Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202000007 Correspondence 2020-08-18WILLIAMS M U LLE N Direct Dial: 434.951.5709 vlong@williamsmullen.com August 17, 2020 VIA EMAIL: mreitelbach(a)albemarle.org Andy Reitelbach Senior Planner Planning Division Albemarle County Department of Community Development RE: ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences Dear Mr. Reitelbach: Thank you for your staff review comment letter of July 2, 2020 regarding ZMA 2020-00007, RST Residences. This letter addresses the comments and suggestions contained in your letter. Planning — General ZMA Comments 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 46B5-1D (see attached deed), which also includes additional restrictions and conditions on the use of that property. Also, note that TMP 46B5-1D is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, and may be subject to an application plan. Response: RST Development has been in frequent contact with VDOT representatives about its interest in acquiring all or a portion of TMP 46135-1D. VDOT's representatives have advised that the property may be made available for sale before construction on RST Residences would begin. RST Development intends to work with VDOT to either acquire this parcel or obtain an access easement that would provide a connection to Ashwood Boulevard. Nothing in the deed attached to your letter of July 2, 2020 appears to restrict the use of the TMP 46135-1 D if RST Development were to acquire the parcel or an access easement from VDOT. 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. Response: An updated special exception request has been submitted in connection with this resubmittal. 321 East Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 T 434.951.5700 F 434.817.0977 williamsmu l len.com I A Professional Corporation ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 2 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? Response: Both the top and bottom units have separate garages on the ground floor of the two -over -two townhouse. The bottom unit's garage is connected to the ground floor of the bottom unit. It is anticipated that the bottom unit's kitchen, great room, and half -bathroom would be on the same level as the garages serving both top and bottom units. The top unit's garage is connected to an interior hallway and stairway that leads up to the top unit. Both units are also served by a common front door on the ground floor located at the front of the building (on the opposite side of the building as the garages). The common front door provides access to an interior entry area, which is accessible from the bottom unit and which connected to the interior stairway that leads to the top unit. Please see the attached example floorplan of a two -over -two townhouse for more information. 4. ZO 18-19.6.21ZO 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. Response: As discussed below, the proposed amenities include an outdoor swimming pool and grill area, an indoor fitness center, and a dog park. These indoor and outdoor amenities are being proposed with the County recreational space requirements in mind. Final details on the proposed amenities will be provided at the site plan stage. 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. Response: Calculations have been separated as requested. Please see the Cover Sheet of the updated plans by Bohler Engineering. 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 X-court basketball pads of 30 ft. by 30 ft. each is required. Response: Amenity areas have been enlarged and updated on the plans to meet the County code requirements. A variety of potential amenities are listed on the Cover Sheet as well as in the Project Narrative. The exact location and type of amenity are not shown on the plans because the ultimate design will be determined at the site plan stage, when these details are officially required. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 3 c. Submit substitution requests if other facilities are desired so that staff can evaluate to ensure adequate facilities are provided. Response: At the site plan stage RST Development will likely submit substitution requests. 5. Provide the acreage of the cemetery delineated on the property. Is the cemetery a separate parcel? Response: As requested, the acreage of the separate parcel including the cemetery has been added to the application plan. The cemetery is approximately ''/z acre. This measure is an estimate, as the cemetery is not its own parcel. The cemetery is part of TMP 46-018. 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. Response: Managed slopes have been added to the plans, as requested, per the County GIS. The site plan for the project will comply with the design requirements for disturbing managed slopes. 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. Response: Noted, thank you. 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. Response: The portion of the property containing the townhouse buildings will be subdivided from the portion that will contain the apartment buildings. RST Development understands that the regulations of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance will apply at that time, and any subdivision will comply with all applicable requirements. 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.) Response: Noted, thank you. 9. Is the open and amenity space proposed to be privately owned (such as by an HOA) or dedicated to public use? Response: These areas will be privately owned for the use of RST Residences community members. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 4 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. Response: The Application Plan has been updated as requested. Please see Sheet 3. 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. Response: Retaining walls have been revised as requested. During Site Plan design, RST Development will ensure that during construction of the retaining walls that there will be no disturbance of the preserved slopes. 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. Response: At the site plan stage, RST Development will submit a private street request. The reason for proposing private streets instead of public streets is due to the size and topographic limitations of the Property. As private streets would not require dedicated right of way, there is more available land to provide for buffers from adjacent parcels and the Entrance Corridor. In addition, the marginal increase in available land obtained through use of private road impacts the underlying economics of the proposal and allows more affordable housing units to be offered. 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. Response: As requested, both the application plan and proposed concept have been updated to show an increase in pedestrian connectivity throughout the site. The Application Plan and concept plan have been revised to provide greater detail on the pedestrian connections. In particular, please see the brown dashed lines indicating proposed pedestrian connections on the Application Plan. These proposed connections serve each building and amenity area in RST Residences, and connect to existing and proposed multi -use paths along the frontage of the Property with Route 29 and Ashwood Boulevard. Likewise, on the Concept Plan, these connections are represented in the shading that corresponds to the "proposed concrete area" as shown in the plan's legend. The Concept Plan also shows proposed cross -walk areas. 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? Response: Correct — the Land Bay line is a dividing line showing the separation between the Apartments and two -over -two condos for parking calculation purposes. 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. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 5 Response: Noted, thank you. 15. How will waste management be addressed at this development? Is it only the proposed trash compactor? Response: Yes, the trash compactor is how waste management will be handled at the apartment portion of the project. Residents of the apartments will bring their trash to that area. The compactor will compact the waste, and a waste management company will empty the compactor/dumpster periodically as with any other private apartment community. Regarding the townhouse units, waste management will be handled just as it is at any other townhouse community, with a private waste management company. While the details of this issue will be resolved at the site plan stage, it is expected that the relevant condo association for the townhouses will hire private trash service, the cost of which would be included in the condominium association dues. The two -over -two unit garages are designed with a storage location for trash cans inside each unit's garage. Condominium association rules could be proposed to provide that residents must store trash cans in their garages except on trash day, when the trash cans would be placed at the end of the driveway in the alley behind the buildings. 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 P/aces29 Master Plan. Response: The cover sheet of the revised plans and the project narrative have been updated to reflect both the gross and net density. 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 be surrounded by Building 1 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. Response: The central amenity area adjacent to Building 1 is proposed to include an outdoor swimming pool and grilling/gathering area. The amenity structure shown will be a covered outdoor kitchen/grill area for residents to gather and socialize with each other. Access to this amenity area will be through the plaza area as well as from the southwest corner of Building 1 via the pedestrian pathway. As stated elsewhere in the application materials, Building 1 is the hub of the proposed residential community. Locating amenities in this central location serves the goal of creating a vibrant and connected residential community. 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. Response: The proposed connection to Ashwood Boulevard would align with proposed Archer Avenue in Brookhill. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 6 19. Has a Phase 1 environmental impact statement been done on this property previously? Response: A Phase 1 environmental assessment was performed on the Property in 2019, prior to the Applicant's purchase of the Property. 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. Response: The Project Narrative has been updated to reflect this. 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. Response: The project narrative has been revised to address this comment. The proposed private roads will improve the public road network over existing conditions on the Property, which is currently only served by access to Route 29. The proposed connection to Ashwood Boulevard (which would align with proposed Archer Avenue in Brookhill) would help divert congestion on Route 29 and give residents additional alternatives to reaching nearby destinations without needing to travel on Route 29. 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. Response: Retaining walls have been revised as requested. During Site Plan design, the applicant will ensure that no disturbance of the preserved slopes will occur during construction of the retaining wall. 23. On sheet 5 of the narrative, provide more detail on the "variety of recreational and other amenities" 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.) Response: While the specific details of the amenities have not yet been decided, RST Residences is envisioned to include a variety of indoor and outdoor amenities for its residents, including an outdoor swimming pool and grill area, an indoor fitness center, and a dog park area. The Project Narrative has been revised with this additional information. 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. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 7 Response: The project narrative has been revised to provide more information about projected impact on schools and school 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. Response: All of the above information has been added to the plans as requested. The number of units have been identified as a "maximum." Information on the anticipated bedroom count has been added as well for parking clarity. Please see the Cover Sheet. 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? Response: A continuous path already exists along the entire frontage of the property. The plans have been revised to show this detail clearly. 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. Response: The potential garage units would be single -story garages for individual vehicles (not a multi -storied structured parking deck), of a type commonly found at apartment communities. 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. Response: Retaining walls have been revised as requested. During Site Plan design, RST Development will ensure that no disturbance of the preserved slopes will occur during construction of the retaining walls. The pedestrian connection to the cemetery provides a path from a parking space to the cemetery for any visitors to the cemetery. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 8 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. Response: As proposed, and subject to VDOT approval, Ridgewood Drive would serve as a right-in/right-out secondary access point to RST Residences from Route 29. At a minimum, RST Development would like to retain the driveway for emergency purposes, providing another point for ingress/egress for emergency vehicles. 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. Response: Any discrepancies have been corrected as requested. 31. There are no dimensions provided in the two bottom cross -sections on sheet 5. Response: Dimensions have been added for clarity. 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? Response: This area is intended to be a bermed area for additional buffering of the building fagades from the Route 29 Entrance Corridor. 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. Response: RST Development appreciated the comments from its neighbors and the community at the meeting on July 20, 2020. RST Development has continued to engage with community members about the project since the community meeting. County Staff has shared community feedback it has received since the community meeting on several issues, and RST Development would like to provide the following information: • The details of recycling service will be addressed at the site plan stage, to the extent that recycling is regulated by the County ordinances. • The management company will address any necessary snow removal as part of its operation of the property. • RST Residences will be pet friendly and will likely include a dog park for use by residents. • We appreciate that traffic is an important concern for the neighboring community, as it is for the Applicant. Our traffic study was prepared by a professional, licensed traffic engineer with decades of experience handling traffic studies in Virginia, and in Albemarle County. The study's scope was pursuant to direction provided by representatives of VDOT and the County's Transportation Planner. We have submitted an updated traffic study ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 9 that incorporates comments from VDOT. We stand by the conclusions and recommendations of the professional traffic engineer, who is qualified to address these technical issues. • The project will undergo review by the County Engineering department at the site plan stage and will be required to comply with all state and local stormwater management regulations and permitting requirements. Any proposed lighting will comply with the County's lighting ordinance, which requires that all light fixtures over 3,000 lumens be full cut-off fixtures, and that the project demonstrate at the site plan stage that there will not be more than a half a foot candle of spillover onto adjacent properties or roadways. Planning — Special Exception Application Comments 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. Response: The special exception request has been updated accordingly. 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. Response: The special exception request has been updated accordingly. 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. 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. Response: Building 1 is in the center of the Property and will not have an excessively tall appearance from any off -site location, as it will be located far from adjacent parcels. All other buildings within the project will be four stories, such that overall the project will be generally consistent with the recommendations of the Master Plan, which is a general guide for ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 10 development. In addition, building heights will comply with the 65-foot height limit of the zoning district. 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." Response: The revised plans show the locations of proposed sidewalks and pedestrian walkways. Sidewalks are proposed on both sides of streets within the project unless a parking area is on one side of a street, in which case the parking area is separated from the street by a curb. 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. Response: Affordable housing is a central feature of RST Residences. At least 15% of the total units within the project will be offered as affordable units, and it is expected that affordable units will be located in both the apartments and the townhouses. The Applicant is working on proposals to provide a significantly higher percentage of affordable units in the Project. Both for -sale and for -rent affordable units are envisioned. The for -sale affordable units will be townhomes and the for -rent affordable units will be apartments. 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). Response: An updated Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Ramey Kemp Associates is attached to this resubmittal letter. As the TIA demonstrates, with the implementation of the TIA's recommendations, the project will not create adverse impacts on the community. 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. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 11 Planning Division —Transportation The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Daniel Butch, Transportation Senior Planner, dbutch(a)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 46B5-1 D for proposed pedestrian and vehicular entrance directly adjacent to proposed ZMA201500007 entrance to Ashwood Blvd. Response: A future connection point at the northern end of "Private Road C" is provided for on the revised Concept Plan and Application Plan. RST Development hopes to secure access to Ashwood Boulevard, as discussed elsewhere in this response letter. 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. Response: The Application plan has been updated to reflect the existing paths as well. Please see Sheet 3. 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), mmaliszewskina 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. Response: The project narrative has been revised to be consistent with the Application Plan. 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. Response: A note labeling the fence around the cemetery has been added. The cemetery boundaries are delineated on a prior plat of record and have been noted on the plan to show the area that will be fenced. The trash compactor will be enclosed and physically separated from the cemetery by its enclosure, the fence, and the retaining walls around the cemetery. Access to the trash area will be on the far side of the enclosure from the cemetery. 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. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 12 Response: There is no stormwater management facility proposed on the Entrance Corridor frontage of the property. The area we believe you are referring to is not a stormwater facility but rather a proposed berm to provide buffering between the building fagades and the Route 29 Entrance Corridor. 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. Response: Retaining walls have been revised as requested. During Site Plan design, the applicant will ensure that no disturbance of the preserved slopes will occur during construction of the retaining walls, and that sufficient area remains to allow required terracing and planting of all retaining walls 6 feet and taller. 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. Response: Retaining walls have been revised as requested. During Site Plan design, the applicant will ensure that no disturbance to the preserved slopes will occur during construction of the retaining walls, and that there is sufficient planting space available to meet the requirements. 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. Response: The plans and project narrative have been revised in response to this comment. 7. Explain the reason for the speed bump near the pedestrian entrance to the cemetery. Response: The speed bump is an existing feature, and will be removed with the proposed development. Zoning Division, Community Development Department Please see the attached memorandum with comments from Zoning reviewer Francis MacCall, Principal Planner, fmaccallCcilalbemarle.oro. Engineering & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by the County Engineer, Frank Pohl, foohlna.albemarle.org: - Applicant must provide justification for private streets when located in a development area (14- 233 and 14-2341. Response: This justification will be formally provided at the site plan stage, though the issue is discussed elsewhere in this response letter. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 13 - Maintenance agreements and easements are required for retaining walls that cross property lines [Bldg Division]. Response: We do not anticipate that any retaining walls will cross property lines, but if that were to be necessary, this issue will be addressed at the site plan stage. - 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 [9 VAC25-870-66. 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. Response: Comments acknowledged, and they will all be addressed with the Initial Site Plan and VSMP submission in the future. E911 (Geographic Data Services) Division, Community Development Department The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Brian Becker, GIS Specialist, bbecker(a)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/uploadlimages/Forms_Center/Departments/Geographic Data_Servic es/Forms/Road Naming and Property_ Numbering Ordinance —and Manual.pdf Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory: h tto://www. albemarle. oro/albemarle/upload/imaoes/webapps/roads/. Response: These issues will be addressed at the Site Plan stage ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 14 Building Inspections Division, Community Development Department No objection at this time; please see the comments below. Michael Dellinger, Building Official, mdellinger(a)albemarle.org. Any comments regarding the site plan will be made during that review, as will bldg. Other than this no objection. The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Stacy Pethia, Principal Planner for Housing, spethia crMalbemarle.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. Response: RST Development has been in communication with the County Housing Division to develop its affordable housing plan and continue implementing its ongoing relocation assistance for current residents. The prior owner of the Property has continued to manage the existing mobile home park while RST Development works through the rezoning application review process. The continuity provided by keeping management in place has allowed RST Development to better assist current residents with relocation issues. For example, current residents were provided one year's notice of the move -out date, and this period may be extended as RST Development and the current management continue to work with residents on relocation assistance. Albemarle County Fire -Rescue Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. Shawn Maddox, Fire & Rescue plans reviewer, smaddoxt7a albemarle.org. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Please see the attached memorandum with comments from ACSA plans reviewer, Richard Nelson, rnelson(a)serviceauthoritv.org. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 15 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. VDOT contact —Adam Moore, adam.moore(a)vdot.virginia.gov. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Dyon Vega, Civil Engineer, dvegaCa.rivanna.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 Zoning Division 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" Response: The Application Plan has been updated to remove the building and parking envelope from the preserved slope and has relabeled the building envelopes to include parking. See Sheet 3. c. Is there any phasing of development proposed? Response: The plan is generally to build the entire project at one time, but the Applicant would like to retain the right to build the project in phases. The apartments will most likely be built in a single phase, and the townhouses would likely be built in a separate phase, although those phases may take place roughly concurrently. The townhouses may be built in separate phases. The details of these issues will be resolved at the Site Plan stage. d. Zoning has no objection to the special exception request. 2. Proffers/COD (ZMAs) 1. Proffer a. Will the applicant be providing any proffers? Response: At this time no proffers are proposed. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 16 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. Response: As shown on the revised plans, the Project includes numerous sidewalks and pedestrian connections. It is expected that pedestrian activity will be encouraged by the location of many common amenities located in or adjacent to Building 1, and by the thoughtfully designed streetscapes throughout RST Residences. 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. Response: The adjacent Brookhill development will include a variety of non-residential uses, including office, retail, recreation, restaurants, senior living facilities, and educational facilities among others. With the proposed vehicular and pedestrian connection between this project and Brookhill, we contend there is no need for additional mixture of uses at this project, such that this principal is met when considering the larger context of this project in the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, there are a number of other uses in close proximity to the north and east, including two educational facilities. Neighborhood I Strategy 2f in Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan identifies Centers neighborhood 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 ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 17 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. Response: The outdoor amenity area is proposed to include a swimming pool with a grill area for social events. Additional outdoor amenities are proposed to include a dog park. All amenities are accessible through pedestrian walkways throughout the Project, with the central amenity area to be accessible from the plaza area adjacent to Building 1 and from an additional pedestrian walkway at the intersection of "Private Road A" and "Private Road C." In addition, this project is not required to function as a free-standing Neighborhood Center under these guidelines. The adjacent Brookhill community functions as a Neighborhood Center, and the RST project will be located close by, with convenient access by foot, bicycle, and automobile. We contend this principle is fully met given the projects relationship and convenient location relative to this Neighborhood Center. Mixture of The Application Plan allows multi -family rental and "two -over -two' Housing Types townhouse condo units. and 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. Response: Affordable housing is proposed for both for -sale and for -rent units, with the overall amount of affordable housing proposed to be well in excess of 15%. Interconnected The internal street network is largely interconnected. Streets and Transportation However, there are no interconnections with adjacent properties, and the Networks two entrances provided to the site both utilize private streets, which do not support an interconnected network of public streets with the surrounding area. In 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. Response: Space is reserved for a potential connection to TMP 46-28J at the northern end of "Private Road C." RST Development is working with VDOT to acquire or obtain rights to the parcel at the intersection of Ashwood and Route 29. The proposed connection to Ashwood would be ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 18 I designed to align with the proposed location of Archer Avenue in Brookhill, IL to encourage an alternative to traveling north and south on Route 29. 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. Response: The updated Application Plan shows how the pedestrian walkways in the Project connect to exiting and proposed pedestrian and/or multi -use paths along both Route 29 and Ashwood Boulevard. As shown on both the Application Plan and Concept Plan, sidewalks would run along the front of all of the townhouse buildings, on either side of the street. As shown in the revised plans, most of the streets have sidewalks on both sides unless one side of the street is a parking area. Parks, The proposal provides some areas of open space, including vegetative Recreational buffers, and amenity areas, and also indicates that at least 25% of the site Amenities, and will be open space. Open 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. Response: Additional information on the proposed amenities, and how the proposal plans to satisfy these requirements, is provided in this resubmittal letter. Buildings and Most of the buildings appear to be consistent with recommended building Space of Human heights. However, the central Building 1 appears to be five -stories, which is Scale 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. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 19 This principle is partially met. Response: Building 1 is the only building in excess of four stories, and it is located in the center of the project, away from the views of adjacent properties. In addition, there is a pedestrian access to the central amenity area at the intersection of "Private Road A" and "Private Road C" such that the retaining wall would not block pedestrian access. Relegated The Application Plan shows parking to be relegated from U.S. 29 and Parking 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. Response: While the Project has been designed to carefully limit the amount on non -relegated parking, the goal of fostering a vibrant community center in the middle of RST Residences has also informed the proposed parking locations. The presence of some non -relegated parking attempts to balance the important goal of fostering community with that goal of relegated parking. In addition, the area of parking we believe you are referring to is relegated to the south of one of the buildings, and the area is located several hundred feet from the Route 29 Entrance Corridor. Redevelopment The requested rezoning will permit redevelopment of the property. This principle is met. Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading and Re -grading of Terrain The property contains areas within both the Managed and Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay Zoning District. Pursuant to Section 18-30.7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, Managed Steep Slopes can be disturbed if the design standards of 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. Response: The materials provided with this resubmittal make clear that the Preserved Steep Slopes will not be disturbed by the Project or during construction. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences August 17, 2020 Page 20 Clear The subject property is located within the Hollymead Development Area of Boundaries with the Places29 Master Plan area. It is adjacent to the Rural Area boundary the Rural Area (across U.S. Route 29). It appears that the provision of a f00-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. Should you require anything further in connection with this application, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 951-5709 or vlono(a-)williamsmullen.com. We appreciate your assistance with this application. Sincerely, 2/ &T c 70, zoa y Valerie W. Long cc: RST Residences Project Team Attachments: Revised Project Plans Revised Project Narrative Revised Special Exception Request Narrative Two -Over -Two Townhouse - Example Floorplan Updated Traffic Impact Analysis