Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100013 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2021-12-07V County of Albemarle COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT December 7. 2021 Rebecca Ragsdale Planning Manager rragsdaleCo)al bema rle.org Telephone: (434) 296-5832 ext. 3226 RE: ZMA202100013 Southwood Phase 2- First Review Comments Ms. Symmes: Staff has reviewed the initial submittal for a rezoning (ZMA202100013) for Southwood Phase 2, including the Code of Development and Application Plan dated October 18, 2021. Comments received to -date are provided below. Our comments are provided below and organized based on a brief list of key issues and concerns followed by detailed review comments. We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be resolved before your proposal goes to public hearing. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Issues identified by both staff and the public on the proposal, including those mentioned at the community meeting: 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan 2. Amenities and minimum recreation requirements 3. Code of Development and Application Plan changes are requested. Further information and analysis could result in additional changes to both. 4. Schools impacts 5. Transportation impacts Planning Comments and Zoning Comments: Comprehensive Plan -Detailed comments on how your project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report that will be prepared or public hearing. Initial comments on how the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided below. Staff will provide a Neighborhood Model analysis once additional information is provided. Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan (MP) The MP lists Southwood as a Priority Area, and the Land Use Plan designates these parcels as Urban Density Residential with a Center, and Parks and Green Systems. The descriptions of these land use designations and insets of the Land Use Map and the Center designation are below. Urban Density Residential This designation represents residential areas with supporting uses and non-residential uses. Density ranges from at a density of 6.01-34 dwellings per acre. Building height is recommended at 1-3 stories, additional stories where appropriate. Primary uses include residential uses of all housing types. Places of worship, public and private schools, early childhood education centers (day care centers and pre-schools), public uses, and public institutional uses. Secondary uses include neighborhood serving retail/commercial areas. Figure 19: Southwood Mobile Home Park 9. The Southwood (Figure 19) Center contains the existing Southwood Mobile Home Park which contains approximately 1500 residents, 342 mobile homes of various ages and states of repair, a Boys and Girls Club facility, and many children. It is recommended for Urban Density Residential development. Redevelopment of the Southwood Mobile Home Park should be as a mixed -income, mixed use community. A mixture of housing types for different income levels is expected. A retail and/or services area should be provided for the neighborhood. The proposed Southern Connector road prole is also o part of the planned future development. At this time, Habitat for Humanity is planning for the redevelopment of the mobile home park as a mixed -income, mixed -use community. During the planning stage, opportunities may exist for the County to partner with Habitat for Humanity to help request grant money, significantly improve and expand the regional inventory of affordable housing, tie into the transportation network throughout the area, and if Habitat for Humanity is able to exchange land owned by the State for Biscuit Run State Park, obtain land to add to the County inventory of playing fields. Strategy 2f, within the Development Areas Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, provides guidance for Neighborhood Centers and the intensity of development for the County's Master Plan areas (see below). It states that when centers are areas of mixed use, such as what is proposed and recommended by the MP for Southwood, that they help provide a form that allows for a continuum of uses, from least intensive to most intensive. This continuum starts at the center (most intensive) and radiates outward from there. This strategy also states that centers should be visually discernible to help create and facilitate a sense of arrival, and that new centers should be created with the MP recommendations. As stated previously, the MP recommends that Southwood be developed as a mixed income, mixed use community to include a mixture of housing types, and a retail and/or services area should be provided for the neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a height of one (1) to three (3) stories in this location (Urban Density Residential in Neighborhood Centers Arnea. 2h Continue to promote center as focal points for neighborhoods and places for civic ergogement. Neighborhood comers are focal poins or places in a neighbod,aod or area where people congregate. A center may be a school or park, location of a major employer or a stopping area. Like the awrlonesville downtown mall, centers are destinations. They are very important in creating the idenr y of an area and can be the hewn of a neighborhood. Identifying existing centers and places for new centers is a major camponem of developing a Master Plan. As seen in Figure 7, they are intended to be located within a comfortable walkable distance (approximately Y. mile) from homes. This dinaoce an be increased up to'h mile if a center contains a transit stop. Figure 7: Illustration `/a Mile erhen centers are employment hubs or access of mixed use, they help provide a form that allows for a continuum of uses, from least inrenwe to most intensive. In Figure 7, the most Intensive center would be found in Area S. legend for Figure Park or outdoor amenity Commercial or mixed use area Medium ra hgh demny rendemiai area ❑ Low m medium density re cem.1 area Distance from Neighborhood Center ,tea gal4 a i Source: ConununiM lWi9n oM ArcMmchve loll the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods Master Plan), with taller heights permitted where appropriate. In previous reviews, it was determined that the Comprehensive Plan designation of Center for Southwood was in between the Neighborhood Service Center and Community Center. The Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods Master Plan does not provide descriptions of its Centers. Therefore, the Places29 Master Plan Center descriptions were used. Neighborhood Service Centers allow up to three (3) stories, and Community Centers allow up to four (4) stories. Only after much review and discussion, including Planning Commission input, was Phase 1 approved for up to 4 stories in certain areas. In the Phase 2 proposal, building heights of up to 4 stories are proposed more extensively proposed along with up to 5 stories proposed in the center area. There seems to be an enlargement and extension of intensity beyond the center designation in the master plan, although it appears the transect concept is maintained. This will need further discussion as to the appropriateness of building heights and compliance with the center recommendation. There has not been sufficient information submitted to date to determine if a building height above three (3) stories is appropriate in this location. Code of Development: 1. Page 4- a. Phase 2 Area 1A is not defined. b. Last paragraph, left hand side, Explain what this means regarding the UDA designation and TND standards. c. What is referred to as the Concept Plan is really the regulating block plan and should be described as such to avoid confusion. 2. Page 6-Figure 4-This is not a Concept Plan but a Regulating Block Plan. The information on this page must be combined with Figure 6-Application Plan. The more information that is in one place, the easier to administer the COD and avoid confusion. 3. Page 7-Figure 5-This is an illustrative exhibit and should be moved to the narrative section of the document and not included in sections with regulations. 4. Page-8- a. A 30% deviation of block acreage is more significant than that approved in Phase 1. Staff believes 15% as approved in Phase 1 is more appropriate. b. Block descriptions do not seem to align with other tables and figures regarding the Neighborhood Center Special Area and Urban Mixed Use -Hickory Overlay. c. Regulations for the Neighborhood Center Special Area are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. 5. Page 9- a. Combine Figure 6 with Figure 4 b. What are the Areas supposed to define? Clearly define and establish any proposed regulations for these areas in the COD and on the Application Plan. Are they meant to represent phasing? 6. Page 11- No justification/parking study in accordance with Section 4.12 has been submitted to evaluate the parking requirement of 1.5/multifamily unit. Two -bedroom units would require 2/unit and adequate guest parking must be addressed. 7. Page 12- Refence to Tourist Lodging must be replaced with Homestay (5.1.48) 8. Page 13- a. Neighborhood Special Area Uses are not addressed b. The Flood Hazard Overlay district is a separate overlay district within the zoning ordinance. It should not be included in the NMD specific use regulations table. 9. Page 14- a. A 30% deviation of block acreage is more significant than that approved in Phase 1. Staff believes 15% as approved in Phase 1 is more appropriate. b. The term 'residential building typology" should be replaced with specific housing types listed in the use table of the COD. c. Correct Table 4 which indicates up to 1,391 units in the Urban Density Mixed Use Blocks but the total maximum number of units permitted within the development is 1,000. Correct density range. d. Add total acreage of the rezoning and gross residential density in accordance with Section 20A.7. e. As proposed, an additional 40,000 square feet of non-residential shall be permitted by Special Use Permit. A note is not the appropriate mechanism for this. It may be more appropriate to propose this in the use table. What uses may be increased and in what blocks? This has to be considered in the context of the TIA as well as the Comp Plan. 10. Page 15-16-See Comprehensive Plan section below. Following further discussion, amendments to this table may be needed. 11. Page 17 information could be combined with Page 18 and simplified into the specific minimum requirements for the parks and rec areas. As written, there are no minimum standards defined so that site plans can be reviewed for compliance with the COD. 12. Page 18-19 a. Proposed amenities do not meet the requirements of Section 20.A. A total of 20% amenities is required based on gross acreage. b. Proposed amenities and parks do not meet the minimum requirements of Section 4.16. Substitutions or waivers of minimum requirements must be expressly approved. An analysis and justification should accompany that request, as was provided with the Phase 1 rezoning. Substitutions can be made administratively but reducing requirements requires a Special Exception. Also, see relevant Parks and Rec comments. c. Table7-Open Space is not a term to be used in the NMD zoning regulations. Define what that category is meant to include using NMD terminology (Greenspace, amenities, conservation, preservation). The table needs to be reorgized. The trail amenity should be counted in amenities acreage. Minimum recreation provided to meet Section 4.16 may count as required NMD amenities. Required recreation based on Section 4.16: Number of Units 531 Units 1000 Units Tot Lots 11 21 '/z Basketball court or equivalent recreation 5.5 10 13. Page 22 and 23-These pages should be moved to the beginning of the COD and not in the regulatory section of the document as they include general narratives. The transportation and schools sections under proposed impacts to public facilities will need updates. The latest information regarding schools long-range planning should be included. a. Provide an updated narrative stating the proposed impacts to schools, as Mountain View Elementary School is currently over -capacity and further residential development would increase this over -capacity issue. Recent recommendations of the long range planning committee are not included. School capacity was also brought up as a concern among the public at the community meeting. 14. Page 24-See Engineering comments attached regarding strategies for stormwater management. 15. Page 24-Affordable housing -The proposed provisions require a minimum of 231 units and allow for a range of housing types. However, there is no regulation that addresses block distribution or minimums for each housing type. Application Plan: 16. Sheet C0.0-Include basic site data or reference to code of development as to maximum number of units, etc. 17. Sheet C1.0-Add all relevant existing conditions information a. Location of drainfields mentioned in narrative. b. Accurately show both managed and preserved slopes. Slopes are only identified as preserved on this sheet. c. Show existing/approved sections of Hickory Street from Old Lynchburg Road and the existing Oak Hill Drive section. d. Show TMP, zoning, and use of abutting properties. 18. Sheet C2.0-Similar to COD comment above, What are the Areas supposed to define? Clearly establish definitions/regulations for the Areas in the COD and on the Application Plan. Are they meant to represent phasing? 19. Sheet C3.0- a. Show Block 7 and the road connection as described in the Road Network note on this sheet. b. Any private roads will need private road approval. Update the note that says they "may" be utilized to indicate the separate approval process at the time of site plan or subdivision review. c. Stormwater Management note: see Engineering comments below and request to include strategies for stormwater with the application plan. d. Trail system note: Trail requirements are covered in the COD and other sheets of the application plan so this note does not seem necessary. e. Show approved section of Hickory Street. The Hickory Street section should be established on the Application Plan and not left to three different options. Hickory Street impacts beyond the project boundary to Oak Hill will need to be addressed and improvements to mitigate impacts in the rezoning documents. 20. Sheet C4.0-Combine information on this sheet with C2.0. 21. Sheet C6.0-See engineering comments. Also, update the sheet to make sure both managed and preserved steep slopes are accurately shown. Also, see Parks and Rec comments regarding stream restoration. Proffers: Transportation review is not complete so transit proffer comments will be provided at a later date. See Parks and Recreation comments regarding trails proffer. Schools comments were provided by Mava Kumazawa (mkumazawa(ZDk12albemarle.ora) on November 29, 2021: Here is the data for the current number of students from Southwood attending ACPS schools: Pre K: 25 K-5: 158 6-8: 95 9-12: 113 Total: 391 Regarding the projected yield, I saw that the proposal was up to 1,000 units, but I didn't see a specific breakdown by unit type. I have attached the student yield rates that can be applied to the proposed units being built. The rates for the schools that Southwood is districted for are: Mountain View (0.05 for apartments, 0.14 for single family homes, 0.06 for townhomes) Burley (0.03 for apartments, 0.06 for single family homes, 0.02 for townhomes) Monticello (0.03 for apartments, 0.09 for single family homes, 0.01 for townhomes) Code of Development Section 10 (page 24)-Section 10 (e) states `each subdivision plat or site plan will designate the number of affordable units provided and the minimum number of required affordable units. Recommend adding a requirement that the lots for affordable units shall be shown on the plats and site plans. This will conform with any federal grant requirements (e.g., CDBG) should Habitat apply for such funding for Phase 2 development. Only a small portion of the subject property falls within the Entrance Corridor overlay and the property is not adjacent to the EC street. Consequently, it is anticipated that visual impacts from this portion of the development on the EC will be limited. Building Inspections- No objection. Fire/Rescue- No objection. Engineering- Comments are attached. Parks and Recreation- Comments are attached. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)- Comments are attached. VDOT and Transportation Planning Comments are expected to be finalized next week. This includes future comments on transit and will include additional code of development application plan comments. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. I can be reached best at rraasdale0)albemarle.ora. Sincerely, Rebecca Ragsdale, Planning Manager Attachments: Action After Receipt of Comments Resubmittal Form Schools Subdivision Yield Analysis Engineering Comments Parks and Recreation Comments ACSA Comments Subdivision Yield Analysis Prepared by Cooperative Strategies forACPS on August 23, 2021 Link to full report httosil/resources.fmalsite.net/imaggsiv 1631898706+k 12albemadeorglnxhuwduvm8718wuyugi/ACS SubdivlstonAnalvsts 20210802.odf (page 28) The table below shows the student yields by boundary, separated by housing type. The yields are grade configuration specific, meaning that if a school has a K-5 grade configuration, the yield for that boundary is based on the number of K-5 students living in that boundary. This is the case for middle school and high school as well. Student potential values should be calculated by multiplying the yield by housing type, by boundary, by the number of units expected to be developed. In cases where a housing type is currently absent within a boundary. or where the housing type yield within a boundary is an outlier, the district -wide average should be used. An example of this is the Baker -Butler Elementary School boundary, the apartment yield for this boundary is 0.80 elementary -aged students per unit, however, there are only 5 apartment units currently within that boundary. In this case, the district -wide average yield of 0.09 for elementary students living within apartment units should be used. 2019 Boundary 20 Student Yields by Boundary Apartment Condo (Grade Specific) SuykFam.ly MOW. Townhome MEN :•.r ••r --��- • � maam® Ell . .a:.a ELEMENTARY SUBTOTAL 0DS 0.20 0.47 0.17 10.K • Lion" VIBTOTAL 0eo0e 004 0AB 012 0.08 0.06 NW, '71-IRMT—WITTrMs HIGH SUBTOTAL 0.05 0.10 026 0.12 0o2 Engineering comments provided by Frank Pohl (fpohl(&albemarle.orq) dated December 3, 2021: 1. Show conceptual stormwater management facility locations on the application plan. 2. State that at least 75% of required nutrient reductions will be provided on -site on the application plan or in the Code of Development. 3. Note on Page 12 states "All residential lots shall be outside of stream buffers, preserved slopes, and floodplains." Please clearly delineate the stream buffer, steep slopes, and floodplains on Figure 5, Pg 7, Code of Development, or provide another exhibit to show that lots are not within these environmental features. Sheet C6.0 comes close to showing this but does not include lots. Lots and other development must not extend into stream buffers [17-601.C]. It appears that lots encroach into the stream buffers and possibly steep slopes. It also appears units are proposed abutting stream buffers, which may not be constructed without impacting the buffer. Please add conceptual lot layout to Sheet C6.0 or provide another exhibit that shows the lots and all environmental features. 4. Table 3, Pg 13 of the Code of Development: a. Clarify if "buffer" means "stream buffer." If so, green space and stream buffers should be in separate columns because uses allowed in each are different. b. The uses listed as farmers market, public recreational facilities, tier I and II wireless service facilities, public playgrounds and parks, urban agriculture, and community gardens are not allowed in stream buffers. Add a column for stream buffers and do not include these uses in this column. c. Correct the Flood Hazard Overlay district code reference from "30.3.05.2.2" to "30.3.11." There is no section as referenced. d. Add "within outer 50-ft only with mitigation" to the end of the non-residential use "Stormwater Management Facilities." 5. Change all "buffer" references to "stream buffer" if the buffer is a stream buffer. There are different types of buffers, please clarify and modify as needed. 6. Code of Development, Pg 24, Strategies for Shared Stormwater: a. State that at least 75% of required nutrient reductions will be provided on -site [17- 502.A.3]. b. Discharging to a natural stream requires design meeting the energy balance if discharge does not meet the 1 % rule before discharging to the stream. Update the note to reflect this or simply state that water quantity requirements will meet VSMP regulations. ACSA comments provided by Richard Nelson Richard Nelson (rnelson@serviceauthority.org) dated December 3, 2021: ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT —Information from Service Providers To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's 1) Is this site in the jurisdictional area for water and/or sewer? Yes 2) What is the distance to the closest water and sewer line, if in the jurisdictional area? On site/Southwood Phase 1. 3) Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on plan? None known. 4) Are there major upgrades needed to the water distribution or sewer collection system of which the applicant and staff should be aware? 5) Are there other service provision issues such as the need for grinder pumps? N/A 6) Which issues should be resolved at the SP/ZMA stage and which issues can be resolved at the site plan/plat stage? 7) If the project is a large water user, what long term impacts or implications do you forsee? ACSA to determine is a 12-water main upsizing, along main road, is desired during site plan stage. 8) Additional comments? RWSA sewer capacity certification will be required, prior to site plan approval. Parks and Recreation Comments provided by Tim Padalino (tpadalino@albemarle.org) dated November 29, 2021: Proposed "Trail and Greenway Connections" Proffers: ACPR will not accept the proffered greenway easement(s) across private property open space. Because ACPR must focus our limited resources on the development, management, and maintenance of the adjoining public Biscuit Run Park property, ACPR cannot accept perpetual maintenance responsibilities for the proposed primitive trails through Southwood Phase 2. The proposed 1,000 dwelling units, and proposed 60,000 SF of non-residential land uses, would reasonably be expected to produce a major increase in demand for open space and recreational opportunities — and would very likely equate to major increases in the use of and the impacts to the adjoining Biscuit Run Park property. However, the proffer statement does not include any voluntary commitments to help the County manage or mitigate the reasonably anticipated surge in demand/use of the adjoining public park property, or the reasonably anticipated increases in impacts to the same. As a courtesy and for informational purposes, ACPR has identified potential opportunities to voluntarily help address reasonably anticipated impacts, including: development and dedication of a public park trailhead, development and dedication of bike/ped bridge(s) from Southwood to Biscuit Run Park property, or both (or dedication of land and/or cash proffers for same). ACPR recognizes and supports the proposed inclusion of numerous "Active Use Recreational Areas" amenities. Based on recent and existing local recreational trends and the unmet demand for active recreation areas, ACPR considers the on -site inclusion of these proposed active recreational facilities as being critically important — both for the direct benefit of future residents and for mitigating impacts to public facilities that would very likely be generated by the proposed new land uses. Proposed Block 18, which is located along the property boundary with Biscuit Run Park, would involve grading and tree removal as well as construction of new dwelling units and/or other new structures. All of these proposed land use changes would very likely visually impact the viewshed from the park property, and also alter the visitor experience of the park property, through the conversion of one side of the main Biscuit Run river valley from an undeveloped, natural riparian landscape to a constructed residential built environment. Therefore, ACPR recommends a grading buffer be established for Block 18 along the property boundary with the Biscuit Run Park property. A minimum buffer of 30' is recommended. Some such type of grading buffer would help the proposed redevelopment better meet the "Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading and Re -Grading of Terrain" Neighborhood Model Development principle, as well as the "Proposed Impact on Public Facilities and Infrastructure" evaluation criteria. In such a scenario, ACPR recommends that any such grading buffer include an exception to allow for the implementation of the proposed private primitive trail, provided that trail construction best practices are used and tree removal is minimized. Please note that Albemarle County Facilities & Environmental Services (FES) is actively planning to conduct a stream restoration project on Biscuit Run and/or one of its tributaries. Based on the Biscuit Run Restoration Master Plan prepared by Ecosystem Services for Albemarle County FES, the current priority restoration site is expected to be a segment of an unnamed tributary ("UT5") which is adjacent to the Southwood property (proposed Blocks 13 and 18). Coordination between Southwood, Habitat, CDD, FES, and ACPR should take place during this ZMA process to help facilitate successful stream restoration location, design, timeline, and other project details.