Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA200400002 Staff ReportCOUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZTA 04 -02 Neighborhood Staff: Elaine K. Echols, AICP, Bill Fritz, AICP, Model Ordinance Amendments David E. Pennock, AICP, Stewart Wright Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: NA NA Proposal: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Applicant: Staff; however, the Free modify setback requirements to support Enterprise Forum and the Cox Company development in keeping with the have also made zoning and subdivision text Neighborhood Model in the Development amendment requests. Areas. Recommendations are also made for Subdivision Ordinance amendments. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission review the proposals and receive input from the public. If the Commission is in agreement with the proposed changes, the County Attorney's office can work on the text changes while staff continues to work on the EC issues as well as dealing with setbacks on "parking lot" streets. PRIMARY STAFF CONTACT: PLANNING COMMISSION: Elaine K. Echols, AICP July 26, 2007 ZTA 04 -02: Zoning Amendment to Setbacks and suggested Subdivision Changes ORIGIN: Adoption of the Neighborhood Model in 2001 and directive by Board of Supervisors to prepare ordinance changes to implement the Neighborhood Model. PROPOSAL: The recommended changes are shown in a table on Attachments A and B. A summary of the changes is shown below: Amend the Zoning Ordinance for R -1, R -2, R -4, R -6, R -10, and R -15 residential districts to: reduce the minimum front, side, and rear setback requirements in non -EC zoning districts reduce the setback for encroachments reduce the building separation requirement between primary structures on the same lot add a building separation requirement for primary and accessory buildings change the measurement method for yards for attached housing and multi - family developments make distinctions between public /private Neighborhood Model streets and "parking lot" private streets require an entrance to buildings from a public or private (non - parking lot) street on which the building fronts allow for zero lot line development by -right using building separation requirements rather than side yard requirements Amend the Zoning Ordinance for non EC commercial districts (CO, C -1, and HC) to: establish a front yard requirement for public and private streets rather than a setback from the adjacent public street reduce the setback /front yard requirement change the setback requirement for parking areas adjacent to public and private streets add a maximum front setback for stand -alone parking adjacent to public and private streets require an entrance to buildings from a public or private (non - parking lot) street on which the building fronts change screening requirements for parking lots adjacent to public and private streets reduce the setback for side and rear lot lines adjacent to rural and residential districts allow for further reduction by PC of building and parking setbacks from adjacent rural and residential districts allow for the buffer to be disturbed adjacent R -10 and R -15 districts without going to the PC augment requirements for vegetation of buffers adjacent to rural and residential districts allow for reduction or removal of buffer adjacent to rural and residential districts Amend the Zoning Ordinance for non EC industrial districts (LI and HI) to: establish a front yard requirement for public and private streets rather than a setback from the adjacent public street reduce the setback /front yard requirement for internal streets allow for reduction of or elimination of setbacks and buffers from adjacent rural and residential districts by PC Amend the Site Plan section of the Zoning ordinance to: require sidewalks along public and private streets in the Development Areas where sidewalks do not currently exist allow for street trees to be placed in the r.o.w. rather than only on private property Suggested Subdivision Ordinance changes: require that all new public and private (not parking lot) streets in the Development Areas have curb and gutter, sidewalks and street trees. (At present, the sidewalk and street tree requirement is only for single - family residential developments.) allow for lots to be created which front common open space that is adjacent to a public street. Zoning regulations will have to change for front yard measurement as well as require driveway easements that don't act as private streets. There are two major issues which haven't been addressed by the staff as of yet. Setbacks along Entrance Corridors have not been proposed nor have building setback requirements been proposed in relation to "parking lot streets ". Both of these items need more work before staff brings them to the public and the Commission. PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: The development standards in the Zoning Ordinance promote a rural /suburban form that is not in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. In order to make it easier for developers to create the Neighborhood Model form of development, the zoning ordinance needs to be amended, especially with regard to setbacks. BACKGROUND: Since the Neighborhood Model was adopted in 2001, many ordinance changes have taken place. The first set of changes had to do with allowing for alleys and shared driveways in the Development Areas. The Zoning and subdivision ordinance changes related to alleys and shared driveways were approved in February of 2002. At the same time, staff was working on development of the Neighborhood Model District. Text was submitted by an applicant in 2001. This district was reworked by staff and the Commission and adopted in March of 2003. The third set of changes began in 2002. They included a major revision to the parking requirements. Relegated parking was a difficult issue and parking changes were adopted in February of 2003. They did not include requirements for relegated parking. In 2002, staff also began work on more changes to the subdivision ordinance to require curb and gutter, sidewalks, and interconnections. Work on the subdivision ordinance changes took three years to adoption. Overlot grading was a difficult issue and these requirements were not part of the subdivision ordinance that was adopted. The subdivision ordinance changes were adopted in April of 2005. In 2003, while staff was working on subdivision ordinance changes, they were also working on zoning text changes. In March and May of 2004, staff brought the recommended changes to the public and held two meetings for input. Less than ten persons (in combination) attended the two meetings. Work on this comprehensive set of changes was put on hold while the subdivision ordinance was under review. After completing work on the subdivision ordinance, staff immediately began work on front setback changes in the Development Areas. In August of 2005, staff brought a set of setback changes to the Planning Commission for a review and public hearing. Concerns were expressed by the ARB relative to area for landscaping in front yards in the Entrance Corridor. Some members of the development community believed that further changes were needed; other members of the development community said they weren't appropriately included in development of the changes. As a result, the Commission directed staff to work with the ARB, set up a joint meeting with the ARB and Commission on setbacks, provide a new resolution of intent, and bring a comprehensive set of changes to the zoning regulations related to setbacks. Since that time, the public has brought two requests to the County relative to zoning and subdivision ordinance changes. The first request was from the Free Enterprise Forum to allow for creation of lots that do not have public or private street frontage. The second request was for the ability to create zero lot line developments in the R -4 district. Zoning, Current Development, and Planning staff have been working on the attached concepts since January 2007. Staff is recommending inclusion of the concepts of both of these requests in the zoning and subdivision text amendments. STAFF COMMENT: A new resolution of intent will be provided at the July 26, 2007 meeting for Commission review. The attached recommendations do not include zoning text language yet. They do reflect major changes from the current suburban form of development required by our zoning ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission review the proposals and receive input from the public. If the Commission is in agreement with the proposed changes, the County Attorney's office can work on the text changes while staff continues to work on the EC issues as well as dealing with setbacks on "parking lot" streets. Attachment A: Existing and Proposed Residential Zoning District Standards Attachment B: Existing and Proposed Commercial and Industrial Zoning District Standards Attachment C: Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZTA 05 -01 Setbacks Staff: Elaine Echols — Planning Bill Fritz — Current Development Ron Higgins — Zoning Glenn Brooks — County Engineer Stewart Wright — Permits Planner Planning Commission Worksession: Proposal: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to March 16, 2010 allow for reduced yards /setbacks in the Development Areas Background: This zoning amendment to help implement the Neighborhood Model began in 2005. It was preempted by a subdivision text amendment and an amendment to allow for zero lot line development. The last worksession on this topic was October 20, 2009. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission review this current proposal for front yards /setbacks and provide guidance on any changes needed and next steps. ZTA05 -08 PC Worksession March 16, 2010 Staff Report Page 1 PRIMARY STAFF CONTACT: Elaine K. Echols, AICP PLANNING COMMISSION: March 16, 2010 WORKSESSION ZTA 05 -01: Zoning Text Amendment to Setbacks ORIGIN: Adoption of the Neighborhood Model in 2001 and directive by Board of Supervisors to prepare ordinance changes to implement the Neighborhood Model. PROPOSAL: This worksession is concentrating on proposed changes to the front yard requirements for all zoning districts in the Development Areas. PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: The current development standards in the Zoning Ordinance promote a rural /suburban form that is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan for the Development Areas. In order to make it easier for developers to create a more urban form of development, the zoning ordinance needs to be amended, especially with regard to setbacks. HISTORY: The Neighborhood Model, which was appended to the Comprehensive Plan in 2001, provides guidance on how higher density development can take place without reducing quality of life. The goal of the Neighborhood Model was to help create places where people want to live, instead of building in the designated Rural Areas. A number of zoning and subdivision text amendments to implement the Neighborhood Model have taken place since 2001. The comprehensive list was provided in the prior staff report and has been included in the minutes of the October 20, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. At the October 20 meeting, a worksession was held on staff proposed changes to rear and side yards /setbacks, buffer areas, and screening. In addition, a concept for basing the front yard /setback on numbers of street lanes and speed limits rather than by zoning district was proposed. The Commission generally endorsed this concept and staff has further refined it for additional Commission input. STAFF COMMENT: Front Yards Attachment A contains a refinement of the recommendations which the Planning Commission reviewed on October 20. The recommendations for front yards /setbacks are based on the characteristics of the street on which the lot sits. For example, the front yard /setback is proposed to be the shallowest on narrow streets with slow moving traffic. The deepest front yard /setback is proposed on the widest, fastest moving streets, such as Rt. 29 North and Rt. 250 East. The recommended distances between the travel lanes and buildings is based on concepts proposed in the Places 29 Master Plan study for the different sections of streets. Images of the proposed front yards with streetscape will be shown at the upcoming worksession. ZTA05 -08 PC Worksession March 16, 2010 Staff Report Page 2 Streetscape Improvements In the Development Areas, the long -term expectation is that all streets will have an urban character with curb /curb &gutter, sidewalks, and street trees. For the short term, this expectation is for all new streets and some major streets. Sidewalks promote pedestrian accessibility and public transit as an alternative to the automobile. Street trees in tree lawns provide separation of pedestrians from traffic. These features represent the preferred streetscape articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. To implement this aspect of the Comprehensive Plan, the recommended front yard distance noted in Attachment A should be added to the ultimate urban street section (with curb /curb and gutter, tree lawns, trees, and sidewalks) to determine the total distance from the street's edge to the buildings or projections. If one thinks about the front yard as X and the area for the proposed ultimate improvements as Y, then the required minimum distance for building = X + Y. The ultimate street section can be easily achieved in new development on new streets, such as has occurred in Old Trail and Belvedere. It will be harder to achieve for new development and redevelopment along existing streets. It may not yet even be appropriate in certain places in the Development Areas, such as along Rt. 250 East in Crozet and Rt. 20 North in Pantops. However, even in these cases, room for the ultimate improvements should be left available. Attachment B shows how the recommended front yards and streetscape improvements would be provided. In the first box, the only proposed change is to the subdivision ordinance to require sidewalks on all new streets in the Development Areas, where subdivision takes place, not just new streets in single family subdivisions. The waivers currently available for new streets in single family subdivisions would then be available to all new streets in the Development Areas. The next three boxes on Attachment B deal with existing streets in the Development Areas. The three categories of existing major streets are: • Existing major streets with curb /curb and gutter • Existing major streets with shoulders and ditches that are in areas that are anticipated to be upgraded to an urban character because of expected redevelopment or new development in the near term, as indicated in Comprehensive Plan • Existing major streets with shoulders and ditches that are not anticipated to be upgraded to an urban character because of expected longer term development conditions, as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. Major streets are considered to be those that are in the Entrance Corridor (EC) as well those which provide important connections throughout the Development Areas. Examples of major non -EC streets would be Berkmar, Proffitt, and the new Main Street in Crozet. Through master planning in all but urban neighborhoods 4, 5, 6, and 7, the expected streel ZTA05 -08 PC Worksession March 16, 2010 Staff Report Page 3 sections for major streets have been identified for the near term. The ultimate major street sections for the neighborhoods 4, 5, 6, and 7 will be identified with the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update. Existing Single Family Residential Neighborhoods One area which has not yet been discussed is the front yard /setback on streets in existing developed neighborhoods. In existing developed neighborhoods, there are sometimes vacant lots or buildings (houses or other buildings) for which additions are proposed. It is essential that the character of these single family neighborhoods be maintained. If the streets are a rural section, it is likely they will not convert to an urban section in many years, if ever. In these circumstances, the front yard requirement should be the same as the surrounding buildings. Staff is recommending that the Charlottesville provisions for maintaining the character of existing neighborhoods be used. This proposal is provided in the fifth box. Parking Lots In prior discussions regarding setbacks, a controversial recommendation was to require that parking lots be "relegated "; that is, parking lots would not be the most prominent feature adjacent to the street. The Neighborhood Model recommends that parking be to the side or rear of buildings to help create a better relationship of the buildings and pedestrians to the street. At present, parking lots can be set back 10 feet from the r.o.w., but buildings must be set back a minimum of 25' for residential districts, 30' for commercial districts, and 50' for industrial districts. With these requirements, parking has typically located in front of buildings to make the most efficient use of the property. To better provide for the potential that parking will not have to be "forced" to the front of buildings, but in recognition of the controversy that relegated parking has created, staff's recommendation would simply allow the buildings and parking to have the same setback. . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission review the current proposal for front yards /setbacks and provide guidance on any changes needed. Staff will then proceed to a roundtable with interested parties and report the results of that roundtable back to the Commission before scheduling a public hearing. Attachment A: Proposed Minimum Front Yards dated 3 -16 -10 Attachment B: Proposed Streetscape and Front Yards in the Development Areas dated 3 -16 -10 ZTA05 -08 PC Worksession March 16, 2010 Staff Report Page 4 ZTA05 -08 PC Worksession March 16, 2010 Staff Report Page 5 Proposed Minimum Front Yards ATTACHMENT A The front yard requirement for parking lots is proposed to be the same as for buildings. *The sidewalk may be widened and the tree planting area lessened an equal amount width to achieve the same distance. In no case shall the tree planting area be less than 6 feet in width, unless tree wells are used in lieu of a tree lawn. ZTA05 -08 PC Worksession March 16, 2010 Staff Report Page 6 2 — 3 lanes, 2 — 3 lanes, where 4 — 5 lanes 6 — 7 lanes 8 — lanes where speed limit is < posted speed limit (includes turn (includes turn (includes turn or = 25 mph OR speed is > 25 mph lanes that are lanes that are lanes that are not limit is > 25 mph (includes turn lanes not "through- not "through- "through - lanes ") posted and there are that are not lanes ") lanes ") on- street parking lanes "throu h- lanes") Min. front yard — for building 4' 9' 9' 12' 20' or projections (porches, stairs, etc.) Min. front yard /driveway Maximum of 5' or Maximum of 5' or NA NA NA length for garages that are minimum of 18' minimum of 18' front - loaded (attached or detached Required Improvements Min. tree lawn* 6' 6' 8' 10' 12' Min. concrete* sidewalk OR 5' 5' 8' 8' 8' Asphalt Pedestrian path 6' 6' 8' 10' 12' To achieve Distance of building or 15' with concrete 20' with concrete 25' 30' with concrete 40' with concrete projections from back of curb sidewalk sidewalk sidewalk; 32' sidewalk; 44' with [urban section] or travel lane 16' with asphalt path 21' with asphalt path with asphalt path asphalt path rural section]. The front yard requirement for parking lots is proposed to be the same as for buildings. *The sidewalk may be widened and the tree planting area lessened an equal amount width to achieve the same distance. In no case shall the tree planting area be less than 6 feet in width, unless tree wells are used in lieu of a tree lawn. ZTA05 -08 PC Worksession March 16, 2010 Staff Report Page 6 ZTA05 -08 PC Worksession March 16, 2010 Staff Report Page 7 Proposed Streetscape and Front Yards in the Development Areas ATTACHMENT B All New Streets in the Development Areas, except "parking lot" private streets Amend subdivision ordinance to require that all new streets in the Development Areas, not just new streets in single - family developments, have: a. Curb /curb & gutter, tree lawns, street trees, and concrete sidewalks. b. Sidewalks in the r.o.w. (public streets). c. Minimum front yards as listed on the attached table. No changes are proposed to the current waivers allowed in the subdivision ordinance. Existing Streets in the Development Areas with curb /curb & gutter not a full urban cross - section (sidewalks and street trees as indicated on the attached table) On site development plans for new or redevelopment a. installation of tree lawns, street trees, and sidewalks would be required with the widths shown in the attached table. (The property owner would not have to provide these items in the r.o.w.; however, it might provide for better utility of a lot if these items are provided in the r.o.w.) b. if, for some reason it doesn't make sense to install street lawns, street trees, or sidewalk in the location indicated on the table, administrative waivers will be available. Examples of places where waivers might be appropriate: steep slopes next to road, lots with more narrow sidewalk adjacent to the street, utilities that reasonably cannot be relocated c. if a waiver is provided, sufficient room must be retained between the back of the curb and the building to provide for the front yard and ultimate improvements in accordance with the attached table. Existing streets in the Development Areas with a rural section (shoulder and ditch) which should transition to urban sections according to the Comprehensive Plan (future map) On site development plans for new or redevelopment installation of curb /curb & gutter is desired and may be required if frontage improvements are necessary. a. tree lawns, street trees, and sidewalks are required, according to the attached table. Provision of these elements in the right -of -way is desired, but not required. ZTA05 -08 PC Worksession March 16, 2010 Staff Report Page 8 b. if, for some reason, provision of the required improvements would be very problematic, administrative waivers would be available. Examples of places where waivers might be appropriate: installation of improvements would require major drainage improvements (such as bridges, box culverts, pipes over 48" diameter), steep topography in or adjacent to the r.o. w. would preclude installation of any or all components, utilities that reasonably cannot be relocated c. if a waiver is provided, sufficient room must be retained between the back of the curb and the building to provide for the front yard and ultimate improvements in accordance with the attached table. Existing streets in the Development Areas with a rural section (shoulder and ditch) for which a transition to an urban section is not indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. (future map) On site development plans for new or redevelopment a. Provision of curb, gutter, sidewalk and street trees would be voluntary. b. Measurement of the front yard would require an assessment of the existing street conditions to determine the area needed to allow for all four components of an urban street to be installed at a future date, plus the yard requirement, indicated on the attached table for the particular street. Existing streets in the Development Areas — for existing single - family neighborhoods For building permits for new houses or building additions: as with the City of Charlottesville: ...on any lot where forty (40) percent or more of the lots located within five hundred (500) feet in either direction, fronting on the same side of the street, have front yards greater or less than the minimum front yard specified in subparagraph (a), above, the required front yard for such lot shall be the average depth of the existing front yards within five hundred (500) feet.... These recommendations require: Preparation of a map showing desired street sections based on Master Plans and Comprehensive Plan Development of the level of improvement on a site which causes a sidewalk and tree lawn requirement to "kick — in" ZTA05 -08 PC Worksession March 16, 2010 Staff Report Page 9