Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202200006 Correspondence 2022-11-08 (2)November 7,2022 Andy Reitelbach Senior Planner 11 Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: ZMA202200006 — 999 Rio, Response to October 17 Staff Comment Letter Dear Andy: Below are our responses to the October 17, 2022 Staff Comment Letter. The staff comments are noted in grey and the Applicant responses are noted in black. Plannin2 Comments (ZMA Comments ZNLA2022-00006) General Comments 1. A special exception application is required. See 18-20A.8(b). Only one general use classification is now proposed (residential), whereas an NMD requires at least two. A waiver from the Board of Supervisors must be approved to allow only this one use, since the commercial portion is now proposed to be removed. An application and supplemental narrative have been submitted requesting the above special exception. 2. Update the project narrative, code of development, and application plan with the assigned project number, ZMA2022-00006Update the project narrative, code of development, and application plan with the assigned project number, ZMA2022-00006 The project narrative, code of development, and application plan have been updated. 3. Clarify both in the project narrative and on the application plan that the proposed density of 24 units per acre is both the gross and net density for the project. The proposed gross and net residential density is 20 dwelling units per acre. The project narrative and application have been updated accordingly. 4. Is subdivision of this property proposed? It appears that subdivision may have been considered with the earlier iteration of this project. However, the current layout does not appear to lend itself to subdivision, as the row of dwelling units near Fowlers Ridge has no road frontage (and they are not considered amenity -oriented lots as originally approved). If subdivision is proposed, all requirements of the subdivision ordinance must be met. Subdivision of the property is proposed. The units will have frontage off of a private street central to the Property. Sheet 7 of the Application Plan has been updated to better delineate the proposed subdivision (copied below). R" 5. Provide the proposed maximum building height for each unit type in the project narrative. It appears the multi -family units are two stories (one story for each unit); however, it is not clear how tall the townhouses are proposed to be. The height restriction for the entire project is 35 feet. However, the multifamily units are proposed as two-story buildings, and the towtihomes are proposed as three-story buildings. The project narrative has been updated accordingly. 6. A community meeting is required. This community meeting is currently scheduled for October 27fl. Additional comments may be provided by staff after the community meeting has been held. The community meeting was held on October 27th. No additional comments have been provided by staff 7. Advisory Comment: If this rezoning application is approved by the Board of Supervisors, additional site development plans will be required, which include initial and final site plans, ARB plans, VSXW plans, WO plans, subdivision plats (if applicable), etc. Noted. Application Plan Comments 8. On sheet 2 of the application plan, revise the "Open Space" note to clarify that 20% will be provided for each of green space and amenity space (although they can overlap in certain circumstances). Similarly, revise note 41 on sheet 7. 2 The application plan has been updated accordingly. 9. Is the area of the multi -use path along Belvedere Boulevard proposed to be dedicated to public use? It is generally preferred that sidewalk improvements be located within the public right-of-way for VDOT maintenance. How wide is the proposed multi -use path? How wide is the proposed planting strip? These measurements were in the application plan of the 2019 rezoning, but have been removed with this proposal. The area of the multi -use path along Belvedere Boulevard is proposed to be dedicated to public use. The application plan has been updated accordingly (please see Sheet 8 for the exact dimensions). 10. Provide a legend for the green line and the parallel dashed blue line on sheet 5 of the application plan. It is assumed they are some type of utility; however, it is not clear. The application plan has been updated accordingly. 11. This property is on the Entrance Corridor. The sides of residential buildings and a stormwater management pond are not appropriate facades/uses for an Entrance Corridor. Also, see comments from Margaret Maliszewski later in this comment letter. The sides of the residential buildings were approved by the Architectural Review Board in a prior iteration of the project. The architecture was carefully designed knowing the importance of the entrance corridor of Rio Road East. The stormwater pond will be screened from view with appropriate landscaping. Below is a cross section that shows how the topography will screen the pond from view. The cross section also shows that there is ample room for landscaping. R n lot jft_IAAL, 1 — Me 011~MW 3 r - - - - - - - - i A Ap The following note has also been added to Sheet 7 of the application plan, "Landscaping to be provided along Rio Road frontage w/ ARB coordination & review at site plan phase." 12. As buildings are not proposed along the Rio frontage, the parking lot in particular should be screened from Rio Road, since Rio is an EC and parking should be relegated according to the Neighborhood Model Principles (NMP). However, no proposed buffering or vegetation is depicted. As stated in the answer to Comment 411, there is ample room for landscaping and other screening. The exact plantation and landscaping design will be crafted during the site plan stage of development. 13. Pedestrian Orientation is one of the twelve Neighborhood Model Principles. Direct pedestrian connections between the parking lot and Rio Road would help this project to better meet the Pedestrian Orientation portion of the Neighborhood Model Principles. Such a feature could also help turn the stormwater management pond into more of an amenity for the development. It appears a pedestrian connection was envisioned in this area in the original rezoning. A sidewalk has been added from the parking lot to the multi -use path along Rio Road East to better serve pedestrian connectivity. 14. The Neighborhood Center of the NMP can also apply to a center in the development, usable and accessible by residents of the project. Is there any amenity area in the plan that would act as a central gathering space for residents to interact? There is more green and open space in the current plan than in previous iterations. Below is a proposed rendering of how the green and open space could be utilized. Bvi,ed�v B��ard -M ._. k rd The area between the two townhome blocks is the most central greenspace area. It will likely consist of a small dog park and playground. Recreational requirements will be satisfied, and further details will be designed and made more specific during the site plan stage of development. 15. It appears one of the entrances into the development is being removed from the original rezoning with this new proposal. This removal should also be noted in the project narrative. The project narrative has been updated accordingly. Code of Development (COD) Comments 16. The Application Plan designates the entire property as "Block L" As such, Block I should continue to be identified in the COD. It appears to have been removed entirely. The captions of each of the tables of the COD have been updated accordingly. 17. There is a discrepancy between the COD and the Application Plan on the minimum number of units permitted. On sheets 2 and 3 of the COD, it states that the minimum number of units permitted is 12. On sheet 2 of the AP, it states that the minimum number permitted is 10. Fix this discrepancy. The COD has been updated to state 10 as the minimum number of permitted units. Thank you for catching this discrepancy. 18. The acreage of the parcel is also different between the two documents — 1.918 acres on the AP vs. 1.947 acres in the COD. 1.918 is the correct acreage. The COD has been updated accordingly. 19. Why has the minimum rear setback for residential been reduced from 10' to Y? The width of the private street in this application is larger than the width of the central greenspace proposed in the previous application. This leaves less room for buildable area, and therefore the townhomes are closer to the property line than in previous applications. However, there is still plenty of space between the units and existing residential due to the strip of land owned by the County between Fowler's Ridge Court and the Property, as well as greenspace from the adjacent Dunlora subdivision. 20. Why were the various screening options required by the COD of the 2019 rezoning removed with this proposal? In the previous application, there was a parking area located along the rear of the Property, closest to Shephard's Ridge. There were concerns from the residents along Shephard's Ridge regarding screening noise and light from this parking area. The previously agreed upon 5 screening options related to retaining mall material and fencing. The revised layout no longer has that parking area along that property line, and there is extended greenspace located in that area instead. Therefore, the Applicant believes the screening options that were previously agreed upon are no longer relevant, nor necessary. In addition, the residents of Fowler Ridge Court were more concerned with the commercial portion of the previous application, as well as maintaining the cul-de-sac. With the elimination of the commercial portion of the project, and maintaining a cul-de-sac, the Applicant believes the previously agreed upon fence is no longer necessary. There will still be sufficient greenspace and screening. Planning Division — Transportation, Community Development Department No objections at this time. Transportation Planning reviewr Kevin McDermott, Planning Manager. Plannin2 Division — Architectural Review Board (ARB), Community Develoomen Department 1. The site layout and building locations should address the Rio Road Entrance Corridor — building should front on the corridor. The previous application had the same layout along Rio Road East as the current application, and it was approved by the ARB. With sufficient screening, vegetation, and careful architectural design, the project can maintain the current layout without feeling as though the fagade along Rio Road East is neglected. 2. The location of the stormwater management facility allows for maximum visibility of the facility. The facility must be designed (shape, position, grading, landscaping, etc.) to achieve an appropriate, integrated appearance along the Entrance Corridor and within the site. The stormwater pond will be screened from view due to the topography of the proposed project and with appropriate landscaping. On the following page is a cross section that shows how the topography will screen the pond from view. The cross section also shows that there is ample room for landscaping. The following note has also been added to Sheet 7 of the application plan, "Landscaping to be provided along Rio Road frontage w/ ARB coordination & review at site plan phase." [Image is on the following page] N Rio Road 410' "I � IV , � 5�—' MCI O~hon po�d The narrative states that all parking is fully screened from Rio Road. The plan shows that the west end of the parking lot is open to Rio Road. Landscaping screening will be required for parking lot perimeters. The intention is to screen all parking lot areas from Rio Road East. The application plan is conceptual, and the Applicant understands the requirement, and importance of screening the parking lot area from the entrance corridor. 4. The western elevations of the building blocks (which face the Rio Road EC) must be fully designed elevations with an appropriate appearance for the EC. Understood. 5. All Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines will apply to this development. Understood. Zonin2 Division, Community Development Department No objections at this time. Zoning reviewer Francis MacCall, Deputy Zoning Administrator. Engineering & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department No objections at this time. Betty Slough, Building Plans Reviewer. 7 Albemarle County Fire -Rescue No objections at this time. Howard Lagomarsino, Fire & Rescue Plans reviewer. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) 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? Water and sewer utilities located around the parcel. Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on plan? Water pressures in the area are high. Pressure reducing valves will be needed. Noted. 4. Are there major upgrades needed to the water distribution or sewer collection system of which the applicant and staff should be aware? The previous iteration of this site proposed lowering the existing sanitary sewer to serve the site. This would be disruptive to the residents along Fowler Ridge Court. Maintaining sewer service to the residents during the sewer relocation would also be difficult. If lowering the existing sewer main is still needed along Fowler, an alternate sewer connection should be explored. The Applicant is not aware of any other options for connection to water and sewer. However, the Applicant would also like to not disturb nearby residents, and therefore will be looking into acquiring offsite easements to try to accommodate a different water and sewer extension path, if possible. 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? 8 � Additional comments? Virjjnia Department of Transportation (VDOT) The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section has reviewed the above referenced plan as prepared by Shimp Engineering dated August 15th 2022 and finds them generally acceptable. 1. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendices B(l) and F as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other requirements. M A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the VDOT Charlottesville Residency Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. Noted. Enclosed Resubmittal Application Form Staff Comment Letter dated October 17, 2022 Revised Application Plan dated November 7, 2022 Updated Narrative dated November 7, 2022 Updated Code of Development dated November 7, 2022 Updated Redline of Code of Development dated November 7, 2022 Letter re: Special Exception Application Form for No Mixed Use Letter re: Private Street Authorization Letter re: Special Exception Application Form for Landscape Strip Waiver 0