HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300017 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2013-11-22A� &��
_o
IRGIN��
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator
Date: November 22, 2013
Subject: ZMA 2013 -017 Spring Hill Village — Initial Zoning Comments
Zoning has reviewed this initial submittal and has the following comments:
1. Proposed Uses
The proposed uses are primarily retail uses and do not adequately capture the
Comprehensive Plan recommendation for Office R &D Flex space. Please consider amending
Table 2.4 for Permitted uses as well as the Code of Development (COD) language for the
following:
a. Please utilize the new zoning industrial use categories. Please also consider an
approach similar to what we have provided for in our commercial districts or are
proposing in the Downtown Crozet District. For example, allow "Laboratories /Research
and Development /Experimental Testing" by- right. Your COD prohibits these laboratory
uses that are very much anticipated with the R &D flex space. You could either allow
limited amounts (such as no use exceeding 4,000 square feet) of these two additional
categories or allow them only by special use permit: storage / warehousing /
distribution / transportation and manufacturing / processing / assembly / fabrication and
recycling.
b. For the residential uses: 1) please allow group homes per the Virginia Code; and 2)
eliminate home occupation major and minor. There's no need and it's confusing to
have both this category and the class A/B. The Development Area categories are
class A / B. If you want to discuss this further to allow one or the other, please let me
know.
c. The use category "cellular communication, microwave ..." is unnecessary because it is
redundant with two other categories providing those uses. In addition, we do not want
to create new terms for uses already covered in the Zoning Ordinance.
d. Recommend you provide for temporary events within your non - residential uses.
would like to talk further to understand your intention for note #5 regarding temporary
events.
e. Note #2 on page 8 should eliminate reference to "tourist lodging." By definition and
practice, it does not exceed 5 rooms.
f. Planning should comment on whether the criteria for administrative approval of stand-
alone parking is sufficiently stated or needs further.
2. Greenspace and Amenities
a. The submittal references a waiver of amenity space due to the proximity of Biscuit Run
Park. This needs to be a written submittal with justification per Section 8.2.b (3). The
Board will need to take explicit action on this and any other waiver /modification.
b. It is difficult to understand how the greenspace adds up to the area listed on the plan.
Please explain this. Are individual private lots' yards included?
3. Parking
a. We support the idea of allowing shared parking and future parking determinations.
However, I cannot follow the standard proposed for R &D flex (1/1000). What is that
based on? If it involves a waiver /modification, it needs to follow a written request with
justification per Section 8.2 b (3).
4. Affordable Housinq
a. While the submittal clarifies which blocks the housing will be located in, the proffer will
need to stipulate the phasing, type and location.
5. Building Form
a. The density charts list GLA and leasable area is extremely difficult to administer. We
recommend that instead you use gross floor area because that is easily calculated and
reviewed by staff in administering this requirement.
b. The lot regulations do not address accessory structure setbacks. In addition, please
use a different word or define "outboard." Note #5 allows an extension of certain
features of up to 6 feet versus the 4 feet in the Zoning Ordinance. I will need to
determine if this requires an explicit waiver of Section 4.11.1. If so, this requires the
applicant to submit a written request with justification per Section 8.2.b 3 to be
considered concurrently with this rezoning.
6. Code of Development
a. Because the Code will guide review of development (plans and plats), it should be
more descriptive in certain areas. For example, Section 5.4 refers to "certain areas" for
special landscape treatments. This is too vague. Section 10.4 relating to Parks and
Open Space is also too vague to administer.
7. Comments Relating to Future Site Plans and Subdivision Plats
a. This development proposes fairly significant landscaping on what will become private
property (individual lots). This has historically been difficult to administer and causes
conflicts with future owners' own desired use versus what the zoning proposed. We
recommend that to the extent possible, required landscaping and other amenities occur
within open space. When they will not occur on open space, easement plats and
covenants and restrictions should very clearly state the obligation for the provision of
the amenity.
8. Application Plan
a. The street section involving on- street parking results in street widths of about 20 feet.
Is this acceptable to Fire /Rescue? From preapplication comments: "Given the Fire
Marshal's recent comments about the necessary road width to accommodate fire
apparatus and meet the Fire Code, it is advisable to meet with him."
b. On Sheet 1, correct the first note regarding the zoning.
c. Please show sight lines for the entrances on the plan. It appears that some of the
proposed landscaping will conflict.
d. The 6 foot tall screen fence almost on the property line may require an easement on
adjoining properties. If this easement is not possible, you will need to move the
proposed fence.
e. The two areas of terraced retaining walls should be addressed in terms of anticipated
use/ improvement. Will this area sufficiently support landscaping?
9. Proffers
a. Proffers will need to address various items such as frontage improvements, sidewalks,
screening fencing,