Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100011 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2022-02-03OWN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 February 3, 2022 Ms. Megan Nedostup Williams Mullen 321 E. Main St., Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 mnedostup@williamsmullen.com / 434-951-5709 RE: ZNU202100011 The Heritage on Rio; 2°d Submittal Dear Ms. Nedostup: Staff has reviewed your re -submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA202100011, The Heritage on Rio. 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. Follow-up review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. Planning comments are provided first below: Planning— General ZMA Comments (ZMA2021-00011) 1. ZO 18-19.6.2/ ZO 18-4.16: As a PRD, an improved level of amenities and creative design of the site should be provided. 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, up to five percent of the site area. With 250 units proposed, 0.3995 acres (17,402.22 square feet) of recreational space is required. a. More information needs to be provided on the proposed buffers, including their width. The buffer area needs to be removed from the access easement that provides access to the rehabilitation center, as there cannot be a landscaping buffer on top of the driveway. Revise any appropriate buffer/open space calculations. 2. There is a lack of pedestrian orientation identified throughout the internal travelways of the development. Sidewalks and planting strips should be provided along both sides of all streets of the development. Safety features such as crosswalks should also be provided. Have sidewalks been considered on the north side of the property to connect the proposed bus stop shelter with the parking lot and sidewalks directly to the south? Such connections would also support more direct access to the transit stop for residents who live in the rear buildings or are coming from/going to the clubhouse area. 3. Seethe attached document provided by ACPS for more information regarding expected student yields in the various school districts. This information will be used in the staff report to the Planning Commission identifying the expected impact of this development on the local schools. Student generation numbers and school capacity have been closely considered by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors recently The project narrative indicates that all students who will live in this development will come from elsewhere in the County. How is it known that there will be no new County residents living in this development, adding additional students to the school system from current enrolment levels? Provide more information on the expected number of students to be generated by this proposed development. Thank you for providing the additional information on the expected impacts to schools from this development. Schools continue to be a significant topic of discussion among both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for proposed residential projects. For your information, the School Board and the County are currently working on the FY23 budget, so more information on the proposed school improvement projects to be included in that budget will be available in the coming months. No additional information was provided on the assertion that students in this development will simply come from other parts of the County. Even if that is the case, new students could move into those housing units vacated by this development's residents, still increasing the overall number of students served by the school district. 4. The northeastern portion of this property is designated as Urban Mixed Use Center in the Places29 Master Plan. How is it proposed that this development will be in conformance with this recommended land use? A parking lot, which is currently shown on the application plan as making up the majority of the area of this land use, is not an appropriate use for a Urban Mixed Use Center. These properties are near a designated Neighborhood Service Center (along Rio Road). How is this development proposed to relate to this Center for the community? Taking into account the entire Neighborhood Service Center as a whole, the proposed apartment units and associated parking are able to meet the land use recommendations for a mix of uses in the center, as this project adds residential units to a Center that is currently largely commercial. However, the design recommendations for a Center are not met — the parking lot areas should be relegated from the Rio Road frontage so as not to be visible from the right-of-way. Access to public transit is also a recommendation for centers. Although there is no transit stop located directly within this Center, it does appear that a transit stop, with a proposed upgrade including a shelter and bench, is shown to the west of the Center, and still on this property. It is recommended this is discussed further in the project narrative. 5. There does not appear to be an appropriate transition from the three- and four-story apartment buildings on the west side of the site, to the existing single-family detached house and Four Seasons subdivision on the adjacent and nearby parcels to the west. This comment has not been fully addressed. Renderings of the site from street -level may be helpful to better explain the transition and how the buffer area will be addressed. 6. Zoning division review is pending. There may be additional comments from Planning once the comments identified by Zoning are provided. Neighborhood Model 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. Plannin¢ Division — Transportation Review pending; comments will be provided to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff; Transportation Planning reviewer, Kevin McDermott, Planning Manager, kmcdermott@albemarle.org. Planning Division — Architectural Review Board (ARB) Please see the attached memorandum with comments provided by Margaret Maliszewski, ARB Staff Planner (Planning Manager), mmaliszewski@albemarle.org. Zoning Division, Community Development Department Review pending; comments will be provided to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff, Zoning reviewer, Rebecca Ragsdale, Planning Manager, rragsdalegalbemarle.org. Engineering & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department No objections at this time. County Engineer, Frank Pohl, fpohlkalbemarle.org. Albemarle County Housing Division Seethe comments below provided by Stacy Pethia, Principal Planner for Housing, spethia a albemarle.org: 1. Application Narrative: The applicant is proposing to provide 15% of the units representing the difference between the number of units that could be developed on the property under the current R-6 zoning, and the number that could be developed following the rezoning to PRD as affordable units. Under Strategy 6b of Chapter 9: Housing of the Comprehensive Plan, the percentage of affordable units should be based on the total number of units achievable under a rezoning. Strategy 6b: Continue to ensure that at a minimum, 15% of all units developed under rezoning and special use permits are affordable, as defined by the County's Office of Housing, or a comparable contribution be made to achieve the affordable housing goals of the County. 2. Application Plan: The section related to Affordable Housing on Sheet 2 (Application Notes) of the Application Plan notes the following: AFFORDABLE HOUSING: A MINIMUM OF 15% OF THE UNITS ABOVE THE BY -RIGHT R-6 ZONING ALLOWABLE UNITS (49) WILL BE AFFORDABLE It is not clear if the `49' refers to the number of affordable units the applicant proposes to provide, or if this represents the number of units on which the 15% affordable housing will be determined. This needs to be clarified. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Please see the attached memorandum with comments from the VDOT contact — Douglas McAvoy, douglas.mcavoykvdot.vir inia.gov. 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 dates are the first and third Monday of each month. 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 Margaret Maliszewski, ARB Memorandum from Douglas McAvoy, VDOT Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Form Attachment — ZMA2021-00011 The Heritage on Rio Staff Analysis of Application's Consistency with Neighborhood Model Principles Pedestrian There are several pedestrian facilities provided throughout the site, including a Orientation multi -use path along the Rio Road frontage and sidewalks, with planting strips, along Travelways A and B. Have sidewalks been considered to connect the proposed bus shelter with the parking lot to the south, as well as with more direct paths to the buildings in the rear of the site? This principle is mostly met but could be strengthened. Mixture of Uses The application provides for only one type of residential unit. In addition, a portion of this property is designated for Urban Mixed -Use Center; however, no mixture of uses is being promoted or provided for. This principle is mostly met. 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. Parking lots in Centers should be relegated from road frontage. This principle is mostly met but could be strengthened. Mixture of Housing The proposal provides for only one type of residential unit; however, the Types and applicant does propose to provide some affordable units. Affordability This principle is mostly met. Interconnected The internal street network appears to largely be interconnected. Streets and Transportation In addition, there is an interparcel connection provided to the property to the Networks south. This principle has been met. Multi -modal This development appears to be mostly automobile -centric. Transportation Opportunities However, there is a multi -use path proposed for the Rio Road frontage of the development. In addition, a transit stop with shelter is proposed to be located along Rio Road. Sidewalks are proposed along the travelways. Have sidewalks been considered to connect the proposed bus shelter with the parking lot to the south, as well as with more direct paths to the buildings in the rear of the site? This principle is mostly met but could be strengthened. Parks, Recreational The proposal provides some areas of open space, including vegetative buffers Amenities, and Open and recreational facility areas, and also indicates that at least 25% of the site Space will be open space. The buffer area needs to be removed from areas where it overlaps with the travelway. This principle is mostly met and could be strengthened. Buildings and Space The buildings appear to be consistent with recommended building heights. of Human Scale In addition, there appear to be some large retaining walls around the site; however, their proposed heights are not identified. Retaining walls along the west side of the site and along Rio Road could create areas that do not support spaces of human scale, depending on their proposed height. The transition from the three- and four-story apartment buildings in this development to the adjacent single-family detached houses to the west does not promote a harmonious scale. Renderings could be helpful to better explain the proposed transition from this site to the existing single-family home to the west. This principle is partially met and could be strengthened. Relegated Parking Most of the parking areas appear to be relegated from the Rio Road frontage. For the areas that are not, screening landscaping would be appropriate to help buffer this parking. The buffer areas have been identified with a proposed width. However, parking in the Neighborhood Service Center area should be relegated and not visible from the Rio Road frontage. This principle is partially met and could be strengthened. Redevelopment I The requested rezoning will permit redevelopment of the property. This principle is met. Respecting Terrain The property contains areas within the Managed Steep Slopes Overlay Zoning and Careful Grading District. Pursuant to Section 18-30.7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, Managed and Re -grading of Steep Slopes can be disturbed if the design standards of Section 18-30.7.5 are Terrain adhered to. This includes future buildings and parking areas. This principle appears to be met. Clear Boundaries with The subject property is located within Neighborhood 1 of the Places29 Master the Rural Area Plan area. It is adjacent to the Rural Area boundary (across Rio Road). The proposed size of the landscape buffer along Rio Road has been provided. This principle has been met. �� pF AL8 County of Albemarle COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING ��RGINle' MEMORANDUM TO: Andy Reitelbach FROM: Margaret Maliszewski RE: ZMA-2021-11: The Heritage on Rio DATE: January 28, 2022 MARGARET MALISZEWSKI mmaliszewski@albemarle.org 434-296-5832 ext. 3276 The following comments are provided to encourage the design of a development that has an orderly and attractive appearance from the Entrance Corridor (EC), that promotes unity and coherence along the corridor and an organized development plan, to confirm that sufficient planting area will be available to meet EC guidelines requirements, and to facilitate approval of a future site development plan. 1. Orient the north elevations of buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4 parallel to the EC street. 2. Maintain the orientation of the east elevation of Building 3 and the west elevation of Building 4 parallel to Travelway B. 3. Maintain the orientation of the east elevation of Building 1 and the sets elevation of Building 2 parallel to Travelway A. 4. Maintain equal setback from the EC street for Buildings 1 and 2. 5. Maintain equal setback from the EC street for Buildings 3 and 4. 6. Move parking areas back from all street -facing elevations along Rio Road. 7. Show a minimum of 10' of planting area able to accommodate large shade trees along all parking lot perimeters. 8. Provide information to confirm that the retaining walls along the EC street will be incorporated into the development as integrated site elements with an appropriate appearance for the EC. The EC Guidelines call for limiting the use of retaining walls, but retaining walls feature prominently throughout the site, including along the Rio Road streetscape. The concern with retaining walls so close to the EC street (whether they are "facing in or out") is that they could have the appearance of engineered site elements but should be used as - and look like - fully integrated site elements. Copied below for reference are two images from the Oakleigh project (ARB-2018- 133, SDP-2017-05) showing one of the Oakleigh buildings along the EC frontage with retaining walls as integrated site elements. Retaining walls are located between the street and the building and landscaping is provided along the street and between the walls and the building. The retaining walls frame a plaza and the landscaping not only meets the EC guidelines but supports and enhances the wall and plaza elements. WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 January 7, 2022 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Andy Reitelbach Re: The Heritage on Rio — Zoning Map Amendment ZMA-2021-00011 Review #2 Dear Mr. Reitelbach: (804) 786.2701 Fax: (804) 786-2940 The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as prepared by Collins Engineering, dated 20 September 2021, and offers the following comments: 1. Comments from Culpeper District Traffic Engineering on the TIA: a. Hydraulic & Earlysville / Townwood: i. The existing Yellow Change and Red Clearance intervals shown in the Synchro file for the existing AM/PM and Future No Build / Build conditions do not match the timing we provided. Note that these parameters were calculated in accordance with the guidelines provided in the VDOT TE-306.1 and cannot be randomly modified. ii. Looking at the Synchro files, the controller is currently running Max 1 time, which is our standard for non -coordinated signals. We sometime use Max 2 for special programming and run that as a Special Function in the controller. Unless there is data in the TOD Functions tab under Schedule in the timing file indicating that Max 2 is being used, Max 1 time is what needs to be used for all non -coordinated signals. iii. In addition, the Vehicle Extension parameters need to match the timing file we provided. iv. In regards to using the optimization functionality in Synchro, we ask that the timing that is currently running in the controller be used for all scenarios. We cannot accurately measure the actual and/or future MOE at the intersection with the signal being randomly optimized throughout the analysis process. We want to see the actual impact the proposed development will have on the existing network so if the signals are optimized randomly, it becomes difficult to quantify these potential VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING January 7, 2022 Attn: Andy Reitelbach impacts. So optimizing the signal timing would be acceptable only as part of a mitigation measure and the process should be documented in the report, outlying its benefits to operations. v. In the Synchro files under Recall Mode (phase setting), please set phases 2 and 6 to Min Recall to reflect what is currently running in the street. vi. The signal timing will need to be adjusted to what is currently running in the field and the Synchro files will need to be resubmitted for review. The LOS and Queue length reports will then be reviewed. b. Berkmar Drive & Rio Road West: i. Please adjust the phase configuration at this intersection in the Synchro files to reflect what is shown in Figure 1. The LOS and Queue Length reports will then be reviewed. 2. Per previous discussion, the right -turn taper will be required in accordance with the warrants. 3. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other requirements. Please provide a digital copy in PDF format of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further information is desired, please contact Doug McAvoy Jr. at (540) 718-6113. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. Sincerely, Doug McAvoy Jr., P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency Resubmittal of information for=��°F"`R Zoning Map Amendment ��RGIN�I' PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED: ZMA2021-00011 The Heritage on Rio Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser Print Name FEES that may apply: Date Daytime phone number of Signatory Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,958 ❑ First resubmission FREE ® Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO WFAKE STAFF) $ al Technolo surcharge %4479 +4% Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $4,141 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO BVTAKE STAFF) $2,070 ❑ Technology surcharge +4% To be Daid after staff review for Dublic notice: Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $237 + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.19 for each additional notice + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (averages between $150 and $250 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By: Community Development Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 Revised 7/1/2021 Page 1 of 1