Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300012 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2013-09-03COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 September 3, 2013 Valerie Long Williams Mullen 321 E. Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: ZMA 2013-00012, Rivanna Village Dear Valerie: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for a zoning map amendment (ZMA). We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be considered before your ZMA moves forward to the Planning Commission. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are provided below: General Application Comments: 1. East Rivanna Fire Station (093A1 -00 -00 -002000) -The parcel was included with ZMA 2001-08 and should be included with this proposed rezoning. Also, the timing of when the fire station will be hooked up to water and sewer needs to be specified, since they are on well and septic. 2. Parks and Rec have many concerns about the proposed park. Some examples are maintenance access, trail connections and locations, the stormwater management ponds. Please meet with Dan Mahon and Bob Crickenberger to discuss the Park. 3. It is not clear whether all the streets are proposed to be public. VDOT, Fire & Rescue, and Engineering have comments concerning the design of some of the roads, see attached comments. If some of the streets are proposed to be private, provide a justification request for those streets. 4. A number of waivers were approved with ZMA 2001-08 (refer to approval letter dated October 23, 2007) and in the code of development. If the applicant is seeking to modify these ordinance sections, the waiver request must be submitted, reviewed, and acted on again with this ZMA. Staff recommends they be submitted in a table format for ease of review and administration, if requested and approved. 5. A Corps of Engineers permit needs to be submitted (See engineering comments). 6. Relegated parking is not being addressed with this plan. While there is some relegated parking in Blocks C, D, F, E, and G, all of the other blocks showing single family residential do not have relegated parking. In order to mitigate this, provide a section in the code of development (COD), similar to what was provided on page 41 of the current COD. 7. There are some clarifications and revisions that need to be made to the traffic study (See Engineering and VDOT comments). 8. A commitment should be made to building of non-residential. A minimum/maximum development density by block chart should be provided, similar to what was shown in the previous Code of Development on page 15. Application Plan: 1. Provide a phasing plan for the development. 2. Show the Glenmore sewer agreement boundary on the plan. 3. The stormwater management ponds along 250 in the buffer area need to be removed. (See ARB and Engineering comments for further explanation). 4. Remove the Illustrative Plan from the Application Plan. Only show the blocks and streets do not the units/lot/buildings on the Application Plan. Code of Development: 1. A large number of corrections need to be made to the Code of Development (See Zoning comments). Staff recommends that the previous Code should be used and changed to reflect the amendments. Staff has a Word Document copy and can provide this for your use. Proffers: 1. A number of corrections need to be made to the Proffers (See Zoning, Planning and County Attorney comments). 2. A commitment should be made to address the concerns raised at the community meeting concerning construction traffic. Please work with VDOT and Engineering to determine if a construction entrance can be established off of Route 250 instead of Glenmore Way. Planning Planning staff's comments are organized as follows: How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan The Neighborhood Model analysis Additional Planning Comments Additional comments from reviewers (See attached) Comprehensive Plan. Comments on how your project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report that will be prepared for the work session or public hearing. The comments below are in preparation for the work session and may change based on direction from the Commission at the work session and/or with subsequent submittals. The Rivanna Master refers recognizes the prior approved rezoning (ZMA 01-08) as the basis for land use recommendations. The approved zoning permits between 348 and 521 residential units and between 79,000 and 125,000 square feet of non-residential uses, which includes the fire station. The Illustrative plan shows just below the minimum units for residential, the units proposed and density is consist with the comprehensive plan. Neighborhood Model General comments on how well the proposed development meets the principles of the Neighborhood Model are provided here. More detailed comments may be provided at a later date if changes are made and/or after more detailed plans are provided. Pedestrian The application plan shows sidewalk on all streets. However, Orientation additional greenway trails need to be provided to allow connections within the development and to other neighborhoods, including Glenmore. With modifications, this principle will be met. Neighborhood The street sections show parking on at least one side of the street Friendly Streets with planting strips and sidewalks being provided. This principle is and Paths met. Interconnected The application plan shows interconnected streets for the majority of Streets and the proposed streets. However, street connection should be made Transportation between Blocks A and B, as what was shown on the previously Networks approved plan. Also, right of way should be shown to the property lines where cul-de-sacs are abutting the property line for possible future connections. With modifications, this principle will be met. Parks and Open The plan shows a large portion of the site to be dedicated as a park to Space the County. Outside of this park, there are other areas in the development shown as open space, along with walking trails. This principle is met. Neighborhood The proposed development includes up to 60,OOOsf in non-residential Centers uses. These uses are shown in the denser portion of the development with Bocks C, D, E and F. However, there is no guarantee that these uses will be built. A commitment should be made to ensure that non- residential is built in these blocks. With modifications, this principle will be met. Buildings and The proposed neighborhood includes a mixture of uses, commercial, Spaces of Human multi -family, townhomes, and single family residential. The maximum Scale building height would be 60 feet for non-residential and 50 feet for residential. The garages on the single family homes should be deemphasized by putting them either behind the homes facing alleys and/or pulling them back so they are not closer to the street than the front of the homes, this language should be added to the code of development. With the addition of language added to the code of development, this principle will be met. Relegated Parking Most dwellings/lots appear to be designed with front loaded parking (garages/driveway in front of unit). The Code of Development should be revised to include a section concerning relegated parking, including language that states that where garages are fronting on a street, that they shall be recessed from the front of the house. Also, the parking requirements shown in the code do not meet the minimum standards in the zoning ordinance, and is not recommended to be reduced. This principle is not met at this time. Mixture of Uses There a number of different housing types as well as non-residential uses being proposed with this development. However, as stated previously, there is no commitment to build the non-residential. A commitment to these uses should be given. With modifications, this principle can be met. Mixture of Housing Affordable housing is being proffered with this plan. Also, the plan Types and does allow for a number of different types of housing, including multi - Affordability family, townhomes, assisted living, and single family residential. This principle is met. Redevelopment This development is located within the development areas and the density and uses proposed meet those recommendations as shown in the Comprehensive Plan. This principle is met. Site Planning that The plan shows the existing water features (streams, wetlands, Respects Terrain ponds) to be preserved. However, mitigation will need to be provided for disturbance within the stream buffers. Minimal critical slopes exist on this site. With a commitment to mitigate impacts, this principle will be met. Clear Boundaries This project is within the Village of Rivanna in the Comp. Plan. It is with the Rural located directly across from the Rural Areas along Route 250. The Areas plan shows single family residential along this boundary, as well as, provides a 100 foot buffer along Route 250, which will provide a transition between the development and the Rural Areas. This principle is met. Additional Planning Comments 1. As stated previously, Staff highly recommends that the current Code of Development be used and modified instead of creating a whole new Code. 2. Update all the sections of the code and narrative to reflect the current request of a maximum of 400 residential and 60,000 sf non-residential. 3. The margins of development shown on this plan are concerning to us. Off-site easements would be essential in order to have buildings constructed this close to the external property boundary. Often these off-site easements cannot be obtained and buildings get crowded to the edge of the property with unfortunate results. A closer look should be given to areas where grading may be required off-site, and units need to be adjust accordingly. Please remember that design should not be sacrificed for density. 4. The previous rezoning allowed for only 15 guest rooms within an Inn, however, 45 is proposed with this amendment. Allowing for adequate parking for this type of use will be essential to the development. The parking will also need to be regulated. 5. Understanding that maximum flexibility is desired, some of the uses may want to have a second look (ie churches, daycare, ). Some of these uses have specific parking and drop off requirements that may warrant a change in the plan at a later date. Please take a second look at the uses chart and determine if you really want to have these uses. 6. Page 7 of the Code of Development for outdoor storage has a typo. 7. Carriage houses are mentioned in the proffers (a carryover from the previous rezoning?), but are not mentioned in the Code of Development as a use. Please clarify and indicate whether or not this use is desired. 8. Get with Parks and Recreation concerning the greenway system to determine if these should be dedicated to public use, or kept private. Revise the plan, proffers, and Code as necessary once this is determined to indicate public or private greenways. 9. Revise Code of Development to reference the correct plans (Illustrative, Application, etc). There are many areas where the reference is incorrect. For example on page 4 of the Code both the Illustrative Plan and the Application Plan are reference, however it appears that the Illustrative Plan is on sheet 1 of the Application Plan, not sheet 2. Also, as stated previously, the Illustrative Plan should be separated out from the Application Plan set, to not add confusion. 10. The first two bullet on page 11 under 4.1.1 should be removed from the Code. The County no longer recommends that detailed architectural standards be specified as it relates to specific architectural styles. 11. A boundary line adjustment is recommended if the rezoning is approved to combine all the parcels into one for ease of review during site plan and subdivision stage. Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified in the attachment "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter." Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience. Notification and Advertisement Fees Recently, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants pay for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, it appears that these fees have already been paid: $ 170.95 Cost for newspaper advertisement $ 1259.60 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) $ 1,430.55 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing needed. $ 170.95 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $ 1,601.50 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My phone number is (434) 296-5832, x. 3004, and my email address is: myaniglos@albemarle.org. Sincerely, Megan Yaniglos Senior Planner Planning Services Attachment A— Comments from VDOT, dated August 20,2013 Attachment B — Comments from Fire and Rescue, dated August 13, 2013 Attachment C — Comments from RWSA, dated August 16, 2013 Attachment D- Comments from Engineering, dated August 22, 2013 Attachment E- Comments from Architectural Review Board Staff, dated August 29, 2013 Attachment F- Comments from ACSA Attachment G- Comments from Zoning, dated August 23, 2013 Attachment H- Comments from County Attorney, dated August 30, 2013 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F-1%1I[•Lr_12l4:44":1[2to]Z41910I►IFila►11a4:11a14.1 Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application (1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your submittal. The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.) (2) Request Indefinite Deferral If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) (3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal. After outstanding issues have been resolved and/or when you are ready to request a public hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County. The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made on or before a resubmittal date. By no later than twenty-one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay. Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty-two (22) days prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad Payments for Public Hearings form. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. (4) Withdraw Your Application If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing. Failure to Respond If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date. Fee Payment Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator. FEE SCHEDULE FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS A. For a special use permit: 1. Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1; application and first resubmission Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00 2. Public utilities; application and first resubmission Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00 3. Day care center; application and first resubmission Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00 4. Home occupation Class B; application and first resubmission Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00 5. 5. Amend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00 6. Extend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal..............................................................................................$500.00 7. All other special use permits; application and first resubmission Fee.................................................................................................................................$2,000.00 Each additional resubmittal.......................................................................................... $1,000.00 8. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request Fee....................................................................................................................................$180.00 B. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance: Fee.........................................................................................................................................$1000.00 C. Amendment to the zoning map: 1. Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission Fee.................................................................................................................................$2,500.00 2. Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,250.00 3. 50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission Fee.................................................................................................................................$3,500.00 4. 50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission Fee.................................................................................................................................$1,750.00 5. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request Fee....................................................................................................................................$180.00 D. Board of Zoning Appeals: 1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit Fee....................................................................................................................................$500.00 2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's decision) — Fee (to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned) .......$240.00 N. Required notice: 1. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices: Fee....................................................................................................................................$200.00 plus the actual cost of first class postage 2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50): Fee........................................................................................................................................$1.00 plus the actual cost of first class postage 3. Published notice: Fee......................................................................................................................................Actual cost FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# Bv: Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or Zoning Map Amendment � V7RCAtn�P PROJECT NUMBER:—ZMA2013-012_PROJECT NAME: Rivanna Village ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request X Resubmittal Fee is Not Required Megan Yaniglos Valerie Long 4349515709 Community Development Project Coordinator Name of Applicant Phone Number Signature Date Signature FEES Date Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000 X First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $500 $1,250 Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,000 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500 $200 + actual cost of first-class postage ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,250 ir Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,750 ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add'l notice fees will be required $180 To be paid after staff review for public notice: Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $200 + actual cost of first-class postage Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.00 for each additional notice + actualcost of first-class postage Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (minimum of $280 for total of 4 publications) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 6/7/2011 Page 1 of 1 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701-3819 Gregory A. Whirley Commissioner of Highways August 20, 2013 Ms. Megan Yaniglos Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ZMA-2013-00012 Rivanna Village Interdivisional Meeting Comments Dear Ms. Yaniglos: We have reviewed the application plan for the Zoning Map Amendment for Rivanna Village dated 7-15- 13 as submitted by Terra Concepts, P.C. and offer the following comments: 1. It is unclear from the plan which streets are proposed to become part of the State Highway System and which streets are to remain private. This should be noted on the plan. 2. The streets to become part of the State Highway System need to have a minimum centerline radius of 200' in accordance with Appendix B(1) of the Road Design Manual. 3. Internal street intersections and the intersection off of Glenmore Way need to meet the minimum corner clearance of 225' from Route 250. 4. The TIA uses a total of 70,000 square feet of non-residential use, however, the Code of Development indicates the maximum is 175,000 square feet. The TIA should consider the maximum possible density. 5. The remaining available lots to complete build -out for the Glenmore Development should be used rather than a typical background growth rate. The I% no build growth rate for Route 250 is acceptable. 6. Per Appendix F of the Road Design Manual, the minimum storage length of a turn lane is 100' rather than the 75' referenced in the TIA. 7. The road descriptions for location 5 in table 5 are labeled incorrectly. There may be additional comments once construction plans are submitted for review. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Review Comments Project Name: Rivanna Village Date Completed: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 Reviewer: Robbie Gilmer Department/Division/Agency: Fire Rescue Reviews Based on ZMA dated 7/15/13 Fire Rescue is not opposed to the zoning map amendment but a few things to keep in mind as the project moves forward. 1. Fire Flow Requirements for the development. 2. 20 Ft wide unobstructed travel ways. 3. Turning radii shall not be less then 25 ft. 4. Hydrant spacing shall be 500 ft per travel way. 5. Cul-de-sac's shall be 96 ft FC/FC. 6. Hammer head turn around shall be 120 ft in length Review Status: See Recommendations Megan Yaniglos From: Victoria Fort [vfort@rivanna.org] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 4:21 PM To: Megan Yaniglos Subject: ZMA201300012 Rivanna Village Megan, I have previously looked at the master plan for the Village of Rivanna and there is a section regarding existing water and sewer facilities. According to this plan, the wastewater treatment plant in Glenmore has "capacity to serve the Village Center as well as undeveloped properties approved within the Glenmore development" (see pages 15-16 of the Master Plan). I would assume that this assessment was based on the existing zoning at the time the report was created. This rezoning application (ZMA201300012) appears to introduce up to 347 units (over 90,000 gallons per day) of previously unaccounted for sewage flows. How is the county keeping track of development in this neighborhood? Should RWSA monitor development to ensure build -out does not exceed the projections of the master plan? I have completed the form provided to us by Elaine Echols for SP & ZMA Applications. To be filled out by RWSA for ZMA's and SP's 1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal See above 2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification X Yes No 3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known 4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Victoria Victoria Fort, EIT Civil Engineer Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 (P): (434) 977-2970 ext. 205 (F): (434) 295-1146 Phone 434-296-5832 r �IRGIS County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum Fax 434-972-4126 To: Megan Yaniglos From: Michelle Roberge, Engineering Department Division: Engineering Date: August 22, 2013 Subject: ZMA 2013-00012 Rivanna Village I have reviewed the concept plan for the application noted above and offer the following comments for the applicant. The comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review. 1) Please clarify whether roads are public or private. 2) Per VDOT standards, please note that a minimum horizontal curve of 200' is required. I recommend providing an outer radius to avoid the sharp 90 degree turns on the unnamed alley and Terrapin Circle. There are 90 degree turns on both ends of Park St. as well. Please clarify since it appears the roads are not shown correctly to reflect the T intersection. 3) In (2) locations the access from the frontage road is not clear. Please clarify for the corner lot on Main St and Sweetgum Lane and the lot on Terrapin Circle near the sharp bend. 4) Per Section 14-409(B), "All public streets within a subdivision shall be extended and constructed to the abutting property lines to provide vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to future development..." I recommend showing this on plans. 5) It appears there will be disturbance within the 100' stream buffer. Please show the 100' stream buffer on plans and provide a conceptual plan for the type of mitigation. Please see the attached sheet. Full build- out shows some blocks have minimal space for mitigation. Reforestation may not be an adequate solution. A combination of stream restoration and reforestation may be necessary to satisfy mitigation requirements. 6) It is not clear if this subdivision is a phased development. Please note that all roads will need to be bonded prior to a grading permit if project is not phased. If it is a phased development, I recommend providing a plan which shows the limits of each phase. 7) The concept for placing stormwater management facilities within each block is favorable due to the rolling topography and several streams on site. However, there are several areas that are left untreated. recommend placing facilities where more runoff can be captured and treated instead of narrow spaces behind lots, where it will be very difficult to access and maintain. Also, the proposed wet ponds and wetlands on blocks D and G will not work since it requires, at a minimum, 10 acres of watershed drainage area. Please see the attached mark up. 8) 1 recommend a COE permit to be obtained prior to the approval of this ZMA application. 9) One stormwater management facility is shown on County property, where the fire station is located. I recommend all proposed stormwater management facilities to be on site. 10) 1 do not see the need to separate out wet pond 2 into (3) basins. I recommend only showing one basin. 11) Please label each stormwater management facility with its own unique number and type for reference. Wet swale 1 and wetland 1 were used multiple of times. It will be easier to locate on plans without having to figure out blocks first, then the type of facility. 12) For drainage area E2, please provide other measures to treat runoff. Downspout disconnects and tree boxes are not adequate. 13) There are impacts to traffic with this development. Most of the recommendations from the traffic study have been addressed except for two items. I recommend adding an eastbound right turn lane with 200' storage lane and 200' taper on the second entrance, furthest east, off of Richmond Road. I also recommend the northbound right taper at the intersection of Glenmore Way and first entrance. 14) The traffic study does not assume a phased development. I recommend that all entrances shown on the traffic study are constructed and fully operational at the initial phase of the project. Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Dept at mroberge(Qalbemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3458 for further information. \1 / \EXISTING WETL TO BE PRESER i a i 0 50' 100' 200' 400' '— 55k NOTE: 0'r FOR ADDITIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SEE THE 07/11/13 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONCEPT PLANS PREPARED BY WILLIAMSBURG ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC. SPANOVER / / / \ / •`:'� STREAM PRESERVE EXISTING / / �� __ • Il \ l� 1 / 1 INTERMITTENT STREAM CHANNEL EXISTING WETLANDS PRESERVE EXISTING / BNTERMITTENT STREAM AND CHANNEL L ✓��//�/'� 1 \\ ��i//i - I / 48P CULVERT ell 19 24' SPAN OVER • �y! I ( I r /// � / / � 1 EXISTING INTERMITTENT STREAM AND CHANNEL. a7SER ETLAND l � "`,\ I\�_�_ f'j / l �:,� l 11 /� �� /l �/j�/%// / -�•;� � ,�—'— ,j//////�' hkl��k CONCEPTS, P.C. MASTER & SITE PLANNING ENTITLEMENT PROCESSING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 2 RO QOARR 0R LOMSq VIRGIMAEn093 M. 430.531-M sLTH OF P, 9C Iy Alarl G. Franklin ❑�. No. asase ��SSFONAL �,� `sLTH OF GI qc �y Mark E. Keller r a. No. 0239 F' O�c4PE A -s SCALE: 1"=100' SUBMITED: 7-15-13 DRAWN BY: MEK REVISIONS: U..m SHEET o w � � � ' A W � z o N sLTH OF P, 9C Iy Alarl G. Franklin ❑�. No. asase ��SSFONAL �,� `sLTH OF GI qc �y Mark E. Keller r a. No. 0239 F' O�c4PE A -s SCALE: 1"=100' SUBMITED: 7-15-13 DRAWN BY: MEK REVISIONS: U..m SHEET COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Megan Yaniglos FROM: Margaret Maliszewski RE: ZMA-2013-12: Rivanna Village DATE: August 29, 2013 I have reviewed the above -noted application (application plan, proffers and code of development dated 7-15-13, application narrative undated) and I have the following comments: Clarify and coordinate information throughout the plan, code and proffers regarding the 70' reservation and the 30' landscape strip along Rt. 250. o The top paragraph on page 4 of the proffers references a 90' reservation zone and landscape strip. 90 should be 100. o Clarify the first full paragraph on page 4 of the proffers to indicate that vegetation in its natural state will be maintained in the 70' reservation zone. o Clarify proffer 7 to indicate that utilities allowed in the reservation zone and landscape strip are limited to those approved by the Director of Community Development (or designee) that do not preclude or conflict with Entrance Corridor landscaping requirements. Clarify and make consistent throughout the plan, code and proffers the proposed timing for the planting of the landscape strip and the ARB's review of landscaping in the reservation zone. Clarify throughout the plan, code and proffers that the 30' landscape strip will be maintained by the Rivanna Village homeowners association. Two storm water management facilities are shown within the reservation and landscape strip. These locations seem impractical, since they would need to be removed for the road widening and they impede required landscape area. It is recommended that they be removed them from the proposal. It is understood that the trees shown in the Application Plan are not meant to constitute a landscape plan for review; however: o "New" trees are shown in the Rt. 250 right-of-way. Clarify the intent or correct this. o Trees are shown along the northern property line of some of the parcels along Rt. 250 in Block I. Clarify whether these are meant to represent trees in the 30' landscape strip. If they are, clarify why some are shown on the individual parcels and some are shown in the landscape strip. Also, clarify why the planting is shown consistently west of the Butterfield Lane entrance from Rt. 250, but it is not shown consistently east of that entrance. If illustrative planting is shown in the landscape strip, it should be shown consistently throughout the strip. o The required spacing for trees along Butterfield Lane is 40' on center. ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — Information from Service Providers To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's ZMA201300012: Rivanna Village 1. Site is in jurisdictional area for water and sewer. 2. Distance to the closest water line if in the development area is 0 feet. Water pressure is with gallons per minute at psi. 3. Distance to the closest sewer line if in the development area is 120 feet. 4. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal: Based on the proposed sewer flows there may be required upgrades to the Glenmore Wastewater Treatment Plant. 5. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification ✓Yes _ No 6. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal 7. "Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) • Show the Glenmore sewer agreement boundary on the ZMA plan. • SWM near the proposed ACSA water storage tank location will not be allowed. • Provide square footage for commercial office and commercial retail (Separately). • Provide a phasing plan for the development. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 TO: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner -Planning Services FROM: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner -Zoning Services DATE: August 23, 2013 RE: ZMA 2013-12 Rivanna Villaqe Fax (434) 972-4126 Comments below are based on review of "Application Narrative"; "Amended and Restated Code of Development; Amendment to ZMA #2001-08"; "Proffer Statement dated July 15, 2013", and application plan dated 7-15-13, prepared by Terra Concepts, P.C. and titled "Zoning Map Amendment for Rivanna Village."These items have been reviewed for compliance with Section 8, Section 20A, and Section 33 as applicable, for compliance with the proffer policy, affordable housing policy, and consistency/questions based on review of the approved waivers, code of development, and application plan associated with ZMA 2001-08. 1. East Rivanna Fire Station (093A1 -00 -00 -002000) -The parcel was included with ZMA 2001- 08 and should be included with this proposed rezoning. 2. Code of Development -While Zoning is supportive of a simplified code of development that is easier to administer, there are a number of ordinance requirements that were not provided or need to be corrected. Page 4 -Correct the reference to the "Illustrative Plan." Sheet 2 of Exhibit B is the Block Plan. Page 5 -Correct this page as no Exhibit D or Table 2.3 have been provided. Page 6 -Homes for developmentally disabled aka Group Homes must be allowed anywhere SFD homes are allowed so this use needs to be added Blocks I and J. Table 2.6 on Page 6 -Delete Home Occupation (Major) and Home Occupation (Minor). These uses are only permitted in the RA zoning district. Home Occupation Bs are recommended to be by special use permit only, consistent with how they are permitted in other residential zoning districts. Delete reference to major home occupations in Note 1 on Page 8. Drive-throughs must be by SP and not listed as a permitted use. Tourist lodging is not the same use as an Inn and is subject to the requirements of Section 5.1.17. Delete the reference to "Tourist Lodging" in the note on Page 8. Delete uses that will not be permitted in any blocks from the Code list of uses or provide a list of prohibited uses. If any of the uses will be permitted, designate which blocks these uses will be allowed: Automobile laundries; Auto/truck repair; Auto Service Station; Body Shop; Building Material Sales; Cemetaries; Commercial Kennels; Commercial Recreation; Feed and Seed Stores; Fire extinguisher/security products/sales; Funeral homes; Heating oil sales and distribution; Light warehousing; Livestock sales; Machinery/equipment sales, etc; Mobile home and trailer sales and service; Modular building sales; Motor vehicle sales, service, rental; New automotive parts sales; Newspaper publishing; Outdoor Amphitheatre (recommend use be permitted); Research and development; Sale of major recereational equipment and vehicles; Septic tank sales and related services; Warehouse facilities; Wayside stands; and Wholesale distribution. Update Farmer's Market reference to Section 5.1.47 Eating Establishment (term no longer used in the ordinance) should be revised to Restaurant. Delete reference to fast food restaurant. There is no distinction in the ordinance between a restaurant and a fast food restaurant, except the drive-through. Drive-throughs must be by SP. Section 20A.7 Residential Density- Update page 9 of the Code to provide the gross residential density of the proposed development. Make sure acreage information provided for the development is accurate. Information provided on Sheet 2 of the plan set does not add up to 90.33 acres, which other items submitted with the rezoning indicate as the acreage. Provide the minimum and maximum density/square footage for residential and non- residential uses by block. For an example of what to provide, see page 15 of the Code approved with ZMA 2001-08 Provide a description of land use mix for each block. See pages 16-18 of Code approved with ZMA 2001-08. Provide Build -to lines in "Table 0" on page 10. Correct title of "Table 0." The NMD district requires that form/massing and fagade treatments be included in codes of development. It no longer requires architectural styles, colors, materials be included unless determined necessary. Planning should make the determination of whether 4.1.2 should remain in the code of development and first bullet under 4.1.1.Section 4. 1.1 of the proposed code of development should include actual standards that can be enforced (minimum porch dimensions, relegated parking standards, etc). The description on page 11, with tallest buildings near commercial core, is not achieved with the building height regulations in table 3.4 on Page 10. Section 4.3. Landscape standards I believe the reference in the first paragraph under 5.1 on page 13 should be to Section 32.7.9 Section 20A.9 Greenspace, Amenities, etc -Confirm the total acreage for gross density calculations and to confirm requirements of 20.A.9 met. Sheet 7 indicates 90.33 acres and the Block Plan Size acreage totals to 88.74. Revise the code of development to demonstrate requirements for 20A.9 GREEN SPACES, AMENITIES, CONSERVATION AREAS AND PRESERVATION AREA and include breakdown of these areas by block and include, standards/descriptions. See Pages 19-21 of Code approved with ZMA 2001-08 for example. Parks and Recreation should provide comments on the park facilities. Parking- Information on page 16 is insufficient to meet ordinance requirements. No justification is provided to reduce the parking requirement to 1 space per dwelling unit and is not recommend for approval. Please review Section 4 parking requirements and resubmit the required information (below). Examples can be provided if needed. Public parking for the park needs to be addressed in the parking study (page 21 of code approved with prior ZMA is a starting point for this). Parking and loading needs study in a proposed neighborhood model district. An application to establish a neighborhood model district shall include a parking and loading needs study that demonstrates parking needs and requirements and includes strategies for dealing with these needs and requirements, including phasing plans, parking alternatives as provided in section 4.12.8, and transportation demand management strategies as provided in section 4.12.12; provided that the applicant may elect to submit the parking and loading needs study in conjunction with the preliminary site plan for the development if it determines that the uses that may occupy the buildings are not sufficiently known at the time of the zoning map amendment. Page 2 3. Application Plan - Provide a legend on the plan sheets. Standards for the trails shown on the application plan must be provided either in the code of development or on the application plan. A deadline/trigger for trail completion should be provided and perhaps included in a proffer. It should be clear in the code or on the plan that these trails are not public greenways for dedication to the County. Sheets 5 and 6 must be revised to meet ordinance requirements for 20A.9 GREEN SPACES, AMENITIES, CONSERVATION AREAS AND PRESERVATION AREAS and areas designated for each shown on the plans. Ordinance definitions are below. Green space within parks and recreational amenities. Any portion of an amenity that is covered in grass or other vegetation may be counted as both green space and an amenity. Preservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains natural features such as non -tidal wetlands, floodplain, streams and stream buffers that are to be preserved in a natural state and not be developed with any manmade feature. (Added 3-19-03) Conservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains cultural assets or natural features such as non -tidal wetlands, floodplain, slopes identified in the open space element of the comprehensive plan, or streams and stream buffers, within which only limited disturbance or development is allowed. Uses allowed in conservation areas include, but are not limited to, utilities, greenways, pedestrian paths, streets, and stormwater management facilities, where, in the opinion of the director of engineering, no other location is reasonably available and when these improvements have the least impact possible on the environmental features of the area. (Added 3-19-03) 4. Proffers-VDOT, County Attorney, and Parks/Recreation should also provide comments on proffers. Zoning comments are below. Proffer 1 -Is this proffer still recommended if density/commercial development is reduced with the proposed amendment? Proffer 2 -The CIP cash proffer language should be updated to use our current standard language and use of funds should not be limited but available for CIP more generally. If the proffers are revised to address this comment, then the last paragraph should also be deleted. The amounts proffered are not consistent with the current cash proffer policy. Proffer 4-1 believe this proffer is no longer needed and a traffic signal has already been installed at Route 250/Glenmore Way. Proffer 6- Parks and Recreation and the County Attorney should review and provide comment on this proffer. References to park improvements are no longer included in Code of Development. While they are shown on the Application Plan, the minimum facilities provided must be included in the code of development, as referenced in the proffer. In paragraph 2, "initial plat" should be clarified and recommend changing the language to "first subdivision plat." Proffers 7 and 8- Specific minimum standards should be included in the code of development for the landscape buffer and the proffer must include when it will be installed. ARB comments on these proffers should also be addressed. Proffer 9 -Standard affordable housing proffer language should be used. The decision to except cash in lieu of units should be made by the Housing Director. Also, some of the strategies for addressing affordable housing from the code of development (pages 23- 25) should also be considered for inclusion in this proffer. 5. Waivers- A number of waivers were approved with ZMA 2001-08 (refer to approval letter dated October 23, 2007) and in the code of development. If the applicant is seeking to modify these ordinance sections, the waiver request must be submitted, reviewed, and acted on again with this ZMA. Staff recommends they be submitted in a table format for ease of review and administration, if requested and approved. Page 3 Megan Yaniglos From: Greg Kamptner Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 2:18 PM To: Megan Yaniglos Subject: RE: ZMA2013-012 Rivanna Village Megan - Here are my comments to the proffers: 1. 1 would like to suggest that all proffer statements use the 14 -digit numbers issued by the County, rather than various shorthand versions. This is particularly important for those tax map and parcel numbers that have section and block numbers assigned as well (other than "0). The way the tax map and parcel numbers are stated for most of the parcels is unorthodox and confusing. This will allow staff and the public to easily track down these parcels on the County's GIS system. 2. The reference to Section 33.3 (mistyped "333") should be changed to "Sections 33. 4 and 33.7." 3. Proffer 1: Correct the typo in the reference to Virginia Code section "15.2-5152." 1 have no idea whether the County is still interested in CDA's, but since this proffer is in the current proffers, I offer no comment on that issue. 4. Proffer 2: Recognizing that the proffered amount does not address the impacts to schools, parks, libraries, public safety and so forth based on the study the County completed soon after ZMA 2001-00008 was approved, I also recognize that this proffer is substantively unchanged from the proffers accepted for ZMA 2001-00008. In the annual adjustment for cash proffers, the formula for calculating the numerator and the denominator in the third sentence of that paragraph needs to be corrected beginning at the end of line s6 so that it reads: "the numerator or which shall be the MSI as of December 1 in the preceding calendar year and the denominator of which shall be the MSI as of December 1 in the year preceding the calendar year most recently ended." Also delete the second comma after "increments" in the second to the last line. 5. Proffer 6: In the last line, "MIA" should be changed to "ZMA." 6. Proffer 9: 1 realize that this proffer language was previously accepted. However, the proffer does not define "affordability," does not clarify what it means to construct "for sale" or "for rent" units, and it doesn't even require that the for sale or for rent units actually be affordable. Our affordable housing proffers have changed since 2007. In addition, the amount in lieu of an affordable unit has increased since 2007. There are many examples much more current affordable housing proffers. Greg Kamptner Deputy County Attorney County of Albemarle gkamptner@albemarle.org From: Megan Yaniglos Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 10:26 AM To: Greg Kamptner Subject: ZMA2013-012 Rivanna Village Greg: just wanted to check in and see if you had a chance to look at the Rivanna Village proffers yet? If not, please let me know so I will let the applicants know they will be forthcoming, as my comments are due today. Thank you,