Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300017 Review Comments Zoning Map AmendmentCOUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 March 5, 2014 Mr. Vito Cetta 1730 Owensfield Dr. Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA201300017 Dear: Mr. Cetta, Staff has reviewed your re- submittal requesting to rezone 12.991 acres from R -1, residential zoning district to NMD, Neighborhood Model District zoning district for a proposed mixed use development with 93 dwelling units and a density of approximately 7 units /acre. We have several questions and comments which are listed below: Plannine The following comments are provided by Claudette Grant: APPLICATION PLAN- DETAILED COMMENTS 1. Cover sheet: Is the address of the owner and developer the same? If yes, there appears to be a typographical error. 2. The cover sheet describes a waiver /variance requirement for critical slopes waiver and private streets. The critical slopes waiver request was'submitted, but not the private streets. Will a waiver /variance request be completed for private streets? 3. In regards to the landscaping located on lots and an easement provided across the lots for HOA maintenance, the note on the plans for this is located on sheet 4, which is the conceptual plan. The conceptual plan is not binding in any way. If this note is to be enforced it should be located on sheet 3. 4. What is phase 2 on the application plan? Either the block table or plan is labeled incorrectly. 5. Is there a reason that footnote 1 and 3 under the Block Table are the same? Do they need to be? 6. Where will the parking for the building in Block A be located? 7. The parking details /information are important to a plan. This information is located on the conceptual plan. Should this be located on the application plan? Page 1 of 5 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke CODE OF DEVELOPMENT (COD)- DETAILED COMMENTS 1. The maximum density for this proposed development is still unclear. Page 9 of the code of development shows a total maximum residential density of 146. The proffers describe a total of 93 units. If you want flexibility for the total amount of units in the development this total will need to be consistent in the proffers and COD, otherwise you have two regulating documents providing different information for the same thing. If you want the total amount of units to be 93 with the potential for a mix of different unit types per block then the table on page 9 of the COD should have a note saying that there is a total of 93 units in the development with a varying mix of housing types. 2. Page 4 — Please clarify the second paragraph of Section 2.3. It is somewhat confusing. What is the intent? 3. Page 9 — Could the residential density and table 3.2.2 density regulations be consolidated? 4. On page 10, Table 3.4 is there non - residential in Block E? Please clarify. 5. Please review the section on Architectural Standards & Architectural Review Committee in the COD. The information in this section is too detailed and difficult for staff to enforce. We suggest the elimination of much of the detail in this section. The Spring Hill Village Architectural Review Committee could be the over seer of this information instead of including this in the COD for staff review and enforcement. Zoning The following comments related to the code of development and zoning matters have been provided by Amelia McCulley: Proposed Uses: We are disappointed that the proposed industrial uses are so limited and that this is being characterized as "an office park." While we understand your concerns about the need for compatibility with the residential component of this project, there are many ways to achieve this balance such as limiting the size and type of industrial uses. One option is to allow one or more of the broader industrial categories with a limitation of X square feet per use (4000 square feet is the amount used for the commercial districts). Another option is to allow the broader use category but remove any uses (by prohibiting them) that could conflict with the residential use. An additional option is to institute private controls via covenants and restrictions, such as relating to nuisance aspects of noise, odor, etc. These private controls can exceed the minimum Albemarle Zoning regulations. 2. Section 2.2 Illustrative Plan Page 4 — omit sentence stating no aspect shall impose any obligation... 3. Section 2.4 Permitted Uses - Please omit reference to "wayside stands." This is an old term ,that was replaced with "farm sales" and "farm stand." 4. Section 3.3 — omit reference to measuring from the "alley curb face" for setback. This is not a typical point for measurement and could prove confusing. Given the tight setbacks proposed, we suggest the use of maintenance easements. As noted previously, please establish easements for landscaping and other features /improvements that will occur on private property as opposed to open space. 5. Section 4.1.4 — omit reference to the placement of trash receptacles. This type of thing is not best addressed here but can be part of co venants an restrictions. Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 2 of 5 6. Section 5.4 — "special landscape and architectural treatments" is very vague language. It will be important to have further guidance to determine what is intended. 7. Various references to the amount of amenity space between the plan and the C.O.D. don't seem to be consistent — is it 2.59 or 3.23 acres? 8. Temporary Events: Your revision has only addressed temporary sales events. Do you want to allow other types of temporary events? Entrance Corridor The following comments related to the Code of Development and Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: 1. The third bullet in section 5.2 of the Code of Development acknowledges that Entrance Corridor landscaping requirements may require alternate size and spacing of street trees than is otherwise provided for in the code. Please note that the entire parcel falls within the EC overlay, so the EC requirements will apply to all streets in the development. 2. Note that several of the terms used in section 4.1 of the Code, including formal, recessed from (how much ?), Virginia farmhouse vernacular, and approximately, lack clarity and could result in inconsistent reviews /requirements. 3. For consistency, add "detached" after "single- family" in the first bullet on page 13 of the Code. 4. It is recommended that the 50% and 1/3 requirements for porches and lanterns (pages 12 and 13 of the Code) be reserved for review by the Spring Hill Village Architectural Review Committee and eliminated from County review. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Amelia McCulley: 1. Parking (a previous comment): The Community Development Department supports the use of minimal parking to meet the regular needs of the users as opposed to providing parking for peak events. We are open to considering the use of reduced parking requirements as well as shared parking. However, we need information on which to base a parking reduction and we haven't received sufficient information in this case. The extent of reduction being requested (1/1000) amounts to 1/8 of the current parking requirements based on an office use. This reduction is being proposed without either a) evidence of offsetting parking or public transit provisions; b) use limitations such as a maximum area of office use; or c) ITE or other reference information, as basis. Staff is concerned that this can either result in the construction of space that cannot be leased due to insufficient parking or parking modifications that require a rezoning. Please address this issue. Entrance Corridor The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: 1. Existing electric lines (proposed to be moved underground) run along both ECs and a sewer line is proposed to be extended along the Rt. 20 EC. Easements associated with these lines are not shown on the plans. Typically, landscaping like that illustrated isn't allowed in the easements. This frontage landscaping will be critical to establishing an appropriate appearance for this development in the ECs. Loss or reduction of landscaping due to Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 3 of 5 existing or proposed utilities is not appropriate. Additional information should be provided to clarify how these conflicts will be resolved. Engineering and Water Resources See the attachment for comments related to engineering and water resources, which have been provided by Glenn Brooks. VDOT See attached comments from Troy Austin of VDOT relating to transportation issues. Fire /Rescue The following comments related to Fire /Rescue have been provided by Robbie Gilmer: 1. The streets will need to have some marking to show No Parking Fire Lane. Proffers 1. Should the last proffer be number 4 instead of 3? Is this a typo ?. The following comments related to the proffers have been provided by Amelia McCulley: 1. (A previous comment): Proffers will need to address various items such as frontage improvements, sidewalks and screening fencing. Correct the tax map and parcel numbers on the proffer statement cover page (missing a digit on each). 2. Nonresidential: It does not appear that any proffer or C.O.D. language addressing phasing construction for the non - residential use. What if only residential use is developed for many years? 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 Devel ooment /forms /schedules /Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.pdf (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application If you choose to resubmit, please use the form provided with this letter. Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 4 of 5 Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is cgrant @albemarle.org Sincerely, lxa� - Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development Department Enc: Engineering Comments VDOT Comments Resubmittal Form Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 5 of 5 dig' "1" �7. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development The proposed rezoning of parcel 90 -28 has been reviewed. The following comments are provided for your review: 1. Please provide more information regarding the proposed underground manufacturered 30,000 cft Stormtrap Best Management Practice (BMP) proposed. Will need to know if conceptually this could provide the treatment for Virginia Stormwater Management Permit (VSMP) requirements for at least 12.99 Ac of contributing watershed area. Rev. 1: Underground facilities are not recommended in this setting. Adequate runoff capture will be too difficult, and treatment solely by manufactured underground facilities does not appear adequate under anticipated new water quality regulations. It appears that the application proposes internal private roads with slopes up to 12 %. County ordinances require private streets serving 6 or more lots need to follow VDOT standards. The VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Residential and Mixed Use Subdivision Streets (GS- SSAR) Table 1— Curb and Gutter Section (pg. B(1) -7) indicates that for a proposed road with traffic volume up to 2,000 ADT, 2011 AASHTO Green Book Chapter 5 (Page 5 -12) provides guidance as to the maximum grade. The Green Book page indicates local residential streets should be less than 15% (see attached guidance). However, the application proposes a range of uses for each block. These uses could potentially generate traffic volumes greater than 2,000 ADT. Please provide an analysis indicating the maximum anticipated traffic volume impacts for the most intense proposed uses for each proposed private road. Please reference the ITE Trip Generation Manual and the proposed Code of Development in the analysis. Rev. 1: The street network is not recommended for approval. Right - angled turns must be eliminated. There is no private or public road standard which allows this. Road D requires a turnaround. The main through -way (Road A to B) should be a public road. Alleys should be secondary access,-and not used as sole access to units, such as with 11 -15. 3. Recommend a separate structural certification for proposed Stormtrap BMP. Because this is proposed under a travel way, the potential for structural collapse needs to be investigated prior to engineering recommendation for approval of this proposed stormwater management (SWM) treatment system. Rev. 1: See comment 1. 4. Recommend application include ranges of proposed uses instead of exact numbers of proposed - -- - dwelling units and commercial square footage. -If approved; providing these- exact - numbers would - - - -- -- - -- C:\inetpub \wwwroot \cityviewlazerfiche — integration \tempdocholder \50441.doc Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Michael Koslow, Senior Civil Engineer Rev. 1: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 17 December 2013 Rev. 1: 10 Feb 2014 Subject: Spring Hill Village (ZMA201300017) The proposed rezoning of parcel 90 -28 has been reviewed. The following comments are provided for your review: 1. Please provide more information regarding the proposed underground manufacturered 30,000 cft Stormtrap Best Management Practice (BMP) proposed. Will need to know if conceptually this could provide the treatment for Virginia Stormwater Management Permit (VSMP) requirements for at least 12.99 Ac of contributing watershed area. Rev. 1: Underground facilities are not recommended in this setting. Adequate runoff capture will be too difficult, and treatment solely by manufactured underground facilities does not appear adequate under anticipated new water quality regulations. It appears that the application proposes internal private roads with slopes up to 12 %. County ordinances require private streets serving 6 or more lots need to follow VDOT standards. The VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Residential and Mixed Use Subdivision Streets (GS- SSAR) Table 1— Curb and Gutter Section (pg. B(1) -7) indicates that for a proposed road with traffic volume up to 2,000 ADT, 2011 AASHTO Green Book Chapter 5 (Page 5 -12) provides guidance as to the maximum grade. The Green Book page indicates local residential streets should be less than 15% (see attached guidance). However, the application proposes a range of uses for each block. These uses could potentially generate traffic volumes greater than 2,000 ADT. Please provide an analysis indicating the maximum anticipated traffic volume impacts for the most intense proposed uses for each proposed private road. Please reference the ITE Trip Generation Manual and the proposed Code of Development in the analysis. Rev. 1: The street network is not recommended for approval. Right - angled turns must be eliminated. There is no private or public road standard which allows this. Road D requires a turnaround. The main through -way (Road A to B) should be a public road. Alleys should be secondary access,-and not used as sole access to units, such as with 11 -15. 3. Recommend a separate structural certification for proposed Stormtrap BMP. Because this is proposed under a travel way, the potential for structural collapse needs to be investigated prior to engineering recommendation for approval of this proposed stormwater management (SWM) treatment system. Rev. 1: See comment 1. 4. Recommend application include ranges of proposed uses instead of exact numbers of proposed - -- - dwelling units and commercial square footage. -If approved; providing these- exact - numbers would - - - -- -- - -- C:\inetpub \wwwroot \cityviewlazerfiche — integration \tempdocholder \50441.doc Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 become the zoning for this property and the site would be locked into potentially non - viable construction solutions without revisiting the rezoning process. Rev. 1: not relevant to engineering review. 5. Recommend dedication of right of way along Avon Street and SR 20 for public maintenance of sidewalks (or a Code statement which addresses their maintenance) and sidewalk extensions to adjacent neighboring driveways for pedestrian continuity. Rev. 1: no change. 6. Recommend adjusting proposed Block Plan on sheet 3. Please include entire proposed roadway easement width for proposed private roads or entire proposed public right of way width with phases for blocks proposed to serve specific lots. For example, please include the entire width of proposed access easement for Road "A" as part of the area proposed for Block A. Rev. 1: This road layout is not recommended for approval. See comment 2. 7. Recommend an overlot grading plan should accompany each proposed site plan due to the existing steep topography. Engineering policy is that runoff should not cross more than three lots before being collected into storm sewers. Rev. 1: The concept grading provided with the zoning plan is not recommended for approval. It does not meet the conditions of the proposed overlot grading proffer. There are areas where drainage from lot to lot will be an issue. 8. Recommend proposing an active pedestrian crossing system and crosswalk across Avon Street between proposed Spring Hill Village and existing Avon Park to address pedestrian connectivity between these planned residential developments. Rev.l: addressed. 4r r1 p{tCt s wL� o OMMONWEALT'H of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Cupeper, Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kllpatrick, P.E. Commissioner February 10, 2014 Ms. Claudette Grant Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ZMA- 2013 - 00017 - Spring Hill Village Dear Ms. Grant: We have reviewed the NMD Rezoning Application Plan for Spring Hill Village dated 10 -21 -13 with revisions dated 1 -21 -14 as submitted by Terra Concepts, P.C. and offer the following comments: 1. The revision date listed on the plans is 1- 21 -13. The date should be 1- 21 -14. 2. The left turn lane to access Road "E" has a very short storage length. It appears that it will accommodate only 1 vehicle. As such, vehicles may start queuing towards Route 20. 3. What is the justification for not providing 12' lanes in the Route 20 proposed section? 4. The proposed sidewalk shown will need to end at the right -of -way line. In addition, a marked crosswalk will not be allowed at an uncontrolled location and should be removed from the plan. 5. The Access Management Spacing requirements will need to be addressed for this project. It appears that a spacing exception will be required for the connection with Route 20. 6. If it is determined that the County would want the roadway(s) within this development to be taken into the Secondary System, additional comments will be provided. Of note, horizontal alignment, centerline grades, and the connection with Route 20 will likely need to be revised. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, %'k Troy Austin, P.E. - - - - — Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt it Ck# By: Resulbmittal of information for Special Use Permit or �_t�nn;" V " L m Zoning leap Amendment J`' 1Ah �'4roIN��' PROJECT NUMBER: '2 1y) A aO156MJIJ- PROJECT NAME: S 6 A l c-- P-lZesubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required �IuCI CI SGM,.�_ Community Development Project Coordinator Name of Applicant Phone Number Signature FEES Date Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $500 C;:.�.. � - • is ... 3..J�:�e' <.. .<., z 3 „. :.. ...tx {.<... r i :?.. �:..z .. V.: .^'': ... 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 52,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ach additional resubmission $1,250 \ 4 F �.,.. .•�. ".. , t �- K F ',...1 �<: r. '.< .. .. .:, � ... ... <.Y ., '` :]. : �.i'5:+: %.4 Y 3: ^:: Y 7 : Y. Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,750 T ' ;..� f S 1 - 6 S 4 � 1 S `. 1 1' .t J' 1 .. •i 1} f Sf T ''�; YS i Fk 4i li ry �C ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request —Add'l notice fees will be required $180 To be maid 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. MAKF. C NFC'KR TO C'OiiNTi' OF ALBEMARLE /PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER i> Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $200 + actual cost of first-class postage $1.00 for-each additional notice+ actual i' Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) cost of first -class postage Legal advertisement (published twice -in the newspaper -for each - public hearing) -_ - __ - - Actual cost . -_ (minimum of $280 for total--of-4 ub]ications) 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