Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300012 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2014-01-23COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 January 23, 2014 Valerie Long Williams Mullen 321 E. Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: ZMA 2013-00012, Rivanna Village: Revision #2 Dear Valerie: Staff has reviewed your second 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. Rev2: Comment not addressed completely. Signatures still need to be submitted. A resolution of intent needs to be approved by the Board of Supervisors so that Tom Foley can sign the application on behalf of the County. 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. Rev2: Comment Addressed. 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. Rev2: Comment Addressed. 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 hn nrlrtrnccnrl and ciihmittnrt if nnrnccnry Rev2: Comment not addressed. Simply stating that you request the same waivers is not sufficient. Each waiver needs to be stated and a request needs to be made. Refer to the link below for the waivers that were approved with ZMA2001-008. 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 Su pervisors/Forms/Agenda/2007files/20070613/RivannaVillageAttachJ.pdf The waivers must be listed and should be in a table for ease of administering. The waivers must be part of the Board's action on ZMA 2013-12. Some ordinance sections may have changed (Section 32 waivers) so the table must reference the correct sections. 5. A Corps of Engineers permit needs to be submitted (See engineering comments). Rev1: Comment not addressed. The COE permit needs to be submitted. Rev2: Comment not addressed. 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. _..... This comment has not been adequ.--., 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. Rev2: Comment addressed for the residential uses. However, language should be added that states in Blocks A, B, C, D, E and F when non-residential uses are proposed parking shall be relegated to the rear or side of the buildings. 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. Rev2: Comment Addressed. 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. Rev2: Comment addressed. 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. Rev2: Comment addressed. 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. Rev1: See attached revised Zoning comments for additional revisions. Particularly parking waivers/modifications need to be submitted an approved to allow the narking that has been proposed Rev2: See attached Zoning comments for additional revisions. 2. Rev2: Additional clarification language should be added to the Architectural Standards section of the Code. The following sentence should be provided after "With larger buildings, the buildings architecture shall....." : "In order to achieve this the following architectural techniques shall be used: plane changes, stepbacks, the use of windows or building entries on each story, varied building materials, or other like architectural elements." 3. Rev2: Additional clarification language should be added to the Architectural Standards section of the Code to ensure that the non-residential buildings have a face to the street. "Each non-residential building abutting a street shall have a primary entrance from either the front or side of the building. A building also may have secondary entrances on the side or rear of the building." 4. Rev2: Additional language should be added to the Code to address relegated parking similar to the following: "Off street parking shall be relegated behind front facades of buildings and landscaping throughout the development. Parking shall be screened by buildings, landscaping, permanent structures, or other acceptable measures." This is just example language, however, relegated parking for the non- residential uses needs to be addressed in the Code. Proffers: 1. A number of corrections need to be made to the Proffers. Rev2: See attached comments from County Attorney, and Housing Director. 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 Wa, Rev2: See VDOT comments. The construction entrance cannot be taken off of Route 250. If you have the information/decision from DEQ on this matter as well, please submit it. 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) Rev2: The Housing Director recommends that the new amounts be paid. The Board can approve the lesser amounts, however Staff will be recommending that the current amounts be provided. 3. Zoning comments for two a ional comments for the proffer: 4. The Countv Attorney has not provided comments to date on the latest revised proffi ff will forward any comments to you once they have been received. Rev2: The County Attorney and the Housing director have provided additional comments that are attached concerning the proffers. 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 RGV 1. 11IV aNNin.aLIUII Mali aiwwa aiurwain 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..lev1: Adequate right or .._, ..__Js to be Transportation shown in Block J and I to the property line. It is unclear whether Networks a road can be placed wi+"'^ *"^ A; -f-^^^ •• k -^ *"^ of way touches the property Iii Rev2: Comment addressed. This principle is 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 fhe proposed development includes a minimum of 20,000 Centers u to 60,OOOsf in non-residential uses. These uses are shown Additional Planning Comments i. 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 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. Zvi: i ne garages on the single tamiiy nomes snouia uc ucumpi,asized by pulling them back so they are not closer to the street than the front of the homes, this language should bp added to the code of development. Rev2: Language should be added to the Code for relegated parking in blocks where non- residential uses are permitted. With the addition of language added to the code of development, this principle will be met. Relegated Parking Parking will be relegated to the side or the garages will not p. Not addresses Rev2: The code has been revised, however additional language should be added for relegated parking in blocks where non-residential uses are permitted. Mixture of Uses There a number of different housing types as well as non-residential uses being proposed with this development. tev-i: This principie is 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. zv i. rvot auuresseG. Rev2: Engineering recommends that mitigation be dealt with during the WPO stage of review. This principle is 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 i. 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 Deyelo 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 January 8, 2014 Attachment B- Comments from Engineering, dated January 7, 2014 Attachment C- Comments from Deputy County Attorney (Greg Kamptner) Attachment D- Comments from Zoning, dated January 16, 2014 Attachment E- Comments from Housing (Ron White) lQ:117el ilf•Iii;k0]94L0luIu11L1kVABUTI10]Jul:11iLkI LrRGINI°' 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 22701-3819 Gregory A. Whirley Commissioner of Highways January 8, 2014 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 application plan for Rivanna Village dated 7115113 with revisions dated 10/21/13 and 12/16/13 as submitted by Terra Concepts, PC and offer the following comments: 1. While the applicant has not discussed it directly with us, I am aware that there have been discussions about locating a construction entrance for this development directly onto Route 250. As the installation and usage of a temporary construction entrance is an activity requiring a permit from this office, I am not inclined to issue a permit for the construction entrance directly onto Route 250 due to safety concerns. Access to Route 250 via Steamer Drive and Glenmore Way at the traffic signal will certainly be safer for any construction traffic and the traveling public on Route 250 than an unprotected entrance directly onto Route 250. 2. While the plan addresses previous concerns with alignment, VDOT reserves the right to require alignment revisions and intersection control based on intersection warrants during the road plan review to ensure compliance with VDOT standards and specifications. 3. Generally, VDOT has no opposition to the proposed rezoning. There may need to be adjustments made during the formal design and review process. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Alt Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Phone 434-296-5832 'Al r 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: January 7, 2013 Subject: ZMA 2013-00012 Rivanna Village I 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. rRevision 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. [Revision 2] Comment addressed. The applicant has shown the ROW for interconnection. At the site plan phase, I recommend a grading easement beyond the ROW to construct the possible future connection. 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. [Revision 2] 1 recommend the mitigation plan to be fully addressed during the WPO phase. Initially, I was concerned about the minimal space for replanting trees within the buffer area since the site is already heavily wooded. After discussing this issue with the applicant, we determined there are possible areas where stream restoration is an option in addition to replanting trees within the buffer. 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. [Revision 2] The phasing plan is improved and works well as a conceptual plan for the ZMA. During the WPO phase, I will ask for a refined limit of disturbance delineation. For example, phase 4 may need to be disturbed in phase 1 to direct runoff to the pond. This can be thoroughly reviewed at the WPO 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. 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. [Revision 2] 1 recommend this item to be fully addressed at the WPO phase. The applicant has attempted to show adequate access to BMPs. I still see potential problems in meeting the minimum requirements for a 10' wide access road at less than a 20% grade. Also, the access road should reach the forebays and outlets areas for maintenance. The applicant has not fully addressed this. 8) 1 recommeno a uur- permit to De omaineo prior to the approval or tnis /-ivies appiication. [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? [Revision 2] Comment addressed. The SWM facility within the county property will be managed by the Rivanna Village HOA. 10) 1 do not see the need to -_,urate 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 managemeriL ICIUMLy VVllll Uo UVVII UIIIqUC IIUIIIUCI CIIIU Lytic IUI ICICICIII. 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. [Revision 2] See Comment 6. 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. [Revision 2] Comment 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(@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3458 for further information. r �IRGIS County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum To: Megan Yaniglos From: Greg Kamptner Division: County Attorney Date: January 22, 2014 Subject: ZMA 2013-00012 Rivanna Village Megan - Below are my comments to the proffers. Proffer 2, last sentence of paragraph 2, revise to read: "The cash contribution shall be paid at the to ffle „f after completion of the final inspection and prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for such applicable residential dwelling unit." Reason: The language added is from Virginia Code 15.2-2303.1:1. Proffer 9(A): The second clause of the new text ("and the County or its designee may then have thirty (30) days within which to provide a qualified purchaser of such unit") is confusing because it appears to conflict with the 90 day period in the preceding sentences. As written, the notice under the proposed text could be provided 59 days before the CO is to be issued, and the County would have until 29 days before the CO is to be issued to find a qualified purchaser. The owner may mean to allow 30 days after the CO is issued for the qualified purchaser to be found (60 + 30= 90), but that too is problematic because the notice could be given 5 days before the CO is issued, and the County would have only 25 days after the CO is issued to find a qualified purchaser. It may be best to remove the second clause. Proffer 9(C): Same comment as for proffer change " at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy" to "after completion of the final inspection and prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for ..." Greg Kamptner Deputy County Attorney County of Albemarle gkamptner@albemarle.org 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: January 16, 2014 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 December 12, 2013. 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/Agenda/2007files/20070613/Rivan naVi I IageAttachJ. Pdf The waivers must be listed by the applicant and should be in a table for ease of administering. The waivers must be part of the Board's action on ZMA 2013-12. Some ordinance sections may have changed (Section 32 waivers) so the table must reference the correct sections. Code of Development • Illustrative Plan -What is the illustrative plan? I believe this paragraph can be deleted or clarify that what flexibility the applicant is referencing (specific unit and lot types may vary in the blocks as allowed in the code?) • 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. (see comment above) The waiver condition language should also be incorporated into the code of development for non- residential parking regulations. 4.12.6 MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES VOK SCHEDULED USES Section 4.12.6. provides the schedule of parking requirements for each use. The applicant has requested that the individual uses in Block E not be subject to the parking schedule; rather, that the minimum number of parking spares 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 1,004 square feet. At that point, the entire block will be considered as a shopping center use and individual uses wiIi 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 I000sfg1a, 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 Z"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 on that SDP Page 2 County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum To: Megan Yaniglos From: Ron White Division: Housing Date: January 22, 2014 Subject: ZMA 2013-00012 Rivanna Village Not sure why the response references a cash -in -lieu from a 2007 approval but, if in fact, a proffer was approved in 2007 but is now being amended we would be expected to use current figures of $21,150. Also, I could not recommend allowing the payment of cash -in -lieu after all other units on a plat are completed. Theoretically, they could complete all but one market -rate unit, sell them, and not trigger the payment because one market -rate lot remains. Some other proffers which proposed cash -in -lieu have proposed paying cash associated with one unit prior to the eighth building permit is issued for the market -rate units. This ensures the cash payments come in at about the same 15% rate as the units would be expected.