Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300015 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2014-01-10 (2)o ��8 � IRGIt�p' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176 January 10, 2014 Via Email Justin Shimp 201 East Main Street, Suite M Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA 2013 -15- Northfield Green Revision 2 Dear Justin: Staff has reviewed your second submittal for a zoning map amendment (ZMA). At your request you are scheduled to go to the Planning Commission on January 28th. All new responses to your December 2, 2013 letter are contained in bold. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are provided below: General Application Comments: 1. Although the proposed density is consistent with the Places 29 Master Plan, it does not meet the guiding principle to preserve the character of the existing neighborhoods, which include single family detached homes at a lower density. There is an expectation that a site can support the density. It is recommended that the density be decreased for consistency with the surrounding neighborhoods and due to the small size of the parcel. • Revision 2: Not addressed. 2. Given the nature of the Plan recommendation and the character of the existing neighborhoods, you might consider bringing this matter before the Planning Commission as a worksession. • Revision 2: Not addressed. 3. The architecture standards of this proposal should take into account the surrounding neighborhoods. It is recommended that standards be provided with the rezoning. • Revision 2: The applicant response states that architectural standards are placed on the Application Plan; however it is not clear how the proposal will take into account the surrounding neighborhoods. The applicant should consider submitting drawings or concepts to address this issue. The applicant has stated they will orient the homes to face the street adjacent to Old Brook Road. Application Plan: 1. More grading information is needed (see engineering comments, attached). - "- *Revision 2: Addressed with engineering comments Code of Development: 1. The COD incorrectly notes that this parcel is in Neighborhood 7 of Places 29, it is located in Neighborhood 2. *Addressed. 2. The Architecture Standards should take into consideration the surrounding neighborhoods and it is recommended that standards be addressed with the rezoning. *Not addressed. Proffers 1. No proffers were submitted for review. Proffers should be submitted to mitigate any impacts and to address the proffer policy. •None submitted. 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 public meetings and may change based on direction from the Commission and /or with subsequent submittals. The Places 29 Master Plan Neighborhood Density Residential recommends 3 -6 dwelling units per acre. This proposal suggests a density of 4.9 dwelling units per acre on a 2.62 acre parcel. However, the surrounding neighborhoods are at a much lower density. Places 29 recommends preserving the character of the existing neighborhoods. The proposed density is not consistent with the existing area and the density should be decreased. Neighborhood Model General comments on how well the proposed development meets the principles of the Neighborhood Model are provided here. More detailed comments may be provided at a later date if changes are made and /or after more detailed plans are provided. Pedestrian The application plan shows sidewalk on the street and the COD states Orientation that a crosswalk will be provided across Old Brook Rd to connect to the existing sidewalk. This principle is met. Neighborhood The street section shows a sidewalk with planting strips. A crosswalk Friendly Streets will be provided across Old Brook Road to connect to the existing and Paths sidewalk. This principle is met. Interconnected It appears that there is no viable option to provide interconnected Streets and streets since this is an infill development. This principle cannot be Transportation met. I,_._.. Networks Parks and Open The plan shows a community lawn and tree conservation area. Space Additionally open space from surrounding neighborhoods exists behind many of the proposed units. This principle is met. Neighborhood The proposal includes a community lawn area in the center of the Centers plan. This principle is met. Buildings and The proposed neighborhood includes single family attached and Spaces of Human detached residential. The maximum building height would be 30 feet Scale for residential. The garages on the homes should be deemphasized by putting them either behind the homes facing alleys and /or pulling them back so they are not closer to the street than the front of the homes. The fronts of the homes adjacent to Old Brook Road should face Old Brook Road. This principle is not met. *Revision 2: Garages have been pulled back and the homes fronting Old Brook Road. This principle is met. Relegated Parking Most dwellings /lots appear to be designed with front loaded parking (garages /driveway in front of unit). The Code of Development and Illustrative Plan 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 This principle is not met. • Garages have been pulled back. This principle is met. Mixture of Uses There are two different housing types suggested; yet no non- residential uses are proposed. This principle is not met. • Not addressed. Mixture of Housing Affordable housing has not been addressed with the plan and /or Types and proffers. Also, the plan does allow for a number of different types of Affordability housing, including single family attached and detached, boarding homes and accessory apartments This principle is partially met. • Not addressed. Redevelopment This development is located within the development areas and the density and uses proposed meet those recommendations as shown in the Comprehensive Plan. However it is not compatible with the density of the existing surrounding neighborhoods. This principle is partially met. • Not addressed. Site Planning that This principle is met. Respects Terrain Clear Boundaries This project is within Neighborhood 2 of the Places 29 Master Plan. with the Rural This principle is met. Areas Additional Comments 1. Additional reviewer comments from engineering, and ACSA received as of this date are attached. It is possible that more comments will be forthcoming. 2. Staff does not think that the one way road is practical for those who might reside at or near the end of the loop. Additionally, the road with is too small. Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified in the attachment "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter." *Revision 2: You have requested that this proposal go to the Planning Commission January 28, 2014. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience. Notification and Advertisement Fees Recently, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants pay for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, these fees must be paid: $ 144.85 Cost for newspaper advertisement $ 200.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage /$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) $ 344.85 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. $ 144.85 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $ 489.70 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. • The fees were paid in full on January 6, 2014. 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. 3313 or email: sbaldwin @albemarle.org. Si*Bwin Sa Senior Planner Planning Services Attachment A — Comments from ACSA, dated n /a. Attachment B — Comments from Fire and Rescue, January 8, 2014 Attachment C- Comments from Engineering, January 10, 2014 *Note these are further updated from memo received earlier this week. Attachment D- Comments from Zoning, January 8, 2014, C. . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �'IRGINZP 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 date be set (4) Withdraw your application (1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your submittal. The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.) (2) Request Indefinite Deferral If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit /request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) (3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal. After outstanding issues have been resolved and /or when you are ready to request a public hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County. The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made on or before a resubmittal date. By no later than twenty -one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay. Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty -two (22) days prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad Payments for Public Hearings form. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. (4) Withdraw Your Application If at anytime 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 C. - -- I- --- ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — Information from Service Providers To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's ZMA201300015: Northfield Green 1. Site is in jurisdictional area for water and sewer. 2. Distance to the closest water line if in the development area is 50 feet. Water pressure is with gallons per minute at psi. 3. Distance to the closest sewer line if in the development area is 10 feet. 4. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal 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) VDOT will not allow new manholes to be placed in paved streets. The ACSA will require the sewer connection be made on the existing sewer main adjacent to the Northern portion of the property (see attached GIS map,) instead of Hearthglow Lane. The ACSA will require construction drawing to be submitted for review and approval during the Final SDP stage. Sarah Baldwin From: Robbie Gilmer Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 11:38 AM To: Sarah Baldwin Subject: RE: Northfield Green Sarah, I have spoken with Justin about this project. He was going to get the specs on the pavers, they have to be able to support 72,OOOlbs. If they can show that the pavers will support the weight of the fire apparatus then Fire Rescue has no comments or objections on the roads. Thank you, Robert Gilmer Assist. Fire Marshal Albemarle County Fire Rescue 460 StageCoach Road Charlottesville, Va. 22901 Office 434 - 296 -5833 Cell 434 -531 -6606 From: Sarah Baldwin Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 2:13 PM To: Robbie Gilmer Subject. FW: Northfield Green Robbie: See attached documents for Northfield Green ZMA. It was sent 12/2, but the documents did not reach me. They plan on going to the PC 1/28, so any input you can provide would be helpful. Thanks. Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 (434)296 -5832 (434)972 -4126, fax girl Please consider the environment before printing this mail. From: Justin Shimp [mailto:justin @shimp -en inq eering.com] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 3:27 PM To: Sarah Baldwin Subject: RE: Northfield Green Phone 434- 296 -5832 'AL o ,li. IIC' 1l! 0 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum Fax 434 - 972 -4126 To: Justin Shimp From: Michelle Roberge, Engineering Department Division: Engineering Date: 3 Jan 2013 Subject ZMA 2013 -00015 Northfield Green 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. [Comment] The guest parking spaces are clustered in front of lot 6 to 9 only. It is also difficult to turn into the first parking space. The parking layout can be spread out and improved by showing 8' wide parallel parking on the north and south side of the community lawn. [Revision 1] Comment addressed. 2. [Comment] The one way road should be 20' wide, at a minimum, to allow for fire truck access. To keep the 20' wide road uniform throughout the site, the entrance needs to be revised. One recommendation is to show a 45' wide entrance with a 6' median to separate the ingress and egress. See attached drawing. [Revision 1] 1 recommend this road to be a two way road instead of a one way road. It is likely that residents of lots near the entrance or exit may not honor the one way for easier access or egress to or from their lots. Another issue that should be addressed is on street parking. Typically, parking is allowed on street within this type of neigborhood. I recommend the VDOT standard for a 24' wide two way road with parking on one side. Please note per §14- 12[3][b], [p]rivate streets in the development area, "the agent may approve Virginia Department of Transportation standards for mountainous terrain or an alternative standard deemed adequate by the county engineer to be equivalent to or greater than the applicable standard in the design standards manual[.]" The proposed 5 parking spaces is inadequate for this development and parking along the street on a 14' wide road will not be an option since it will block other vehicles from passing safely. A standard for the one way road with on street parking is 22' per VDOT's Appendix B — Subdivision Street Design Guide. The proposed street does not meet this requirement. The 22' wide one way road is an option, but I recommend a 24' wide road. 3. [Comment] There appears to be a utility box near lot 13 which is visible from the road. Please address how conceptual grading will be affected. [Revision 1] Comment acknowledged. Applicant has discussed transformer with utility company and will relocate if necessary. 4. [Comment] It appears that the grading for lots 6 -9 drain west. To avoid any runoff to existing neigbors located west of site, please revise grading to drain east towards Old Brook Rd. The conceptual grading also results in steep driveways for lots 7 -8 which will need to be revised. L [Revision 1] Comment addressed. The roof drains and driveways for these units will drain west towards Old Brook Road. The applicant also acknowledged the steep slope and is proposing a walkout basement for those lots. The driveway grade can be confirmed during the site plan phase. 5. [Comment] Also, note that for final site plan, yard inlets behind lots 1 -6 and 9 -13 will work well for the site. The conceptual grading should show positive drainage towards sag yard inlets and not away from site or down steep slopes. [Revision 1] This can be addressed during the site plan phase. 6. [Comment] It appears the illustrative plan does not match the conceptual grading plan (Sheet 6 of 7). Please make conceptual grading consistent on all plans. [Revision 1] Comment addressed. It appears the illustrative plan is not included with the application for review. It is only provided to illustrate the applicant's intentions if the application plan is approved. Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Dept at mrobergealalbemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3458 for further information. ALP U m IRGII�P County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner From: Ron Higgins, AICP, Chief of Zoning /Zoning Administrator Division: Zoning Date: October 25, 2013 Second comments JanuaiD, 8, 2014 Subject: ZMA201300015- Northfield Green - TMP 61 -126 — R -2 to NMD My Zoning comments on this ZMA Application Plan & Code of Development are: -While the gross density (of potentially 4.9 units /acre) is within the Places29 Land Use Plan Recommendation of 3 -6 units /acre, it is greater than the prevailing density in the immediate neighborhood, which is less than 3 units /acre. This is somewhat out of character with the surrounding neighborhood as called for in the Guiding Principles of the Places29 Master Plan. Proposal still does not meet the ug idingprinciples of Places 29 Master Plan - Mixture of attached and detached units is consistent with the NMD principles, but also raises the neighborhood compatibility question, if most units in the area are detached. This comment is the same as before. -Most units in the area along Old Brook Road face that road, while this proposal has sides facing the Road. This also raises neighborhood compatibility question. This comment has been satisfactorily addressed. - "Clear Zone" for emergency access includes non -paved area of Community Lawn, which may not be sufficient for Fire & Safety needs. Paved area is only 14' wide when 20' is desired. This comment has been satisfactorily addressed. - "Landscape Buffer" proposed along Old Brook Road may interfere with sight distance This comment is being satisfactorily addressed. - Sidewalk should be provided along the Old Brook Road frontage. Although addressed this comment is the same as before, but is up to the PCBOS. -There should be a proffer statement included with the application. This comment has been addressed but the changes to the policy will not likely be made before the PC meeting January 28tl' and nzy further delay the hearing(s).