Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201800023 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2019-10-29oa +t&, 3 "- u�� in County of Albemarle Department of Community Development October 22, 2019 Kelsey Schlein and Justin Shimp Shimp Engineering 912 E East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA2018-18 and SP2018-23 River's Edge Ms. Schlein, Staff has reviewed your resubmittal for a zoning map amendment (ZMA) and special use permit (SP) for the River's Edge development. We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be addressed before we can recommend favorably on your ZMA and SP request. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are provided below: 1. The proposed density of 100 maximum units is above the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for density. A maximum net density of 6 units/acre is recommended per the Comprehensive Plan future land use designation of Neighborhood Density Residential. Excluding land in the WPO stream buffer, flood plain, and steep slopes, the maximum density (net) would equate to 50 dwelling units. The applicant's proposed justification for additional units, given their size restriction and potential impact, would need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. At this time, there is not sufficient guidance from the Comprehensive Plan for staff to make a recommendation on whether increased density above the Comprehensive Plan designation is acceptable. Staff will include an analysis of this request in the staff report but will defer to the Planning Commission's review and guidance. 2. The proposed density remains above the density recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. There is currently no provision in the Zoning Ordinance to permit "size restricted units" in townhouse and multi -family structures to replace single family dwellings with attached accessory apartments. Provided that 50 single family dwelling units are not physically possible on this site, given yard and frontage requirements, the proposal to replace the 50 single family units plus 50 accessory apartments with 100 size restricted units does not equalize the impacts of the actual potential single family units plus accessory apartments possible on the site. 3. Based on this application's request to go above the density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan and to use a housing type not included in the County's Housing Policy (to date), staff feels a work session with the Planning Commission could be helpful. This work session could take place between review comments and resubmittal of the application. 4. Staff continues to recommend that residents of the rental units be notified of the request. A community meeting should take place directly with them if they have not been notified to date. This meeting should be held prior to the Planning Commission public hearing. Planning/Zoning (Tori Kanellopoulos and Lea Brumfield) 1. Some of the requirements to be shown on the application plan for PRD per 18-33.18(B) have not yet been provided, specifically: a. 18-33.18(B)(9) use table showing proposed number of units and setbacks/height/yards for PRD b. 18-33.18(B)(11) water systems (sewer system appears to be shown, but not water) c. 18-33.18(B)(12) a more clear and comprehensive open space plan — see additional open space comments below 2. Label the road shown on the concept plan as `proposed private street', if it is intended to be a street and not an accessway. 3. Include a sheet for open space (18-4.7 and 18-19.6) and recreation (18-4.16) requirements, so that these requirements are all shown on a single page. This sheet should include: • tot lots and basketball courts (keep in mind 18-4.16 sq. ft. requirements) • open space • pathways and trails • clubhouse • any other proposed amenities/recreation/open space 4. The open space sheet should also include a tabulation of open space to show the requirement is being met and that no more than 80% of the required minimum open space is located on preserved slopes or within the 100-year floodplain. The PRD zoning district requires 25 percent of the site be in common open space. Based on this site's acreage, the total required open space is 8.13 acres, and the total required outside of these environmental features is 1.62 acres. This requirement should be clearly stated on the open space sheet. This could include showing the acreage of each portion of the required open space, adding up to the total requirement. 5. If the required number of tot lots and basketball courts per 18-4.16 will not be provided, include a waiver request that describes how the requirements will be substituted. For example, a natural playscape may be considered by the agent for substitution of a tot lot. For 100 units, two (2) tot lots and one half (1/2) basketball court would be required. 6. Sheet 5 indicates that the existing structure toward the front of the property will be repurposed as an amenity, and be shared with TMP 32-22K1. Given that only the rezoning for TMP's 32-5A and 32-5A1 is being actively reviewed and pursued at this time, shared amenities will need to be reviewed for any future rezonings for TMP 32- 22K1 separately. At this time, these amenities will just be considered for the parcels in the ZMA2018-18 application. 7. Include a sheet that overlays the proposed buildings (dwelling units) and proposed private street and parking with the environmental features (WPO buffer, flood plain, steep slopes). It is difficult to determine where the proposed buildings are in relation to the environmental features, as the WPO buffer does not seem to be included on Sheet 20, and it is difficult to see exactly where the flood plain is. 8. Note that this proposal is not meeting the Comprehensive Plan policy (Housing Chapter Strategy 6b) to provide 15% affordable units with each rezoning. While smaller units may be more likely to be affordable, this is not a guarantee, and therefore does not meet the housing policy. 9. Additional information should be provided on the proposed rental rates and AMI ranges for the units. If part of the justification for increased density is providing affordable units, then more information is needed for review. 10. The Places29 Master Plan shows trails through these properties. One wraps around the site, and another is along Route29 frontage. The application now shows trails throughout the site and connecting to adjacent TMP 32-22K1 with a pedestrian bridge. Staff has the following comments related to these trails: a. Planning staff has received comments from Parks and Recs, which found it acceptable to have the internal trail network be private for this development. b. Parks and Rec staff found it to be acceptable to not have the connection to the north with NGIC, as this would require a stream crossing and is not an integral part of the trail network. c. More justification is needed for not providing the multi -use path (MUP) along Route 29, as shown in the Master Plan. North Pointe is developing adjacent to the south, so there is potential for connectivity. Is connectivity proposed by connecting to the adjacent parcel 32-22K1 with the footbridge, as North Pointe's trail connects up toward this site? Parks and Rec staff discussed the importance of connecting to the trail network across Route29 to the north (blue dotted line). This could be achieved with the MUP or potentially with the pedestrian bridge and connection to TMP 32-22K (however there may not be a guarantee the full connection would be made). IU\ AR] 11. The proposed private street will need to meet private street standards per 14-410, 14- 412 and the County's Design Standards. Private streets may be authorized in the development areas per 14-234 with a rezoning application or with a preliminary plat. Also note that the following waivers will be needed, based on this submittal (these can also be submitted either with the rezoning or the preliminary plat, however staff recommends they be processed with the rezoning as they require Planning Commission approval): a. Waiving curb and gutter per 14-410(I)(2) and 14-203.1 b. Waiving sidewalks on both sides of the street per 14-422(E) and 14-203.1 c. Waiving planting strip per 14-422(F)(2) and 14-203.1 12. Staff awaits further information on how the property will be developed and continues to have concerns related to subdividing the land on these properties. It appears the developer is pursuing the option to have all of the units be rentals, and not subdivide the land. 13. If sidewalks are being shown on the concept plan (Sheet 20), please label them. 14. Provide additional detail on the 50-forested buffer. Specifically: where buffers are measured from; when disturbance is allowed (e.g. for sight distances, replacing unhealthy/damaged trees, for signage, and/or for pedestrian paths); and types of plantings/trees proposed. Also provide a section to show the proposed buffer — see example below: 4i,-1: I'rop.n II11 , .,,— 21—.1- 15. Per the revised information submitted by the applicant, it appears it is the applicant's intent to submit proffers. If the applicant intends to provide proffers, please submit draft proffers for staff to review. 16. Sheet 20, River's Edge Concept Plan, depicts private streets providing both access and parking, but does not show turnarounds or service areas for the development. These will need to be included. 17. Note that an adequate F/R turnaround will be needed prior to any site plan approval. 18. Please note that setbacks will depend on whether the accessway is identified as a private street or as an access. 19. An additional special use permit is required for a pedestrian bridge in the floodplain. See Engineering comments below for more details. 20. A separate submittal is required for approval of a central system, per 18-16.102. This request requires approval from the Board of Supervisors. See Engineering comments for more details. Architectural Review Board (Margaret Maliszewski) 1. No Objection. Engineering (Frank Pohl) 1. Provide the average daily trips (ADT) for this project. For mountainous terrain, maximum percent of grade may be 14% for 400-4000 ADT. Street profile indicates a grade exceeding 14%. Revise grades to be less than 14%. Guardrails will be required where adequate clear zone and recovery zone is not provided. Not enough information has been provided to confirm horizontal layout, but this can be addressed during road plan review. No objection to waiving requirement for curb and gutter to allow a rural road section. 2. Level spreaders may not be suitable in the proposed locations, considering the steep drop at the stream's edge. Recommend the applicant show an improved channel to the stream. Final details can be provided as part of the VSMP application. 3. A Floodplain Development Permit (FDP) will be required prior to VSMP approval [18- 30.3]. 4. An SP will be required for the proposed pedestrian bridge over the floodplain [18- 30.3.11 ]. 5. A mitigation plan will be required to offset stream buffer impacts [17-604]. This can be addressed as part of the VSMP application. 6. The central sewer system request did not include all requirements as outline in Sec. 16- 102 Notice of proposal to establish system or supply. "Each person who proposes to establish or extend a central sewerage system or a central water supply shall notify the board of supervisors of the proposal at least sixty (60) days prior to commencing construction thereof. The notice shall be filed with the clerk of the board of supervisors. In addition to the foregoing information, the notice shall include the following: 1. The location of the proposed central sewerage system or central water supply; 2. The number of connections proposed to be served by the central sewerage system or central water supply; 3. A statement describing the type of the proposed central sewerage system or central water supply and explaining the reasons the system or supply is needed; and 4. Three (3) copies of the preliminary plans for the central sewerage system or central water supply." Transportation (Adam Moore, VDOT) 1. No Objection. See attached letter. Albemarle County Service Authority (Richard Nelson) 1. Same comment as initial submission: Parcel is located in the North Fork South Zone Special Rate District. Due to the demand for fire hydrants a public water main will be required. ACSA may request these units be individually metered. ACSA will be updating the connection fee language to include single family units attached and detached as 1 ERC behind a master meter, July 2019. Fire/Rescue (Shawn Maddox) 1. Fully sprinklered buildings can allow the development to only require one entrance/exit. Fire rescue would need verification that the entrance/exit doesn't require travel through a flood plain. 2. Items that will need to be addressed during site plan approval: a. Emergency apparatus turn around on the site b. Building heights exceeding 30' would require additional clear travel width. Building Inspections (Michael Dellinger) 1. Any comments will be made on the final site plan review. Natural Resources (David Hannah) There are two pieces of information I want to add to my comments on the original application submitted for ZMA2018-18. First, my original set of comments described the poor river health and water quality conditions of the North Fork Rivanna River (NFRR) adjacent to and near the project site. Segments of the NFRR are designated as impaired by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for recreation (based on levels of coliform bacteria) and aquatic life (based on benthic macroinvertebrate data). A TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) process on the NFRR upstream of the site has been considered by DEQ. Despite these water quality issues, I recently learned that this section of the NFRR has been identified as Threatened/Endangered waters by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. It has also been designated as a Stream Conservation Unit by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation -Division of Natural Heritage. Each of these designations are due to observations of state or federally threatened or endangered freshwater mussels. This increases the importance of protecting water quality to the greatest extent possible. Second, as noted by the applicant in their letter of 9/16/19, the Natural Resources Chapter of the County's Comprehensive Plan was amended on July 3, 2019 to incorporate strategies to conserve biodiversity. The Rivanna River Corridor, which includes this project site, was identified as one of three Conservation Focus Areas in the County (Figure 8 in the amended Natural Resources Chapter). Conservation Focus Areas have significant biodiversity resources and high conservation value. In the case of the Rivanna River Corridor, there is habitat connectivity throughout much of the focus area. Impacts to natural resources in the Conservation Focus Areas should be minimized and avoided when possible. Special Use Permit: Disturbance of Preserved Steep Slopes Planning 1. There is still additional information needed to determine if this application is meeting the "purpose and intent" of 18-30.7.1: 30.7 STFFP SI OPFS OVERLAY DISTRICT 30.7.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT "The purpose of this section 30.7 is to establish an overlay district on those lands within the development areas of the county as delineated in the comprehensive plan which have steep slopes and for which additional development design care and consideration must be given, prior to permitted development occurring. The board of supervisors finds that whenever steep slopes within the overlay district are disturbed, their disturbance should be subject to appropriate consideration and care in their design and construction in order to protect the integrity of the steep slope areas, protect downstream lands and waterways from the adverse effects of the unregulated disturbance of steep slopes, including the rapid or large-scale movement of soil and rock, or both, excessive stormwater runoff, the degradation of surface water, and to enhance and preserve the character and beauty of the steep slopes in the development areas of the county. The board also finds that certain steep slopes, because of their characteristics, should be preserved to the maximum extent practical, and that other steep slopes, whose preservation is not required, should be managed. Preserved slopes are those slopes that have characteristics that warrant their preservation by the prohibition of disturbance except in the limited conditions provided in this overlay district. Managed slopes are those slopes where development may occur, provided that design standards are satisfied to mitigate the impacts caused by the disturbance of the slopes. " Additional grading and stormwater management information has been provided with this resubmittal. However, there is not sufficient information on mitigation measures to determine if "appropriate consideration and care" is being given. This should be provided in narrative and graphic form. See Engineering comments for more details. 2. Separate narrative and graphics should be submitted for the Special Use Permit for disturbance of preserved steep slopes. It is difficult to review when combined with the ZMA application. This should include: a. A narrative on the `factors to be considered' as provided in 18-33: no substantial detriment, character of district unchanged, harmony, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. b. Graphics showing the areas to be disturbed (as was included with the resubmitted ZMA, but should be separated and submitted with a SP packet instead, or included in both ZMA and SP packets). c. Narrative explaining the types of mitigation that will be used, such as low -impact development, retaining vegetation, and stormwater management. Staff will review the proposed mitigation measures when submitted. d. Clarify in the narrative if the steep slopes are only being disturbed for construction of the proposed private street and will not be disturbed for other uses (such as parking and housing sites). Engineering 1. Applicant may want to consider addressing how they plan to "protect the integrity of the steep slope areas, protect downstream lands and waterways from the adverse effects of the unregulated disturbance of steep slopes, including the rapid or large-scale movement of soil and rock, or sloughing, excessive stormwater runoff, the degradation of surface water, and to enhance and preserve the character and beauty of the steeps slopes in the developer areas of the County." Comprehensive Plan As stated above in detailed comments, there are items that need to be addressed to conform with the recommendations within the Places29 Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. Additional comments will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report that will be prepared for a work session or public hearing. The properties are within the Hollymead area of the Places29 Master Plan and are designed as Neighborhood Density Residential- residential use (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small-scale non-residential uses; Privately Owned Open Space; Environmental Features- privately owned recreational amenities and open space; floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, and other environmental features Neighborhood Model Principles Projects located within the Development Areas are reviewed for consistency with each of the Neighborhood Model Principles found in the Comprehensive Plan. Comments are provided below on relevant aspects of the Neighborhood Model. Revised comments may be given after additional information is submitted. Pedestrian Orientation Additional information is needed. The application shows some, but not all, of the trail connectivity shown in the Places29 Master Plan. The applicant should submit additional justification as to why the MUP along Route29 is not provided. Pedestrian connectivity is provided through the site with a primitive trail system, which is consistent with the character of the site. The applicant should label sidewalks on the concept plan, if they are being provided. The location of this site provides limited opportunities to walking or biking to other locations, however there are connectivity options, potentially with North Pointe and its trails stem. Mixture of Uses This principle is met. The Comprehensive Plan lists non- residential uses as secondary uses in this future land use designation, and given the environmental constraints of the site, staff does not feel this would be an appropriate location for non-residential uses (unless they were meant only to serve this development and were very small scale). There are other non-residential uses in proximity to this area, including the UVA Research Park, the Airport, and various commercial uses. Neighborhood Centers This principle is not applicable. The proposal is not located in a designated center. Mixture of Housing Types This principle is partially met. While a mixture of housing and Affordability types is not provided on -site, this development would add a new housing type to the County and to the Places29 area. A modular'small home' development with attached units has not, to staffs knowledge, been done in the County. This housing type has the potential to be more affordable and serve demand, however additional information is needed. The 15 percent affordable housing policy 6b in the Comprehensive Plan is not being met. There is no guarantee these units will be affordable to residents at or below 80% AM I. More information on pricing and AM ranges should be provided, since affordable housing is being used as justification for density above the Comprehensive Plan. Relegated Parking This principle is partially met. Given the site constraints of this property, it may not be feasible to fully relegate parking. Parking is still fully screened from Route 29. While the Comprehensive Plan calls for reducing parking requirements when possible, given the location of this site, staff would likely not support a significant parking reduction request. The applicant could consider using pervious options for the parking lot, given the environmental features and constraints of this site. Interconnected Streets and This principle is met. Given the constraints of this site, a Transportation Network street network is not feasible, and could negatively affect environmental features. Street connections to other parcels are not shown in the Comprehensive Plan, although trail connections are shown. Multimodal Transportation Additional information is needed. Currently, there is not bus Opportunities service to this site or this area. There is some potential for pedestrian and bike connectivity, including with North Pointe's development directly to the south. Residents of this development would be able to walk throughout the site using the trail network and would be able to walk to future developments to the south with the proposed pedestrian bridge. Connections to other trail segments should be public. The internal trail network may be private. Parks, Recreational Additional information is needed. It appears the open space Amenities, and Open Space requirement is being met, however additional information on recreation substitutions is needed for review. More information is needed to ensure sufficient care is being taken for the environmental features on the site (steep slopes and streams). The character of the site provides opportunities for trail connectivity and a more nature -based network than traditional sites. Buildings and Spaces of This principle is met. The proposed single-family attached Human Scale units will need to meet the requirements of the PRD district. The proposed stacked units would be approximately two stories. These smaller units better fit the character of this site. Staff feels it is not an appropriate location for larger buildings. Redevelopment Additional information is needed. There are existing rental units on this site. The applicant should provide more information on communication with these residents. Only one building is being preserved, which will serve as a clubhouse. The buildings on this site will not be adjacent to other residential uses, as they are surrounded by the river. The proposed residential units for this site have a similar scale to the existing homes, however the density would be higher. Respecting Terrain and Additional information is needed. Staff still needs more Careful Grading and information on the steep slopes disturbance request Regrading of Terrain (SP2018-23), especially on proposed mitigation measures. Disturbance of these slopes is the only possibility for constructing a private street or accessway to the site. Natural topography should be respected as best as possible. Retaining walls should be six -feet maximum where possible. Clear Boundaries between This principle is met. This site is part of the Development the Development Areas and Areas and is partially adjacent to the Rural Area. Clear the Rural Area boundaries are preferred, and in this case the boundary is the river. When the boundary is a river, wooded buffers are expected, and areas near the river can be used for trails and greenways. This boundary is considered a Ri arian/Flood plain boundary in the Places29 Master Plan. Action after Receipt of Comments Your project is not yet scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission. Your application is currently deferred. Based on these review comments, staff recommends that you resubmit to address review comments. If you would like to proceed directly to Planning Commission, please contact staff to schedule a public hearing. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, that would be your second resubmittal, and therefore would require the resubmittal fee of $1,344.00. The resubmittal schedule is provided for your convenience. Notification and Advertisement Fees Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing, a fee of $435.00 must be paid. This alsc includes the fee for the Board of Supervisors public hearing. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Please let me know if you have any questions, or would like to meet, or need additional information. Best, Tori Kanellopoulos Planner Community Development 434-296-5832 ext. 3270 vkanellopoulos@albemarle.org