No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200700012 Review Comments 2007-08-15COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 — 5823 (ext 3029) Fax (434) 972 — 4012 August 15, 2007 David Jones 100 W. Franklin Street Richmond, VA 23220 Re: ZMA- 2007-012 Blue Ridge Cohousing David, Thank you for your submittal of the rezoning application for Blue Ridge Cohousing and for participating in the pre -application work session. The following review is builds on the previous work and provides additional information on detailed ordinance requirements that will be necessary for Board action. Your proposal has been reviewed for its compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and more specifically, the Crozet Master Plan. Staff has examined your response to the work session, the principles of the Neighborhood Model and has provided specific guidance regarding requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Below are comments from the Planning Department. As the lead department in the review process, our comments will have elements from other reviewing agencies and departments within them. However, Engineering, Zoning and VDOT comments, among others, have been listed under separate title. With a bold asterisk, I have identified key issues that staff would like to discuss in a meeting to be scheduled once you have had a chance to digest these comments. Conformity with the Land Use Section of the Comprehensive Plan Crozet Master Plan The property proposed for Blue Ridge Cohousing is located within a Neighborhood as defined in the Crozet Master Plan, at the edge of the Crozet Development Area. The property is a portion of the area added to the Community of Crozet with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was adopted prior to the adoption of the Master Plan and is located entirely within the Development Area. The northern boundary of the Community of Crozet follows Parrott Branch. The Crozet Master Plan maps do not depict this boundary correctly. The property proposed for cohousing is in a neighborhood that includes an existing and potential Employment District at its center with the former Con Agra (currently Music Today) and Acme buildings. Neighborhoods are described in the Master Plan as discernible places with a focal point and boundary that maintains and fosters social, cultural and economic activities. The area of neighborhoods, from center to edge, is based on a 'A mile radius, or comfortable 5 -minute walking distance, and the intensity and density of land uses are intended to decrease from the center, out to the edges of the neighborhood. Conformity with the Zoning Ordinance Staff has identified sections the Zoning Ordinance that remain unaddressed. One such requirement is an application plan at a scale not less than one (1) inch equal to one hundred (100) feet with existing and proposed topography accurately shown with a maximum of five (5) foot contour intervals and all of the other items identified under Section 8.5.1. Though you checklist indicates this has been done, staff has not found the exhibit with your submittal. Your plan indicates a scale of about I" = 150'. Staff suggests that given the size of the parcel, your submission should be printed out at a scale no greater than I" = 50'. Please see specific requirements under Zoning Comments below. The provision of this information may generate additional comments. Planning Commission Work Session On April 24, 2007 the Planning Commission held a pre -application work session on the Blue Ridge Cohousing ZMA to provide guidance to staff and the applicant on several issues that relate to the applicant's request to rezone the property. The Commission received input from the applicant, staff and the public. The Commission discussed the questions posed by staff and provided the following comments. 1. Are the residential Density and housing type, as conceptually proposed, appropriate based on Crozet Master Plan recommendations? 2. Any comments regarding the design and layout of the proposal as it relates to the Neighborhood Model. The Commission discussed residential density and housing type, considering the Crozet Master Plan recommendations for CT 3 Urban Edge designated areas and the relationship of the property to the Rural Area boundary. (The applicant indicated at the meeting that they had considered reducing their proposed number of residential units from 32 to 29 units, which would be consistent with the maximum number of units recommended by the Crozet Master Plan, provided that 50% affordable/accessory units are provided to allow a net density of 6.5 dwelling units per acre.) The Commission suggested that the density may need to be further reduced and that more single family detached units, or units designed in a manner that mimics single family detached units, would be appropriate for the property. The Commission's comments regarding design and layout were primarily about the relationship of the parking lot to Parkview Drive, the road that serves that area. The Commission suggested the applicant consider other design concepts for locating parking on the site. There were several neighbors, outside of the immediately adjoining properties but located nearby on Halycon Drive, that spoke concerning the proposal. The neighbors did not speak favorably of the project at this stage and their concerns were regarding impacts to the character of that area, improvements to Parkview Drive to support the project, impacts to Parrot Branch, and traffic concerns. The Commission recommended the applicant speak with the neighbors directly regarding their concerns. The Commission recognized that there is additional work needed by the applicant prior to a rezoning submittal, involving many other agencies and departments on the proposal, including the Albemarle County Service Authority, VDOT, Fire Rescue etc. Planning Comments The application submittal indicates that some of the feedback provided at the pre - application work session have been addressed. However, numerous issues remain to be resolved. In keeping with the Commissions' discussion of the project, the application plan indicates a reduction of dwelling units. The new dwelling unit total, down from 32 to 26, equates to a density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre gross based on 7.3 acres proposed for rezoning. The net density, which is more critical in the Crozet Masterplan, is 4.5 dwelling units per acre. The Commission did not give a specific reduction target. It appears the applicant's density approach is more closely aligned with the Comprehensive Plan designation. The applicant's strategy of buffering the development on all sides, clustering the proposed development, and building a strong, pedestrian only interior (lack of garages and redundant paving) provides an acceptable balance of density and built form, with recreation and ample natural areas. Transportation VDOT's comments are as follows: The proposed site accesses a private road that runs north of rte. 240 and connects to rte. 1235. The private road is approximately 16 feet wide and paved. To bring this to a state standard, the minimum width of pavement will have to be 18 feet wide on a 40 foot right of way. A sight distance easement will be needed to the west for 390 feet. The private road entrance to rte. 240 will need to be upgraded to a CG- I I street connection standard. There is an existing right turn lane to the private road. The amount of traffic does not warrant a left turn lane on rte. 240 for this development. Most of the traffic from the site will access rte. 240. The size of the development does not generate enough traffic to request a traffic impact study, however, the cumulative effects for all the development along this route in this are will have negative impacts on the transportation network. At the pre -application work session, the Commission recognized that there is additional work needed by the applicant with VDOT among others. Though staff encourages the concept proposed to improving Parkview Drive, staff could find no evidence that any coordination with those who share the easement or own land impacted, has taken place. * Once you have received these comments, please contact staff to arrange a meeting to discuss these issues. Conformity with Neighborhood Model Pedestrian VDOT has provided comments below regarding the street section Orientation upgrades proposed for Parkview Drive. VDOT feels that the proposed upgrades can fit within the existing 50'- wide easement. The County and VDOT encourages the provision of the trail along Parkview Drive. However, VDOT and the County Engineer have some recommendations for how the section could be better designed. Further, the proffers indicate that the work will be done to upgrade this road, but there is no commitment to dedicate the road to public use or any assurances of how the improvements would take place in property not controlled by the applicant. Neighborhood The proposed trail alongside Parkview Drive seems an appropriate Friendly Streets response to this principle. More detail is needed on the feasibility of and Paths providing what is proposed. Interconnected The property is triangle -shaped with two sides being formed by Streets and stream valleys. The third side is bounded by Parkview Drive and Transportation provides two access points. No additional connections seem fitting. Networks Parks and Open The proposal includes naturalized areas, a pool, and open recreation Space area with a tot lot. This is a fitting response to this principle. Neighborhood The common gathering building will serve a neighborhood center. Centers The parcel lies close to the former ConAgra facility, which is now home to a number of other businesses. Building and The layout of homes framing a central open area will provide a spatial Spaces of Human enclosure in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. This principle is Scale addressed. * Relegated The Commission indicated that you should reevaluate your plan for providing parking. Although it does not appear any major changes Parking were made, staff recognizes that area for a hedge along Parkview Drive appears to have been expanded. As required by the ordinance, the application plan provided at a larger scale, should show more detail. It is critical that the buffer be maintained and enhanced and the application plan should identify (including species) trees to retained, DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS Engineering I. The street section on page 29 specifies a 2:1 ditch slope, which is too steep. This section without dimensions and the stated proffer to widen and resurface the road may be enough. Otherwise VDOT standards should be referenced. 2. It is not clear that the 8' trail/bike-path can be built within the easement. Topography may not permit the section as shown on page 29. 3. Proffer 4 states BMP's will provide rate, volume and quality control. The perimeter swale alone would not provide this, and more information is needed regarding how this is to be accomplished. 4. A conceptual grading plan is recommended. It is not clear how grading will be minimized. Current Development Comments I. This request requires an application plan containing all of the elements specified in Section 8.5.1. 2. The development of this project will require a site development plan in accord with Section 18-32. 3. Section 18-32.7.3 requires that the entrance to the site conform to the regulations found in the subdivision ordinance. The loop driveway will require a waiver of Section 14-404. 4. The site plan ordinance, section 32 of the zoning ordinance, does not provide for offsite improvements. However, the Board of Supervisors may seek improvements to Parkview Drive as deemed appropriate. 5. Section 19.8 requires a minimum 30 -foot building separation. The applicant must revise the plan or request a waiver of this requirement as provided in Section 8.2. plan for their preservation, and what type, size, and number of trees will be added to the buffer. Once additional detail regarding the hedge proposed along Parkview Drive is received by staff at a scale required by Section 8.5. I, staff can better determine the conformance of this plan with the Neighborhood Model. Mixture of Uses The proposal is entirely residential. Site Planning The applicant has worked to cluster the development on the knoll that Respects adjacent to the existing farmhouse. The applicant has committed to Terrain providing required buffers on Parrot Branch and its tributary (in areas where topography is steeper).This principle is addressed. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS Engineering I. The street section on page 29 specifies a 2:1 ditch slope, which is too steep. This section without dimensions and the stated proffer to widen and resurface the road may be enough. Otherwise VDOT standards should be referenced. 2. It is not clear that the 8' trail/bike-path can be built within the easement. Topography may not permit the section as shown on page 29. 3. Proffer 4 states BMP's will provide rate, volume and quality control. The perimeter swale alone would not provide this, and more information is needed regarding how this is to be accomplished. 4. A conceptual grading plan is recommended. It is not clear how grading will be minimized. Current Development Comments I. This request requires an application plan containing all of the elements specified in Section 8.5.1. 2. The development of this project will require a site development plan in accord with Section 18-32. 3. Section 18-32.7.3 requires that the entrance to the site conform to the regulations found in the subdivision ordinance. The loop driveway will require a waiver of Section 14-404. 4. The site plan ordinance, section 32 of the zoning ordinance, does not provide for offsite improvements. However, the Board of Supervisors may seek improvements to Parkview Drive as deemed appropriate. 5. Section 19.8 requires a minimum 30 -foot building separation. The applicant must revise the plan or request a waiver of this requirement as provided in Section 8.2. Current Development Comments I. Please address the proposal with regards to Parkview Drive. a. Is it proposed as a private road? If so, please submit a request for a waiver of the public road requirement and address the criteria within Section 14-233. This issue should be decided with the rezoning review and not later. Proffers * Please be advised that all homes that are not proffered to be affordable will be subject to the Board of Supervisor's target for cash proffers to offset the impact of development. These are as follows: $17,500 per single family detached unit $12,400 per apartment unit $11,900 per townhouse/condominium unit. Your next submittal should include proffers indicating how you will address affordable housing, specifically and address the Board's cash proffer to offset impact of development above. Proffer statements much be signed by the current owners. Proffer #2 is confusing. If 26 units in the maximum, please omit the reference to 29 units in the proffer. This reference and that of the additional land burden cost are best left as commentary and not proffer language. Proffer #3 — the estimate cash value of the road widening and bike path are not necessary. This proffer should simply state the intention to upgrade the road consistent with our regulations and to provide a bike path from here to there. Proffer #4 — again, the cash value is better left as commentary and not part of the proffer. If this is already an ordinance requirement (use of BMP), it should not be a proffer. Proffer #5 — It appears you are proposing an amount below the Board's expectation for cash proffers to address impacts. Proffer #6 — again, the cash value should be omitted. This proffer should be consistent with the standard language we have developed in conjunction with the Chief of Housing. Proffer #7 —this playground going to be open to the general public and the community at large? If not and it only serves this development, it is not a proffer. Again, the value is not necessary. Proffer #8 is too vague. What constitutes an "orchard of trees" and where will they be planted and when? Proffer #9 — I suggest that the proffer references to greenway be grouped together — this one and #5. What is the standard of the greenway trail, when will it be built, will it be easement or fee -simple, etc? Proffer #10 — it is not a complete sentence. Proffer #11 — Please clarify the intended uses with these structures. Proffer #12 — The proposed setback of 75 feet conflicts with the setback listing on page 28 (19.9). Proffer #13 is not a proffer. Please provide that detail on the application plan. Proffer #14 would be a difficult proffer to manage. Please omit this proffer and provide the commitment on your application plan. It is not clear if tree preservation is being offered as part of this proposal. I see that a project goal is to "protect green space." Water Resources The project proposal correctly shows that the site is bordered by Parrott Branch to the north, and an unnamed tributary to the south. The proposal correctly shows the floodplain associated with Parrott Branch, and the required stream buffers for both streams. The proposal states that the stream buffer will remain undisturbed, and the conceptual site plan illustrates this. Provided that the proposal continues to leave the stream buffers intact and undisturbed, staff has no objections and no further comment. Albemarle County Service Authority Your application to amend the jurisdictional area for water and sewer is being reviewed. Generally, requests for public water and sewer are supported in the Development Areas. Your project lies in the Development Areas. Staff's analysis has found no problems with the request. However, determinations to expand the jurisdictional boundaries are made by the Board of Supervisors. When your project reaches the Board, a final determination will be made. Once the jurisdictional area is amended, final water and sewer plans are required for review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. You will also need off-site water and sewer plans along with the necessary easements for crossing properties of others to serve this site. It is not clear if gravity sewer is possible. If it isn't, a private pump station and force main to the nearest gravity line will be needed. Fire and Rescue Fire and Rescue have requested that you verify adequate fireflow is available. They have no objection to the use of walking paths shown on the plan to be used for firetrucks and other emergency access. The standard for these alternate facilities will have to meet basic rural road turning radius standard and be constructed to withstand the weight of emergency service vehicles. Those details will need to be provided at the site plan stage and will be reviewed in detail then. Historic Preservation The submittal has been reviewed for possible impact to known historic (fifty years old or older) architectural resources and known or potential archaeological resources with the following results: The Virginia Department of Historic Resources' (DHR) Data Sharing System (DSS) has no identified historic resources within the project area. However, Albemarle County Real Estate records indicate that the principal dwelling on Tax Map 56, Parcel 67A was constructed c. 1890 and is therefore considered historic. This resource has not been evaluated for listing on the National or State historic registers. 2. The project area is within one mile of the proposed boundary of the Crozet Historic District (proposed), but should not impact the integrity of the area due to previous development in the vicinity. As mentioned, please contact staff once you have digested these comments and we will plan to meet to discuss some of the more detailed and complex issues that remain. Sincerely, Sean R. Dougherty