Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201800012 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2023-02-03 (3)April 1, 2019 Megan Nedostup County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: ZMA 2018-012 Galaxie Farm — Response to November 2, 2018 Staff Comment Letter Dear Megan: Below are our responses to the November 2, 2018 Staff Comment Letter. The staff comments are noted in grey and the applicant responses are noted in black. General Application Comments: Statz'rcconimends that the application go to a kork session "jih tla. Planttinlr Cotnnussion to c t i °edln ck on the proposed densitN drat is aboN e the recommended density v� ithin the Coml+rA msi� e Plan. See further commnernts on the densitN in the PlanninL,7oning .onrmert section. The original application for ZMA 2018-012 included 2.77 acres of adjacent property owned by the County, Tax Map Parcel 91-11 (the "County Property'). The County Property was shown as a "Future Phase" and was dependent upon an agreement between the Applicant and the County in which the Applicant would build a portion of a "Connector Road" per the specifications of the Comprehensive Plan in exchange for the conveyance of the County Property to the Applicant. The original application also requested a density of 130 total units, 10.65 dwelling units per acre (inclusive of the acreage of the County Property). Because the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the Property recommends between 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre, i.e. a maximum of 72 total units, staff recommended the application go to a work session with the Planning Commission. The work session was held on December 18, 2018. The Planning Commission recommended the Applicant explore the possibility of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA). However, the County Zoning Ordinance was amended on January 3, 2018, eliminating the ability for applicants to initiate CPAs. The revised process for CPAs requires initiation by a member of the Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission. The purpose of proposing density higher than that recommended in the Comprehensive Plan was to allow for the construction of single family detached homes with much smaller square footages relative to the average newly constructed home. In order to afford selling such smaller homes at lower prices than the typical larger home, it is necessary to be able to construct more of them (i.e. have a higher density allowance). These smaller homes are often referred to as "cottages" in other jurisdictions and many "cottage cluster" ordinances have been adopted in other localities across the nation. From discussions with members of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, the Applicant believes these smaller homes can be constructed by providing specifically tailored supplemental regulations that allow for certain housing products to be considered a half dwelling unit. This consideration will only be given if certain restrictive conditions are met. These regulations can be found in the "Supplementary Regulation" section of the Application Plan and were inspired by the "cottage cluster" ordinances adopted by other localities. In addition, these regulations only apply to Block 1, not the entire development. In sum, the application was revised from allowing a maximum of 130 units to the following: • Without supplementary regulations: 72 units are allowed • With supplementary regulations: 59 units are allowed, plus 26 "cottage" units or half units, totaling 72 units Since the County declined to pursue the exchange related to the County Property, the total maximum density recommended by the Comprehensive Plan (excluding the County Property acreage) is 63 units. The Application allows for 9 units over the maximum recommended density to accommodate 9 affordable housing units (15% of 63). Therefore, the Application's revised allowable density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation (excluding the 9 affordable housing units). 2. The application for the deNclopme nt appears to be proposin_-, its ov, n -,n of requirements. �chich is somethi the Neighborhood Model allo%%s for. hov exer there are requirements within the PRD that states the regulations and requirements in the ordinance. If, ou are daviating front any of the stated requirements under PRD. a special exception for all of those deviations will he required, ifihec are available to be modified. Reciew of the regulations Ndliah } ou are proposing should be compared to the requirements of the PRD to determine i-1 hat spacial exceptions are needed. There are no deviations from the PRD requirements. �. I lie plan shows deeelopntell t o❑ County owned property 0iich is not a part of the rezoning application.] lie parcels shown in the Galaxie 1=arm rezoning ineluda: a. - T\4P 91-1 5. otkned h} Jaspzr or Millie Ida�ties. b. - Trb11' 91-9, wt ned h\ 11,vid or Anna ilarie 1Einner. and e. - "hAP 91-1 1. oNsned b}Connv of Albemarle. The project its propo:,:,d in the Oalaxie Rezoning Written Narrativ e describes contract purchasing for only wo of these three parcels: 91-15 and 91-9. 1 rider Section 33.15tA). a zoning map amendment ilia\ he filed bc. -An omicr,j contract purchaser with th;, omier.s consent_ or the oz. ner's authorized agent.- As no contract has been initiated for Parcel 91-1 1. this zoning map amendment map not be appi-med as currenth proposed. Fa Tither proN ide.1 plan the t Coll taillS .!11 of (iW railLlik!IVlclll: ;illd 6 ,1h s!:iud oil it's; own li LthULit f OLlt7ti 1)rOpel"t4, or Subillit dociNri tli dlspLiA iw.e the p 'L1 :ise coillracl: tltr tlh� (:ouni} propeirt\. As stated above, the Application no longer envisions a "Future Phase" that includes the County Property and therefore the Application exclusively consists of property the Applicant has under contract. 4. T7]c profrers oil�red cannot Le e>:ccpied under the stale code unless it is sp �iii..ail� attribut lle tc ao inlpact from the de�;lopinent. -1t tllis tinlc. tl>•_ transportation p�otTcrs cannot Cie9,:l'nlined to h, speciticrilj, attributable. a. i h_ affordable housiti- polio; under the Comp Phin will need to b. addressed tlu(Afh other algal:. as it is not allov able as a profter, cyen it'there is e) idence of it being specifeally attributable. under th•1., state code. Hoxa eN er, the proposal Illust llsll spCcity Q 1n"crti tinting t;hr ih4Y,io LIIlitS. b. 1'or it alsportation. a 11_A should�be suhlnitted to determine the imp.icts io the loch iiltw�rsertions. The Application no longer consists of a proffer statement. Instead, Note A of the Supplemental Regulations of the Application Plan states that 15% of the total residential units within the project shall be designated as Affordable Dwelling Units. Affordable Dwelling Units is defined in the Supplementary Regulations and now specifies the delivery timing for such units, stating, "The 15% Affordable Housing Requirement... must be satisfied prior to construction of more than sixty-five (65%) of the project." Since the County declined to pursue the agreement in which the Applicant would construct a portion of a "Connector Road" to the specifications of the Comprehensive Plan, the Application no longer provides transportation proffers. >. A statenlellt should be prorided as to how the proposal specitictl,1- addresses inhpaels ill schools, parks, transportation. and safety 1poliee and fire. This may no longer be applicable as the Application no longer includes a proffer statement. However, see below: The Applicant has discussed the Application with Rosalyn Schmitt, Chief Operating Officer of Albemarle County Public Schools and Joe Letteri, Director of Building Services for Albemarle County Public Schools. Both officers stated that development is welcome in this area of the County due to low enrollment (and under capacity) of Monticello High School and Walton Middle School. While Cale Elementary School is at or over capacity, Albemarle County Public School officers stated that this issue would need to be addressed regardless of the proposed development and may be solved through redrawing the district boundaries or some other means. The officers stated Cale Elementary School will likely not expand towards the applicant - controlled property as Cale is already larger than the ideal size for an elementary school and there are steep slopes and stormwater management facilities located where the possible expansion could occur, rendering such expansion impractical. The Monticello Fire and Rescue Station is located within a'/2 mile of the proposed development. The station was constructed within the past several years and has the capacity to serve the nearby proposed development. A second emergency -only entrance was added to the proposed development since the original Application Plan in response to Fire & Safety comments. The proposed development is located within close proximity to several park facilities, including the facilities of Cale Elementary School and Monticello High School. In addition, the newly proposed Biscuit Run park is also nearby. The proposed development also includes 2.78 acres of passive recreational space, which includes greenway trails along the perennial stream located parallel to Route 20. These greenway trails will include a trail envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan to continue along Route 20 and possibly connect to the Monticello Trails and/or Biscuit Run. A little less than an acre of the proposed development will be used for more active recreational space, including playground facilities, dog park, and possibly a clubhouse (if feasible). Estimated traffic counts are provided below: AM PM Use Description ITE Qty in out Total in out Total Single Family Detached 210 42 IT 27 37 30 17 47 Townhomes 220 30 5 13 18 12 9 21 Total 15 40 55 42 26 68 Right Turn 4 32 Left Turn 11 10 The above table assumes 42 single family detached units and 30 twnhomes (72 units total). According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Manuel, it is estimated that 40 units will be turning out of the proposed site in the morning and 15 will be turning in, with the stream of traffic reversing in the afternoon (42 cars into the site, 26 cars out of the site). Based on Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) data on Scottsville Road (Route 20), it is estimated that of those turning into the site (in the AM: 11 will be turning left into the site, 3 will be right into the site; in the PM: 10 will be turning left into the site, 32 will be turning right into the site). The image on the next page depicts the above data based on current traffic estimates on Route 20. If a certain relationship between turns and the existing volume of traffic is met, a right turn lane or right turn taper would be warranted. In this instance, a right turn taper is warranted, which will allow more room for cars turning right into the site. This right turn taper will minimize delays on Route 20 that might have resulted from a backlog of cars turning right into the site. 120 l _ i_ I I _t_ 100 2co ,tM 400 Vrn r30E1 516 PHV h'aPIRaACHTOTAL. VE"ICtESf H In addition, based on advancing volume and opposing volumes (VPH), speed and percentage left turns of Route 20, a left turn lane is not warranted. See the below graphic. LrT TUR4 tLrt r.IM+' tRT T iS1T Te+SrG � 404" 1*$" SPEED, i0c. 111 240 100 rap x[ 410 1"' _ 20D , 400 xtc. no 215 1 1-46 200 ±WO 410 t5D 'S' 1 1DD `M 010 140 W 5OAFH ofssR3Y SPEED - no 2a 210 75^_ 13E 04D 3t0 tad 140 I'D 406 SAD 1 270 00D 25�0 21D 1F!" 1*.D 400 303 S'0 ^' 1 ; Y :00 A15 33D I 100 50S $1D +- TABLE 31 Source, Adapted from 2011 AASHTO Green Book, Chapter 9, Section 9 7 3, Page 9- t 32, Table 9-23 5 The location and timing of the traffic signals along Route 20 result in steady openings in traffic, which will allow residents of the proposed development to turn left out of the site at regular intervals without extended delays. Application Plan: Planning/Zoning (Megan Nedostup; Lea Brumfield): 9 connection ihould i"e consid.reJ from this &aclopmvrit to A "ivity. 'Ih'i,c is an e-xistini., right of r a} that is pl tacd to the pl•opartc line in .•fix init%. fhi v,ill ins olcc connecting througgh school property_ and a pedestrian and bike connectiou %pith a flour right 01 ti :r;. 1l«+iea600 ..ould 'r. ,xplor�:d at a minimum. Road C is designed to the property line of Tax Map Parcel 91-15, which abuts Avinity and Cale Elementary School. Therefore, if the County chooses, it can extend Road C through the Cale Elementary School property, exiting onto Avon Street Extended. Any connection to Avinity would require the acquisition of off -site easements and therefore the Application does not show any connections. Importantly, the design of the Avinity subdivision is not supportive of through traffic. Driveways were allowed to be constructed such that they do not accommodate the size of a typical vehicle and therefore such vehicles block the neighborhood's sidewalks and backup right up against passing traffic. In addition, all of the roads in the Avinity subdivision are private roads with narrow through lanes. The Applicant does not believe it would be appropriate nor safe to provide a vehicular connection to the Avinity subdivision without, at minimum, providing traffic from the proposed development to exit onto Avon Street Extended by a separate, and more immediate connection, thus discouraging and minimizing traffic from the proposed development through Avinity. 2. The Southern and Wcsttmi klaster Plan shows a ercenwaN trail along Route 20. `Ihis should be pro%id4d for alon& the frontage. The Application Plan shows a Class B greenway trail located parallel to Route 20. All tots are required to hslvc frontage on a public or private strcat. It is unclear what classification of roads are heing proposed. if there will he lots that n ill not have frontage From a public or private strut. then this should he addressed in the application plan. There }rive been other developments that have "amenity orientad lotJ - that could be used as a starting point for lanuage to address this. All lots will have frontage on either a public or private street. k. The narrative states there vvill be a "boardwalk" in Block 2. Please clarih if Road F is a "boardwalk" and evhat the materials will be for the access to Block 2. Also, see comment 2 abore rcgardine froittatic for lots. Road F is not a "boardwalk." The boardwalk referenced in the narrative relates to a path to be constructed along the frontage of the greenway of Block 7. A cross-section of each proposed road is provided in the Application Plan. ;. PP.D h is rW.,vtdations stated for height. building scptraiioa, and setback lfvou are deaLahti, from 'the reuuirements. a l,.cia! exceptir?n r_�quir,d rfavailable to be modi fic']. a. Hi: ight is stutcd aji >: inal of 65 11w, hoil Ck 4"' tit., Conip Plan rocolnmerids a trla.'i height of ; stories Block 5 alloti s for a mar: of 50 1zet xdiieh could equatc to 5 stories, If) addition, PRIG siatrs that there is a niiitinlum stepb,ick required tor ail), 5tUl'v that br. lns above-10 feet to height Qr for each story- abtnc the third story. tvhichcvn is less as provide_! in section 4.I(). 'I lie application does not address this requirement. The Application no longer allows for structures above 35 feet. b. I here is;: minimum building separation of 10 laet. Note it states ti teet, rrhich does not meet this re_iuirenlent. The Application has been revised and this note has been removed. Building separation will meet the 10-foot minimum required by PRD regulations. c. Setbacks are required under 4.19 for PRD. A masimtun sethack should be stated Hith in the application plan. The Notes in the Application Plan state the applicable setbacks in each Block. 0. Remove area for Lie%elopntent nut of the stream buffer in Block 1. In addition. a note should be added to the application plan that states that no lots lire permitted within the stream Killer. The very small area for development shown in the stream buffer was provided to allow for a residence at a desirable intersection. This lot will frame the intersection and will contribute to a sense of place as residents and neighbors pass through the neighborhood. While this small portion of the rear of a lot is shown as being in the stream buffer, Note H states, "No structures shall be permitted in the stream buffer." Therefore, only open yard space is allowed in the portion of any lot that overlays with the stream buffer. While the Applicant recognizes the risk that a homeowner might not follow the County Zoning Ordinance and construct a shed or other small structure in this buffer even though it is prohibited, we believe the impact of such a shed or other structure would be minimal, especially given the grading that will already occur in this area to allow for the relocation of Galaxie Farm Lane. This grading would also result in the loss of any existing vegetation. The regulations at the site plan level would require mitigation plantings for this grading and replacement of the loss of any vegetation along the stream buffer. The small amount of vegetation within the lot of which has a portion within the stream buffer can be 7 included in this mitigation plan, resulting in added vegetation elsewhere to offset the risk of the loss of vegetation within this residential lot. j. i%'ote -I J'..:'.t11S to bti C: cvroi it ;)t GJ3 th'.{t tl e .ri , J,1ltlnt 111&!I .r of units sh:dl I:ut eWccd 1. itl addition. th" uutnl?Or ot'utlits ir, th, cuait on d�,,t 7 egtnl 112_ not 110 as rdqucsted. Yes, Note I was meant to state that "the maximum number of units shall not exceed 130" in the original Application Plan. The number of units did not equal 112 — that column in the chart referenced dwelling units per acre (DUA), not the maximum allowable units. As stated previously, the maximum allowable residential units has been revised to 72. To minimize confusion only the acreage and maximum allowable units is provided for each Block. Block 8 indicates that there is a maximum structure height and a setback. Provide information on lvllat is to be provided in the block as it relates to recreation and possible structures. The Application allows for a structure with a maximum height of 35 feet and setback regulations in the Block designated for amenity space to allow for the possibility of a small clubhouse. We envision Block 8 to consist of natural playscapes and playground equipment, benches, sports fixtures, etc. We are not certain if a clubhouse will be provided but would like the option should it be feasible. 9. Provide a st itentent on the recreation to be provided. W ill it be in conformance vi ith 4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance as required in PRD? Or are other amenities proposed" Ilov. will amenities b.--addressed? All PRD requirements will be satisfied per the Zoning Ordinance. The passive greenspace and recreational amenity areas will include playscapes, playground equipment, benches, sports fixtures, etc. There will also be a trailway system throughout the passive greenspace, with houses orientated towards the greenway as much as possible to encourage residents to use such trail system. The trails in the passive greenway will be located along a perennial stream and connect to the extended greenway trail shown in the Comprehensive Plan. This extended greenway trail is shown as being located parallel to Route 20, eventually connecting to the Monticello Trail system and Biscuit Run. 10. "1 lie pleasing aspect of this proposal does consider the thture development of the Count% property at TMP 91-1 I separately from the initial dev:lopnient ol'parecls 91-15 and 91-9. Ihm ever. as clrrently submitted, the l;rst plulse relics on the second phase for op--n space not under purchase contract. this first "phase' must indapendernk meet all zoning requirements, including the open space imd interconneetkit} requirements listed in comment I hcloN. 0 The Application Plan has been revised to exclude the County Property and only include those properties the Applicant has under contract. Therefore, the open space has been moved to within the boundaries of the Applicant -controlled properties. I I. The two parcels ttndei pulchasutg contract total 1 ;, 16 .acres. I. Sector 1Q.6.1, th:- PR(9 niust pros ide 2S440. or 3.34 acres o!'annntan opC0 ,jr: C'_. I-Wludit] cc' the land inc ltrcled in the second Phase. file total proposed green space consisns of .+.01 acres. st°hied does not Incet the inliittnurn 2510 open SpaeC rcgUir�AnCnl. 1StClndin' the nnconit'acted la1 acres of Connie parcel toNvard s the proposal. the three pareel:� total 14.87 acres. this rc�ults in a rcquircd 3. 7'' acres of open space. The current proposal. includittr the s­-C and phase of lls°.�lopme!tt on County-o�nted laml. dee otcs 3.58 acres tast.trds open sp aE.e. This tlucs not m et the requited 3.72 acres of open space required bi Section 19.6. i . As stated earlier, the Application Plan has been revised to exclude the County Property and therefore the open space has been moved to within the boundaries of the Applicant -controlled properties. As stated above, the Zoning Ordinance requires 25% open space, or 3.34 acres. The revised Application Plan shows 2.78 acres as passive recreational open space and 0.83 acres as active recreational open space, totaling 3.61 acres of common open space, satisfying the required 3.34 acres (or 25%). 12. The proposal as currently submited s,idt contract signatures for INil's 91-15 and 9 1 -90 does not shoss phasing for access, to cxcisting dwellings at 107. 1 17. and 130 Gaaxie Farm Lane. Nor does it shos, access for the ds clling on EMP 91-10 (167 Gala.,ie Farm Lane). These dsscllings currently rely on Gal a xic Farm Isaac for access. which is retnos ed in the proposed plan. The connections impacts to these three residential dwellings is not addressed in the project proposal. Additionally. the dv.elling at 133 Galaxie hams Lune is not shown on the current proposal. tlnlcs the C'ount.-ossned parcel is under purchase contract, this dwelling must be shown on the proposal. As stated earlier, the Application Plan has been revised to exclude the County Property and only include those properties the Applicant has under contract. The Application Plan also shows all existing dwellings and how they will have continued access from Route 20 off of Galaxie Farm Lane. 13. The ts� o lots under purchase contract. 9 1 -15 and 91-9. totaling13.36 acres. allow 13 dwelling units by -right under the currant R-1 zoning. A maximum density of 6 dwelling units per acre are recommended under the eontprehensis e plan desi',nation of Neigliborhood Density Residential. Excluding 3.01 acres of land under the � atcr Protection Ordinance stream buffer to leave 10.35 buildable acres_ the nutximum dcnsits Xuxdd equate to 62 dwelling units. As stated previously, the two lots under contract total 13.36 acres. Under the recommended maximum density of 6 dwelling units per acre and excluding 2.78 acres of environmentally sensitive area, the maximum recommended density equals 63 dwelling units. While the GIS shows 3.01 acres of environmentally sensitive area, the enclosed survey shows that an accurate calculation of the stream buffer is 2.78 acres. 2 14, Tlw narrnti%e proposal lists tvo ditf rent acnmges ofCourm land in its calculation. Orr the first page, the proposal states "Elie proposed maximum densitN is i30 Lin; is. .khick amounts to 8.74 units per 13Jac kbird Propert' plus 1.5 i acres of County Property,)" IloweN- r. tl;e arlcnlations under 'Consistcuc� With Comprehensive Plan" list a total of 15.22 acres. vaueh %could requir: 1,86 acre_, (if CornuN oa+ned land. Tiae inclusion of 1.51 acrL„of t ounty Property in the proposal allows for a total of 1.4 by- riJtt dwelling units under the eaistinu R-1 r'onmr. 'r7z hiding 3.01 acres of ]sand under the 1?`ater Protection Ordinance stezm buffer to lcm e 11.86 buildable acres. the ini icnum density wor.dd equate to 71 chilling units. ffosve'er, the inclusion of 1.86 .cres of County Property allo xs for a total of 15 day eilht units under the cs+stin R-1 zoning. Excludint i.01 acres of f.uld under the AVater Protection Ordinance stream buffer to lca'-t I I' I build :bh acres, the nraximunr dctrsity would equate to Ti dwelling units. -1 he propo°led maximum density of 130 dvellino units. equates to a total of 11.5 ds�elliiw unity per acre. nearly double the recommended nraxinuun density. This is an extirmely high number o'er the recommended mtaximurn density Stall' recommends this b discussed in a �Nork session with the Planting Conunksion. The Applicant only intended to construct 130 units should the proposed development include the County Property and therefore the maximum dwelling units per acre proposed was 10.65, not 11.5. As stated earlier, the proposed density was discussed at a work session on December 18, 2018. Discussions following the work session lead to the revised allowable maximum density of 72 units, 9 of which are designated as Affordable Dwelling Units. Using a total acreage of 13.36 (all Applicant -controlled property) less the environmentally sensitive area (2.78 acres), the total recommended maximum density would be 63 units. Excluding the units designated as Affordable Dwelling Units, the total allowable density in the Application Plan is 63 units, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ARB/Mstoric Preservation (Margaret Maliszcwski): 1. 1 he residence. garage.. and barns on '1_l41' 91 -9are contributing, resources in the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. Retaining the residence and incorporating it into the new development would support the Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving the count''s historic resources. The residence, gnra, e and barns should be full documented in photos and drawings prior to demolition of the Outbuildings. Per the National Register for the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District (enclosed) the only contributing structures within the proposed development relate to TMP 91-15, which has a Dutch colonial house on the property. The colonial house and associated structures on 91-15 do not have clearly defined historical features and were constructed in the early 1940s. They were included as "historical" due to their location along the historic and scenic byway of Route 20 and proximity to Monticello. The historical structures have also not been kept in good condition and were recently severely damaged by a tornado that hit the area. For these reasons, we do not 10 believe the historical structures should be incorporated into the proposed development. Please see the enclosed photos for more information. 2. Rt. 20 is an I`ml' ucif ?_oIridor and it N i iIna i34'b I'; . 1 he corridor a! Id UN 14i1N designations [lie lnt'.ndcd to [)reserve and enhance the aestheties Ond natural hCaUt\ o7'the Yoad)i:.b, fhe hrGSc`Ci ad StIYaYlI bU'ftci can Ildll) SlippUl"t 11i1.'s goal 2IIld 171Ctlili.xltl _m approniinte appc-,ii 'tic: ;4onw the corridot% Dcn,�J Ceitetation bullink the vie\of tilt glc'lz ddv-elopinrtnt troto the hi=hv x, is appropriate. There will be a 2.78-acre buffer from Route 20 to the residences of the proposed development. The stream buffer area will be preserved as passive open space — no structures will be allowed to be constructed within this area. The preservation of such a large, vegetative buffer will preserve Route 20's natural beauty and scenic byway designation. The n.irrov. +vidtll of Rt. 20 and the minimal v. idih and simple app :ranee of drivcv.afs providing access to properties off the high\vay are major contributors to the scenic character of the corridor. 1; idened entrances and vtidcned roads (the 66' right-of-v),ai fin• Road V for example&) and added turd lanes on Route 70. together with it)-- lssociatcd log; of existing icooded area. will erode the scenic qualio cfthc highway. Nle_isures tor signilicanth liinitin- these impacts shuUld be pursued. The entrance to the proposed development has been reduced from 67'of right-of-way to 36'. Therefore, the revised Application Plan is more in conformance with the minimal width and simple appearance of driveways off of Route 20. No turn lanes will be added, only a right lane tapper will be installed and therefore there will be minimal loss of existing wooded area. -i, All\ safety the higimav and entrance road should incorporate traditional fencing materials and design. Noted. �. Density of the landscape in the stream buffer g ill determine 'ihe degree of AR13 reviei> required on the internal blocks oCthe development. Noted. 6. The application notes that cottages will front on a boardv-elk adjacent to the open space. fhe plan should be clarified to shove the general location of the boartivvalk and cottages. and a conceptual detail "image of the board%%alk, so that th-e potwuial impacts of this Inrm of development can be hotter assessed. The Application shows the "boardwalk" along the border of the stream buffer and therefore there will be minimal, if any, impact on the stream buffer or vegetative open space from this installment. The boardwalk will encourage utilization of the open space, which will have a trail system with the potential to connect to the Monticello Trails once the greenway trails along 11 Route 20 are installed as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The boardwalk will meet requirements of allowable trails within environmentally sensitive areas. Transportation (Kevin McDermott; Adam Moore (VDOT): I . Reconimen.; do • eloptnem ()I'.! '11,a to fflah-/e lnlpact , to local intersections and clkn elop nlltP�;ltion ltl, : ltr.'�- "tun] lanes) hlr siw iiccesF;. Based upon estimated traffic data, the addition of a right or left turn lane is not necessary. However, a right -turn taper will be installed. The location and timing of the traffic signals along Route 20 result in steady openings in traffic, which will allow residents of the proposed development to turn left out of the site at regular intervals without extended delays. �. l#lhe I_.Inw- t0 be tt iltlninitnn of 5 legit Pi lerl tiPt act .jaeen' to 111tlL'l' p::n. This comment is no longer applicable as no portion of the "Connector Road" shown in the Comprehensive Plan shall be constructed. Inspections (Michael Dellinger): Caution is needed when moving property line, that existing structtes will nova need to he fire rated construction duc to proximity to line. As stated earlier, the Application Plan no longer includes the County Property and therefore changes to the applicable property lines that would result in the above concern will no longer occur. Fire/Rescue (Shawn Maddox): 1. •A second entrance will he required based al the densil%. A second fire entrance is shown on the revised Application Plan (Road F). 2. Travel vc ly s sen'ing as the prirnar\ means of access to a stricture shall he a minimum of 20' clear unobstructed irm: el xridth. The only roadways that will be less than 20' or 26' are located within Blocks 1 and 2. The requirement of structures to be limited to 30' in height shall apply at the site plan phase of development. If anv structural in the dowelopmern lslll he 30' or higher then travel tvay s shall be increased to :6' of unohstructcd v. idth. The only roadways that will be less than 20' or 26' are located within Blocks 1 and 2. The requirement of structures to be limited to 30' in height shall apply at the site plan phase of development. 12 Engineering (Frank Pohl)- 1 ii: ill', it I?'oitc:; stLtemew stato all to id iinprovenknts A-11 he to applicable tit 1)01 - a'tidm . lloCi evel'. stroet sec! and la.%out prof id,,J do ❑ot appear to 1nCtA l 1)01 s end: ;;its. Rcfer to VD0'f %PPendi7. B 1 !b: road design standards. Roads A, B, and C will be designed to VDOT standards. Roads D and E will meet Private Road standards and Road F will be constructed for the purpose of a second entrance for fire/rescue. All sidewalks will be located within an easement or right-of-way. 3. Roads G&II — line rescue will need to conflorm width is adequate. N inin)wn ��.idth of tllcyt� is 13-ft )vith a minimut.l e.tseinent Mdth o1' 20-11 (County Design Staudards Manual J. If then roads' .are intended to provide lot frontage. the% must meet pri - Site road st ndards. See response to Fire/Rescue comments. Private Road standards will be met for Roads D and E. All roads less than 26' in width shall not have structures fronting the road with a height of more than 30' as required by Fire/Rescue standards. Dire rescue requires a second means of access v hen a certain number of SF ardor attached units are constructed. Confirm thresholds with fire rescue. A second fire entrance is shown on the revised Application Plan (Road F). 5. The intersection of Road B and Road F does no; appear to o)ret A"DO1' standards. The Application Plan has been revised — the intersection of Roads B and F no longer is required to meet VDOT standards as Road F has been revised to an emergency accessway. All other intersections in the revised Application Plan meet VDOT standards where required. 0. Prm ide a brief narrative to address how slornicsater nianagenlem requirements v6ll be satisfied. Stormwater Management will be provided for in accordance with the VSMP regulations. The system will likely consist of a network of underground storage and treatment facilities and a surface facility at the end of Road E outside of the stream buffer. ?. A rotrd plait and VSti1P application kz ill be required. A miti�_ation Plan )gill be rcquired fi)r stream huller impacts. These requirements will be addressed at the site plan stage of development. 13 Proffers 1. A,, �!Jui d aho,,e 1 roiferJ i� drilled r;}litloI bt ac c:pted. Bciovi are comments or., vte traW,Fportation ptoffers if the propos�.d ittip;ovenienis ary found to h,c specificall\ aitrihuiahle to th O dcvelopnlent, h;�s u cal ail, toquesied HA. These comments are no longer applicable as the application no longer consists of a proffer statement. _. ILoi�d Improvements a. Para 3 of the curram profFer statement 1 1-161 suvil time as the County deterniincs ul submit the Galexie Farm 1_ int Connection for public dadicsrtien. the OvN nei shall be responsible tier all muinieuara...." The County does not submit roads for public d,crdisatiott. "I'he applicant must submit the road tier public dedication. h. Th::�pplicam must Specify fife requirCIFICAtS of the "completion'" of Galaxie Farm Lane Connection. c. G tlaxie I-atu Lao,. Connection is eurreuth proposed to be completed "prior to the comptetion ofniueticth (90th) certiticate of occupancy."'l lie proposal should read "prior to the issuanca..." Additionalli, postpcniM" conapletiou of tile Connection until the 901h certiticate ofoceupanc% Ml! result in poor access for Bloc!: 7.6. and i. These comments are no longer applicable as the application no longer consists of a proffer statement. Waivers/Modifications/Exception: Private ;ueets serving single flmih detached tots require private street approval. A request should be made if there are private streets. For planned districts, an application for a special exception request is not required for private roadways as long as such roadways are labeled as such in the Application Plan. The Application Plan labels Roads D and E as private. The only waiver request for this Application relates to a request for double frontage lots between Road B and Road E. Section 14.401 of the County Subdivision Ordinance prohibits the development of double frontage lots for single family detached and attached residential uses. Section 13.203.1(B) allows the agent or Planning Commission to vary or allow an exception from this prohibition. We request an exception from such prohibition to allow double frontage lots between Road B and Road E, consistent with the Application Plan. In accordance with neighborhood model principles, we propose rear loaded residential units fronting on the green space of Block 7. Due to the size, shape and location of the property, the alleyway (labeled as Road E), which serves the rear of the units fronting the green space of Block 7, will also serve the next row of units between Road B and Road E. Strict adherence to the requirements of Section 14.401 would prohibit the alleyway serving the units which front on Road B and the green space of Block 7; however, the strict adherence would require moving Road E from its 14 current location to the space between the lots fronting the green space of Block 7. This would create a paved barrier between such lots and the green space rather than allowing the green space to act as more of an extended front yard. This would be a substantial injustice resulting in degradation of the green space of Block 7, is not supported by the principles of the neighborhood model, and inhibits the orderly development of the area. Planning Planning staff s comments are organized as follows: • How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan • The Neighborhood Model analysis • Additional comments from reviewers (See attached) Comprehensive Plan. Comments on uocv yoor projeci combrins to thz C'onipteheusivc Plan will be provided to the Plamuai� Commission and Board of Supervisors its part oftl7e staff report that tidill be prepared for a t�oti;. session or public nearin1g. The properties are within the Sonthern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan area and :ire desi11 .ned as y;ei!ohborhood Density Residential that alloys for residential (3-6 units'aere): suppottum,= Uses such as places ol'caorship, schools. public and institutional uses and small-seale neit>hborhood Leming retail .,nd commercial. lu addition. a road is desiauated on the plan that would connect throwJt the properties. A Center is designated on an adjoining prop .rty. and it is recommended that due to the number ofC'ounty owned properties, that it collaborative conmwnity process for a small area plan is nec&-d in this location. Me proposal request density abo\-e what is recommended within the Conip Plan, bttt pro\ ides Fora portion of the road that is shown, Other portions of the Comp Plan that will be discussed fitrther as part of the staff report inchtde Historic. Culhnal. and Scenic Resources (see klargaret ..VlahszeNvski's conmients). Development Areas. Housing. Transportation. Parks and Green Scsterns. and Growth Management. As stated previously, the Planning Commission held a work session on December 18, 2018 to discuss the previously proposed density. The Planning Commission recommended exploring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, upon discussing the project with members of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, we believe a CPA is no longer necessary. The Application's revised allowable density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation (excluding the 9 affordable housing units). The project is also consistent with other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. The project satisfies the Comprehensive Plan's desire to encourage 15% affordable housing within each new project. In addition, it is common practice to only provide 15% affordable housing above the total number of units that would have been allowed by -right. The application provides affordable housing for 15% of the total allowable units, without subtracting the number of units that would be allowed by -right. Due to changes in Virginia proffer laws, the County is no longer 15 able to accept proffers for 15% affordable housing units. Therefore, it is especially important for the County to maximize the number of affordable housing units when it is able. While the Virginia proffer law is changing again effective July 1, 2019, the most recently revised proffer law still does not allow the County to deny projects based on the fact that proffers that are not specifically attributable to the impacts of the proposed development were not offered. Therefore, applications after July 1, 2019 still cannot be denied based on the fact that they do not offer affordable housing. The Application also shows the greenway trail along Route 20 that is shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan also shows a Connector Road through the property. However, due to the same changes in Virginia proffer laws noted above, the County is no longer able to accept such transportation proffers unless such proffers are specifically attributable to the impacts of the proposed development. The proposed development consists of only 72 residential units and therefore does not warrant the construction of a "Connector Road" as specified in the Comprehensive Plan. While the Application does not show the Connector Road that is specified in the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant made a good faith effort to provide such road within the framework of the new Virginia proffer laws. However, the County declined to pursue the road and so the revised Application no longer shows construction of the road. The Application Plan still provides bike lanes along Road A and enables the County to connect to Road A should it desire to do so in the future. While the Comprehensive Plan states that a small area plan is needed for the County -owned properties, it explicitly does not include the adjacent parcels not owned by the County. Neighborhood Model General comments on hov, %cell the proposed development meets the principles of the Neighborhood Dlodel are provided here. More detailed comments maN be provided at a. later data it changes are made andior after more detailed plans are provided. Pedestrian Orientation I + The material of the stde%kalk should he indicated on the sections. and this vhould be stated as concrete. A label has been added to the cross sections of the roads within the Application Plan labeling the sidewalk material as concrete. • Till lighting be provided? if so. please note that bill cut-off fixtures are required per Section 4.1 7 of the lonitw O dinancc. Note I has been added to the Application Plan stating, "For all lighting within the development, full cut-off fixtures shall be required per Section 4.17." 16 .VV stated ,above. M a mininlnin a p,�dzstrian and bike conn,ction should be ina-i& bemeen this deNclopinent end the ri ht of lvaF that is proti ided to the property line is Avinit�. As stated previously, it is not possible to connect to Avinity except through the acquisition of off -site easements and therefore the Application Plan does not show a pedestrian or bike connection. However, Road C is shown as being extended to the property line and therefore the County is able to pursue a bike or pedestrian connection from the proposed development to Avinity through the Cale Elementary School property if it so desired. 17 Mixture of Uses l he proposal is titr residcntial u:=es ott:. hoNvever ih_ rl— are ci niiT ture ui Lies %,Jthin the immediate are.+ inchtding schools-, assisted" living. fire station. shol?pin _ and County (coned laud dcsien:au�d lbr institutional. No response necessary. • In addition to the above. the tcighbohood N4odei prill:Jp les for IniVure of t!ses diseuSscs hole Hisioftc Properties should he respected and that a desire to prs.�-rve th,.,e re>ources. should be included. As stated abode. there are historic buildings on the property fltat should he considere� i to be incorporated into the development. The historic structures on the property do not have clearly defined historical features and were constructed in the early 1940s. They were included as "historical" due to their location along the historic and scenic byway of Route 20 and proximity to Monticello. The historical structures have also not been kept in good condition and were recently severely damaged by a tornado that hit the area. For these reasons, we do not believe the historical structures should not be incorporated into the proposed development. Please see the enclosed photos for more information. Neighborhood Centers • The Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan indicates that a Center should be provided on a Count} ov.ned property near the proposed properties. It further discusses that a sniatl area plan be dcyclopod to determine l+fiat tk pe ofeenter Mould be appropriate on the Count% olcned propem. While the proposed properties do not include a center. then vre important considerations a; the Count} considers holy to develop their property. 1E Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability A "Center" is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as "a school or a park... major employment area or a shopping area... [or] mixed -use area. It is a "place" to which people want to walk... [and] should be located within''/3 to 1/4 mile walk zone from residences..." There are zero residences within %: mile and only a portion of the Avinity subdivision within'/4 mile. Therefore, to fulfill the Comprehensive Plan's vision of having a "Center" on the County -owned properties adjacent to the proposed development, it would be prudent to allow for the proposed residential development to help support the "Center" designation. 15°o affordable hOntlnkt is oftercd ho)Never this needs to be accomplished outside oY a proffer. also. th, timillL of the affordable housiva needs to he addressed. As stated earlier, affordable housing component of the project has been revised to be provided within conditions of the Application Plan rather than a proffer statement. The timing of the affordable housing has also been added to the Supplementary Regulations section of the Application Plan. \ mis of housing tV l`,es is permitted within all blocks, but nothing in the application requires c mis 0l'ho11si1)!2 types within the develcpnient, so the development could end up being buih to one housing tyl)c. Noted, though we do not believe this comment justifies revision of the Application Plan. Of the 6 blocks that allow for residential development, 3 allow for single family detached (SFD) and single 19 Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks family attached (SFA) units and 2 allow for SFD, SFA, and townhouses. While it is true, all Blocks could potentially be built as SFD or SFA units, it is highly unlikely that the applicant would choose to construct only SFD or SFA units, as the density of the project would be greatly reduced rendering the project financially infeasible. A,: s;Luo l above.:: connection to AN ini* S11OUld I),' i:':11±01 s J " illl S%JIOOIS W1 thiS J;nclrn)t;i,�itt. lo: ddition. there are q L[Cllior L, concernln.g the exl4ult�" liouSs-'s beim4 sencd currcntl} by Galaxy 3 artn Road thou access needs to be addressed. As stated earlier, Road C is designed to the property line of Tax Map Parcel 91-15, which abuts Avinity and Cale Elementary School. Therefore, if the County chooses, it can extend Road C through the Cale Elementary School property, exiting onto Avon Street Extended. Any connection to Avinity would require the acquisition of off - site easements and therefore the Application Plan does not show any connections. Importantly, the design of the Avinity subdivision is not supportive of through traffic. Driveways were allowed to be constructed such that they do not accommodate the size of a typical vehicle and therefore such vehicles block the neighborhood's sidewalks and backup right up against incoming/oncoming traffic. In addition, all of the roads in the Avinity subdivision are private roads with narrow through lanes. The Applicant does not believe it would be appropriate nor safe to provide a vehicular connection to the Avinity subdivision without, at minimum, providing traffic from the proposed development to exit onto Avon Street Extended by a separate, and more immediate connection than through the Avinity subdivision, thus discouraging and Dei Multi -modal Transportation Opportunities minimizing traffic from the proposed development through Avinity. The proposed road iniprovenients are d.scribui as shown (,)if the application plan shoo bic)Cle lanes oil Road A. proposed to be bonded prior to the crcaation of the 50th lot. `phis relies on the Contract purchase ofthe Cotuttc- m%ned propert; "oi- bicycle eecess, as rno bicycle access is shoe, it o❑ Rood 13 of :any eormcctor roads. Bike and pedestrian accass should be provided lorui Road B and further connect to Ai i r i t%. This is no longer applicable as the Application Plan no longer shows Road A as being built to the standards of a "Connector Road" due to the desire of County Supervisors to not pursue the agreement that would allow for the construction of such road. A shared use path alom, the frontage of Rout, 20 should be proN ided as shown in the blaster Plan. The Application Plan shows a Class B greenway trail located parallel to Route 20. Currently CAI is considering a neck Route that "ould service A -lilt Creel. Drive. If there are opportunities to provide a pedestrian and bike connection to tiliII ('reek via Founder's PIaCC. these should he explored. A connection to Mill Creek via Founder's Place would require the acquisition of off - site easements which would not be allowed under the new Virginia proffer law. While the Applicant attempted to provide such infrastructure despite changes in the proffer law, such attempts were not pursued by the County Supervisors. Therefore, the 21 Application Plan no longer shows such connections. Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open . 11,e.juired opcii space is currentl% not Space bein"'t met on the prop.'nies for consideration for the rezxminE. Block 8 cont:tirts area lbr open space that is not Oil a pr:rcel behn, rezoned. ,ee comments abo%e. As stated earlier, the Application Plan has been revised to exclude the County Property and only include those properties the applicant has under contract. Therefore, the open space has been moved to within the boundaries of the Applicant -owned properties, satisfying applicable PRD requirements. • Open space is being provided al oil the stream bill'. rs a -here a wail ivil] he located. The type of trail should ba .tared and a section should be provided. The trails within the stream buffer will be Class B greenway trails per the Comprehensive Plan. Buildings and Space of Human Scale * %laxiniurn setbacks need to be provided See the Notes section of the Application Plan. Stepbacks need to be provided This is no longer necessary as the height of all structures within the proposed development is now limited to 35 feet. • Pro�id rules for relegation of parking. (see relegaied parking comments hcknr ). See below. 22 Relegated Parking Parkin.- should be relegated to the back or side of buiNinc,"s. Parking is relegated to the back or side of buildings where possible. There are zero side or rear loaded structures constructed in the adjacent Avinity subdivision and therefore we do not believe it is appropriate to require such design in the proposed development. Unlike the adjacent subdivision, sufficient setbacks from the right-of-way is a condition of development, thereby avoiding a design where the typical vehicle does not fit within the driveway without blocking the sidewalk. Notes B and C of the Application Plan relate to front loaded garages. Note B states, "For front loaded garages, the entrance of the applicable residence shall be a minimum of 3 feet closer to the street as measured from the face of the garage door." Note C states, "For front loading garages, the minimum front setback to the face of the garage door shall be 18 feet from the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside of the right-of-way." Front loaded-aragcs should be the exception. ['here are a number ol'blocks that atlov for front loaded Garages. Allc} s should be explored to be provided in lieu of front garages. See above. Parking areas located adjacent to tivz street should b, screened from streets. Noted. • �6'here Cront loaded garages are allo�ced. provide a setback frotn the �-ara<ee to the Porch or liront of the house ( ;-? feed. Note B of the Application Plan states, "For front loaded garages, the entrance of the 23 applicable residence shall be a minimum of 3 feet closer to the street as measured from the face of the garage door." Redevelopment • This propos i is on prop;rt)° that is �:tmvnd% not developed. this principle ,ta:°s not applg. No response necessary. Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading o fh,zrc are pre erred slop, s located and Re -grading of Terrain ssithin I locl; 1. Ihrse slopes cannot h disturbed ;md lots should be located outside ofthe slopes. While the preserved slopes in Block 1 will not be disturbed, we believe it is acceptable for such slopes to be located within lots so as to allow for a logical subdivision of property. Note H of the revised Application Plan states, "No preserved slopes within the development shall be disturbed." In addition, the Application will be supplemented with a topographic survey that may be able to demonstrate that the preserved slopes shown on the County-GIS should not be designated as preserved slopes. Information should be provided that retaining %Nulls in the dexclopment Should rneet the design standards required for the disturbance of rnamtged slops in section '0.7.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Note J has been added to the Application Plan, stating, which states, "Retaining walls within the development shall meet the design standards required for the disturbance of managed slopes in Section 30.7.5 of the Zoning Ordinance." Clear Boundaries with the Rural Area . Rural area is located across the street from this proposal_ The btifl r ��ill roiligate the Impoct. kV No response necessary. Enclosed: Resubmittal Application Form Staff Comment Letter dated November 2, 2018 Application Plan Updated Narrative Survey (showing 2.78 acres of stream buffer) National Register for the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District Photos of Historical Structures on the Property 25 May 16, 2019 Megan Nedostup County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: ZMA 2018-012 Galaxie Farm — Response to May 3, 2019 Staff Comment Letter Dear Megan: Below are our responses to the May 3, 2019 Staff Comment Letter. The staff comments are noted in grey and the applicant responses are noted in black. General Application Comments: Density proposed is still over what is reconunended v,ithin the Comp Plan'master Plan for this area. The Planning Commission recommended that the proposal stay vtitlun the re�:onuncnlations of the Comp Plan .a the csotksession. See Comnxnt - 2 below regarding the "half unit' proposal. The Planning Commission held a work session on December 18, 2018 to discuss the previously proposed density. The Planning Commission recommended exploring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, we believe a CPA is no longer necessary. The Application's revised allowable density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation (excluding the 9 affordable housing units). One goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to encourage 15% affordable housing in each new project. However, due to changes in Virginia proffer laws, the County is no longer able to accept proffers for 15% affordable housing units. Therefore, it is especially important for the County to maximize the number of affordable housing units when it is able. While the Virginia proffer law is changing again effective July 1, 2019, the most recently revised proffer law still does not allow the County to deny projects based on the fact that proffers that are not specifically attributable to the impacts of the proposed development were not offered. Therefore, applications after July 1, 2019 still cannot be denied based on the fact that they do not offer affordable housing. In order to satisfy the 15% affordable housing goal of the Comprehensive Plan within the context of the new Virginia proffer laws, the Applicant is proposing affordable housing as a condition of the Application Plan rather than in a proffer statement. If the Application were revised to a rezoning to a Residential R-6 designation, an Application Plan like the one submitted for this Planned Residential Development (PRD) would no longer be required and therefore affordable housing could only be provided through a proffer statement, which would not be allowed. This results in the perverse outcome of discouraging rezonings to planned residential districts, which is contrary to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. In the Development Areas Section of the Comprehensive Plan, Expectation #2 states that "High quality development through application of the Neighborhood Model principles" is expected in the Development Areas. The best way to achieve the Neighborhood Model principles is through the requirements and regulations in the planned development districts. In addition, under the by -right regulations of R-6, Section 16.4.3 of the County Code states, "For providing affordable housing units, a density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted..." Therefore, by not allowing the 9 affordable housing units above the recommended density in the case of a rezoning, the County would incentivize by -right development, where bonuses are provided, or rezoning to non -planned development districts, where requiring proffers for affordable housing are prohibited. Given these perverse incentives and the changes in the new proffer law, the Applicant believes it is a reasonable request, and consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, to allow for 9 affordable housing units above the property's recommended density. In addition, it is common practice to only provide 15% affordable housing above the total number of units that would have been allowed by -right. The Application provides affordable housing for 15% of the total allowable units, without subtracting the number of units that would be allowed by -right. 2. The Zonim_� Ordinance contains definitions for divelling aitcl density that does not permit u a "]tall nit' or cottage unit to be counted less than Otte for densitk� purposes. In somz developments in the County. "r:rriage`' houses do not count against the density of a developnent as they are considered accessory to the prinnan divelling unit. I Ioivever. these accessory wets are gencralh afforded a square lbotage smaller than the L600 sf proposed in the applicant's `cottage" cluster regulations, and the proposed "cottages' would not be accessory to any primary residential d; vclopments. As discussed in a meeting with your the question oftypes of units and density and to treat different types of housin_r differently. is something that needs to be addressed within the Comp Plan and Housing Policy. Section 13 on Sheet 10 should he removed from the application plan set. Ih: elling unit: A single unit providing complete: independent living facilities for one (1) or more persons: including permanent provisions for living: sleeping: eating, cooking and sanitation. Residertial density `gross): The total number of divelling units within a development dMded by the gross residential area and expressed in divelling units per acre. Resider.; ial den sib, (retr: The total number of divelling units ivithin a development divided bythe net residential area and expressed in divelling units per acre. The Supplementary Regulations related to the cottages has been removed from the Application Plan. 3. the narrative proposal describes an increase ofo) dwelling units mote than the comprehensive plans recommended density. These units are proposed to be affordable divel ling units its Justification for the increased density. I loivever. the comprehensive plan lists a i 540 of units aftbrdable housm_ strategy for all rezonines, and does not itffotd bonus densitv for this requirement. The narrutiv e state,, "it is common practice to onh 2 l proyidJ I_;",, Iordably homing aboN e the lot al ntin,lb r Ot UnitS that wol!I,d kai C been zrllouwcl hy.ri- Ilt" (page 15 ol'Response... ;. lloc:e�er. the Count does not administrari�eh appii bonus denait} b"N olid the reconnnended cl>rnpreitc:n,iie plan See the discussion in the response to Comment #I above. 11-tn, anwtication is fotlov;na the regulations ,,,i dIin ih,: ordinance for PRD. a it sctbwk regulations. ,etc. sht•uld be removed from Slreet 7 that are alread} listed in the ordinance. I lwse include Xoies A and C..ivot4 D. F and G are de" iating ttom )iliai is listed in the ordinance, and --- - ni �ditication request end justification should he subrninc,i lr;r 3.2t"1). b. IPaivets m? d mod fica dons. An applicant may request than any requirement of sections 4. 5. 21. 26 and 32. or the applicable planned development district regulations be waived or modified by the board of supervisors, as follows: Submirrai of request for lrairer or modification. If the applicant requests such a waiver or modification as part of the application plan, the applicant shall submit its request in uniting as part of the application plan. and shall demonstrate how the findings required by subsection 8 2(b)(3) would be satisfied. Tinting of request. \onvithstanding any regulation inn sections 4. 5. 21. 26 or 32 establishing a procedure for considering a waiver or modification. any request for a waiver or modification shall be reviewed and considered as part of the application plan; provided that an ouver within a planned development may request a waiver or modification of any requirement of sections 47 5. 21; 26 or 32 at any time_, under the procedures and requirements established therefore. 3. Findings. In addition to making the findings required for the granting of a waiver or modification in sections 4. 5, 2 L 26 or 32. a waiver or modification may- be granted only if it is also found: (i) to be consistent with the intent and purposes of the planned development district under the particular circumstances. and satisfies all other applicable requirements of section 8: (h) to be consistent uith planned development design principles: (iii) that the waiver or modification would not adversely- affect the public healt="L_ safety or general xvelfare; and i 1,) in the case of requested modification, t3tat the Public purposes of the oigiml regulation would tie satiEfiied to at leas? s7 eq? Sy )Ent degree by the n. odificatioii t Express t>airer or modifncatimi. Each waiver and modification rnuit be er.'pressly granted and no ivai`,w or modification shall be deemed to )lave been granted by' implication. ` Notes A and C have been removed from the Application Plan. Waiver requests for Notes D, F, and G have been added to the updated narrative. Application Plan: Plannina/Zoning (Medan Nedostuo' Lea Brumfield): 1. Roads labels should be listed on all sheets. It is difficult to clip hem .,ell sheets for Notes relerencin certain streets on Sleet 7. The road labels have been added to all sheets of the Application Plan. Rorti C should shop:, rigl l all the pal to th:: prof °rty line. for fti urc dcdic-,Jon to the Gounty for n coan cction. it -needed. A note has been added to the Application Plan that states, "Right -of -Way extended to Property Line." In addition, Note I of Sheet 7 has been added to the Application Plan, it states, "Road "C" is shown as a possible future connection to Tax Map Parcel 91-13. However, a vehicular connection to Road "C" shall only be allowed if such connection does not also provide vehicular access to the Avinity subdivision; provided, however, that such vehicular connection to the Avinity subdivision shall be allowed if a connection is made from Road "C" through Tax Map Parcel 91-13 to Avon Street Extended, which would provide traffic from the development an alternative means of accessing Avon Street Extended besides travelling through the Avinity subdivision." The design of the Avinity subdivision is not supportive of through traffic. Driveways were allowed to be constructed such that they do not accommodate the size of a typical vehicle and therefore such vehicles block the neighborhood's sidewalks and backup right up against passing traffic. In addition, all of the roads in the Avinity subdivision are private roads with narrow through lanes. The Applicant does not believe it would be appropriate nor safe to provide a vehicular connection to the Avinity subdivision without, at minimum, providing traffic from the proposed development to exit onto Avon Street Extended by a separate, and more immediate connection, thus discouraging and minimizing traffic from the proposed development through Avinity. Note I of Sheet 7 was added to address the above. Road A section should show the planting strip and -,idcuralks that start just east of Road D. The Application Plan has been updated and now shows a cross section for Road A.1 and Road A.2, detailing the different cross sections for each section of Road A. Planting strips and sidewalks were added to the cross section of Road A.2. •1. Indicate which streets are private and hvhich are public. Is it possible for Roads 13 and C to be public to allow for a possible fuure connection to adjacent properties:' Also, if private streets arc proposed. a request and justillcation tw those streets if they are ser4 ing single family detached lot, should either be prov ided with the rezoning. or kill he required during the site plansubdivisfon stagy e. Labels of "public" or "private" were added to the cross sections of the Roads on the Application Plan. Roads B and C are public. In addition, Private Street Authorization requests have been added to the updated narrative. �. Remove are-i tier development out of the su-cvn buffer in Block 1. In addition. a note should be added to the application plan that states that no lots are permitted within the stream buffer. In addition. prescrx-ed slopes that nre on the Count% GIS are not being, 0 sho-nn and wtits.u?d lots, ♦%itkin Block 1 vJII inipar_t the slopes. Shoe the slopes oil tlic application plan. Note F of Sheet 7 of the Application Plan has been revised to state, "No structures or lots shall be permitted in the stream buffer. No preserved slopes within the development shall be disturbed." Therefore, Lots will be no longer be allowed in the stream buffer. The Application Plan has been revised to more clearly show the preserved slopes that are on the County GIS. While the preserved slopes in Block 1 will not be disturbed, we believe it is acceptable for such slopes to be located within lots so as to allow for a logical subdivision of property. As stated above, Note F of Sheet 7 of the Application Plan states, "No preserved slopes within the development shall be disturbed." The County GIS shows critical slopes as being located in Block I next to the entrance to the subdivision. Therefore, the area will be disturbed anyway from the grading necessary for the construction and relocation of the road. Therefore, such slopes may not exist after completion of the road. Also, some of these critical slopes may currently be mislabeled. The Application will be supplemented with a topographic survey that may be able to demonstrate that the preserved slopes shown on the County-GIS should actually not be designated as preserved slopes. The Applicant requests this issue be addressed at the site plan stage of development. 6. Provide information in the Votes for the Open Space Blocks oil" hat is to be permitted in the blockwen space as it relates to rect-,ration and possible structures. A table has been added to Sheet 6 of the Application Plan, which lists what is allowed in the Open Space Blocks. I . Sheet 6 should include a chart indicating the acreage of the recreation and open space areas.:Nlso what tope of open space are where. The title indicates "preservation areas'. however as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. preservation is preseroed. without anti manmade features. 'this does not seem to be the intent of ant of the open space areas. and preservation should be removed. Cortmion Open Space is required per the PRD section of the ordinance. and that is the term that should be used. A table as been added to Sheet 6 of the Application Plan, which indicates the acreage of the recreation and open space areas. The title has also been changed from "Preservation Areas" to "Recreation & Common Open Space." Note B on Sheet 7 should be revised to state "porch' or "building face" rather than "entrance of the applicable residence*'. This language is not consistent o� ith other rezonings that have been approved and it's not clear where the "entrance" nta% be. or if a front entrance is required. The applicable Note has been revised to state "porch" or "building face" rather than "entrance of the applicable residence." ARB/Historic Preservation (Mar¢aret Malisaewski): r Retaining the residence on 91-1? and incorporat em+, it into the development vouId snhport the Compi%hellsttc Pia❑ 2o:11 oI,pres rVllill county s historic ri Sont'ces. r CnIL-a:mr� r anang :irchuecnlr:d feaWrc include die floret-<zumbrel roof. hip}?ecl-root porch v ith haitered posts and bricl, piers. and shed dolnteis. 'Mlle dvNellin-g_ ganage and mo h: lri-; lye e considered conttifiuti,ir_ to rile historic districL tl,ot-!h the carport v,as not. Per the National Register for the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District the only contributing structures within the proposed development relate to TMP 91-15, which has a Dutch colonial house on the property. The colonial house and associated structures on 91-15 do not have clearly defined historical features and were constructed in the early 1940s. They were included as "historical" due to their location along the historic and scenic byway of Route 20 and proximity to Monticello. The historical structures have also not been kept in good condition and were recently severely damaged by a tornado that hit the area. For these reasons, we do not believe the historical structures should be incorporated into the proposed development. Please see the previously enclosed photos for more information. 2. All the struclures on 91-1 5 shall be fully documented in photos and drat;i;lgs prior to am denrolition. Noted. 3. Lighting' urxe �`;I on shut 7 is confusing. If the intent is for all lighting in the development to be full cutoff: eliminate "per Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance". If the intent is simplg to meet lielttin-, ordinance requirements. eliminate the entire note. The Note related to lighting has been removed from the Application Plan. Transportation (Kevin McDermott: Adam Moore (VDOT): 1. Road F. Option 1 does not appear to meet <Acce,,s %,Linagenlent entrance spacing standards. Road F. Option''. il'implemented. should he shifted and aliened across from Road B: othenkise. Road B must be cured into Road C`. Road F will be an emergency accessway and therefore is not subject to Access Management entrance spacing standards. A label of "fire access" has been added to Road F on the Application Plan. 2. Based on the information provided. it does not appear that a left turn lane is v. arranted at this time. liowexer. this ma} change if the proposed land uses and or densities are chtulged. 11 Depcndem upon spacing to the nearest conln7'rc:hl entrance or intersection on Refute 20. vrhich has not been provided ate ,' c -ess >vlanaoement I.%ccption may be squired. Tltis is previous comment that has not been addressed. The entrance to the development is located approximately 900 feet from its centerline to the right turn lane from Route 20 to Mill Creek. The next closest commercial entrance is the entrance to the Kappa Sigma Headquarters, which is located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed entrance. Based on the above, an Access Management Exception is not required. d. It is not clew from the .,Npplicatiou how gamy trips arc cep„cued for W-lad _; iu the future ,and therefore thee-;appropriat. design classification has not been identified. Noted. Note that the subdivision,road plan must shov% coeformanc with the N'DOT Road Design Manuel :Xppendices 11(1) and F, as l%ell as am oth:°r apphcablc standards. renukations or other requirements. Noted. Fire/Rescue (Shawn Maddox): What is the needed %eater pressure for the proposed use? fire t7m; requirements are tied to square lbotagc, single family detached versus attached single or multifamily and construction t. pe. 1500 gpnl is the mhtinlU n unless there are sprinklers. Noted. _. The proposed design provides a second means of ingressegress however it is on the same road. Route 20. Not all roads alleys shov�n on the plaits have a clear travel �xidth of'_0'. am travel wat that serves as the primary means of providing sen ice to a dwelling unit must have the required 20-'(his can be accomplished by increasing the pavement width to allow fbr desired on street parking or through restriction of ou street parking based on the proposed pal.entein �zidth. All road cross sections show 20' of travel width. 3. Turning radii within the development shall not he less than 25' iur those roads being used to provide emergency service to the dwellings. Noted. Engineering (Frank Pohl): 1. Private street authorization request is required (1.1-234j. 7 Private Street Authorization requests were added to the updated narrative. Blocks I and t nCro ch inns dw sl eBZi btllter. Reniole intttre lots Iront ii aIn bajl`z'r. Note F of Sheet 7 of the Application Plan has been revised to state, "No structures or lots shall be permitted in the stream buffer. No preserved slopes within the development shall be disturbed." Therefore, Lots will be no longer be allowed in the stream buffer. 3- Reconinien.! a note on the application plan requirinx ttcr treatment to address "ester qualm cornplianc;;. Note J of Sheet 7 has been added to the Application Plan, it states, "25% of the required stormwater quality treatment shall be provided onsite." i. Parking on Road B coal. not meet V D01' requirements for required sight lines. Road B meets VDOT requirements for required sight lines. 5. `;idet,alks shown iu Ritad D section should be included in the road easement or additional :ccss casements are needed. Road D cross section has been updated accordingly. 6. Underground storag: cannot be located under public or private road��ays. Noted. Waivers/Modifiications/Exception: Private streets serving single ftnnih' detached lots require private street appi-mal. A request should be made if there are private streets. if not submitted with the rezoning. kill be required V-ith the site!Subdivision application. Private Street Authorization requests were added to the updated narrative Planning: Comprehensive Plan Contntents on ito" pour pruject conforms to the Cotnprehetisive Plan sill be provided to the Planning Contntission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report that will be prepared for a work session or public hearing. The properties ore ),. ithin the SOUthern and Western Neigliborhords Blaster Plan area and are designed as Neighborhood DensitN Residential than allows For residential (3-6 units'acre): supporting uses such as places of ««rship: schools. public and institutional uses and small -kale H ❑eigl'iborhood sen ing lcmil and coinmeo.,iai. In addition_ a food is designated on the plan That ii ould connect throwh die prop,-rtits. A C 1, ne i iS dr„' i�nialed oil fin adjoining property'. and it 1,.� recori I welItled I4LJ due to the nuriiber of (`ourth' wo med properties. that a collabnratitie coninnuiit} proce.4, for a small area plan is needed in this loc: Lion. Other portions of the Ccmip Plan ihat still be discussed fiirtl;er as p:.ri of the staft'report include Historic. CUltur: 1. and Sconic Resonrees (Sec Marg•iret MaliszOwski's conunenis). )ei elopnient AtCLis. llonsing . Transportation. P irks and Green S} tents. and Grow h llluulgetnent. As stated previously, the Planning Commission held a work session on December 18, 2018 to discuss the previously proposed density. The Planning Commission recommended exploring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, upon discussing the project with members of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, we believe a CPA is no longer necessary. The Application's revised allowable density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation (excluding the 9 affordable housing units). See the earlier discussion regarding the request for the 9 affordable housing units (15% of the total) above the recommended density allowance. The Comprehensive Plan encourages 15% affordable housing within each new project. The project achieves this goal. The Application also shows the greenway trail along Route 20 that is shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan also shows a Connector Road through the property. However, due to the same changes in Virginia proffer laws noted above, the County is no longer able to accept such transportation proffers unless such proffers are specifically attributable to the impacts of the proposed development. The proposed development consists of only 72 residential units and therefore does not warrant the construction of a "Connector Road" as specified in the Comprehensive Plan. While the Application does not show the Connector Road that is specified in the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant made a good faith effort to provide such road within the framework of the new Virginia proffer laws. However, the County declined to pursue the road and so the revised Application no longer shows construction of the road. The Application Plan still provides bike lanes along Road A and enables the County to connect to Road A should it desire to do so in the future. While the Comprehensive Plan states that a small area plan is needed for the County -owned properties, it explicitly does not include the adjacent parcels not owned by the County. Neighborhood Model General connnents on li m well the proposed development meets the principles of the \eighlxirhood \ iodel .ire provided here. More detailed coinnients nial be pro,. ided at a later date ifchanges are made aad'or after more detailed plans are provided. F7 Pedestrian Orientation I0 1hG mat,�.ttai ofthe iidcivoP, should be indicated on the ,ind this Should h ,t ted 71S con rct The label concrete has been added to the cross sections Sheets of the Application Plan. As stated ab,)N,�, sidewalks and landscape strips should be provided for Road A. The Application Plan has been updated and now shows a cross section for Road A.1 and Road A.2, detailing the different cross sections for each section of Road A. Planting strips and sidewalks were added to the cross section of Road A.2. Mixture of Uses • the proposal is for residential uses onh. howexer there are a rnistnra of uses v, ithin rhe innnediate aria including schools_ assisted livine:. tire station. shopping. and CountN paned land designated l6r institutional. No response necessary. • In addition to the above, the-eighborhood %lodel principles tier ntieture of uses discusses 1u»v Historic Properties should be respected and that a desire to preserve these re5ourees should be included. As Stated above, there are historic buildings on the property that should be considered to be incorporated into the devetoputent. Per the National Register for the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District, the only contributing structures within the proposed development relate to TMP 91-15, which has a Dutch colonial house on the property. The colonial house and associated structures on 91-15 do not have clearly defined historical features and were constructed in the early 1940s. They were included as "historical" due to their location 10 along the historic and scenic byway of Route 20 and proximity to Monticello. The historical structures have also not been kept in good condition and were recently severely damaged by a tomado that hit the area. For these reasons, we do not believe the historical structures should be incorporated into the proposed development. Please see the previously enclosed photos for more information. Neighborhood Centers • `lfie southern and Western Pi,ighborhoods dl,aster Plan indicates that a Center should be provided on a Cowu_: owned property near the proposed properties. It funber discusses that a, -)mall area plan be developed to cleiermine what type of center would be appropriate on the County owned property. AX hile the proposed properties do not include a centar. they tare important considerations as the Couute considers hov to deN-elop th:,ir prop..rt,,. A "Center" is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as "a school or a park... major employment area or a shopping area... [or] mixed -use area. It is a "place" to which people want to walk... [and] should be located within'/2 to '/a mile walk zone from residences..." There are zero residences within %2 mile and only a portion of the Avinity subdivision within '/a mile. Therefore, to fulfill the Comprehensive Plan's vision of having a "Center" on the County -owned properties adjacent to the proposed development, it would be prudent to allow for the proposed residential development to help support the "Center" designation. Mixture of Housing Types and • 1 �o d atlbrdable housine is otirred. Affordability ho%N;n-er most of the units will ouh h<• provided if dansity is above the recominendatloni of the Comp Plan. 11 Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks See earlier discussion. • A mi•1 ol'housia- t%prra i� p•-rmitted N%ithiu all blocks, but nothing in the application requires a mi, ot'housing apes % ithin the development, so dte development could end ttp being built to one ltenrin_ to°pe. Noted, though we do not believe this comment justifies revision of the Application Plan. Of the 6 blocks that allow for residential development, 3 allow for single family detached (SFD) and single family attached (SFA) units and 2 allow for SFD, SFA, and townhouses. While it is true, all Blocks could potentially be built as SFD or SFA units, it is highly unlikely that the applicant would choose to construct only SFD or SFA units, as the density of the project would be greatly reduced rendering the project financially infeasible. • As stated above. a richt of way should be provid:d all the anti to the property line for Road Cfor a possible fiuure connection. As stated earlier, Road C is designed to the property line of Tax Map Parcel 91-15, which abuts Avinity and Cale Elementary School. Therefore, if the County chooses, it can extend Road C through the Cale Elementary School property, exiting onto Avon Street Extended. Any connection to Avinity would require the acquisition of off - site easements and therefore the Application Plan does not show any connections. Importantly, the design of the Avinity subdivision is not supportive of through traffic. Driveways were allowed to be constructed such that they do not accommodate the size of a typical vehicle and therefore such vehicles block the neighborhood's sidewalks and backup right up against incomingloncoming traffic. In all of the roads in the A 12 subdivision are private roads with narrow through lanes. The Applicant does not believe it would be appropriate nor safe to provide a vehicular connection to the Avinity subdivision without, at minimum, providing traffic from the proposed development to exit onto Avon Street Extended by a separate, and more immediate connection than through the Avinity subdivision, thus discouraging and minimizing traffic from the proposed development through Avinity. Multi -modal Transportation • -r p,2destrian primitive trail is provided Opportunities atom; the frontage oftlie r+roplrty :and bike lanes art provided for Road ,V No response necessary. Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open - open space is being provided alom, tits. Space stream butlers when: a primitive trail trill be located. • Block A provides loran active recreation area. No response necessary. Buildings and Space of Human Scale • Principle has beer. nut. No response necessary. Relegated Parking • Parking should be relegated to the back or Side of buildings. It is unclear if a clubhouse is Provided in Block 8 ifthcrc hill be parking and if it will be relegated. Parking is relegated to the back or side of buildings where possible. There are zero side or rear loaded structures constructed in the adjacent Avinity subdivision and therefore we do not believe it is appropriate to require such design in the proposed development. Unlike the adjacent subdivision, sufficient setbacks from the right-of-way is a condition of development, 13 thereby avoiding a design where the typical vehicle does not fit within the driveway without blocking the sidewalk. Note A of Sheet 7 of the Application Plan relates to front loaded garages, stating, "For front loaded garages, the porch or building face shall be a minimum of 3 feet closer to the street as measured from the face of the garage door." Block 8 is allowed a clubhouse; however, we are not certain if one will be provided. We would like to maintain the flexibility to provide one in Block 8, or not, depending on various circumstances. To address parking, if a clubhouse were built in Block 8, Note B of Sheet 6 of the Application Plan was added and it states, "If Block 8 includes a clubhouse or other similar structure, the related required parking shall be provided in Block Y' Block 3 is immediately adjacent to Block 8 and a parking area for Block 8 can be constructed to allow an easy access to Block 8. Front loaded garages should be the exception. There are a number of blocks that allmv for front loaded garages. Alleys should be explored to be proy ided in lieu of front garages. See above. • Where front loaded garage.i are allowed. prov°ide a setback from the garage to the porch or from of the house (3-5 teet). As stated above, Note A of Sheet 7 of the Application Plan states, "For front loaded garages, the porch or building face shall be a minimum of 3 feet closer to the street as measured from the face of the garage door." Redevelopment • I hi. propo.al i> I'll property that i� LO10111\ 11,11 i1_l elill)ed. Ihel'i li Ali. Ilni prlll6ple doe, 11ol ;1111111 . 14 No response necessary. Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading • fr2sen ed slops, and stttcan Mutter are and Re -grading of Terrain located within Mod, 1. Thes: slopes Cannot be diswrbo.! and lots should 17_ located outside of the slope.,. In :addition. lots ahot!ld i , lo:::ai.d omP ide of th :aa +ru buffer. While the preserved slopes in Block 1 will not be disturbed, we believe it is acceptable for such slopes to be located within lots so as to allow for a logical subdivision of property. Note F of Sheet 7 of the Application Plan states, "No preserved slopes within the development shall be disturbed." The critical slope areas were revised on the Application Plan so that they are now more clearly shown. They are located in Block 1 next to the entrance to the subdivision. Therefore, the area will be disturbed anyway from the grading necessary for the construction and relocation of the road. Therefore, such slopes may not exist after completion of the road. Also, some of these critical slopes may currently be mislabeled. The Application will be supplemented with a topographic survey that may be able to demonstrate that the preserved slopes shown on the County-GIS should actually not be designated as preserved slopes. The Applicant requests this be addressed at the site plan stage of development. Clear Boundaries with the Rural Area . Kural atea is located across the str: from this proposal. The buller will mili,..ate the impact. No response necessary. 1s Enclosed: Resubmittal Application Form Staff Comment Letter dated May 3, 2019 Revised Application Plan Updated Narrative 16 July 15, 2019 Megan Nedostup County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: ZMA 2018-012 Galaxie Farm — Response to June 26, 2019 Staff Comment Letter Dear Megan: Below are our responses to the June 26, 2019 Staff Comment Letter. The staff comments are noted in grey and the applicant responses are noted in black. General Application Comments: The narrative proposal d-Oseribes an increase of 9 d%%clling units more thin the: comprehensit c plan's recommended density. These writs are proposed to be affordable d;ellim, units as justification ibr the increased densiiv. Moreover. the comprehensive plan lists a 15°0 ol'units affordable housing Strategy for all rezoni_ngs. and does not of iird bonus density for this requirement. For by-ri:_i1it applications using bonus density I including affordable housing) the County .foes not apple bonus density beyond the reconunended comprehensive plan densitv per Section 1, 4.1. 2.4.1 APPLICATION OF BONUS FACTORS Bcnus factors shall be applied to the gsnss densiiv-standard etel in accordance with the re`viatiens of the applicable district, excepi that the resultmL deasit-, shall not exceed the rtec—m-e ided density shorn in the cc;nprAersiva plan. Unless other:rise specifically prodded, bonus Actors shall not be pemvtted .`or ant• improvement or design feature required by this ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Code o°eslbernwle. or any other applicable lace or regulation. 11,11here pen itted, bonus factors shall be applied in toto only. (Arnerided 8-14-85) The Planning Commission held a work session on December 18, 2018 to discuss the previously proposed density of 130 units (to accommodate small "cottage" houses). The Planning Commission recommended exploring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA). However, an applicant -initiated CPA is no longer allowed, and we believe a CPA is no longer required because the Application's revised allowable density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation (excluding the 9 affordable housing units). The Comprehensive Plan recommends 63 units, the Application proposes 72 units (9 units above 63) to accommodate the inclusion of 9 affordable housing units, which equals 15% of the total units proposed. Allowing a small bonus above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan for affordable housing is consistent with other key goals of the County, avoids treating planned zoning districts differently than conventional zoning districts, is consistent with how affordable housing is encouraged for by -right developments, and such bonuses have previously been approved by the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors (e.g. the Riverside Village Rezoning). One goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to encourage 15% affordable housing in each new project. However, due to changes in Virginia proffer laws, this goal is much more difficult to achieve. For rezoning applications requesting a change to a conventional zoning district, the County would not be able to legally accept proffers for 15% affordable housing units. In order to satisfy the 15% affordable housing goal of the Comprehensive Plan within the context of the new Virginia proffer laws, the Applicant is proposing affordable housing as a condition of the Application Plan rather than in a proffer statement. This can only be accomplished by requesting a rezoning to a planned zoning district, such as a Planned Residential Development (PRD). As stated earlier, it would not be allowed in a conventional zoning district, such as Residential R-6. Notably, there is nothing in the proposed PRD Application that would not also be allowed in a Residential R-6, except for minor reductions in setbacks from 5 feet to 3 feet for front setbacks and 20 feet to 15 feet for rear setbacks. The proposed Application was originally filed as a PRD in order to allow for the possibility of cottage clusters or small houses. However, the County has since ruled out such option. Prohibiting affordable housing in conventional zoning district rezonings but requiring affordable housing in planned zoning districts results in the perverse outcome of discouraging rezonings to planned residential districts, which is contrary to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. In the Development Areas Section of the Comprehensive Plan, Expectation #2 states that "High quality development through application of the Neighborhood Model principles" is expected in the Development Areas. The best way to achieve the Neighborhood Model principles is through the requirements and regulations in the planned development districts. In addition, under the by -right regulations of R-6, Section 16.4.3 of the County Code states, "For providing affordable housing units, a density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted..." Therefore, by not allowing the 9 affordable housing units above the recommended density in the case of a rezoning, the County would incentivize by -right development, where bonuses are provided, or rezoning to non -planned development districts, where requiring proffers for affordable housing are prohibited. Given these perverse incentives, the Applicant believes it is a reasonable request, and consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, to allow for 9 affordable housing units above the property's recommended density. In addition, a bonus for affordable housing above the recommended density has been previously approved by the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. In 2013, the County approved ZMA-2012-00002, Riverside Village, a request to rezone property designated as Residential R-1 to a Neighborhood Model District. The Riverside Village Application proposed 10 units above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan, with the justification being that such units would be designated as affordable housing. Enclosed are the minutes from the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor public hearings on this issue. Similar to the Riverside Village justification for the 10 units above the Comprehensive Plan's recommended density, the proposed project would also have no measurable impact attributable to the small increase of 9 units above the recommended density; the proposed project is also located in an area with very few neighbors; and the proposed project is also located nearby a "Center." A "Center" is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as "a school or a park... major employment area or a shopping area... [or] mixed -use area. It is a "place" to which people want to walk... [and] should be located within %2 to''/4 mile walk zone from residences..." There are zero residences within % mile and only a portion of the Avinity subdivision within'/4 mile. Therefore, to fulfill the Comprehensive Plan's vision of having a "Center" on the County -owned properties adjacent to the proposed development, it would be prudent to allow for the proposed residential development to help support the "Center" designation. As stated earlier, in sum, allowing a small bonus above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan for affordable housing would result in no additional measurable impacts, is consistent with other key goals of the County, avoids treating planned zoning districts differently than conventional zoning districts, is consistent with how affordable housing is encouraged for by -right developments, and such bonuses have previously been approved by the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors (e.g. the Riverside Village Rezoning). 2. Staff recommends that the historic structure be incorporated into the dcve1opnr0t1t. Se. comments below front kla garet Molisze%cski in response to th.a moist recent sahniival: a. I lie residence does retain chaiacicr defining teatutes. as indicated in rn April 26 comment �, 1. h. The ca. 1919 construction date bell, within the period of signiticance for the di strict. c. "fhe resource uas not included in the district beeaLlSe of its location along Rt. 20 and proximity to btonticello, as the applicant states. It vvas included because it is representative of one of the diverse building types and styles retlected in the ex ofv ing cultural patterns of the district's settlement. d. Althou;ah it does appear that the residence has not been maintained in prime condition and has suftered damage. it still retains integrity of location, design. setting, materials, worl:ntanship_ feeling and association. Per the National Register for the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District, the only contributing structures within the proposed development relates to TMP 91-15, which has a Dutch colonial house, garage, two sheds, and carport on the property. The structures on 91-15 have not been kept in good condition and were recently severely damaged by a tornado that hit the area. In addition, due to the narrow shape of the Property and location of the existing structures on the Property, it is not feasible to include these structures in the layout of the redevelopment. Because of this, the Property's value who substantially decrease if forced to include the existing structures in the redevelopment. Therefore, the current landowner is incentivized and contemplating demolishing the existing structures simultaneous with this pending rezoning Application. There is nothing that would prohibit the current landowner from applying for and receiving a demolition permit. For these reasons, we do not believe the existing structures should be incorporated into the proposed development. Please see the previously enclosed photos for more information. Application Plan: Pleas•' note f6r'dle rettlleste,l ietba r ; of 3 feet front and 5 toot rean enCroachnients (inclndin.! t;:cl.s and front kill not h- pern;itt<d p.:r --hl 1.1. 4.11.1 COHERED PORCHES, BALC0\TES, CHI\LNEYS AND LIKE FEATURES Covered porches, balconies, ehimnecs,. eaves and like arcli tectural features mac- p±vject not more than four (4) feet into an}'required yard; pro-,ided that no such feature shall be located closer thin six (t}) feet io any lot line. iAmended 9-9-9') Noted. No response necessary. The I2oW emension note for Rug ld C should state the c. idth (50') as cNolI as inctud the 1,ollovui -W futur-, right of cca6= tirture dedication Upon demand o} the Counts The Application Plan has been revised to reflect the above. Retnoce Note I from sheet 7. This future connection and road network kill be determined b} the Count}, if and cchen the Coantc decides to pursue future road connections in this location. Also. the note is for olI'site parcels, which is not controlled by this development or dey eloper-. Note I on Sheet 7 of the Application Plan has been revised to "The 54' right-of-way for Road "C" is shown as a possible future connection to Tax Map Parcel 91-13, to be extended and dedicated upon demand of the County." i. The revised plan includes a note that states Thai the lots and structures are not permitted in the stream buf1`cr. however Blocks t and 2 should be rel'ised to show those blocks not u ithin the butter area. Also, if the intent is for the buffer to be in the open spaca- Sheet 6 should be revised to shocc that area as green. In addition, the prior comment regarding preserved slopes not being in lots is still applicable. Note F should include preserved slopes lbr the lots and structures not permitted. If during the site plan. those preserved slopes are found not h. lie 25° i, or grafter. then :it that time adiusunents can he made. Blocks 1 and 2 have been revised to show those blocks not within the buffer area. Note F on Sheet 7 of the Application Plan has been revised to add the following underlined language, "No structures or lots shall be permitted in the stream buffer or on preserved slopes." 5. Provide a deiinition for "Nawrescapes - and "Sports I iXtures" as these are not defined in the zoning ordinance and it',, unclear if these will invob;e structures that ntaN he in the stream butter portion ofthe open space. n While a definition of the above terms has still not been provided, this comment is addressed by Note A on Sheet 6 of the Application Plan, which states, "The 2.78 acres of Block 7 shown as the hashed area on this Sheet shall be restricted to low impact trail use and passive recreation." Whether the specific recreational installations fit within this allowance can be determined at the site plan stage of development. 6, Procida one tn.it l _-hind sid tial.a t)nd ctirlI fbt (lie ri:ritt of leay it,. till road sections for n1.:intcnana of dhose tlacilid,es. In addition_ the dgoht ofttai for Roads B and C should he l%idened to inciuilc the sid.n:aVk and full tcidtit of the planting strip. The Application Plan has been revised to reflect the above. 7. Note a) en tho .application Plant. P.d"e 10. Regulation." notes that the Countv's 15" a affordable IkOntitng regmrein eats tnfly he III el -Ili ro u-11 a N ariety of ho'.!stnt„ tapes. inchtdht_: but not limited to. for -.;ale units. rentad units or aecsssory emits." I IOV.,rvCt �ece:,sony units Are n'ither shoFen not, mentioned on an% oth:r part ot, tile narratk,.r or tlr.� application plan. If iliese accessory 11114s are to he inciuded to the Country 15°0 afkirdable housing rquirenlents. thev must he iuciuded in thO rrzt>ning. Accessory units have been removed from Note (A) of the Supplementary Regulations of the Application Plan. ARB/Historic Preservation (Margaret Maliszewski): Retaining the residence on 91-15 and incorporating it into the development would support the Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving the countv's historic resources. Character defining architectural features include the front -gambrel roof. hipped -roof porch en'ith haltered posts and brick piers. and shed dormers. 7 he dwelliug. garage and use horns were considered contributing to the historic district. though the carport was not. Per the National Register for the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District the only contributing structures within the proposed development relate to TMP 91-15, which has a Dutch colonial house, garage, two sheds, and carport on the property. The structures on 91-15 have not been kept in good condition and were recently severely damaged by a tomado that hit the area. The cost to renovate these structures would likely outweigh the cost of new construction. In addition, due to the narrow shape of the property and location of the existing structures on the Property, it is not feasible to include these structures in the layout of the redevelopment. Because of this, the Property's value who substantially decrease if forced to include the existing structures in the redevelopment. Therefore, the current landowner is incentivized and contemplating demolishing the existing structures simultaneous with this pending rezoning Application. There is nothing that would prohibit the current landowner from applying for and receiving a demolition permit. For these reasons, we do not believe the existing structures should be incorporated into the proposed development. Please see the previously enclosed photos for more information. 5 2. All tile;StRIC tnr,ti oli 91-15 shall be On! IN, doCU11Clued in photos and lha`-N ijwr priorto any denaolidon. Noted. Transportation (Kevin McDermott; Adam Moore (VDOT): 110 Af B most [)c- cttryxl in to Road C eliminating: the iw,� -xtion. Road "C" has been revised to now end in a clu-de-sac, allowing for the necessary ability of snowplows to be able to ram -around on either end of this roadway. I -u litre a; at -rants v, ill be cN aluated it the site pi..n phase arhen number 01'twits and trip o,neratiojis ate finalized. Noted. No response necessary. Note that the suhdivisior7:1,oad plan must shoe: conti)rmance %tith the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendit:es 13(1) and F. as e;eil as am° other applicable standards. rl,oti ations or other requirement,. Noted. No response necessary. Planning: Comprehensive Plan Comments on hota} our project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan still be prov,id,d to the Planning Commission and Board ot'Supervisors as part of the staffrepon that kill be prepored fora Nwrk session or public hearing. I he properties are to ithin the Southern and N� estern Neighborhoods Master Plan area and arc designed as Ncighhorhood Denist% Residential that allmNs for residential (3-6 units,acre)_ supporting uses such as places of N+orship. schools. public and institutional uses and small-scale neisliborhood serN ing retail and commercial. In addition. ❑ road is devignated on the plan that Xsould connect through the properties. A Center is designated on an adjoining property. and it is recommended that due to th, number of Counh otencd properties, that a collaborative community process for a small area plan is needed in this location. Other portions of the Comp Plan that xs ill he discussed further as part of th^ start report include Historic. Cuitural. and Scenic Resources (see Margaret \laliszcvNshi's comments). Deielopment Areas. Housing:. Cransportation. Parks and Green Systems. and GroNNth Managcnent. As stated previously, the Planning Commission held a work session on December 18, 2018 to discuss the previously proposed density. The Planning Commission recommended exploring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, an applicant -initiated CPA is no longer allowed, and we believe a CPA is no longer required because the Application's revised allowable density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation (excluding the 9 affordable housing units). See the earlier discussion regarding the request for the 9 affordable housing units (15% of the total) above the recommended density allowance. The Comprehensive Plan encourages 15% affordable housing within each new project. The project achieves this goal. The Application also shows the greenway trail along Route 20 that is shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan also shows a Connector Road through the property. However, due to the same changes in Virginia proffer laws noted above, the County is no longer able to accept such transportation proffers unless such proffers are specifically attributable to the impacts of the proposed development. The proposed development consists of only 72 residential units and therefore does not warrant the construction of a "Connector Road" as specified in the Comprehensive Plan. While the Application does not show the Connector Road that is specified in the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant made a good faith effort to provide such road within the framework of the new Virginia proffer laws. However, the County declined to pursue the road and so the revised Application no longer shows construction of the road. The Application Plan still provides bike lanes along Road A and enables the County to connect to Road A should it desire to do so in the future. While the Comprehensive Plan states that a small area plan is needed for the County -owned properties, it explicitly does not include the adjacent parcels not owned by the County. Neighborhood Model General continents on hox� dell the proposed development meets the principles of the Neighborhood Model are provided here. More detailed continents may be prodded at a Inter date it chang, s are tuade and or after more detailed plans are provided. Pedestrian Orientation • SidekNalks and trails are provided throughout the dex clopment. Lhis principle has been met. No response necessary. Mixture of Uses • The proposal is for residential uses onl%. ho,%c cer thcrr arc a mixture of uses within the immediate area ineludine schools, assisted living. fire station. Shopping. and County owned land designated for institutional. 7 No response necessary. • In addition to the above. the PIei hhorhood Z.9od,_l principle, for miNwrc of uses dis,.+usr,es hovr Historic Properties should be respo:tcd an(] that a desire to l,res,,rve these reScurces should be included. Ns stated abol e. th,:re care historic bUildin- !4 (In th propert. that should be conside,ed to be i ru'orpor ;tcd into the de I elopment. As stated earlier, per the National Register for the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District, the only contributing structures within the proposed development relate to TMP 91-15, which has a Dutch colonial house, two garages and a shed. These structures have not been kept in good condition and were recently severely damaged by a tornado that hit the area. The cost to renovate these structures would likely outweigh the cost of new construction. In addition, due to the narrow shape of the Property and the structures' location on the site, it is not possible to viably integrate such structures into a development layout. Because of this, the value of the Property is greatly reduced if a rezoning conditioned on integrating the structures. This results in the incentive to demolish the house prior to the rezoning. Nothing currently would prohibit the acquisition of a demolition permit. For these reasons, we do not believe these structures should be required to be incorporated into the proposed development. Please see the previously enclosed photos for more information. Neighborhood Centers • I he Southern and Western Neigrhborhoods ;Master Plan indicates that a Center should be provided on a County owned propeitt near the proposed properties. It further discusses that a small area plan be dev cloped to determine vg hat tv pe of center H Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability pror,-,11,,. «'hik the ptuposed properties do not include a c_n.er, th n. art hoportant considerations as the C'ountN considers how to de%elop their propefty. A "Center" is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as "a school or a park... major employment area or a shopping area... [or] mixed -use area. It is a "place" to which people want to walk... [and] should be located within % to ''/a mile walk zone from residences..." There are zero residences within % mile and only a portion of the Avinity subdivision within ''/a mile. Therefore, to fulfill the Comprehensive Plan's vision of having a "Center" on the County -owned properties adjacent to the proposed development, it would be prudent to allow for the proposed residential development to help support the "Center" designation. • l="o aftordable ]rousing- is offt:red. however most of the units �N ill only be proLided ifdensity is above the reeommcndations of the Comp Plan. See earlier discussion. • A mix of housing types is permitted within all bloci.y, but nothing in the application requires a miX of housing types within the development, so the deN c lopment could end up being built to one housing type. Noted, though we do not believe this comment justifies revision of the Application Plan. Of the 6 blocks that allow for residential development, 3 allow for single family detached (SFD) and single family attached (SFA) units and 2 allow for SFD, SFA, and townhouses. While it is true, all Blocks could potentially be built as SFD or SFA units, it is highly unlikely that only SFD or SFA units, as the density of the project would be greatly reduced rendering the project financially infeasible. Interconnected Streets and • As stated above. more intorma�.ion Transportation Networks et ncerni.; the ri`,ht o`i v.av for tuiure (A>dicat.ion for Road C should tre prop ided. )Vifh revision.; this principle. c =n lie Road C is designed to the property line of Tax Map Parcel 91-15, which abuts Avinity and Cale Elementary School. Therefore, if the County chooses, it can extend Road C through the Cale Elementary School property, exiting onto Avon Street Extended. Any connection to Avinity would require the acquisition of off -site easements and therefore the Application Plan does not show any connections. A connection to Avinity from the development is up to the County. Importantly, the design of the Avinity subdivision is not supportive of through traffic. Driveways were allowed to be constructed such that they do not accommodate the size of a typical vehicle and therefore such vehicles block the neighborhood's sidewalks and backup right up against incoming/oncoming traffic. In addition, all of the roads in the Avinity subdivision are private roads with narrow through lanes. The Applicant does not believe it would be appropriate nor safe to provide a vehicular connection to the Avinity subdivision without, at minimum, providing traffic from the proposed development to exit onto Avon Street Extended by a separate, and more immediate connection than through the Avinity subdivision, thus discouraging and minimizing traffic from the proposed development through Avinity. Multi -modal Transportation • :1 pedestrian primitive trail is provided Opportunities I alone the fronta_: of the property and bike 10 gr,: p -o� ideci for i`toad . �. No response necessary. Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open - Open space is being provided alone the Space su:.mt butlers �diew a primicvc trail will 132 ioez,jod. • Block A provides for an ac!k c recreation No response necessary. Buildings and Space of Human Scale e Principle has K: en mci. No response necessary. Relegated Parking • Parking shcwld be relegated to the back or side of buildin<,s. It is unclear if a clubhouse is provided in Block 8 iftherti: v, ill be parking and if it kill be raegatcd. Parking is relegated to the back or side of buildings where possible. There are zero side or rear loaded structures constructed in the adjacent Avinity subdivision and therefore we do not believe it is appropriate to require such design in the proposed development. Unlike the adjacent subdivision, sufficient setbacks from the right-of-way is a condition of development, thereby avoiding a design where the typical vehicle does not fit within the driveway without blocking the sidewalk. Note A of Sheet 7 of the Application Plan relates to front loaded garages, stating, "For front loaded garages, the porch or building face shall be a minimum of 3 feet closer to the street as measured from the face of the garage door." Block 8 is allowed a clubhouse; however, we are not certain if one will be provided. We would like to maintain the flexibility to provide one in Block 8, or not, depending on various circumstances. To address 11 parking, if a clubhouse were built in Block 8, Note B of Sheet 6 of the Application Plan was added and it states, "If Block 8 includes a clubhouse or other similar structure, the related required parking shall be provided in Block Y' Block 3 is immediately adjacent to Block 8 and a parking area for Block 8 can be constructed to allow an easy access to Block 8. • %1 hile other devclopmctus hoe e been approved in the N icinio to have front loaded ttcuaecs. that does not clean that form of d n elopment. -o hich doesn't meet the Neighborhood Modes, should continu<. alleys Should be explored to provide rete�i:ted parkin_* behind main structure.". Alleys are possible for most of the Lots in the development and are preferable by the Applicant as well. However, upon finalizing the exact details of the dimensions of each Lot and homesite location, some minimal number of front - loaded garages may be necessary. Redevelopment r This proposal is on prop.rtti that is curr-rndy not developed. therefore. this principle does not apply. No response necessary. Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading • Preserved slopes and snram hutl'er are and Re -grading of Terrain located «ithin Block 1. These slopes cannot be disturbed and lots should be located outside of the slopes. ht addition. lots should be located outside of the stream huf ,n% The Application has been revised accordingly. Clear Boundaries with the Rural Area 8 Mural area is located across the sweet from this proposal. The buffer will mitil*ate the im ,act. 12 No response necessary. Enclosed: Resubmittal Application Form Staff Comment Letter dated June 26, 2019 Riverside Village ZMA-2012-00002 Planning Commission July 30, 2013 Riverside Village ZMA-2012-00002 Board of Supervisors November 13, 2013 Revised Application Plan Updated Narrative 13