HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300016 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2014-04-17COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176
April 17, 2014
Scott Collins
Collins Engineering
200 Garrett Street, Suite K
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: ZMA 2013 - 00016, Avinity II- Revision #1
Mr. Collins:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for a zoning map amendment (ZMA). We have a
number of 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.
All comments from all reviewers are provided in this letter, however the major issues that will
need to be addressed before moving forward to the Planning Commission are listed below.
Many of these show up in other comments by each reviewer listed in this letter, however it is
important to identify the major concerns, and these should be addressed with a resubmittal:
1. No response to comments letter was submitted with the latest revision. While some of
the comments have been addressed with the changes to the plans, some have not, and
it is unclear the reasoning behind not addressing certain comments.
2. A modification for the building separation requirement was not submitted as was
indicated on the plans. Submit a request for modification from this requirement.
(Planning)
3. The location of the stormwater facility adjacent to Route 20 has not been addressed and
remains in the same location with minimal landscaping. Since a response to comments
letter was not received on why this location is needed, staff assumes that this was not
addressed. This is an important issue, as Route 20 is a state scenic highway, as well as
an Entrance Corridor. Also, there is a note on the plan that states the landscaping will be
"as shown" which could be interpreted to mean that no subsequent detailed review of the
landscaping will be needed. Revise this note to clarify that landscape review will still
occur. (Planning and ARB)
4. The recently approved steep slopes ordinance shows managed slopes on parcel 16C.
The plan may need to change to meet the construction standards. Show the slopes on
the plan. (Engineering and Planning)
5. The amenities (tot lot, clubhouse, and dog park) may be impacted by the steep slopes
ordinance design requirements. Further study needs to be done since that parcel and
the proposed improvements on the site are so tight. There is concern that the amenities
may not fit on the site, and this should not be left to be worked out during the site plan,
unless the developer is willing to lose lots in the future for the required amenities.
(Planning)
6. The traffic impacts need to be further studied. The impacts to the Phase I loop may be
significant if the phase I roads were not designed for additional traffic. The signal and
turning warrants, as well as queuing on Avon Street should be investigated.
(Engineering)
7. There needs to be assurance that future adjacent development will have access through
the development, and it cannot be gated off at the parcel line where interconnection is
being proposed. This can possibly be done through a non - exclusive access easement
for the private roads from the interconnection through to Avon Street.
8. Road A should be connected to Road B in order to create a block instead of a dead end.
Also, Road A should connect to Road C. Interconnection within the development is just
as important to interconnection to adjacent parcels.
9. An interconnection /extension of the right of way should be proposed at the northern
portion of Road D, to connect to Cale upon demand of the County. A future road is
shown in the revised Comprehensive Plan that is located on Parcel 91 -15 and allowing
for connections to Avinity should be made to this future road.
10. Since the Code of Development is no longer needed, please submit the by right
subdivision exhibit plat for justification for the cash proffer by right provision.
11. The proposed method of paying cash in -lieu needs to be stated in proffer #2 (proposed
schedule).
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 and the 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 Comprehensive Plan currently designates this area as urban density, which allows
residential (6.01 -34 units /acre); and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools,
commercial, office, and service uses. The proposal consists of a residential use development
(townhouses, single family attached and detached units) in a form and proposed density
(maximum density 145 units, at approximately 12 units /acre), that are consistent with the land
use recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. No commercial or non - residential uses
proposed.
The Comprehensive Plan is currently in the process of being updated. The draft Comprehensive
Plan proposes to designate this property as Urban Density Residential, Light Industry (LI),
office, and R & D Flex. Since the draft Comprehensive Plan has not been adopted, the current
urban density designation is still in effect.
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 all streets and connections to
Orientation
Avinity I. A pedestrian connection should be shown to the church as
was requested in the community meeting. With the pedestrian
connection, this principle will be met.
Neighborhood
Road A should be connect thru to Road B, as well as Road C to make
Friendly Streets
better interconnections between the streets. There are sidewalks and
and Paths
street trees proposed. There should a pedestrian connection provided
for the church property. This principle is not met.
Interconnected
There is no connection to Route 20, except for emergency access.
Streets and
Road A should be connect thru to Road B, as well as Road C to make
Transportation
better interconnections between the streets. There is interconnection
Networks
to adjacent parcels for future development shown, however an
additional connection should be shown adjacent to Cale Elementary,
as well as, providing a non - exclusive access easement over the
proposed private streets, so that gates cannot be put up in the future.
This principle is not met.
Parks and Open
The dog park, tot lot and club house provide sufficient amenities for
Space
the residences. This principle is met.
Neighborhood
The proposed development, and those around it are mostly
Centers
residential. There is a public school and a shopping center nearby.
This principle is met.
Buildings and
The garages on the homes should be deemphasized by pulling them
Spaces of Human
back so they are not closer to the street than the front of the homes or
Scale
porches, this language should be added to the plan. With the addition
of language, this principle will be met.
Relegated Parking
Relegated parking is not being addressed with this plan. This can be
addressed by including a statement on the plan that sets the garage
back from the face or porch of each unit a certain number of feet
(minimum of 3 feet is recommended). This principle is not met at this
time.
Mixture of Uses
The proposed neighborhood has a mixture of residential uses. With a
church, school and shopping center nearby, the mixture of uses in
this area is good; this principle is met.
Mixture of Housing
There are two different housing types being proposed with this plan,
Types and
single family detached, and townhouses. Affordable housing is being
Affordability
proffered with this plan. The timing of the proffers needs to be stated.
With additional information 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
As noted above, there is an area shown as managed slopes and
Respects Terrain
needs to meet the design requirements in the steep slopes ordinance
for disturbance. This will need to be carefully looked at as the amenity
areas are in this area as well, and could be impacted by the design.
With a more detailed look at this area, this principle can be met.
Clear Boundaries
This project is directly across from the rural areas. The development
with the Rural
needs to address the Architectural Review Board's concerns about
Areas
the appearance that the development has along Route 20.
Adjustments should be made to provide a buffer between this
development and the Rural Areas and the stormwater management
facility should be moved to be further away from the Entrance
Corridor and the state scenic highway, Route 20. This principle is not
met.
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."
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, fees must be paid. The fees will be forthcoming, as we are waiting to
hear back from the Daily Progress to determine the amounts.
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,
r �
Megan Yaniglos
Senior Planner
Planning Services
Attachment A
— Comments from VDOT, dated March 28, 2014
Attachment B
— Comments from Fire and Rescue, dated April 13, 2014
Attachment C
— Comments from Engineering, dated March 27, 2014
Attachment E-
Comments from Architectural Review Board Staff, dated April 2, 2014
Attachment F-
Comments from Zoning, dated April 8, 2014
Attachment G-
Comments from County Attorney
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
nor :�r8�
c
1 c'
� IkGi':`ti1a
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 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
_ R
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
March 28, 2014
Ms. Megan Yaniglos
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: ZMA- 2013 -00016 Avinity II
Dear Ms. Yaniglos:
We have reviewed the planned residential development application plan for Avinity II dated
3/18/14 as submitted by Collins Engineering and offer the following comments:
1. The TIA prepared by Ramey, Kemp & Associates indicates that using the existing
Avinity Drive connection to Avon Street Extended for Avinity II will not significantly
impact the level of service for this intersection or the Mill Creek Drive/Avon Street
Extended intersection.
2. Should an additional removable bollard be place on the emergency access closer to Route
20 to prevent vehicles from mistakenly using the roadway?
3. Should it be decided that a street connection to Route 20 be desired, an AM -E exception
will need to be completed and submitted to this office for consideration.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
" I �', *�k
I
Troy ustin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Review Comments
Project Name: Avinity II
Date Completed: Sunday, April 13, 2014
Reviewer: Robbie Gilmer
Department /Division /Agency: Fire Rescue
Reviews
Based on plans date 3/18/14
Fire Rescue has no objections to the rezoning. Here are a few things to keep in mind as the projects moves
forward.
1. Required fire flow for single famliy homes less then 3600 sq ft is 1000 gpm @ 20 psi.
2. Hydrant spacing shall be 500 ft per travel way.
Review Status: See Recommendations
*-&A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer
Date: 9 Dec 2013
Rev. 1: 27 Mar 2014
Subject: Avinity 2 (zma201300016)
Revision 1 of March 21h, 2014;
1. The traffic impacts should be studied. The impacts to the phase 1 loop may be significant if the phase
1 roads were not designed for additional traffic. The signal and turning warrants, as well as queuing
on Avon Street should be investigated.
2. The slopes around the proposed pond on parcel 16C are now managed slopes in the steeps slopes
overlay district. The plan may have to change to meet the construction standards.
Original review of Dec. 9`h, 2013;
The zoning map amendment for Avinity Phase 2 has been reviewed. The following comments and
recommendatiosn are provided for your use;
3. Stormwater management should meet the new state regulations passed last year. The county ordinance
is being updated, with public hearings scheduled in the next two months. The new regulations will be
in effect before a site plan is approved for this development.
4. As identified by VDOT, the spacing of the entrance which places the Kappa Sig. entrance in the turn
lane is problematic.
5. It appears that public roads could be provided through the first loop from Rt. 20 and to the
interconnection. These roads appear to meet VDOT standard dimensions anyway, and this may avoid
the possibility of a spite strip.
6. The traffic impacts should be studied. The impacts to the phase 1 loop may be significant if the phase
1 roads were not designed for additional traffic. The signal and turning warrants, as well as queuing
on both Avon Street and Rt. 20 should be investigated.
7. The steep grades adjacent to the proposed Pebble Drive on the south side of the site show extensive
work on TM91 -16B. This owner should be part of the application or provide easements prior to the
application going forward.
8. A critical slopes waiver does not appear necessary. The critical slopes shown being disturbed near
phase 1 are all part of access and utilities necessary for the two developments. The small portion
shown near Rt. 20 on the applicant's plan is not shown on the county topography. It is not of
consequence, and will be necessarily disturbed for the construction of the proposed Pebble Drive.
9. It is recommended that road widths not be specified on the zoning plan, as these will have to meet
VDOT and County minimums. The plan should specify where parking is to be prohibited, as this will
allow narrower streets.
10. The Code indicates that alleys and green space as frontage may appear on final plans. This does not
appear feasible given the layout of roads and narrow blocks in the zoning plan. Green space as
frontage is not recommended. Alleys serving as the primary means of access are not recommended.
pF AL
�J�ctr�tA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832
IU I Old to] .7p0111jU
TO: Megan Yaniglos
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
RE: ZMA- 2013 -16: Avinity II
DATE: April 2, 2014
Fax (434) 972 -4126
I have reviewed the plan with revision date of 3/18/14 for the above referenced application and I have the
following comments:
To address the previous comment expressing concern about the appearance of the proposed
development along the Rt. 20 frontage, the following changes have been made: the proposed sanitary
line has been shifted away from Rt. 20, trees are shown along the Rt. 20 frontage and to the south and
west of the SWM facility, and a note has been added to the plan describing the mix of trees to be
installed in the area of the SWM facility "as shown ". The "as shown" wording could be interpreted to
mean that no subsequent detailed review of the landscaping will be needed. It is recommended that
the wording be revised to clarify that landscape review will still occur. Despite the changes made, the
proximity of the facility to the Rt. 20 right -of -way is still a concern. The EC Guidelines require the
SWM facility to not have an "engineered" appearance and to be fully integrated into the landscape.
The trees shown do not appear to be sufficient to fully integrate the facility into the landscape.
Additional space between the EC and the facility would provide opportunity for additional treatments.
Street trees should be provided along Pebble Drive.
Kok AL�
flyRGINti�
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
From: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner (Zoning)
Date: April 8, 2014
Subject: Avinity Phase II ZMA 2013 -16, Application Plan dated March 18, 2014 and
Proffers dated March 17, 2014 for a rezoning to PRD
Section 19.5.2 allows for additional area to be added to a PRD. Please clarify if Avinity II will be
added to Avinity I once approved (added to the HOA for Avinity I, shared amenities between both
developments, etc.) Based on the open space information provided, the requirements of Section
19.6 are met for the entire Avinity PRD (Avinity I +Avinity 11) of 25 %.
Please clarify the proposed maximum number of units. The maximum number of townhomes in
the table on sheet 1 of the application plan is listed as 122 and note #3 under the table says the
maximum number of units in Avinity II will be 102 units. Also, please clarify where the Avinity 16-8
townhomes listed in that table.
Section 19.6.2 requires that the minimum recreational facilities with 4.16 be met:
4.16.2 MINIMUM FACILITIES
The following facilities shall be provided within the recreational area:
4.16.2.1 One (1) tot lot shall be provided for the first thirty (30) units and for each additional fifty (50) units and
shall contain equipment which provides an amenity equivalent to:
One (1) swing (four (4) seats)
One (1) slide
Two (2) climbers
One (1) buckabout or whirl
Two (2) benches.
Substitutions of equipment or facilities may be approved by the director of planning and community
development, provided they offer a recreational amenity equivalent to the facilities listed above, and are
appropriate to the needs of the occupants.
Each tot lot shall consist of at least two thousand (2,000) square feet and shall be fenced, where determined necessary
by the director of planning and community development, to provide a safe environment for young children.
4.16.2.2 One -half (1/2) court for basketball shall be provided for each one hundred (100) units, consisting of a thirty
(30) foot by thirty (30) foot area of four (4) inch 21 -A base and one and one half (1 1/2) inches bituminous concrete
surface, and a basketball backboard and net installed at regulation height.
4.16.3 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
4.16.3.1 Equipment specifications shall be approved by the director of planning and community development on advice
of the director of parks and recreation.
4.16.3.2 Recreational equipment and facilities shall be maintained in a safe condition and replaced as necessary.
Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owner if rental units or a homeowners' association if sale units.
4.16.3.3 Recreational facilities shall be completed when fifty (50) percent of the units have received certificates of
occupancy.
Based on the maximum number of units proposed, it appears Section 4.16 is not met or
substitutions (the dog park, passive rec areas, etc.) will need to be approved as adequate
substitutions.
Please confirm that any requirements of the ARB for the stormwater /openspace area adjacent to
Route 20 are met on the application plan. Additional ARB review of a more detailed plan may be
needed so a revised note may also be needed on the application plan.
The modification of Section 4.11.3 requested on Sheet 1 must be reviewed /approved by the Fire
Marshal.
• Engineering and Fire & Rescue review of the emergency access is recommended.
Review Comments
Project Name: Avinity II
Date Completed: Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Reviewer: Unassigned
Department /Division /Agency: Web Guest
Reviews
From Greg Kamptner:
Proffer 1: 1 assume that staff is evaluating the impacts under the cash proffer policy in light of the owner concluding
that there are 12 units allowed under the current zoning. At the beginning of the last sentence, there may be
language missing or just an extraneous "If" before "The ".
Proffer 2: 1 read this to mean that there otherwise would be 1 affordable unit constructed to address the comp
plan? Also, the proffer does not address how this would be tracked if the site plans or subdivision plats are phased.
Review Status: Requested Changes