Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202200006 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2022-12-22County of Albemarle COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579 ti�RGIt��' December 22, 2022 Ms. Nicole Scro 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-218-0513 nscro@nsrelaw.com ZMA2022-00006 999 Rio Road ZMA Amendment, 29d Submittal Dear Ms. Scro, phone:434-296-5832 www.albemarle.org Staff has reviewed your second submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA202200006, Rio Road ZMA Amendment. 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. Review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. Planning comments are provided first, followed by the other departments: Planning — ZMA Comments (ZMA2022-00006) 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. It does not appear that a fee was paid for this special exception application. A separate fee must be paid for the special exception application. Staff will work with the applicant on determining the correct fee and getting it processed. 2) Update the project narrative, code of development, and application plan with the assigned project number, ZMA2022-00006. Comment addressed. 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. Comment addressed. 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. Response noted. Since the stacked units would not have individual lot frontage (since at least two units would be sharing the same parcel of land), staff assumes this development would be subdivided as a condominium. If it is proposed to be a condominium development, certain requirements would apply. See Section 18-4.5. In addition, with the private street proposed, the multi -family units would become a double - frontage lot. Double -frontage lots are not permitted without a waiver request. However, this waiver (including the requirement for additional landscaping) can be reviewed administratively at the site planning stage. 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. Comment addressed. 6) A community meeting is required. This community meeting is currently scheduled for October 271h Additional comments may be provided by staff after the community meeting has been held. Comment addressed. 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, VSMP plans, WPO plans, subdivision plats (if applicable), etc. Comment still applies. 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 amenitv space (although thev can overlap in certain circumstances). Similarly, revise note #1 on sheet - Comment addressed. 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. Comment addressed. 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. Comment addressed. 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. Response noted. 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. Response noted. 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. Response noted. 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? Response noted. 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. Comment addressed. Code of Development (COD) Comments 16) The Application Plan designates the entire property as "Block 1." As such, Block 1 should continue to be identified in the COD. It appears to have been removed entirely. Comment addressed. 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. Comment addressed. 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. Comment addressed. 19) Why has the minimum rear setback for residential been reduced from 10' to 3'? Response noted 20) Why were the various screening options required by the COD of the 2019 rezoning removed with this proposal? Response noted. Planninq Division —Architectural Review Board (ARB), Community Development Department Please see the comments below that have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski, ARB Staff Planner (Planning Manager), mmaliszewski(a)albemarle.org: A previous EC comment stated: "The site layout and building locations should address the Rio Rd. Entrance Corridor — buildings should front on the corridor." The applicant's response states that the current plan has the same layout as the previous plan, but that response fails to note that the previous plan included a building that fronted on the EC street. The current proposal includes a waiver request to eliminate the mix of uses and a plan that eliminates the office building that was located along the EC street. The loss of the mixed -use results in a development that is not consistent with the EC guidelines. The application plan should be revised to include one or more buildings located along, and oriented to, the EC street. Note for a future site plan: 1. 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. 2. The narrative states that all parking is fully screened from Rio Rd. The plan shows that the west end of the parking lot is open to Rio Rd. Landscape screening will be required for parking lot perimeters. 3. The western elevations of the building blocks (which face the Rio Rd. EC) must be fully designed elevations with an appropriate appearance for the EC. 4. All Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines will apply to this development. Zoninq Division, Community Development Department No objections at this time. Zoning reviewer Francis MacCall, Deputy Zoning Administrator, fmaccalla-albemarle.ora. Engineering & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. County Engineer, Frank Pohl, fpohl(Malbemarle.org. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. 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 cDalbemarle.org, and my phone number is 434-296-5832 ext. 3261. Sincerely, Andy Reitelbach Senior Planner II Planning Division, Department of Community Development enc: Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Form Resubmittal of information for �$��°F"`8 Zoning Map Amendment t ��RG/NAP PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED: ZMA2022-00006 999 Rio Road ZMA Amendment 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 INTAKE STAFF) $1,479 at Technologv surcharge +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 INTAKE 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