Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200100021 Minutes 2022-03-19 Public Hearing Item: • ZMA-01-21 Carriage Gate (Sign #69)— Request to rezone 2.742 acres from R-6 Residential to R-15 Residential to allow apartments with a density of 14 dwellings per acre. The property described as Tax Map 45 Parcel 91 is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Woodbrook Drive approximately 1/4 miles from the intersection of Woodbrook Drive and Berkmar Drive. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Transitional recommended for mixed-use areas with Urban Density uses and non-residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service and Office Service. Urban Density uses are 6 -34 units per acre (if this applies) in Neighborhood 1. (Elaine Echols) Ms. Echols presented the staff report as attached. She asked that the Planning Commission address the following questions taken from the staff report: 1. Does the design shown on the plan, in general, meet the Planning Commission's recommendations for the Neighborhood Model? 2. Should a more central amenity, located closer to the center and along the adjoining property boundary with the school, be provided? 3. Should the parking be relegated, at least in part, to the rear of the structures or is it shown adequately given the type of apartment complex requested by the applicant. 4. Should additional grading information/cross-section information be provided to better assess the differences between the redesign suggested by staff? 5. If no comparative grading information is necessary is it because the existing design is viewed as appropriate or is it because a redesign is necessary and comparative-grading information is no longer important?" Albemarle County Planning Commission—March 19,2002 DRAFT MINUTES—SUBMITTED APRIL 9,2002 2 Mr. Rieley invited the applicant to speak. Steve Melton stated that he represented the Berkmar Land Trust for the rezoning portion of the application. Other persons present to speak for the request were Tim Miller, Design Engineer of Rivanna Engineering and Surveying; and Rick Carter and his son, the contract purchasers and developers of the site. They were in agreement with the signed proffers, which were provided to staff earlier today. Mr. Rieley asked if there was any public comment on this request. Jack Schmidt, a resident of Woodburn Road, stated that he was happy to see a residential development in this area. He voiced concerns about the site plan, pointing out that the proposed entrance and exit to the development would be from Berkmar Drive and not Woodburn Road. He asked what the back of the development would look like and what impact it would have on Woodburn Road. He questioned what type of screening and setbacks would be required. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Planning Commission. Mr. Rieley suggested that the Commission begin with the list of questions on page 8 of the staff report. Mr. Edgerton asked to hear the applicant's response to these questions. Being sympathetic to staffs concerns, he felt that these questions address the pertinent issues. He pointed out that he saw nothing in the proposed project that resembled the neighborhood model principles, noting the following concerns: the tot lot in the middle of the parking lot does not seem to be in the appropriate location; the grading issue are unresolved, and parking seems contrary to what had been requested. He questioned why the applicant has not been able to provide the information that staff has asked for. Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Melton if they wanted to address that. Rich Carter stated that in most respects he felt that they did meet the neighborhood model principles. They wanted to get a waiver for the tot lot because of the school and Public Park Next Door. Then people within the complex would have full access to the property of the school. There is kind of a struggle between circulation versus central amenity. This is an opportunity to provide easy access for emergency vehicles and the people moving in and out. They wanted to do something special with the interior by creating a meeting place. For example, a place to go read. If you look in the back of the submission, there is an actual layout of the park. The park would be heavily landscaped and at a raised elevation to provide buffer from the street noise. Ms. Hooper asked what were the dimensions of the park. Mr. Miller stated that it was approximately 4,000 square feet. Mr. Rieley ascertained that Mr. Miller was referring to Attachment D of the staff report. Mr. Carter stated that to be more central, it certainly could be pulled to the side and work the parking around it so that it was against the school side of the project, which would tone down the circulation. That is something that could be done without too much of a problem. The only other criteria that he saw from the neighborhood model that they really had trouble with was the relegated parking. They want to provide landscaping up front with some intricate features to buffer the Woodbrook cul-de-sac from the parking. They had investigated staffs proposal of turning the building and trying to get the parking inside the project. There is a grading issue and a cost issue associated with the new layout. It became apparent that they would need a retaining wall all the way down the right-hand side. In struggling with that, they felt that this was a worse scenario--looking at the parking lot was one thing, but looking at the retaining wall was something quite different. Albemarle County Planning Commission—March 19,2002 • DRAFT MINUTES—SUBMITTED APRIL 9, 2002 3 Ms. Hopper suggested that they lower the density, which would reduce the parking requirements and give • room to shift things. Mr. Carter stated that it probably would, however lowering the density lowers the ability to provide income to the owners of the land. By lowering that, the cost of the development does not go down. The building cost may go down a little bit, but the ability to create income off the project also goes down. That was what drives the project. Therefore, if you cannot achieve a breaking point in density, then the project does not happen. Ms. Hopper pointed out that was not a compelling reason for the rezoning. Mr. Carter stated thatin the real world that is what drives the product. Mr. Rieley asked if there were other questions. Mr. Thomas asked what the elevation was at the retaining wall and how tall would the retaining wall have to be. Mr. Carter stated that at the start of the wall, close to the first parking space on the right as it was laid out today, the wall was 4 feet tall, give or take, and runs the length of the site. All you would have to do is transfer the elevation on the current site plan to within 3 feet of the property line and then tie the grades together. That would give you the height of the wall today. They have met five different times with Planning and Engineering in trying to come up with a way to make this work. Engineering has conceded the fact that their plan may include more grading and that we might have to drop the site further. If all of the grades stay the same, the back of the retaining wall would be about 7 foot. Mr. Thomas agreed that the elevations are much different in the back of the lot than in the front. Mr. Miller pointed out that Mr. Carter did not feel it was necessary to develop the entire site plan showing staffs recommendation and grading when everything indicated that it was not a feasible option for this site. That is in response to why we did not submit a plan showing the grading of staffs layout. After review of the site, it became apparent for many reasons that the relegated parking would not work. Ms. Hopper pointed that it would not work at this density. Mr. Edgerton voiced concern that the information provided was not to scale. Mr. Miller pointed out that although the plan is not to scale, it does show a 10-foot cut. The Commission can interpret from this that there would be an additional ten-foot cut over the site. It is a copying reduction issue, but the graph on that chart does show the grade and would be a map of that layout with a 10 foot cut. Mr. Craddock asked what the difference in elevation is from Woodburn Road to the back of the apartment building. Mr. Miller stated that there are actually two residential lots behind this parcel before you get to Woodburn Road. There are approximately 300 to 400 feet between the back of this property and Woodburn Road. Mr. Edgerton stated that there was a 25 to 30 foot grade change from Woodburn Road to the back of this property. Ms. Hopper suggested that they explore the maximum height of the building. She questioned if they could reconfigure the project in a different way in order to be able to have the necessary density and at the same time be able to move the parking. She asked if they could make the buildings higher. Albemarle County Planning Commission—March 19, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES—SUBMITTED APRIL 9, 2002 4 • Mr. Miller pointed out that he would have to research this, pointing out that the setback limits affect the height limitation. Ms. Echols stated that the maximum height was 65 feet. Any building higher than 35 feet has to have an additional setback. They could go as high as 65 feet if they could meet the setback. There is a 2-foot setback for every 1-foot of height above 35 feet. Presently, a 35-foot building is proposed. Mr. Rieley invited additional public comment. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Planning Commission. Mr. Rieley stated that the requests made by staff are reasonable. He personally wanted to see this explored further. A request for a more detailed grading plan and how the building fits the land is not an • unusual request. Particularly, when there is a rezoning and a proposal for a development concurrent with that. Saying that the plan has been looked at and the only feasible way is the way it is in the application does not meet with favor. He asked that the applicants take a step back and look at each of these issues more seriously. Ms. Hopper concurred. Mr. Rieley asked the applicants if they would like to request a deferral to look more carefully at these issues or if they would prefer the Commission act tonight. Mr. Carter asked if the Commission could define what they needed for the resubmttal. Mr. Rieley requested that they explore and address the items outlined in the staff report. The applicant needs to provide enough information so that the Commission can make an informed judgement about whether it will work. He asked for other comments. Mr. Thomas stated that additional grading information/cross-section information needs to be provided to better assess the differences between the redesign suggested by staff? Mr. Carter asked if they could demonstrate f the staffs recommendation for relegated parking would result in additional grading and retaining walls, would this information put the Commission in a better position. Mr. Rieley stated that he did not think that was quite what they meant. Mr. Edgerton felt strongly that the design needs to be reconfigured and at least an attempt is made to provide relegated parking. He stated that the design needs to be reconfigured to try to make that central amenity a little bit more appropriately sited. He stated that he was not in love with staffs alternative scenario, but they should be able to come up with another solution that works better than the one that they were looking at. This is a major rezoning request, and he could not support it with this plan. Mr. Rieley stated that the benchmark was that this property has an existing zoning on it that can be implemented by right. By asking for a higher density, they were asking that the design be to the greatest extent possible and consistent to the neighborhood model. He stated that all of those five items relate directly to that. Mr. Carter stated that the applicant requests a deferral to the next Planning Commission meeting to give them a chance to reevaluate the plans. Mr. Rielly asked if there was room available on next week's docket for this case. Albemarle County Planning Commission—March 19,2002 DRAFT MINUTES—SUBMITTED APRIL 9,2002 5 Mr. Benish stated that it would depend on what the applicant wants out of the next meeting. If it was just to determine whether the Commission can act or not, then they could hear it next week. However, if they were waiting for information to be submitted, it would depend on when that information was provided. He wanted to make sure that they allowed enough time to discuss the items. Mr. Rieley stated that if the applicants were trying to decide amongst themselves whether to defer this, then the Planning Commission could table this item until later this evening and bring it back for action. Mr. Carter asked if they could have a few minutes. Mr. Benish stated that Ms. Echols has another meeting. Since this was only a question of whether they were going to defer it or not, he asked if the Commission minded if she left. Mr. Rieley stated that that they had already asked all of the technical questions and felt that they had been provided with enough information. They were aiming for the applicant to decide whether they wanted to request a deferral. The Board tabled the request for a few minutes until the applicants had a chance to discuss the issues and decide if they wanted to request a deferral. MOTION: Mr. Edgerton moved to table the request until later in the meeting. Ms. Hopper seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. ZMA-U1-21 carriage Gate (sign #69)- Kequest to rezone 2./42 acres trom K-b Resioentlai to K-lb Residential to allow apartments with a density of 14 dwellings per acre. The property described as Tax Map 45 Parcel 91 is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Woodwork Drive approximately 1/4 miles from the intersection of Woodwork Drive and Bertram Drive. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Transitional recommended for mixed-use areas with Urban Density uses and non-residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service and Office Service. Urban Density uses are 6 - 34 units per acre (if this applies) in Neighborhood 1. (Elaine Echoes) Mr. Miller stated that the applicant and contract purchaser request a deferral in order that they can revise the site plan and come back in front of you at a later date. They would work with the staff on the timing. MOTION: Mr. Edgerton moved to accept the applicant's request on ZMA-01-21 for Carriage Gate for deferral as requested to allow time for revision of the site plan. The applicant would have time to address the issues outlined by the Planning Commission and staff. The date of public hearing is to be determined by staff. SECONDED: Ms. Hopper seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. Mr. Rieley stated that the next item was a work session. He stated that the Planning Commission would take a 15-minute break. The Planning Commission recessed at 7:30 p.m. for a 15-minute break. The meeting convened at 7:50 p.m. Albemarle County Planning Commission-March 19,2002 DRAFT MINUTES-SUBMITTED APRIL 9, 2002 10