HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300012 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2013-11-20COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176
November 20, 2013
Valerie Long
Williams Mullen
321 E. Main Street, Suite 400
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: ZMA 2013-00012, Rivanna Village: Revision #1
Dear Valerie:
Staff has reviewed your resubmittal for a zoning map amendment (ZMA). We have updated the
comments below. There are still 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:
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.
Rev1: The fire station parcel should be added to the legal ad and authorized
signatures should be provided prior to this rezoning being advertised for public
hearing. The application plan is showing physical changes to the parcel (trails,
BMPs, etc.). (See Section 33.2.b.1.b)
The Code of Development also proposes changes in Table 3.2 that affect the
parcel by limiting the maximum non-residential square footage to 30,000 square
feet. The prior rezoning limited the parcel to the existing 23,001. 1 am not sure why
there should be any limitation on the fire station if it needs to make future
additions to the building, etc. Revise to not include a maximum square footage for
the fire station.
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.
Rev1: Parks and Rec would like the tot lot relocated away from the basketball
courts. Contact Dan Mahon with any questions regarding this.
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.
Rev1: A private street request will need to be made per Section 14-234 for Cattail
Court, which will provide the frontage for those townhouse units.
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.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. The waiver requests were not received, and need
to be addressed and submitted if necessary.
5. A Corps of Engineers permit needs to be submitted (See engineering comments).
Rev1: Comment not addressed. The COE permit needs to be submitted.
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.
Rev1: This comment has not been adequately addressed. While relegated parking
is being provided for some of the development, it needs to be provided in some
way for the whole of the development. As discussed verbally, this can include a
statement in the Code of Development that sets the garage back from the face or
porch of a single family house a certain number of feet (minimum of 3 feet is
recommended). Staff is not requesting that all the lots provide relegated parking
from the rear via an alley, but rather addressing the issue of having the porch or
front of the house be the prominent feature along the road, rather than the garage.
This issue can be taken to the Planning Commission for a worksession to get
feedback before scheduling the public hearing.
7. There are some clarifications and revisions that need to be made to the traffic study
(See Engineering and VDOT comments).
Rev1: There are outstanding recommendations from the traffic study that have not
been addressed. VDOT will require recommendations from the traffic study be met
at the site plan stage.
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
Application Plan:
1. Provide a phasing plan for the development.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
2. Show the Glenmore sewer agreement boundary on the plan.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. The stormwater management ponds along 250 in the buffer area need to be removed.
(See ARB and Engineering comments for further explanation).
Rev1: Comment addressed, however there are outstanding stormwater
management issues that need to be clarified or resolved. Please see 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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
Additional Comments:
1. See Zoning comments for items that need to be addressed on the Application
plan, specifically the conservation and preservation areas comment.
2. Identify the "Linear Park Areas" on the plan as they are described in Proffer 6. The
"Open Space areas with trails" acreage listed on Sheet 7 is 13.27 acres. Please
update the Open Space statistics to be consistent with this proffer.
Code of Development:
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.
Rev1: See attached revised Zoning comments for additional revisions. Particularly
parking waivers/modifications need to be submitted an approved to allow the
parking that has been proposed.
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.
Rev1: VDOT has stated that the construction entrance should be taken off of
Glenmore Way for safety, however the Glenmore Community has written to staff
stating that the construction entrance needs to come off of 250. You have
indicated that DEQ may not allow the entrance off of 250 as well. Please provide
their position so that staff can provide all the information if the entrance needs to
be off of Glenmore Way.
Additional Comments:
1. The notification period does not link to anticipated construction. We should
expect that the period start at a time estimated to be 60 — 90 days prior to
anticipated c/o and extend at least 30 days beyond the issuance of a c/o. (Ron
White)
2. The cash -in -lieu increased since the original proffers to $19,100 and now is at
$21,125. 1 don't believe we have accepted proffers with the owner exercising this
option at their discretion. However, if we do allow this option, it should be
specified when the amount will be paid. Generally, the cash would be expected
before the issuance of the 7th, 14th, 21st, etc. building permits. (Ron White)
3. See Zoning comments for two additional comments for the proffers.
4. The County Attorney has not provided comments to date on the latest revised
proffers. Staff will forward any comments to you once they have been received.
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 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 consistent 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
Rev1: The application plan shows sidewalk on all streets and
Orientation
makes a connection to Glenmore via a trail to Glenmore Way.
This principle is 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. Rev1: Adequate right of way needs to be
Transportation
shown in Block J and I to the property line. It is unclear whether
Networks
a road can be placed within the distance where the right of way
touches the property line. 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
Rev1: The proposed development includes a minimum of 20,000
Centers
sf up to 60,OOOsf in non-residential uses. These uses are shown
in the denser portion of the development with Bocks C, D, E and
F. This principle is 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. Rev1: The garages on the single family homes should
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed, however, when the detailed site plans come in, off-
site easements may be needed.
be deemphasized by 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. Rev1: Not addressed.
Mixture of Uses
There a number of different housing types as well as non-residential
uses being proposed with this development. Rev1: This principle is
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 Com rehensive 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. Rev1: Not addressed.
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed, however, when the detailed site plans come in, off-
site easements may be needed.
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed. One typo is on the chart, I believe Tier III applications
would require a SP, not Tier II.
6. Page 7 of the Code of Development for outdoor storage has a typo.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed. However, as stated previously, `Linear Parks' should
be delineated on the plan as stated in the proffer.
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
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.
Rev1: Comment acknowledged.
Action after Receipt of Comment Letter
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday -- Schedule can
be found at this address:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Develo
pment/forms/schedules/Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.pd
f
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing or worksession date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
If you choose to resubmit, be aware that a fee of $1,750 is required with your resubmittal.
Please use the form provided with this letter.
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 November 13, 2013
Attachment B- Comments from Engineering, dated November 13, 2013
Attachment C- Comments from ACSA
Attachment D- Comments from Zoning, dated November 18, 2013
Attachment E- Comments from Housing (Ron White)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
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 or worksession 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 or Worksession Date be Set
At this time, you may schedule a public hearing or worksession 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
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701-3619
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
November 13, 2013
Ms. Megan Yaniglos
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: ZMA-2013-012 Rivanna Village
Dear Ms. Yaniglos:
We have reviewed the proposed rezoning plan for Rivanna Village dated 7115113 with revisions
dated 10/21/13 as submitted by Terra Concepts, P.C. and offer the following comments:
1. The roadway at the intersection of Quarry Lane and Park Street needs to be a minimum
radius of 200' rather than the intersection configuration shown.
2. The trip distribution for each section of roadway should be provided. This will dictate
the minimum radius at the intersection of Park Street and Cattail Trail which will be
needed rather than the T -intersection shown.
3. A turn -around needs to be provided at the western end of Park Street near the intersection
with Quarry Lane. As the lot adjacent to the proposed road in this location appears to be
developed, it is unlikely that Park Street would be extended onto the adjacent property.
4. A turn -around needs to be provided at the western end of Terrapin Circle near the
intersection with Crescent Avenue. As the lot adjacent to the proposed road in this
location appears to be developed, it is unlikely that Terrapin Circle would be extended
onto the adjacent property.
5. With a 100' scale, it is difficult to determine whether corner clearance is met with
Butterfield Lane to Terrapin Circle. As part of the road plan review, we will need to
make sure that the intersection meets the corner clearance requirement of 225 feet.
6. On Sheet 4 of 7, there are several references of "Span Over Stream". Is it the intention to
cross these streams with bridges or will box culverts be used?
7. The pavement structure indicated in the typical sections will need to be verified by
calculation.
8. The middle typical section references Steamer Ln., while the plan view is labeled
Steamer Drive.
9. What is the purpose of having 4' and 4.5' of additional right-of-way beyond the sidewalk
as shown in the middle typical section on Sheet 4 of 7? Typically, there would be 1' of
right-of-way beyond the sidewalk.
10. The section widths shown in the middle typical section do not add up to 61' of right-of-
way.
11. The justification for using 29' face to face instead of 31' face to face in the middle typical
section should be provided.
12. It would be helpful if the ADT were provided for each specific street listed on the typical
sections and if the specific streets that will be no parking and one -side parking were
labeled.
13. The locations shown of street trees on Sheet 7 of 7 do not appear to comply with the
corner setback for street trees as defined in Appendix B(1) of the Road Design Manual.
14. After reviewing the revised TIA, we have no further comment regarding the TIA.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
A
hAt-
T
ustin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
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:
November 13, 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.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
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.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
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.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
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.
[Revision 1] Comment not addressed for Park St and Terrapin Circle. Extend road to property
line. This can be addressed at final site plan phase.
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.
[Revision 1] Comment not addressed. The correct buffer is not shown. See the attached sheet.
The lighter orange is additional buffer that needs to be shown on plan. Also, the mitigation plan
will need to be provided and approved prior to the site plan approval.
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.
[Revision 1] Comment not addressed. The phasing plan needs to coordinate grading, E&S, SWM,
construction of road, utilities, construction of homes and stockpile locations within each phase.
See my attached recommended phasing plan.
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.
I 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.
[Revision 1] Comment not addressed. There is an improvement in showing BMPs at low spots
and near road for maintenance access. However, there are still areas left untreated. See the
attached sheet. Show there is adequate space for maintenance roads to BMPs noted or provide
an alternate BMP location.
8) 1 recommend a COE permit to be obtained prior to the approval of this ZMA application.
[Revision 1] Comment acknowledged. The applicant expects COE permit to be obtained before
approval of 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.
[Revision 1] Comment partially addressed. The fire station is now included in project, however
maintenance of SWM is still in question. Who will maintain SWM facility?
10) 1 do not see the need to separate out wet pond 2 into (3) basins. I recommend only showing one basin.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed. One is a forebay to act as a sedimentation pond before it is
routed to SWM pond.
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.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
12) For drainage area E2, please provide other measures to treat runoff. Downspout disconnects and tree
boxes are not adequate.
[Revision 1] Comment not addressed. This area is Phase 6 in my recommendation sheet. The
alternative BMP is behind homes and is difficult to access for maintenance.
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.
[Revision 1] Comment not addressed.
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.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed. The first entrance will be constructed in Phase 1. The other
entrance off of Rte 250 will be constructed in Phase II.
Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Dept at mroberge(a)albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext.
3458 for further information.
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources March 5, 2013
79D-14
�80-46B
80-46E 79A1--OC-1379A1--0C-11
r� <> 79A1,--OB-25
v
Legend
STFq��
i%
t'
79D-15 6 80-46
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
°e oEH E
93A1-3
'3701
�
80-46A
��Qd
0i-ERESCUEs.AIII,o
aaEc-11 N"o°a�s"
a
79A1--OB-2
37 37
East Rivanna
Fire Station
< / \79A1 -O
-:
80-51 _ 4:0P
93A1-2
3760 \ `scP
\`\AT
79-25A
'80-50 37`21
80-55A 3738 80-52
3732
80-556 �MQ 80-53
i�
—�j 134
ri
93A1-4
J
80-54
79-25B
TM: 79
-
TM: 80
1192
80-55C
80-55
z
3700
'0
3699
= 79-25C
cn
j 12 0
79-33
_
ll((3A1-
3686
O
11 1
79-25
80-49A
n o
1246 9-26 35`;15
2
m �
80-56B
3595
80-47
`\AFRgFL��
1
/ 79-29
80-48
\
94-1
80-49
341 ft
ti
3A1 -B 93A4
-_._ 0
2403 �'4:•
-H3 "'93A4 --S5-43\
23971
�ti
94-4
of A eE,
�2 0l =P GIS -Web
�� Geographic Data Services
? k
3A1 --T2-20 TM' 93
\\
9.3A41=%4=8 93A4 =S5- 2
www.alt>emarle.org
i RCIN\P (434)296-5832
TM: 94 g4-3
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources March 5, 2013
FA
- Ar
REM❑VE ❑R PR❑VIDE
MAINTENANCE ACCESS
r1
�
1
l
REM❑VE ❑R PR❑VIDE
MAINTENANCE ACCESS
r1
�
1
ISI
µ"j'y 1' �-_.—f lit Z"
-"N
--Y-�-`` -'4. �i�Zrf f 'S 1�_�,� � J��� rf �: 4�_� ___ ,I4• �'��=i 1 ( 11� ++il(,!
•, _
-"
�,+ '• ;
si
5
+ r=� ,'• 7f1 PE raEeraVBE1•— - _ •�,1 •,: _ }4 �T �4+;,.I, ,v ,1'•
-r ; Yu'R,•LT€ � - _ _ - _ r—• 1`YlsFJ[Vli F.']L[y'1'LYC .. _ _
I 'I __ + nvrr.Ri[iTTgvf 33T15A]9 - ' � •�'.•�
rr ,
u es roP tYn <m
NOTE:
FOR ADDITIONAL STORNfWATER MANAGEMENT INFORNLALTION
PRELIMINARY STORMR ITER CONCEPT PLANS PREPARED BY
WILLLLZSSDURG MNNIRONTMENTAL GROUP, D;C, SL'IIMITTED
SEPARATELY.
—` � 1` - `! - * '�.�- -- ParrNusxexr:Fnnu-1:,: r:I� 1•.1 (1� r' ~-Yti'
v'. � FY"1 k'dA[1Z•TE31'�'IYeF:LI[ A I,
4 l' -1.� 1. + � •'r E1,LI1`.'EMP.
l\; •.� - :�: stir •I1"!_-r�rm�—�n'. AL i ,� ,£ -f.'ti-.Hlf.,'�.. AVN
� -- • '� 10£ PRILSF.RVPTi � r'
•Q�1
DENOTES AREA OF POTENTIAL STREAM BLIT•ER
FNHANCFN FN'I-IS•1'R FAM RF.L I'OIZA-I'I LIN
MITIGAC11ON TO OFFSET IW S'I'RE,"t 13t1FFER
DISTURBkNU S.
i.,'y }n •...b R i /fir'- •.,4. _ � � I nr � f� - Jf � \ " - z
PRWVRVHHXBgj. C' _ r �/ .%
H
TG ➢2 W6T['AP£P* M1 "� R6�15WAli� • ,: .� �.��l.r- }+;.
�dalar murrwrwvs p•r
MAE"
H%JE'I
PIIISISEHVL' "L�L:
AND
11V1'I$.�I'11'L,1."I'311[f-Ah1
.YDCiilLN
ue xui epi ti kx
: 1 •^ �. ' , - , "'�S l _ AND C'EiAXNEL �. ,• �-� - .
f. •
HEPR
-- UERYED - F'� - ~= 1 —•>ti r
.. ,�
.
pbl'r Y[:w'1•_:I-
- I I � �,� y � = n1 nRr�x,�brsnnHrl -- -.- -- - -- - .' � � _ � r�•;y�� , � ,�I r � rr -� a-�
moi/ r REM❑V.. ❑I�' Pk�pVT J—.731!''Yv.:s's! -� p-h`I V R. �r f .-�
MAINTENA�E ACCESS — f,'r:•. E ❑ PRUVIDE — -
- MAIN I ENANC'F ACG,ESS'
-�_ ^�_ -��� �fr,yJr{+ k •.�� ( ,`r r<' � - .+ ,� - � —!_ a.�.� I!v-�-'iii Arrwrnr � y .. i I I,+ �/'�I / � r �!'
-1 f�� i-Il�f - iI� � ''4 �' -- -�--- h�-,� - - -� _ `' I� }��{y.'. `••- �.�_ �4..r�, i�+�+
_r fJ-'? Ir+ 11 ! + �• r ]� ? --•��rt'1�verr � - 'r.,l, ' •, �� �' �"• /�//� i 1 i ++. II �`, ��'� _� - - - - - k , •�' �
V�—
=ti 1
' - - ,�� ' 1' ' + � , � I - - '! r � ` - -- - -- - r �` �fCf 4 T `'Si ` l' � y'�.ya~ • •—[M`'''$�71 1'li k7ilY787RLA61 I r ��y` f �) I + i 1��� ����--�` �;% ' �'� �% f , _..
_ '' ,!� � � - 1 ' � _ _ _ i' I - -r •�T ,r �. �- I �Y �� •I AMA[�NkLI � - ��/ I I � �i(1 �� _ .f f��r � �; 1
-- ''Jr�su,•.c.v,. r ' — •tiY 1L� � \,•.ti;\;•'•'' ','1 � ���`���r�Y L 1 - I' � ,ti i y { 1 r r
\,
CONCEPTS, P.C.
MAS=. &srrEPLAHL> rNG
EY.'IrrLEML%TPP.0 M9INC
L�NDSCAPKARCHi =L -RE
3fMA0C[ Q�L,�ABY HOAR
Yx. •Hlai#A nq
4"Ou of r.
r�
%1" L K&er
r c�w�on9
•rre s%
SC:ALFE 1"_1(81'
BUB•NIIi-EL7: 7.15-13
DRAWti 13Y: SLEK
REVISION&
L l0. O SiAFFCr1H qB
SHEET
ISI
x
z
G
W
O
4"Ou of r.
r�
%1" L K&er
r c�w�on9
•rre s%
SC:ALFE 1"_1(81'
BUB•NIIi-EL7: 7.15-13
DRAWti 13Y: SLEK
REVISION&
L l0. O SiAFFCr1H qB
SHEET
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: ACSA's review of existing flows at the Glenmore
WWTP shows that Phase 1 will exceed the existing capacity and will require improvements at the
Glenmore WWTP. This will be a requirement of construction approval.
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)
• Phase 1 will trigger required Glenmore WWTP improvements. This will be a requirement of
construction approval.
• The proposed road changes will affect the proposed feed pipe for the new ACSA tank.
Coordination with the new road alignment will be reviewed on the construction drawings and road
plans.
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: November 18, 2013
RE: ZMA 2013-12 Rivanna Village
Fax (434) 972-4126
Comments below are based on review of the code of development, proffers, and revised
application plan all dated October 21, 2013.
Parcel 093A1-00-00-00200 (East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company Inc & County of
Albemarle)
• The fire station parcel should be added to the legal ad and authorized signatures should be
provided prior to this rezoning being advertised for public hearing. The application plan is
showing physical changes to the parcel (trails, BMPs, etc.). (See Section 33.2.b.1.b)
• The Code of Development also proposes changes in Table 3.2 that affect the parcel by
limiting the maximum non-residential square footage to 30,000 square feet. The prior
rezoning limited the parcel to the existing 23,001. 1 am not sure why there should be any
limitation on the fire station if it needs to make future additions to the building, etc.
Code of Development
• Daycare centers are now prohibited and may be a use that the applicant should consider
leaving in the code of development. Uses can only be added to the code of development,
once approved by the board, by a zoning map amendment.
• Note 3 on page 15 is not necessary because Section 4.11.11 of the ordinance already
allows this encroachment along with a 4' encroachment into front setbacks as well.
• The total acreage in table 3.2 and on Sheet 2 of the application plan adds up to 94.74 and
the applicant response letter indicates total acreage for the rezoning is 97.643. This
discrepancy should be resolved and the total acreage being used for density and green
space calculations should be added to Table 3.2, Table 8, and Sheets 2 and 7 of the
application plan.
• Table 3.2: The amount of square footage possible (up to 60,000) in Blocks A, B, G, I, and J
is not consisted with the block descriptions of these blocks being primarily residential.
• Parking- Waivers/modifications need to be submitted and approved for Section 4.12.4,
4.12.6, 4.12.9 to allow what the applicant proposes. Specific comments and concerns are
below.
• The code of development now provides 2 parking spaces/residential use but does not
address guest parking. It is recommended that guest parking be accommodated
according to the ordinance at 1 guest space/4 units.
Public parking strategies for the park include on -street parking and the existing fire
station parcel lots. Parks & Rec should confirm this still meets the parking needs of the
park. No information has been provided as to the number of parking spaces that will be
provided on -street for the park.
Note 1 is not consistent with the parking calculation proposed in Table 7.1 on page 23-
24. Table 7.1 now proposes 1 space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for non-
residential uses but no request for this modification or justification has been provided.
This is not consistent with the modification approved with the previous rezoning to use
shopping center calculations and is even less parking than previously required. See
below.
4.12.6 MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES YOK
SCHEDULED USES
Section 4.12.6. provides the schedule of parking requirements for each use. The
applicant has requested that the individual uses in Black E not be subject to the
parking schedule; rather, that the minimum number of parking spaces far non-
residential uses shall be based 4.75 spaces per 1,000 gross leasable square feet for
the total square footage within the Block E Also, garage parking shall count towards
the minimum parking requirements
Staff Comment: The zoning Division generally approves of the first part of this
request, but has recommended a more restrictive waiver to ensure that sufficient
parking exists for each of the uses as they are begin. Staff recommends approval of
use of the shopping center parking standard; however, each site plan would have to
provide sufficient parking for the use until it reaches the threshold that allows for 4.75
spaces per 1,000 square feet. At that point, the entire block will be considered as a
shopping center use and individual uses wili not need to provide parking for each use.
Staff recommends approval as follows:
When the SDP's are reviewed, the parking will be considered proportional to the size of
the development proposed together with what exists. In other wards, if during the
rezoning it is determined that the nonresidential blocks can be calculated at 4.75 spaces
per I000sfgla, but the I" SDP comes in with only 10, 000sf9la, that site plan will be
required to show the parking at 5.5 spaces per 7000sfgla. Later when a 2"d SDP is
submitted and more square footage is added to the block; the parking generator will be
reduced to include both the existing and what is proposed an that SDP.
Page 26 should be revised to include more specificity as to the minimum park facilities
that will be provided. (See page 20-21 from the prior rezoning) The minimum dimensions
of the picnic shelters, playing field, and number of benches should be provided for
example. Also, the playground is listed on Sheet 7 but not in the code on page 26.
The following should also be added, as it was included in the prior code" Approval of the
final park plan is required prior to approval of the final site plan for the park."
Waivers and modifications to Section 4.16 must also be addressed.
Application Plan -
The note "Phase 6&7" should be removed from Sheet 2 for Block J as the timing of the public
park is tied to Proffer 6.
• My previous comment regarding preservation areas and conservation areas has not been
adequately addressed. Also, there are a number of BMPs shown on the Sheet 6. It should be
clear with this rezoning approval whether all of these will be required or if some of them are
intended to be potential locations for BMPs.
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
Page 2
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)
Sheet 7 -Identify the "Linear Park Areas" on the plan as they are described in Proffer 6. The
"Open Space Areas with trails" acreage listed on Sheet 7 is 13.27 acres. Please update the
Open Space statistics to be consistent with this proffer.
Proffers -
I believe the third paragraph that was added on the first page of the proffers is not
necessary as Section 8 of the ordinance allows variations to application plans and codes of
development.
Proffer 6- Parks and Recreation review and provide comment on this proffer. The park
improvements should be built prior to 50% of the units being constructed in the
development. The range of units previously approved was 348-521 and 174th residential unit
was 50% of the low end of that range. The current rezoning proposes a range of 275-400
units so this proffer should be adjusted accordingly to the 137th unit.
Waivers (Comment not addressed)- A number of waivers were approved with ZMA 2001-08
refer to the link below. Comment not addressed. Based on review of the code of development,
at a minimum the following sections are modified:
• Sections in 4.12 see under parking comments above
• Section 4.16, 4.16.2 and 4.16.3.3 (see link below and note on bottom of page 19 of the
prior code of development)
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/Board of Supervisors/For
ms/Ag end a/2007files/20070613/RivannaViIlageAttachJ.pdf
Page 3
Review Comments
Project Name: Rivanna Village
Date Completed: Monday, November 18, 2013
Reviewer: Ron White
Department/Division/Agency: Housing Department
Reviews
AS I mentioned in our phone conversation, the notification period does not link to anticipated construction. We
should expect that the period start at a time estimated to be 60 — 90 days prior to anticipated c/o and extend at
least 30 days beyond the issuance of a c/o.
Also, the cash -in -lieu increased since the original proffers to $19,100 and now is at $21,125. 1 don't believe we
have accepted proffers with the owner exercising this option at their discretion. However, if we do allow this option,
it should be specified when the amount will be paid. Generally, the cash would be expected before the issuance of
the 7th, 14th, 21st, etc. building permits.
Hope this helps.
Review Status: Requested Changes
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_
❑x Resubmittal Fee is Required Per Request Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
Community Development Project Coordinator
Signature
Date
Name of Applicant
Signature
FEES
Phone Number
Date
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000
❑ 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
❑D Each additional resubmission
$1,750
❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add'1 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