HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100001 Correspondence 2021-07-16 (2)of nL8 tZ*"ZQP designStudio
Landscape Amhdectum and Site Planning
vrRGiN1P
COMMENT RESPONSES TO STAFF'S INITIAL REVIEW
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176
March 5, 2021
Mr. Steve Edwards
Edwards Design Studio
4936 Old Boonsboro Rd.
Lynchburg, VA 24503
steveCa edwardsdesignstudio.com / 434-531-7507
RE: ZNIA2021-00001 Willow Glen
Dear Mr. Edwards:
July 19, 2021
Mr. Andy Reitelback, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZNIA202 10000 1, Willow Glen. We have a
number of questions and comments which we believe should be addressed before we can recommend favorably on your
ZMA request. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues.
Review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. Our comments are provided below:
Planning — General ZMA Comments
1. Provide the total acreage of Phase 1 of the development in the project narrative so that staff can better analyze the
overall density of the development and the proposed amendments from ZMA2006-00019.
Done. Please see the added chart on page 1 in the Narrative.
2. Revise the density calculations on sheet 2 of the narrative — it appears that 308 units divided by 19.27 acres would
be approximately 15.98 DUA, not the 15.20 that is identified.
Done. Please see the added chart on page 2 in the Narrative.
3. Include the net density of the development in both the project narrative and on the application plan. (It does
appear, however, that it will likely be the same as the gross density since there are no environmental features
located on the property.)
Done. A statement follows the chart above on page 2 in the Narrative that explains there is no
difference in this project between both net and gross density.
4. The project narrative states that some buildings may be four stories. Provide more information on the building
heights and which buildings may be of that height. Any building that exceeds three stories, or 40 feet, in height,
whichever is less, must have a stepback of at least 15 feet. However, a special exception application can be
submitted instead to request that the Board of Supervisors waive or modify the requirement for the 15-ft.
stepback.
We don't believe any special exception is now needed. Please refer to our response in #5 below.
If staff disagrees please let us know.
5. 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. The proposed heights of the buildings should be identified on the application plan.
The architecture can support and accommodate the 45 feet maximum height requirement as
measured from the front street -facing side. However, on the downhill side, the building
becomes a 4-story fagade to adapt to the changing topography. In these cases, the building may
exceed 45 foot but remain under 50' if we apply the same County standard of measument. See
the illustration below.
1 0
rreaarl:r� �1nn.�
i,nma i%191 A' t7
� nn�n.n� � � �n.n�n.�
nnnnnna �i rtnn..1n
nnmm�un m nnnnnnunnni MEIN
0 mn
nnnnnnnnn.nnnnmwnnnnnmn
'unnmmnnnnnnmm�imnimnilmIII III IIIIIII�IIIe.'
nmm_nonnnmlIlunnnulnnnnnn m
=111111
I �I11I1111I=I=l11l=I��I= IY_I�I®I
n.unnunn=`=
uinuimnn—
on
I111111 .. .� ..= n1111 III
11I1111I �� uli 11I1111I—
11I1111
11 11 11
6. Revise the information on impacts to the school system in the project narrative. The narrative states that this
project is located within the Hollymead Elem. School district. However, it appears that this development is
instead in the Baker -Butler Elem. School district.
Baker -Butler is already over -capacity and is expected to remain so over the next ten years of enrollment
projections, as is Albemarle High School. This proposal will generate additional students at the elementary and
high school levels, while decreasing middle school students at Sutherland, which is currently under -capacity. This
proposal does not appear to address the impacts from the additional students expected to be generated by the
requested increase in density.
Based on the Applicant's analysis of the number of students generated by several comparable
projects it has developed, the increase in student numbers for the amended over the approved
zoning would be two students. Using the County's Official Calculator, the difference in student
numbers between approved and proposed zoning would be 11 students. The project's
development and construction is expected to generate $24.8 million in direct economic benefit
to the County and 150 jobs during the development and construction phase (2022-24). Indirect
impact in the County is expected to be $3.2 million. Following construction, the project is
expected to provide $992,602 in revenue to the County annually, which will more than offset the
total cost, estimated at $908,850, to provide County services to Willow Glen, including
education for 50 children using the 0.17 multiplier. In fact, that overage, estimated at $83,752
annually, would provide an additional $7,614 for each of the additional 11 children. The County
estimates that the average education cost per child in FY2021 is $7,019.
7. The project narrative does not provide any information on potential impacts of the project on public facilities such
as the police department and the fire -rescue department. Anticipated impacts on these facilities should be
discussed in the narrative.
Addressed in the narrative
8. There is also no discussion in the narrative about potential impacts on the transportation network in the
surrounding area. This information should be provided. In addition, no TIA was provided for this development, so
staff is unable to analyze the potential impact this proposal may have on the transportation network.
Our Traffic Impact Study prepared by Ramey Kemp & Associates was submitted to both Kevin
McDermitt and Adam Moore (VDOT) on March 25t''. We would like feedback from the County
before proposing mitigation measures.
9. Interconnectivity is being reduced with this proposal.
Correct. We are eliminating the vehicular connection previously proposed between Phase 1 and
Phase 2 via Shannon Glen Court for several reasons among which include: limiting the amount
traffic on the narrow streets in Phase 1; conforming to our approved DEQ/USACE permits;
reducing impacts on the environmental features of the site (i.e. streams); eliminating a major
financial impact to the overall project; providing additional safely and buffer to the Phase 1
families; and finally, promoting a pedestrian -oriented connection rather than a vehicular.
10. These properties are near a designated Neighborhood Service Center (the intersection of Dickerson and
Towncenter Dr.). How is this development proposed to relate to this Center for the community?
Neighborhood Service Centers don't have to exist in each development. They can act
independently but co -exist and relate in promity. The suggested Neighborhood Center is
located in the Places29 report at the Towncenter Drive/Dickerson Road intersection. This would
be less than 1/4" mile away from our development and well within suitable walking/biking
distance standards.
11. 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.
No. The development will be owned, maintained and operated by the Breeden Company who is
the contract purchaser.
12. If this ZMA is approved, it is likely that a boundary line adjustment (BLA) plat will be needed to vacate the
property line among the three parcels that compose this request. (This vacation is not required at the rezoning
stage but is something to be aware of at the site planning/subdivision stage if the zoning map amendment is
approved.)
Duly noted.
13. Sheet Z6 mentions one -car garages. Where are those proposed to be located? They do not appear to be identified
on the plan.
These have now been indicated more clearly on the plan.
14. Why are the setbacks being reduced from what is shown on the existing approved plan, especially in the northern
comer where Buildings 9 and 10 are proposed? These structures appear to be very close to existing single-family
homes in the Deerwood subdivision, and no buffer is being proposed in this location. This does not promote the
"appropriate and harmonious physical development" intended with the PRD zoning district.
The previous standards were more restrictive. We are now using the non-infill setback
standards established in Sec. 4.19.
We have studied the relationship of Buildings 9 & 10 with the existing Deerwood homes and
conclude they are no closer than Building F was depicted on the originally approved
Application Plan. At the closest point to the property line, the distance is just over 21 feet. At the
closest point between Building 9 to the Deerwood home, the distance grows to 65 feet with
existing vegetation being preserved. Similarly, the distance with Building 10 is over 75 feet. We
feel that the separation, the scale of building, working with the grades and the architectural
fagade treatments coupled with any proposed landscaping during final site plan will be more
than able to diminish this concern.
15. Areas of Managed Steep Slopes should be depicted on the plan sheets for staff to analyze potential impacts.
Please see Sheet Z3, titled Existing Conditions Plan. There we have noted the managed slopes
which were previously referred to as "Critical Slopes- 25% or Greater."
16. On the cover sheet of the application plan:
a. Provide the application number — ZMA2021-00001. Done
b. Remove the Urban Mixed Use (in centers) designation in the comp plan section. This property is not
designated for that land use. Done
17. Also include the application number for this amendment on the project narrative.
Done
18. Has a Phase 1 environmental impact statement been done on this property previously?
Yes.
19. How will waste management be addressed at this development? Is it only the proposed compactor in the
northwest comer of the site?
Yes, the compactor shown will be the only waste management system. Based on multiple
properties owned and managed by the purchaser, this will be enough to accommodate the
residents in the development.
20. 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 360 units proposed, 72,000 sq. ft. of recreational space is required for both phases. It does not appear that
this requirement is met with the rec spaces shown on the application plan.
a. Planned Residential Developments should provide an "improved level of amenities" (see ZO 18-19.1).
Identify how this is being accomplished.
The Application Plan and narrative have been revised to show what we feel to be an improved
level of amenities compared to traditional zoning districts. The Project will include 125,029 SF of
Receational Faclity Areas.
b. Separate out the calculations of the proposed recreational space from the other proposed open space areas,
such as the pond and buffer areas, 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.
Done. See Sheet V.
c. Identify the locations of the required recreational facilities. The proposed rec 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. The square footage of the recreational facilities identified on sheet Z8 does not meet the square
footage required by the ordinance. See instead comment 21 below for another course of action since an
exception request was submitted.
Done. See Sheet Z7 (formerly Z8) in addition to our special exception request.
Include Phase 1 in this calculation as well, since it is also a part of the development and the open space
areas and rec facilities are to be shared across both phases.
4
Duly noted.
e. Identify any amenities provided with the stormwater management pond. The pond by itself cannot be
included as open space.
Amenities include a gazebo/viewing platform and walking/biking trails.
21. As an exception request was submitted, revise the request to identify the requirements of the ordinance, as
mentioned above, and then identify what is being proposed to be replace the ordinance requirements, including
both square footage and the facilities/equipment. The proposed facilities should also be depicted on the
application plan.
We have revised Sheet Z7 to include this information.
22. How will the open space and rec facilities be owned and operated? More information should be provided. As they
are part of the same development, the open space and facilities in both Phases 1 and 2 must be open to residents of
the other phase.
Both the open space and recreational facilities will be owned and operated by the purchaser.
With approximately 45 properties in Virginia, The Breeden Company, is accustomed to having
full-time on -site staff. The open space, pocket parks, tot lots and trails will be open and shared
with the Phase 1 residents and their guest. Likewise, Phase 1 residents will be offered the
option (via a private membership program) to use the pool, fitness center and clubhouse facility
for an additional fee. At this time, the use of these amenties to the greater public is not being
offered due to maintenance and liability concerns.
23. Neighborhood Model Principles
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. It
is recommended that these comments and questions be addressed as well, as many of them expand on the
comments listed above.
See our responses to this later.
24. Community Meeting
A community meeting has not yet been held for this rezoning application, although one is scheduled for Thursday,
March 11, 2021. 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.
This was done on March 11th, 2021.
Planning — SE2021-00007 — Recreational Requirements Comments
1. See comments 20-22 above regarding the open space and recreational requirements of this development.
Duly noted.
2. Also see the comments from Zoning for more information.
Duly noted.
Planning— SE2021-00008— Parking Requirements Comments
1. The narrative states that the development encourages mixed uses. There are no mixed uses proposed within this
development. Clarify.
Between Phase 1 and Phase 2 there are a mixture of uses — single-family detached units, single-
family attached (i.e. townhomes) units and the proposed apartments. Within the framework of
the surrounding local context, including Hollymead Towncenter and other Route 29 commercial
developments, the Project contributes to a wide variety of residential and commercial uses.
Furthermore, the Charlottesville Regional Airport adds an industrial layer/use.
2. Identify the walking distances from this development to the services referenced in the narrative.
Please see the illustration below in relation to the surrounding context.
3. There is currently no transit service in this area. Furthermore, there is no accommodation provided for future
transit surface with this development as proposed.
Since no public transit services existing along Dickerson Road, we feel a transit stop on the
Property isn't warranted at this time.
4. No parking studies or information was provided with this request, as was referenced in the narrative.
Please see our comments pertaining to the Traffic Imapct Study.
Planning Division — Transportation
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Kevin McDermott, Chief of Planning,
kmcdermott(a)albemarle.org:
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project needs to be provided for staff to review. Without a TIA, staff can not
recommend approval of the ZMA to the PC if you decide to move forward.
Our Traffic Impact Study prepared by Ramey Kemp & Associates was submitted on March 251h.
Planning Division — Architectural Review Board (ARB)
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski, ARB Staff Planner (Chief
of Resource Planning), mmaliszewski@albemarle.org:
No objections at this time. This property does not fall within the EC Overlay District.
11
Duly noted.
Zoning Division, Community Development Department
Please see the attached memorandum with comments from Zoning reviewer Rebecca Ragsdale, Principal Planner,
rragsdale(a),albemarle.org.
Duly noted.
Engineering & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by the County Engineer, Frank Pohl,
fpohl(a)albemarle.org:
1. Applicant is proposing to remove the offsite connection to Shannon Glen Court included in the previous rezoning.
This may result in Shannon Glen Ct. being ineligible for VDOT acceptance, or, may require additional improvements to
Shannon Glen Ct. to allow VDOT acceptance. If this application results in Shannon Glen Ct. not being eligible for VDOT
maintenance, a private road request including required documents (plat, road maintenance agreement, etc.) may be
required. Confirm if VDOT will still accept Shannon Glen Ct. if it is a dead end street and any improvements required to
remain a public street.
Duly noted.
2. Sheet Z8, Additional Notes - Trails must meet one of the design standards as identified in the County Design
Standards Manual, Section H. Trail Standards. Please identify the trail standard(s) to be used for this project. If deviations
are proposed, please identify such deviations (i.e. 4-ft width instead of 5-ft).
The majority of the trails will be considered Class B- Type 2 as a minimum. However, a Class B-
Type 1 trail could be used offline of the predominate trail network if opportunities become
available in wooded naturalized areas.
3. Considering land disturbance commenced on Phase 1 prior to July 1,2014, the project shall remain subject to the
Part II C technical criteria until the end of the current permit cycle, which expires on June 30, 2024. After such time,
portions of the project not under construction shall become subject to any new technical criteria adopted by the board
[9VAC25-870-47.B]. The active DEQ CGP permit number is VAR10P048.
Duly noted.
E911 (Geographic Data Services) Division, Community Development Department
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Elise Kiewra, GIS Specialist,
ekiewra(a)albemarle. org:
No objections at this time. However, see the attached memorandum from Elise Kiewra for advisory comments regarding
this application.
No response was needed.
Building Inspections Division, Community Development Department
No objections at this time. Betty Slough, Plans Reviewer, bslough&albemarle.org.
No response was needed.
Albemarle County Fire -Rescue
Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. Shawn Maddox, Fire & Rescue
plans reviewer, smaddox@albemarle.org.
Duly noted and has been address via a separate response.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Please see the attached memorandum with comments from ACSA plans reviewer, Richard Nelson,
melson@serviceauthority.org.
Duly noted.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Please see the attached memorandum with comments from VDOT Area Land Use Engineer, Adam Moore,
adam.moore(a)vdot.virginia. gov.
Duly noted.
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter,"
which is attached.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date
schedule is provided for your convenience online at: https://www.albemarle.org/home/shoWublisheddocument?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
areitelbach@albemarle.org, and my phone number is 434-296-5832 ext. 3261.
Sincerely,
Andy Reitelbach
Senior Planner
Planning Division, Department of Community Development
enc: Consistency with Neighborhood Model
Memorandum from Rebecca Ragsdale, Zoning Division
Memorandum from Elise Kiewra, GDS Division
Memorandum from Albemarle County Service Authority
Memorandum from Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
ZMA2021-00001 Action After Receipt of Comments
Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Form
ZMA2021-00001 Willow Glen Amendment
Staff Analysis of Application's Consistency with Neighborhood Model Principles
Pedestrian There are pedestrian facilities provided throughout the site. However, most of the
Orientation sidewalks are adjacent to large expanses of parking. Landscaping is important to
provide greater pedestrian orientation in this development. There is a trail provided
on the southern side of the property, however, no similar facility is provided for the
buildings and residents on the north side of the property. In addition, safety features
such as crosswalks do not appear to be provided.
This principle is partially
Mixture of
Uses
The trail network and connections have been revised. As for safety
features, not every crossing requires a crosswalk, only those on major
access routes. Typically, only in urbanized areas are crosswalks
extremely necessary. VDOT doesn't recommend these at every
intersection let alone in parking lots. However, to provide safe access
we have conceptually shown them but these will be determined and
finalized in the final site plan. In addition, we have also addressed
lighting in the narrative.
The application provides for only one type of housing in Phase 2, reducing the mix
from the existing greater range of housing types that are approved for this property.
However, with Phase 1 included, there are additional housing types. This property is
designated as Urban Density Residential, so residential is the primary use
recommended.
This principle is partially met.
The Narrative has been revised.
Neighborhood Strategy 2f in Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan identifies neighborhood centers
Centers as having four components: 1) a centralized park or outdoor amenity which is
surrounded by 2) a ring of commercial or mixed uses with 3) surrounded by medium
to high density residential uses and a final 4) outer ring of low density residential.
There does not appear to be a visually defined neighborhood center in this
development. Many of the recreational facilities are proposed to be located on the
outskirts of the site. There are two club buildings, but it is unclear what is proposed
to be located in each, and there is not a centralized park or gathering area.
In the greater area, the intersection of Dickerson and Towncenter is a designated
Neighborhood Service Center. There do not appear to be any proposed connections
with that area to promote connectivity with it as this area continues to develop in the
future.
This principle does not appear to be met.
Not every neighborhood is required to have a neighborhood center
within it. The Future Land Use North map depicts a Neighborhood
Service Center immediately west of the Project. The Project provides
the medium level residential density desirable near such Centers, and
appropriate connectivity will be easy to establish once such a Center is
developed. This Project need not contain commercial uses because it
is within distance of one of the county's major commercial hubs.
Mixture of
The proposal does provide multiple types of housing when including Phase 1.
Housing Types
However, it reduces the mix of housing types in Phase 2, which currently includes a
and
wide range of types, including condos, single-family detached, townhouses, and
Affordability
duplexes, to only multi -family housing. The overall mix of housing types is being
reduced.
The applicant is providing 15 percent affordable housing, per the Housing Policy in
the Comprehensive Plan.
This principle is partially met.
The Narrative has been revised. Within a mere % mile circumference
around the Project are a number of single-family detached, townhome,
condominium, and apartment communities, so the mixture appears
adequate for the region. The county often looks at a mixture of housing
types in a regional context.
Interconnected
This application proposes to sever the approved vehicular connection between Phase
Streets and
1 and Phase 2 of this development. Interconnected streets are an important feature to
Transportation
provide access and reduce congestion on the surrounding road networks, especially
Networks
in the development areas. In addition, no interparcel connections are proposed with
the other adjacent parcels, several of which are currently undeveloped or may be
redeveloped in the future, providing the opportunity for future interconnections.
There are also no proposed connections toward the area around the intersection of
Dickerson Road and Towncenter Drive, which is a designated Neighborhood
Service Center in the Places29 Master Plan.
The application plan states that the private roads are to have public access easements
over them. These public access easements would be important for future
interconnections.
This principle does not appear to be met.
The Narrative has been revised.
The statement of public access easements (noted on Sheet Z4) has
been revised. The previous statement was intended to allow access to
VDOT, trash companies, and for County emergency vehicles outside
the needs of the residents and their guest.
Multi -modal This development appears to be mostly automobile -centric. There are internal
Transportation sidewalks among the buildings. However, there do not appear to be any bike
Opportunities facilities, except for the one hybrid trail on the southern side of the development.
What is the surface of this trail proposed to be?
No bike lanes or accommodations for future transit service are provided on the site.
No pedestrian paths are provided along the Dickerson Road frontage of this
property.
This principle does not appear to be met.
The Plan has been revised to provide a trail along the northern side of
the Project as well as the southern trail and connector. The narrative
has been updated to provide more information regarding trail surfaces.
A future transit stop is not proposed as the property is not on any
existing or proposed transit route.
iul
Parks,
More information needs to be provided regarding the open space and recreational
Recreational
areas. As a PRD, there should be an improved level of amenities over the minimum
Amenities, and
required by the ordinance (ZO 18-19.1).
Open Space
Identify the open space and recreational areas in Phase 1 as well, because if these
requirements are not currently met in Phase 1, they will have to be met in Phase 2.
For example, there do not appear to be any tot lots or recreational areas/equipment in
Phase 1.
The stormwater management pond cannot by itself be included in the open space
calculations.
The plan provides greatly improved level of amenities over the
minimium required by the ordinance. Open space and recreational
facility areas are identified, and substitutions are listed on the plan.
The stormwater pond will have trails, a viewing platform, benches, and
nearby parks and tot lot. By offering opportunities to fish, walk, sit and
relax around the pond then it may be considered an amenity. In
addition, the County's Ordinance states stormwater management
facilities are permitted uses in Sec. 4.7
• Are there any proposed features or amenities that would allow greater use of
the pond or make it a desirable amenity for the community? Yes
• How is the ownership of the open space areas and recreational facilities
proposed to be handled? Please see the Narrative. The Project owner
will own and manage the property.
As a part of the same development, the open space in both Phases 1 and 2 must be
available for use by residents of each phase. Understood.
Demonstrate that the minimum recreational requirements can be met, including the
number of tot lots and asphalt recreational areas. Or, in the special exception request,
clearly identify each required recreational area/equipment as stated in the ordinance,
and what is being proposed to replace it.
Please see our revisions already mentioned.
Provide more information on the dog spa and what will be provided.
• Why is the dog spa not near the dog park?
The pet spa will provide residents the opportunity to wash and groom
their dogs. It is located within an apartment to utilize the utlity services
efficiently as to being located at the dog park
The northern side of the development has a dearth of recreational areas compared to
the southern part of the development.
• Why are there two club buildings?
• What is the difference between the two?
• What is proposed to be located in those buildings?
This principle does not appear to be met.
We have revised the plans to distinguish the clubhouse from the
fitness center. The clubhouse will be mainly used for sales, meeting
spaces, and as a business center. The fitness center will offer an
expanded gym and support the pool with convenient restrooms and
showers.
Revisions can be found in the Narrative and now on Sheet V.
11
Buildings and It is unclear how tall the proposed buildings are. The narrative states that the
Space of buildings will be mostly three stories tall. However, there is no indication on the
Human Scale application plan stating the proposed height of the buildings. The only reference to
height appears to be the maximum height permitted in the zoning district, of 65 feet.
However, this height exceeds what is recommended for residential structures in the
Urban Density Residential land use designation in the Places29 master plan, which
is 4 stories, or 45 feet.
Stepbacks will be required for buildings over three stories.
In addition, two of the proposed buildings, 139 and B 10, are very close to existing
single-family homes in the Deerwood subdivision. There is no indication of their
height, and no buffer is proposed between the new and existing structures to help
provide a transition with the existing neighborhood.
This principle does not appear to be met.
All the buildings will be 3-stories except as noted so the architecture
and development can work with the existing topography.
With regards to B9 & B10, please see #14 response under Planning —
General ZMA Comments above.
Relegated Much of the proposed parking appears to be in front of the buildings. Is any parking
Parking proposed to be located underneath any of the buildings? There are significant areas
of surface parking.
This principle does not appear to be met.
Please also note that the property slopes away from Dickerson Road.
By working with the topography, much of the parking will be hidden by
the architecture from the road.
In addition, 27 spaces will be garaged. Please see Sheet Z5 for the
locations.
We feel we have adequately met this principle.
Redevelopment The requested rezoning would permit redevelopment of the property, which is
currently largely vacant, with a few older houses located on it.
This principle appears to be met.
Duly noted. No response required.
Respecting
The property contains areas within the Managed Steep Slopes Overlay Zoning
Terrain and
District. Pursuant to Section 18-30.7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, Managed Steep
Careful
Slopes can be disturbed if the design standards of Section 18-30.7.5 are adhered to.
Grading and
This disturbance includes grading and the construction of future buildings, parking
Re -grading of
areas, retaining walls, and other improvements. Compliance with this section of the
Terrain
ordinance will be reviewed by the County Engineer at the site planning stage if this
rezoning request is approved.
This Drinciole aonears to be met at this time.
Duly noted. No response required.
Clear I
Although adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas, the subject property does not
Boundaries border the Rural Areas as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. All surrounding
with the Rural properties are located within the Community of Hollymead of the Places29 Master
Area Plan area.
This orinciple does not aooly.
Duly noted. No response required.
12
To: Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner II -Planning
From: Rebecca Ragsdale, Principal Planner -Zoning
Division: Zoning
Date: March 2, 2021
Subject: Zoning Review Comments-ZMA202100001 Willow Glen
Narrative, Application Plan, and proffers last revised
SE202100007-Waive/Substitute requirements of Section 4.16
SE202100008-Parking Modification
Sheet Z4-
• Sheet Z5 does not seem necessary and should be deleted as information on that sheet is repeated
on other sheets.
We feel that the Concept Plan helps everyone visualize how the development will come together
in the Final Site Plan process.
• Parking and Building regulations- Is there a reason why notes and setbacks are proposed that differ
from the ordinance? Regulations in Section 4 related to setbacks and allowable encroachments apply
unless expressly modified. If you wish to modify the setbacks, a written request and justification, with
the specific section cited, must be submitted and acted on as part of this rezoning request.
Duly noted. At this time, we are not seeking any modifications or waivers.
• PRD requires setbacks and stepbacks as provided in Section 4.19. This table and notes should be
removed and include only the reference to Section 4.19.
We have deleted most of the notes but feel leaving the table helps everyone understand the
particular infill setbacks associated with this project.
• Section 4.11.1 specifies allowable encroachments:
o Covered porches, balconies, chimneys, eaves and like architectural features may project not
more than four feet into any required yard; provided that no such feature shall be located
closer than five feet from any side lot line in a non-infill development within the R-1, R-2, R-4,
R-6, R-10, R-15, PRD, or PUD districts, and no closer than six feet to any lot line.
• Refer to Section 4.11.2 for regulations pertaining to accessory structures in required yards.
Duly noted.
• Notes 3, 4, 7, and 8 need to be deleted or modified to address the comments above.
These notes have been deleted.
• Why is Note 6 included when townhouse and single family lots are not proposed with this phase?
This has been deleted.
• Patios are not structures and are not subject to setback requirements.
Duly noted.
13
• Notes that restate ordinance requirements or definitions must be deleted. This includes notes 5 and
9.
These have been deleted.
SE202100007-Waive/Substitute requirements of Section 4.16 and Sheet Z8
• Zoning does not support the reduction in tot lots from 7 to 1. There should at least be a second tot lot
conveniently located and accessible for Phase 1 in addition to the one proposed near Dickerson Road.
One suggestion is the area near the dog spa.
The revisions can be found in the Narrative and on Sheet V.
• This is not a Neighborhood Model zoning district but PRD. Amenities are a term used only for NMD.
Duly noted. This reference has been changed to refer to Recreational Facilities.
• Sheet Z8 must be updated to confirm requirements of 4.16 will be met and the term amenity updated to
recreational area for consistency with Section 4.16. For 360 units, 72,000 square feet of recreational
area must be provided. Substitutions/reductions must be expressly granted with the special exception
request. For example, list out the required tot lots and recreation required by 4.16, beside each indicate
whether you propose an equivalent substation or to waiver the requirement.
• The revisions can now be found on Sheet V.
• What are the minimum features to be provided for a dog spa or dog park?
Within the dog spa, residents will be offered both washing and drying stations. At the dog park,
typically there are two areas: large dogs and small dogs.
Outside these areas, benches, trash receptacles and sometimes shade are provided for the
owners
• PRD requires 25% in common open space. The percentage of area in common open space for the
entire PRD must be added to sheet Z8.
Sheet Z4 (Application Plan) depicted 36% Common Open Space. Also, the table on Sheet Z7 has
been updated.
• Minimum design standards for the pedestrian/bike connection need to be provided.
We have clarified these minimum design standards which can be found in the notes on Sheet
V.
14
SE202100008-Parking Modification and Sheet Z6
• No data has been provided to support this request (ITE, parking studies from similar complexes in the
area). "Empirical data" was referenced but not provided.
Please refer to the TIA recently submitted to Kevin McDermott.
• Staff does not support reductions based on transit as transit is currently not provided to the site or
within walking distance.
The parking reduction request is not based on availability of transit.
• If it would be helpful, staff can provide an example of such a reduction request.
Thanks that would be helpful so we can replicate what you feel is a solid modification request.
Proffers
• This rezoning proposes to eliminate the currently applicable proffers approved with ZMA200600019.
The proposed zoning amendment replaces proffers associated with the existing uses and
design with PRD Plan notes.
• Staff is still awaiting information necessary to evaluate and comment on impacts attributable to this
rezoning, which proposes an increase in the number of units previously approved and change in unit
type.
Duly noted.
• For informational purposes, if Willow Glen built out according to the approved unit type mix an
estimated $1,733,885 would be paid in cash proffers for the CIP based on 2020 adjusted
amounts.
Duly noted. The cash proffers do not apply to multi -family housing, and the project would not
be economically viable with the inclusion of such payout. The Applicant's economic impact
analysis concludes, however, that the project as proposed will provide more dollars in
economic contribution than it would use in County services.
15