Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300017 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2014-05-09Wu tit COUNTY OF ALSEALMRLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 May 9, 2014 Mr. Vito Cetta 1730 Owensfield Dr. Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA201300017 /Spring Hill Village 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 up to 100 dwelling units and a density of approximately 8 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. On the cover sheet is the address of the owner and developer the same? If yes, then there is a mistake on the address. 2. The Block Table on Sheet 3 shows the possibility of a residential development with no mixed use. The Draft 2014 Comprehensive Plan does not propose this property to be solely residential with no mix of uses. 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. This is still shown on sheet 4. 4. Should sheet 4 include parking for apartments since a portion of the development could be for apartment? CODE OF DEVELOPMENT (COD)- DETAILED COMMENTS 1. Page 4 of the COD includes Block C for non - residential uses. The Block Table on sheet 3 of the Plan does not describe Block C as a block with non - residential uses in it. Should the Plan be modified? Page I of 3 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Zoning The following comments related to the code of development and zoning matters have been provided by Amanda Burbage: 1. Parking (a previous comment): Staff is concerned that the amount of parking the applicant is proposing is insufficient for the proposed non - residential use. For an office use, the zoning ordinance requires 1 space / 200 sf based on 80% of the building area, which would result in the need for 120 spaces. The 1 space /1,000 sf reduction proposed by the applicant amounts to 30 spaces, or 1/4 of the current parking requirements for an office use. In addition, staff is concerned that the provision of only 18 parking spaces dedicated to non - residential use will result in parking constraints that would severely limit the number of potential non - residential users. Staff supports the applicant's desire to limit the amount of space devoted to parking and encourages the use of transportation demand management strategies to reduce the amount of parking necessary to serve-the proposed non - residential uses. Staff also notes that residential & non - residential uses do not automatically qualify for shared parking unless they are serving off -peak hours uses. 2. Proposed Uses (a previous comment): To allow for maximum flexibility of potential industrial users in the non - residential space, we would like to see the following broad industrial use category included in the uses table of the Code of Development: Man of acturing /Processing /Assembly /Fabrication /Recycling If compatibility with surrounding residential uses is a concern, certain uses may be prohibited (e.g. recycling, uses involving outdoor storage, etc.). The following language may also be added to limit the scale of industrial use. This is consistent with the by right allowance for industrial uses in commercially zoned districts: Gross floor area of the establishment does not exceed 4,000 square feet per site; provided that the gross floor area of the establishment may exceed 4,000 square feet per site by special exception approved by the board of supervisors. Entrance Corridor The following. comments related to the Code of Development and Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: 1. No objection. 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. No objection. Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 2 of 3 Proffers .1. There are several typos in the proffers. See the first paragraph on page 1. Should be known instead of know. The "Application Plan ", refers to Exhibit A of the Code of Development..... On page 2, paragraph .1 Affordable Housing, should it be 100 dwelling units instead of .110? 2. It seems Proffer 5 Phasing needs a timeframe. There is also a typo in proffer 5, should say ....County approvals have been obtained, instead of be obtained. 3. Is there a Proffer 6 or is that a mistake? The following comments related to the proffers have been provided by Amanda Burbage: 1. In reference to Proffer 4, Improvements to Scottsville Rd. and Avon Extended, staff is concerned about the applicant's intent to complete all road improvements and dedicate the roads to public use before the first certificate of occupancy is issued. Please add language that all road plans will be approved and bonded prior to the issuance of the first building permit or first approved plat, whichever comes first, to ensure that these improvements can be completed in a timely manner. 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 opment /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. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is cgrant @albemarle.org Sincerely, &a&ft#za"� Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development Department Enc: Engineering Comments VDOT Comments Resubmittal Form Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 3 of 3 �pF AL� r I j��P County of Albemarle Department of Communitv 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. Rev.2: Stormwater facilities are better situated toward the lower side of the site with this revision. Adequate capture of runoff on at -grade inlets along a steep road may still prove unreliable. 2. 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. Rev.2: The road network is much improved with this revision. The public road and Roads B and C appear acceptable. Road D is conflicted. The initial portion near Avon Street Appears wide enough, but the road turns sharply and reduces to an alley. For lots 16 -26, a road is recommended, not an alley, as this is the primary access to units. The sharp turn would not meet any road standard. 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 Rev.2: 15 Apr 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. Rev.2: Stormwater facilities are better situated toward the lower side of the site with this revision. Adequate capture of runoff on at -grade inlets along a steep road may still prove unreliable. 2. 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. Rev.2: The road network is much improved with this revision. The public road and Roads B and C appear acceptable. Road D is conflicted. The initial portion near Avon Street Appears wide enough, but the road turns sharply and reduces to an alley. For lots 16 -26, a road is recommended, not an alley, as this is the primary access to units. The sharp turn would not meet any road standard. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 3 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. Rev.2: comment not applicable to this review. 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 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. Rev.2: comment not applicable to this 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. Rev.2: comment not applicable to this review. 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.l: This road layout is not recommended for approval. See. comment 2. Rev.2: comment not applicable to this review. 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. Rev.2: The retaining walls and grading should meet the standards recently adopted in the steep slopes overlay district. This will involve a revised retaining wall layout, which may affect the plan. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 3 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. 1: addressed. Rev.2: comment not applicable to this review. 4t X 4— COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Vrg;nia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner April 29, 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 rezoning application plan for Spring Hill Village dated 10/21/13 with revisions dated 1/21/14 and 3/31/14 as submitted by Terra Concepts, P.C. and offer the following comments: 1. A comer clearance exception to the access management regulations will be required for the connection to Route 20. 2. Street intersections should be perpendicular to the connecting road. More specifically, the centerline for Road "C" should be perpendicular to the centerline of Road "A" on both sides of Road "A ". In addition, the connections at this intersection should line up or should be offset from each other a minimum of 200 feet. The most likely design would require the parking area adjacent to lots 42 -53 to be shifted to the west so that the connections could be aligned. 3. Additional detail is needed for landscaping at the intersection of Roads "A" and "C" to ensure that sight distance is maintained. This requirement could be addressed at the site plan stage, but may result in the elimination of some of the landscaping. 4. Sight lines will need to be shown at each intersection to ensure there is adequate sight distance available. It appears that a sight easement may be necessary across lot 70. This can be addressed at the site plan stage. 5. Street trees need to be located a minimum of 30 feet from the end of radius at each intersection. 6. Standard CG -12 curb will be required at each road crossing of the sidewalks. Specific design and location of the sidewalks can be addressed during site/road plan review. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Troy A stin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING vJIi k)pFILL' uoi u1VLr or"orG1YIA8 Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # CU By: pF AI U Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or `� Zoning Map Amendment "'��' I �ItCIN�I' PROJECT NUMBER: 2%17F R015-0001i PROJECT NAME: ��ri nG II �11 l2 Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required c� -,Ik- CV-aW � _- Community Development Project Coordinator Signature Date VPn( gA -- 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 f 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 S2,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE Each additional resubmission $1,250 � Y4S3 � i YL 1 �... �i.. 1� 1 F. S <,: A�.{::�:� � .. . ?':.: :t A R ! 5 � 3A( }x!t \ '��' : ^.e 4.'�i° A•[.:, t )y Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,750 ' .' F'Y § F l.. I }i«!V<..i V'+�:,.. �, r f)� , -.' -� t' *:: N ... ItAA. Z. ,. '�'Ftr .l, .�,'.. :It� y j,i.. �,Y i A( Yt.i� Y �. ux i .�A ,�1,�:,•. •Y :. s F <�Ej t. ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request— Add'1 notice fees will be required $180 To be paid 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. na Aur CHECKS TO COUNTY OF AT.RF.MART,E /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 > Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after ft, (50) cost of first-class postage Actual cost > Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) (minimum of $280 for total of 4 publications) 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