserved steep slopes. These retaining walls need to be of a sufficient distance away from the
preserved steep slopes so that the slopes are not disturbed during grading activities. It appears that several parking
lot areas will need to be moved farther away from the preserved steep slope areas.
11. Private streets in the development areas require private street requests to be submitted. Public streets are preferred
in the development areas of the County.
12. There is a lack of pedestrian orientation across the whole development. Sidewalks and planting strips should be
provided along both sides of all streets of the development. Safety features such as crosswalks should also be
provided.
13. What do the labels and line Land Bay 1 and Land Bay 2 stand for? Is this line separating the parking that is
provided for the multi -family units vs. the two -over -two units?
14. The parking areas must meet the requirements of ZO 18-4.12. Parking design and the number of parking spaces
will be determined at the site plan stage, if the zoning map amendment is approved, based on the final designation
of uses and number of units.
15. How will waste management be addressed at this development? Is it only the proposed trash compactor?
16. ZO 18-19.4: Provide in the project narrative and on the application plan both the gross density and the net density
for this project. It appears that only the gross density has been provided. Without the net density, staff cannot
adequately determine if this proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the Urban Density Residential
land use designation and the Places29 Master Plan.
17. Identify the structure that is being provided in the central amenity area. Also, how is this amenity area proposed to
be accessed? It appears to surrounded by Building I on two sides, and a terraced retaining wall on the third side.
This retaining wall appears to create a significant barrier to access of that amenity area.
18. Clarify whether the proposed entrance from Ashwood Blvd. aligns with the Brookhill entrance across the street.
These entrances would need to align with one another.
19. Has a Phase I environmental impact statement been done on this property previously?
20. Revise sheet 2 of the Project Narrative. The property designated for Institutional uses appears to be owned by the
County. There may be some confusion between this parcel and the parcel directly adjacent to the subject parcels,
which is owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
21. In the project narrative, on sheet 5, provide more clarification on how the project would improve the public road
network, as all of the streets in the development are currently proposed to be private streets. As private streets,
there is the potential to block them off, preventing their use as a connection by the general public. No new public
street connections are shown on the application plan for this project.
22. Sheet 5 of the narrative states that the project is designed to avoid encroachment on preserved slopes. However,
there are several locations on the application plan where the building/parking envelopes are shown to be
overlapping areas of preserved slopes, as well as retaining walls that are abutting those slopes, indicating that
there would be some disturbance.
23. On sheet 5 of the narrative, provide more detail on the "variety of recreational and other amentities" available for
use," as no amenities are identified on the application plan other than a few small areas of green space. (See also
comment #4 above.)
24. On sheet 6 of the project narrative, provide more information on the expected number of students to be generated
by this proposed development. 370 dwelling units is a significant number of units that could produce many
additional students. Both Hollymead Elementary and Albemarle High are currently over -capacity.
25. On the cover sheet of the application plan:
a. Provide the application number — ZMA2020-00007
b. Provide the tax map numbers in the center of the sheet, or remove that heading.
c. In the "Total Residential Units," provide a maximum, minimum, or range of proposed units, so that staff
can accurately calculate the proposed density of the site. +/- does not provide enough level of certainty for
density calculations. Providing a range is fine if the final number of proposed units has not been
determined at this time.
d. Where is the required amount of 700 parking spaces coming from? Parking space counts are based on the
number of bedrooms per unit, and it does not appear that that information is provided on the cover sheet —
only a rough estimate of the total number of units.
e. In the "Steep Slopes" note, indicate that Managed Slopes are also present.
f. Provide both gross and net density of the proposed project.
26. On the application plan, show the existing multi -use paths. Also, why is there a proposed pedestrian connection
path shown along the 29 frontage of the property? Isn't there already a multi -use path existing in that location?
27. In note #6 on sheet 3 of the application plan, it is mentioned that "garage units may be installed in parking
areas... " Provide more information on what it means by "garage units"? Would these garages be separate
structures from the dwelling units they serve? If so, a special use permit may be required.
28. Ensure the retaining walls do not disturb the cemetery location. In addition, the pedestrian connection to the
cemetery does not appear to connect to anything on the other end.
29. Is any type of barrier or blockade proposed to be put up to prevent residents from using the Ridgewood Drive
entrance off of U.S. 29? The plan depicts the parking lot continuing to connect to that remnant drive, allowing for
an additional access to 29.
30. The cross-section #3 on sheet 5 does not match what is shown on sheet 4. The cross-section indicates that there is
130' +/- from the residential units to the Ashwood Blvd. pavement. When measuring on sheet 4, that same area is
approximately only 115' from unit to pavement. Clarify the discrepancies.
31. There are no dimensions provided in the two bottom cross -sections on sheet 5.
32. What is the oval -shaped area of grading located within the vegetative buffer directly to the north of the Seminole
Trail entrance to the site?
33. A community meeting has not yet been held for this rezoning application, although one is scheduled for Monday,
July 20, 2020. Please be advised that additional comments may arise based on discussion that occurs at this
meeting. Community input is taken into consideration by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
Plannin¢ — Special Exception Application Comments
1. The request for a special exception for the stepback requirements indicates that the building for which the
stepback waiver is being requested (Building 1) is above the 40-foot height limit where stepbacks are required.
However, it does not say how tall Building 1 is proposed to be or how many stories are proposed? Provide this
information so that staff has a better understanding of the proposed building's height and how much of a stepback
waiver is being requested.
2. A special exception request is also required to be submitted for the proposed "two -over -two" units, as it is
indicated that they are four stories, if a stepback is not provided for those structures.
Comprehensive Plan
Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided below. Comments on
conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of
the staff report.
1. These properties are designated as Urban Density Residential in the Places29 Master Plan, which recommends a
maximum building height of four stories or 45 feet. The requested zoning district of PRD, Planned Residential
Development, permits a maximum height of 65 feet, which is not consistent with the Master Plan
recommendations. Also, Building 1 at the center of the property, appears to be five stories in height according to
the architectural renderings provided. This proposed height is in excess of what is recommended in the Master
Plan.
2. Pedestrian orientation is a Neighborhood Model principle and the Master Plan notes (on page 7-2) that "all streets
in the Places29 area are expected to have a sidewalk or pedestrian path on both sides of the street, except where it
is not physically possible to do so. Separation between the pedestrian path or sidewalk and the street will be
provided by planting strips, either grassy strips with trees or paved areas with trees in grates."
3. Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that affordable housing units be both for -rent and for -sale,
along with a variety of housing types provided at different price points. Clarify whether the proposed 15%
affordable housing will include both rental and for -sale units, or rental units only. The narrative and the
application plan should match. It is my understanding that if the affordable housing applies only to the for -rent
units, then only the multi -family units in this development would fall under that category, as the "two -over -twos"
are proposed to be for -sale condo units.
4. This project, with 370 dwelling units proposed, will likely generate significant impacts on the surrounding area,
including on facilities such as transportation infrastructure and schools. This project is not in a priority area of the
Places29 Master Plan and is evaluated using the criteria identified on page 8-8 of the Master Plan (in Chapter 8).
Neighborhood Model
Projects located within the Development Areas are typically reviewed for consistency with each of the Neighborhood
Model Principles found in the Comprehensive Plan. Comments are provided (see attached document Consistency with
Neighborhood Model) on relevant aspects of the Neighborhood Model principles.
Planning Division — Transportation
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Daniel Butch, Transportation Senior Planner,
dbutch@albemarle.org:
Provide potential connections (by reserving right -of -row for pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicular per Places29 Master Plan)
extending north/northeast of property via Potential Fire Access or Land Bay 1/ Land Bay 2. See Future Land Use North
map.
Reminder to obtain entrance easement on Ashwood Blvd from TMP 46135-1D for proposed pedestrian and vehicular
entrance directly adjacent to proposed ZMA201500007 entrance to Ashwood Blvd.
In addition to providing the proposed pedestrian connection paths, visually provide existing shared -use paths on Rt 29 and
on Ashwood Blvd from Forest Lakes South Townhomes to illustrate existing and proposed pedestrian network
connections being made.
Planning Division — Architectural Review Board (ARB)
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski, ARB Staff Planner (Chief
of Resource Planning), mmaliszewski@albemarle.org:
1. A 100' buffer is illustrated along Rt. 29 on the Application Plan. The project narrative references 20' and 30' buffers as
per the Places 29 frontage requirements. Please clarify.
2. The project narrative states that a fence will be provided around the cemetery. Note this on the application plan. The
design of the fence will be subject to ARB review; chain link will not be appropriate. The cemetery will need to be
delineated and the boundaries marked and protected before any construction or grading begins. This should be noted on
the application plan. The proximity of the trash compactor to the cemetery does not establish a suitable setting for the
cemetery. Shift the compactor to a location away from the cemetery. A cemetery mark at the pedestrian entrance to the
cemetery would be appropriate.
3. A stormwater management facility is located in the buffer along the EC. This will need to be designed to appear fully
integrated into the landscape.
4. Sufficient space must be provided to allow terracing and planting of all retaining walls 6' tall and taller. Confirm that
this can be done with the current site layout or revise the layout accordingly.
5. Some retaining walls are currently shown abutting parking spaces. Planting bed widths sufficient to accommodate large
shade trees along the perimeters of all parking rows will be required. Confirm that this can be done with the current site
layout or revise the layout accordingly.
6. The Places29 plan calls for a mix of forested buffer and landscaped development frontage. Given the surrounding
conditions, a consistent forested buffer frontage is appropriate for the entire frontage of this development. Please revise
the plan and narrative accordingly.
7. Explain the reason for the speed bump near the pedestrian entrance to the cemetery.
Zoning Division, Community Development Department
Please see the attached memorandum with comments from Zoning reviewer Francis MacCall, Principal Planner,
fmaccall(a),albemarle.ore.
Engineering & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by the County Engineer, Frank Pohl,
fpohl@albemarle.org:
- Applicant must provide justification for private streets when located in a development area [14-233 and 14-234].
- Maintenance agreements and easements are required for retaining walls that cross property lines [Bldg Division].
- Water quantity requirements (1) Channel protection— Energy balance required if discharging to natural stormwater
conveyance system [9VAC25-870-66.B]. (2) Flood protection — 2-yr and 10-yr requirements [9VAC25-870-66.C].
- Stormwater inlets cannot be located in travel lanes [VDOT standards].
- Preserved and Managed Slopes are identified on the site. (1) Preserved Slopes — applicant proposes no impacts to
preserved slopes. Ensure walls can be constructed without impacting preserved slopes. Wall design will be requested with
VSMP plans to include footing design, actual wall thickness, geogrid (if needed), and wall batter. (2) Managed slopes — It
is hard to tell if managed slopes are shown on the application. Show managed slopes on plan.
E911 (Geographic Data Services) Division, Community Development Department
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Brian Becker, GIS Specialist,
bbecker&albemarle.org:
Critical Issues: The five proposed private roads will each require road names.
Comments: The private roads designated will require road names, per the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property
Numbering Ordinance, Sec. 7-200, Part B (page 2 of the PDF):
"It is intended by this article that all roads within the county which serve or are designed to serve three (3) or more
dwelling units or business structures shall be named..."
Please provide this office at least three alternative road names for the each of the proposed roads for review, in case your
first choices are not acceptable. The Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory can be accessed at the link in the
Resources section.
Resources
A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here:
https://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Geographic_Data—Services/Forms/Road Naming_
and _Property Numbering_Ordinance_and Manual.pdf
Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory: http://www.albemarle.org/albemarle/upload/imagestwebapps/roads/.
Building Inspections Division, Community Development Department
No objection at this time; please see the comments below. Michael Dellinger, Building Official,
mdellinger@albemarle.org.
Any comments regarding the site plan will be made during that review, as will bldg. Other than this no objection.
Housing Division, Community Development Department
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Stacy Pethia, Principal Planner for Housing,
spethia@albemarle.org:
1. Page 6 — Affordable Housing: Legal wants the following language (or something similar) used for affordable
housing to comply with our zoning code:
3. For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Units.
a. Rental Rates. The net rent for each rental housing unit which shall qualify as an Affordable Dwelling Unit ("For -
Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit") shall not exceed HUD's affordability standard of thirty percent (30%) of the
income of a household making eighty percent (80%) of the area median income (as determined by HUD from time
to time). In each subsequent calendar year, the monthly net rent for each For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit may
be increased up to three percent (3%). The term "net rent" means that the rent does not include tenant -paid utilities
or Homeowners Association fees. The requirement that the rents for such For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Units may
not exceed the maximum rents established in this Section shall apply for a
period of ten (10) years following the date the certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for each For -Rent
Affordable Dwelling Unit, or until the units are sold as low or moderate cost units qualifying as such under either
the VHDA, Farmers Home Administration, or Housing and Urban Development,
Section 8, whichever comes first (the "Affordable Term").
2. The developer will need to provide a written plan for how they will assist current residents with relocation. This
should be referenced in the narrative on page 6 Anti -displacement Policy.
Albemarle County Fire -Rescue
Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. Shawn Maddox, Fire & Rescue
plans reviewer, smaddox&albemarle.org.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Please see the attached memorandum with comments from ACSA plans reviewer, Richard Nelson,
melson&serviceauthority.org.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. VDOT contact — Adam Moore,
adam.mooreCc�r�,vdot.vir ig nia.gov.
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA)
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Dyon Vega, Civil Engineer, dvegarivanna.org:
To be filled out by RWSA for ZMA's and SP's
1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal Requires flow acceptance
2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification X-Yes No
3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known
4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter,"
which is attached.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date
schedule is provided for your convenience online at:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/imagestforms_center/departments/Community_Development/forms/schedules/Special_
Use_Permit_& Zoning_Map_Amendment_Schedule.pdf
Notification and Advertisement Fees
It appears that the Public Notice Requirement fees have already been paid for this application.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place in which 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
areitelbach&albemarle.org, and my phone number is 434-296-5832 ext. 3261.
Sincerely,
Andy Reitelbach
Senior Planner
Planning Division, Department of Community Development
enc: Deed for Commonwealth of Virginia Property
Consistency with Neighborhood Model
Memorandum from Francis MacCall, Zoning Division
Memorandum from Albemarle County Service Authority
ZMA2020-00007 Action After Receipt of Comments
Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Form
OK2063PGO665
TAX 113#46W5 I -AI
PREPARED BY VDOT
UNDER SUPERVISION OF THE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Exempted from recordation taxes
and fees under Sections 58.1-81 l (Ax3),
58.1-81 l(Cx41 58.1-3315, 25-249,
42.1-70and 17.1-279.D.
0 1002,
RW-16 Corp (LA)
Revised 11/00
This Deed, made this 12th day of July, 2001, by and between FOREST LAKES ASSOCIATES, a
Virginia general partnership, hereinafter designated as Grantor (even though more than one), and the
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. Grantee,
WITNESSETH: In consideration of the sum of $562,000.00 paid by the Grantee to the Grantor,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor hereby grants and conveys unto the Grantee in fee
simple, with general warranty, the land located in Rivanna Magisterial District, in the County of
Albemarle, and described as follows:
Being as shown on Sheets 34 and 35 of the plans for Route 29, State Highway Project 6029-002-
F22, RW-202, and beginning on the east (right) side of the Route 29 Bypass Northbound Lane
Construction Centerline from the northeast existing right of way line of present Ashwood
Boulevard opposite approximate Centerline Station 263+12 to the lands now or formerly
belonging to H P Park LP opposite approximate Station 265+78, including connection with
Ashwood Boulevard, and containing 2.152 acres (8,709.1 square meters); and being a part of the
same land acquired by the grantor from Frank A. Kessler by Deed dated March 15, 1989, and
recorded in Deed Book 1041, Page 549, corrected by Deed dated July 25, 1990, in Deed Book
1116, Page 435, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of said County.
For a more particular description of the land herein conveyed, reference is made to photocopies of
Sheets No. 34 and 35, showing outlined in RED the land conveyed in fee simple, which photocopies are
hereto attached as a part of this conveyance and recorded simultaneously herewith in the State Highway
Plat Book, Page 10 t—lot
-1-
A.?
BK2063PGO666
AND FURTHER WITNESSETH: THAT WHEREAS, all or part of State Highway Route
6029 has been designated as a Limited Access Highway in accordance with the provisions of Article 4,
Chapter I, Title 33.1, of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended;
NOW, THEREFORE, for the aforesaid consideration the Grantor doth also hereby grant and
convey unto the Grantee with general warranty any and all easements of access, light or air, incident to
the lands of the Grantor abutting upon the Limited Access Highway, and/or upon any of its ramps, loops,
or connections at and with intersecting highways, the line or lines along which the easements herein
conveyed lie being described as follows:
From a point on the east proposed right of way and limited access line opposite
approximate Station 264+49 (Route 29 Bypass Northbound Lane Construction Centerline
Route 29), thence along said east proposed right of way and limited access line to a point
opposite approximate Station 265+71, the lands of H P Park, LP; as indicated in DARK
BLUE on the aforesaid plans.
It is covenanted and agreed that this conveyance is made pursuant to the provisions of Article 4,
Chapter I, Title 33.1, of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, which shall be a covenant running with
the abutting lands of the Grantor, which abut upon the Limited Access Highway, and/or upon any of its
ramps, loops, or connections at or with intersecting highways, along the line or lines hereinabove
described, as if the Article, as amended, were herein fully recited. Nothing herein contained shall be
construed to convey any easement of access, light or air, incident to any lands of the Grantor abutting
upon any highway other than the Limited Access Highway, ramps, loops, and connections, nor as denying
the Grantor the right of ingress to and egress from any of the Grantor's lands which abut upon any service
road now or hereafter constructed by the Grantee to provide access to and from the Limited Access
Highway.
The Grantor by the execution of this instrument acknowledges that the plans for the aforesaid
project as they affect its property have been fully explained to its authorized representative.
The Grantor covenants that it is seized of the land in fee simple herein conveyed; that it has the
right to convey the land to the Grantee; that it has done no act to encumber the land; that the Grantee shall
-2-
OK2063PG0667
have quiet possession of the land, free from all encumbrances, and that it will execute such further
assurances of the land as may be requisite.
The Grantor covenants and agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, that the consideration
hereinabove mentioned and paid to it shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation for land, and
for damages, if any, to the remaining lands of the Grantor which may result by reason of the use to which
the Grantee will put the land to be conveyed, including such drainage facilities as may be necessary.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
FOREST ,AKES ASSOCIATES,
a Virgi general partnership
Byt,G1
Title kaa 17awl'Y'K
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF na u�4'
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2001, by
Q Name of partner or agent)
/ (J-�� , on behalf of Forest Lakes Associates, a Virginia
(Partner or agent)
general partnership.
My Commission expires _ D A� a/ 'Zpm�.
Notary Pu lic
-3-
I
ter.
I/
iK2063Ps066$
State Tax
039 $
VIRGINIA: In the Clerk's Office of the
County Tax
Transfer Fee
213 S
212 S
Circuit Court of Albemarle County, VA
fl-20Q1 this
Clerk's Fee
301 $ ly S�
wntid was admitted to record at
�o'clockg.M. and the
St. Library
145 S 150
106 $ 300--
Tax imposed by Section 58.1-802 of the
Tech Fund
State Tax
038 S
Code of Virginia has been paid
Local Tax
220 $
5•00
1 S BF Y . MARSHDep. CLERK
TOTAL
TOTAL
$ a 1.0 D
B ��'+ . Dep. Clerk
I
Attachment — ZMA2020-00007 RST Residences
Staff Analysis of Application's Consistency with Neighborhood Model Principles
Pedestrian
There are a few pedestrian facilities provided throughout the site. However,
Orientation
none of the streets has sidewalks on both sides, and many streets — especially
those for the "two -over -twos" — have no sidewalks provided at all.
There are also no planting strips or street trees shown provided along the
internal roads, which could present an unsafe environment for pedestrians who
are walking adjacent to travel lanes. In addition, other safety features such as
crosswalks do not appear to be provided.
This principle is largely not met.
Mixture of Uses
The application provides for two different types of residential dwellings and no
non-residential. Although Urban Density Residential mainly recommends
residential, there are some non-residential uses recommended as secondary
uses.
This principle is mostly met.
Neighborhood
Strategy 2f in Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan identifies neighborhood
Centers
centers as having four components: 1) a centralized park or outdoor amenity
which is surrounded by 2) a ring of commercial or mixed uses with 3)
surrounded by medium to high density residential uses and a final 4) outer ring
of low density residential.
This project provides a centralized amenity space with a building (clubhouse?);
however, this area appears to be difficult to access because of a large terraced
retaining wall along its entire road frontage. The other two sides of this space
are enclosed by the envelope of Building 1. There are higher density
residential areas in the center of the property, with lower density units at the
rear of the property.
This principle is mostly met but could be strengthened.
Mixture of Housing The Application Plan allows multi -family rental and "two -over -two" townhouse
Types and condo units.
Affordability
The applicant is providing 15 percent affordable housing, per the Housing
Policy in the Comprehensive Plan, but only for the rental units.
This principle is mostly met.
Interconnected The internal street network is largely interconnected.
Streets and
However, there are no interconnections with adjacent properties, and the two
entrances provided to the site both utilize private streets, which do not support
Transportation an interconnected network of public streets with the surrounding area. In
Networks addition, it is not clear how the entrance from Ashwood Blvd. will work, as
there is a parcel owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia located between the
project site and the public right-of-way.
Transportation Planning recommends providing a connection to the property to
the north, as shown in the Places29 Master Plan.
This principle is largely not met.
Multi -modal This development appears to be mostly automobile -centric.
Transportation
Opportunities As mentioned previously, there are a few pedestrian facilities provided
throughout the site. However, none of the streets has sidewalks on both sides,
and many streets — especially those for the "two -over -twos" — have no
sidewalks provided at all.
No bike lanes or transit accommodations are provided on the site.
This principle is not met.
Parks, Recreational The proposal provides some areas of open space, including vegetative buffers,
Amenities, and Open and amenity areas, and also indicates that at least 25% of the site will be open
Space space.
However, the amenity and recreational areas provided do not appear to meet
the requirements of 18-4.16, including both minimum square footage of
recreational area and minimum required facilities.
Additional information is required for staff to adequately evaluate the
recreational amenities and open space provided on the site.
This principle is partially met.
Buildings and Space Most of the buildings appear to be consistent with recommended building
of Human Scale heights. However, the central Building 1 appears to be five -stories, which is
higher than the 45 feet recommended in the Urban Density Residential
designation.
In addition, there appear to be some large retaining walls around the site,
including a terraced wall adjacent to the central amenity area that appears to
block easy access from other areas of the site and the adjacent street.
This principle is partially met.
Relegated Parking The Application Plan shows parking to be relegated from U.S. 29 and
Ashwood Blvd., either behind buildings or behind areas of forested buffer.
However, there is one large area of the site where parking is not relegated
from the interior streets.
This principle is mostly met and could be strengthened.
Redevelopment The requested rezoning will permit redevelopment of the property.
This principle is met.
Respecting Terrain The property contains areas within both the Managed and Preserved Steep
and Careful Grading Slopes Overlay Zoning District. Pursuant to Section 18-30.7.4 of the Zoning
and Re -grading of Ordinance, Managed Steep Slopes can be disturbed if the design standards of
Terrain Section 18-30.7.5 are adhered to. This includes future buildings and parking
areas. Staff cannot adequately evaluate this factor as Managed Steep Slopes
are not shown on the application plan.
In addition, there are several areas where parking and building envelopes are
encroaching into Preserved Slopes, including retaining walls that abut the
Preserved Slope areas.
This principle is not met.
Clear Boundaries with The subject property is located within the Hollymead Development Area of the
the Rural Area Places29 Master Plan area. It is adjacent to the Rural Area boundary (across
U.S. Route 29). It appears that the provision of a 100-foot wide forested buffer
along the 29 frontage of this project provides a clear boundary with the Rural
Area across the highway.
This principle is met.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Andy Reitelbach
From: Francis MacCall
Division: Zoning
Date: 711 /2020
Subject: Initial Review Comments for ZMA2020-00007 RST Residences
The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above
noted application(s).
1. Conformity with Zoning Ordinance shown on Application Plan
a. On sheet 3 of the application plan, remove the building and parking envelopes
from the preserved slops shown on the northern portion of the site.
b. The conceptual layout has parking located in areas where the parking envelopes
on the application plan are not located. Either add the additional parking
envelopes or include the Building envelopes to be labeled as 'Building and
Parking envelope"
c. Is there any phasing of development proposed?
d. Zoning has no objection to the special exception request.
2. Proffers/COD (ZMAs)
1. Proffer
a. Will the applicant be providing any proffers?
ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT— Information from Service Providers
To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's
1) Is this site in the jurisdictional area for water and/or sewer? Yes
2) What is the distance to the closest water and sewer line, if in the jurisdictional area? Water is along
29 and the other road. Sewer is at the southern corner of the parcel.
3) Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on plan? Water
pressures in the area are high. PRV will be required.
4) Are there major upgrades needed to the water distribution or sewer collection system of which the
applicant and staff should be aware? N/A.
5) Are there other service provision issues such as the need for grinder pumps? Private pressure
reducing valves for buildings will be needed if water pressure exceeds 80 psi.
6) Which issues should be resolved at the SP/ZMA stage and which issues can be resolved at the site
plan/plat stage?
7) If the project is a large water user, what long term impacts or implications do you forsee?
8) Additional comments? Contact ACSA ATTN: Richard Nelson for draft water and sewer connection
fees. Since the trailer park is a water customer, there will be a water fee credit for the number of
trailers.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
FIRST SET OF COMMENTS
Your project has been scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission for September 1,
2020, which is 90 days from the date your application was accepted for review. State Code requires a
90-day review by the Planning Commission unless the applicant requests deferral. As you will read in
this comment letter, staff recommends changes to your project to help you achieve approval. Without
these changes, staff cannot recommend approval to the Planning Commission.
If you would like to address the comments you must request deferral by July 31, 2020. If you choose
not to request deferral, staff will take your project to the Commission as originally submitted, but
without a recommendation of approval. Instructions for requesting a deferral are outlined below.
Please note that you can submit revisions even if you defer your application.
Please do one of the following on or before July 31, 2020:
(1) Request deferral to resubmit to address comments, pursuant to Section 33.52(A)(1).
Please understand that if a deferral request is made, the Planning Commission public
hearing date will be later than September 1, 2020.
(2) Request to proceed to a Planning Commission public hearing on September 1, 2020. All
advertising fees must be paid by August 7, 2020.
(3) Withdraw your application.
(1) Deferral Request and Resubmittal
To request deferral, you must submit a request in writing to defer action by the Planning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors. The request may be made by email. You may request a deferral for up to
36 months from the date your application was accepted for review, which is June 3, 2023. However, all
outstanding information necessary for Commission action must be submitted by March 3, 2023,
according to the published schedule. (See Section 18-33.52 (A)(2) of the Albemarle County Code).
Revised 10-9-18 MCN
(2) Proceed to Planning Commission Public Hearing on September 1. 2020
At this time, you may request that your application proceed to public hearing with the Planning
Commission on September 1, 2020. With this option, staff will take your project to the Commission as
originally submitted, but without a recommendation of approval.
(3) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Resubmittals
As stated above, a deferral does not preclude you from resubmitting the application to address
changes based upon the comments. If you would like to resubmit after you defer, you may do so
following the resubmittal schedule. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your
comment letter with your submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal.
Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.)
Failure to Respond
An application shall be deemed to be voluntarily withdrawn if the applicant requests deferral pursuant
to subsection 33.52(A), and fails to provide within 120 days before the end of the deferral period all of
the information required to allow the Board to act on the application. (See Section 18-33.53 (C) of the
Albemarle County Code).
Fee Payment
Fees paid in cash or by check must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make
checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator.
Fees may also be paid by credit card using the secure online payment system, accessed at
http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=21685.
Revised 10-9-18 MCN
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By:
Resubmittal of information for
Zoning Mau Amendment
PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED:
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 blchearin at applicant's request
$194u
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