Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202000007 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2020-11-08COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434) 296-5832 Fax (434)972-4176 November 4, 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; 31 Submittal Dear Ms. Long: Staff has reviewed your third submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA202000007, RST Residences. We have a number of questions and comments which are provided below. 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. Provide legal documentation from the Commonwealth of Virginia granting the applicant the right to cross the Commonwealth's property (TMP 46135-113) in order to access the applicant's parcel (TMP 46-109), whether this is a Deed of Bargain and Sale, a Deed of Easement, or some other documentation. Otherwise, remove the entrance proposed off of Ashwood Boulevard, and provide another entrance in a different location. Staff continues to have concerns about the proposed entrance into the property from Ashwood Boulevard. Although VDOT may grant an entrance permit for access, who would be responsible for maintaining the road (which is proposed to be private) across the VDOT-owned property? Since the property is not right-of-way, someone would be responsible for maintaining that short section of proposed Road C, and it is unlikely that VDOT would maintain a private road across their property. In addition, there is a 60' access easement shown at this location. Provide more information on this easement, including whose easement it is and whether it's public or private. 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. The cover sheet identifies 4.53 additional open space area. Clarify what this additional space is referencing, as it does not appear to be labelled on the plans. It would also be helpful to provide estimates of the acreage/square footage of the various amenity and open space areas that are identified throughout the plan. This comment has not been addressed, as there are many amenity/open space areas scattered throughout the site, and it is unclear how large they are estimated to be. It is still not clear that there is sufficient space provided to accommodate the required amenities mentioned above. Without a substitution request being provided and more detail on the proposed amenities, staff must review the ZMA based on the required amenities of 8 tot lots and 4 half -court basketball courts. These amenities should be shown conceptually to indicate that this requirement can be met. Provide more information on how the proposed amenities are sufficient to substitute for the required recreational amenities. A "general amenity area" or "asphalt recreational area" is too vague of a description for staff to determine whether those amenities are sufficient to substitute for the requirements. In addition, not all amenities can overlap with open space. For example, an indoor fitness center cannot be counted as open space. Also, a dog park is repeatedly referenced in the narrative; however, no such facility is identified on the plan. Provide more information on what is proposed for amenities and what is proposed for the 25% open space. Features such as retaining walls cannot be located in open space areas (see 18-4.7(b) for more information on permitted uses in open space). It appears that some of the "additional open space areas" include retaining walls. Is the proposed stormwater management area that overlaps the amenity area near the Ashland Townhouses property proposed to be underground? A SWM facility cannot be counted as an amenity. Comment acknowledged; however, remain aware that a SWM facility is not an amenity. 9. Is the open and amenity space proposed to be privately owned (such as by an HOA) or dedicated to public use? If this application is approved by the Board of Supervisors, documents establishing the HOA, such as a declaration of covenants and restrictions, will need to be submitted and reviewed by County staff at the site planning and subdivision stage in order to identify such elements as the responsibility of maintenance for shared items like open space, amenities, and any private travelways, among others Comment acknowledged. 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. The proposed retaining wall, on sheet 4, in the northwest comer of the site next to the 100-11. buffer does not appear to provide sufficient space for grading next to the preserved steep slopes. In addition, the retaining wall in the northeast comer of that parking lot cuts off the comer of one parking space, which will not be permitted at the site planning stage. Comments addressed. 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. Comment still applies. However, staff acknowledges that the designation of private streets vs. public is addressed at the site planning stage. There is a potential connection provided to the north of the property; however, this proposed connection is shown much farther to the east that what is shown in the Places29 Master Plan. With the streets in the RST development proposed to be private, is there a plan for access along the street to ensure that this proposed connection is usable by residents and property owners and will not be closed off? Interconnections are not helpful if there are barriers preventing their use. Also, why was a 24' access easement decided upon? Public streets are preferred in the development areas. Private Road C especially would be appropriate as a public street since it is proposed to connect from Archer Ave. at Ashwood Blvd. north to the proposed interparcel connection. Subdivision of property will require a request for private streets to be made and is subject to review and approval by either the Agent or the Planning Commission, depending on the circumstances of the proposed private street(s). Also, as previously mentioned, there is a potential inter -parcel connection provided to the north of the property; however, this proposed connection is shown much farther to the east that what is shown in the Places29 Master Plan. 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. Sidewalks and planting strips should be provided along both sides of all streets in a development to encourage the pedestrian connections identified in the neighborhood model principles. There do not appear to be any planting strips provided, or sufficient space identified. In addition, there are no pedestrian connections on the north side of the Route 29 entrance, along the west side of Road B, or along several of the roads around the townhouse units. Comment addressed. However, is the proposed pedestrian path along the Ashwood Blvd. side of the property proposed to be accessible to the general public or only for the use of the development's residents? Generally, pedestrian paths parallel to public streets are preferred to be located within the right-of-way (though staff recognizes the particulars of this property in regards to the VDOT-owned property being located adjacent to the ROW). 19. Has a Phase 1 environmental impact statement been done on this property previously? Can you provide a copy of this Phase 1 environmental impact statement for the file? Comment acknowledged. 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. Please clarify how the public road network is proposed to be improved with this project, as no public roads are being proposed within this development allowing for a more interconnected public road network. Is the improvement that entrances to the property will be in better locations than where they are currently? (Please also see comment # 1 above about the entrance onto Ashwood Boulevard.) Clarify whether the proposed public access easement would be for all of the proposed private roads in the development, or only on Road C, where an access easement is shown at either end of the road on sheets 3 and 4 of the plan. 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. Please see comment #10. Otherwise, comment addressed. Comment addressed. 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. Thank you for providing the additional information, and for the correction from my comment above that Hollymead Elementary is currently under -capacity. However, it is important to note that with the expected 46 elementary -age students to be generated by this development, the capacity level for Hollymead Elementary will nearly be reached. In addition, Albemarle High School is already over -capacity and will remain so with this development. A net of 81 additional students overall (84 expected to be generated minus the 3 stated to already live on the property) is a significant increase. Please be aware that school capacity levels have historically been closely considered by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Comment acknowledged. 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. Are the garage units connected to any buildings? Standalone parking structures require special use permits. Comment addressed. 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. The cross-section for the Ashwood Boulevard entrance does not match what is shown on the plan. A planting strip is depicted on the cross-section; however, no planting strip is shown on the plan. Comment addressed. Additional Comments 34. Add the garage setbacks to the "Required Setbacks" note on the cover sheet, as garage units are mentioned as potentially being included within the development. Comment addressed. 35. In the project narrative, page 4, under Neighborhood Center, it is stated that Brookhill amenities will be a "short walk" from the proposed RST development. How far is this exactly? Comment addressed. 36. If this application is approved by the Board, a shared parking agreement may be needed at the site planning stage, depending on how the ownership of this development is set up. The required number of parking spaces in Land Bay 1 (which appears to be the apartments) is two more than what is actually being provided; however, two spaces more than what is required are being provided in Land Bay 2 (which appears to be the townhouses). Of course, these calculations would also depend on the final unit count in the development. Comment acknowledged. 37. The length from Ashwood Boulevard to the closest building and parking envelope is labelled differently on sheet 3 (70 feet) than on sheet 4 (68.1 feet). Comment addressed. Plannin¢ Division — Transportation Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. Transportation Planning contact — Daniel Butch, Transportation Senior Planner, dbutch@albemarle.org. Planning Division — Architectural Review Board (ARB) No further comments at this time. The architectural design will be reviewed with site plan submittals. Margaret Maliszewski, ARB Staff Planner (Chief of Resource Planning), mmaliszewski@albemarle.org. Zoning Division, Community Development Department Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. Zoning Division contact — Francis MacCall, Principal Planner, finaccallgalbemarle.org. 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: - There may be a few on -street parking spaces that need to be eliminated because of sight -distance triangles, but this can be addressed during the site plan process. Housina Division, Community Development Department The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Stacy Pethia, Principal Planner for Housing, spethia@albemarle.org: Concept Plan Cover Page —the Affordable For -Sale Dwelling Units description includes the following: THE NINETY (90) DAY PERIOD SHALL COMMENCE UPON WRITTEN NOTICE FROM THE APPLICANT OR ITS SUCCESSOR THAT THE UNIT(S) WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR SALE. THIS NOTICE SHALL NOT BE GIVEN MORE THAN SIXTY (60) DAYS PRIOR TO RECEIPT OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE APPLICABLE FOR -SALE AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNIT; THE COUNTY OR ITS DESIGNEE MAY THEN HAVE THIRTY (30) DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO PROVIDE A QUALIFIED PURCHASER FOR SUCH FOR -SALE AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNIT. The highlighted time period should be changed to `ninety (90) days' to match the total number of days available to identify an income -qualified purchaser. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Please see the attached memorandum regarding this proposal from VDOT plans reviewer Adam Moore, adam.moorekvdot.vir ig nia.gov. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There will be a fee assessed for another resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience online at: https://www.albemarle.org/home/showdocument?id=358 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 areitelbachgalbemarle.org, and my phone number is 434-296-5832 ext. 3261. Sincerely, Andy Reitelbach Senior Planner Planning Division, Department of Community Development enc: Memorandum from the Virginia Department of Transportation, dated October 29, 2020 Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Form COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 October 29, 2020 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Andy Reitelbach Re: 2AM-2020-00007 - RST Residences Review #3 Dear Mr. Reitelbach: (804) 786-2701 Fax: (804) 786,2940 The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Bolder, dated 09 October 2020, and find it to be generally acceptable. The following items will need to be adequately addressed prior to site plan approval: 1. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other requirements. If further information is desired, please contact Max Greene at 434-422-9894. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. Sincerely, Adam J. Moore, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 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: ZMA2020-00007 RST Residences 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