HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201300001 Executive Summary 07/31/2013COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMIA201200002, Riverside Village
SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Rezone 18.67 acres frorl R -1 zoning district to
NMD zoning district with special use permit
request under Sections 10.3.05.2.1(2),
30.3.05.2.2(1), and 30.3,05.2.2(3) of the zoning
ordinance for fill of land in floodplains. The
mciximum number of residential units proposed
is 69. Five (5) buildings proposed with a mix of
residential and up to 46,000 square feet of
commercial uses. Some floodplain disturbance
for parking and recreational areas. (Attachment
II)
STAFF:
Claudette Grant
AGENDA DATE:
July 30, 2013
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
Or. April 9, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Riverside Village rezoning and special
use permit requests (ZMA201200002 and SP201300001) (See Attachment I for staff report). As requested by
the applicant and by a vote of 6:0, the Planning Commission agreed to indefinitely defer the rezoning and
special use permit requests. The general consensus of the Planning Commission regarding the proposal was:
The proposed nonresidential amount of square footage of 50,000 square feet, although greater than the
20,000 square feet recommended in the Pantops Master Plan (PMP) may be acceptable depending on the
cumulative effect of commercial and residential development.
Concern regarding the cumulative effect of the proposed number of residential units and square feet of
nonresidential, particularly on traffic at the 20/250 intersection.
General agreement with staff's analysis of the permissible residential density based on the PMP.
• General support for the nonresidential location and form.
Support of the pedestrian mews concept with a design that accommodates emergency vehicle access.
Agreement with staff's opposition to fill -in the floodplain for buildings, stormwater facilities, and parking
areas.
The applicant responder': to the staff report and the Planning Commission comments by submitting a
revised application plan and code of development on May 6, 2013. Revised proffers were not submitted.
DISCUSSION:
Based on the revised submitted information, staff is providing a status on the Commission's general
consensus.
ZMA Request:
1. Planning Commission consensus: The proposed nonresidential amount of 50,000 square feet, although
greater than the 20,000 square feet recommended in the PMP, may be acceptable depending on the
cumulative effect of commercial and residential development.
ZMA 201200002 and SP 201300001
PC July 30, 2013
Executive Suinmary Page 1
Attachment A
Applicant response: The application plan has been revised to propose a range of 16,000 to 46,000 square
feet of commercial spaco.
Staff response: See number 2 below.
2. Planning Commission consensus: Concern regarding the cumulative effect of the proposed number of residential
units and the square feet of nonresidential, particularly on traffic at the 20/250 intersection.
Applicant response: Although the residential density and proposed square footage of nonresidential have
decreased, no new information has been provided regarding traffic or proposed road improvements since the April
9`" public hearing. (See Attachment III for VDOT comments).
The Pantops Master Plat) recommends: Widen Route 20 from Route 250 to the Elks /Fontana Drive intersection to 4
lanes with curb /gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalks. Maintain rural character on Route 20 north of Elks /Fontana Drive.
Additional multi - purpose paths provided to Darden Towe Park along Route 20, possibly along the park frontage and
leading to the future Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center.
Staff response: Without, new information regarding traffic it is difficult to know the impacts of this proposed
development, particularly at the 20/250 intersection. The concern of the Planning Commission has not been
addressed.
3. Planning Commission consensus: General agreement with staff's analysis of the permissible residential density
based on the PMP.
Applicant response: The applicant has revised the plan to reduce the maximum number of residential units
from 112 to 69.
Pantops Master Plan (PMP): The project is predominately residential, which meets the PMP goals of
maintaining the residential character of the existing neighborhood. This is an 18.6 acre parcel, approximately
9.8 acres of which are outside floodplain and designated Neighborhood Density in the PMP. The area in the
floodplain is designated Greenspace and River Corridor in the PMP. The PMP recommends 3 -6 units per acre,
which would allow for 30 -59 units on the portion of the site designated Neighborhood Density residential.
Staff response: The proposed density of the area designated for residential development is approximately 7
units per acre. This is closer to the recommendation in the PMP, but still over the recommendation by
approximately 10 units.
4. Planning Commission consensus: General support for the nonresidential location and form.
Applicant response: The applicant did not provide any revisions regarding this item and there were no additional
expectations from the Planning Commission regarding this item.
5. - Planning Commission consensus: Support of the pedestrian mews concept with a design that accommodates
emergency vehicle access.
Applicant response: On ..June 24, 2013, the applicant submitted a design for the mews that incorporates a
20' clear zone, 14' continuous pavement section, 25' radii, and a 120'x 24' hammerhead at the east end of
the road. Removable bollards are also included. The following waivers have also been requested in order to
provide the mews concept: Section 14 -234 (C ): Traffic volume adequacy; Section 14- 410(H): Curb, gutter,
sidewalk, and Planting strip; Section 14- 412(A) -3(b): Alternative standard deemed adequate by county
engineer; and Section 14- 422(A): Sidewalks and planting strips at portico entrance to Block 5.
Pantops Master Plan (PMP): This mews design concept is not addressed in the PMP.
Staff response: Engineering staff is open to alternative road concepts as long as they meet viable road
standards for vehicles. At this time, the County Engineer says the proposed alternative road does not meet
ZMA 201200002 and SP 201300001
PC July 30, 2013
Executive Suininaiy Page 2
Attachment A
a viable road standard for vehicles. (See Attachment IV for engineering comments) The Fire /Rescue staff
has indicated that the submitted road design for the Mews is satisfactory.
6. Planning Commission consensus: Agreement with staff's opposition to fill in the floodplain for buildings,
stormwater facilities, and parking areas.
Applicant response: The revised application plan would allow approximately 6,300 cubic yards of fill in the
existing 100 -year floodplain of the Rivanna River, resulting in a new floodplain boundary.
The Pantops Master Plan (PMP) says: Preserve stream corridors and flood plain in this neighborhood and
allow for pedestrian paths in those areas, where natural features allow. Retain existing amenities and open
space within residential developments.
Staff response: Staff does not support fill -in the floodplain for the purpose of developing buildings,
stormwater facilities, and parking areas which is also inconsistent with the recommendations of the PMP.
In addition, the following items needs to be addressed:
• The proffers have not been revised since the April 9th Planning Commission public hearing. The cash
proffer amount does not meet the expectations of the County's cash proffer policy, nor are there equivalent
commitments provided ti:) offset the development's impact on public facilities. The proffers are also in need
of technical revisions.
• The Code of Development needs technical revisions. (See Attachment IV for detailed staff comments)
SP Request:
The applicant submitted revisions for staff review of the special use permit on June 27, 2013. Staff
comments were mailed to the applicant on July 9th and are pending response from the applicant. This
special use permit is not ready for Commission action. (See Attachment V)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ZMA201200002
Staff does not recommend approval of ZMA201200002, Riverside Village because of the following:
1. The cumulative effect of residential and commercial development, particularly on traffic at the Routes
20/250 intersection, has not been addressed. The proposed residential density is 10 units over the
recommended PMP maximum density of 59 units.
2. The pedestrian mews concept needs to meet viable road standards for vehicles.
3. The fill in the floodplain proposal is not consistent with the PMP.
4. Impacts on public facilities and infrastructure have not been adequately addressed with cash proffers
consistent with the cash proffer policy and /or other commitments.
5. The proffers are in need of technical revisions.
6. The Code of Development needs technical revisions.
SP201300001 — Request for Fill in the Floodplain in the NMD Neighborhood Model District
Staff does not recommend approval of SP201300001, Fill in the Floodplain because staff does not support fill for
the purpose of developing buildings, stormwater facilities and parking areas. Should the Commission support the
concept of fill in the floodplain for the purposes requested by the applicant, staff does not recommend action be
taken until:
1. Section 30.3.03.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, regarding development permit, building permit, grading
permit in the floodplain is satisfied, which staff anticipates can be satisfied.
ZMA 201200002 and SP 201300001
PC July 30, 2013
Executive Suimnary Page 3
Attachment A
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION — Zoning Map Amendment:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map amendment
with waivers:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2012 - 00002, Riverside Village with waivers and revisions
to the application, code of development and proffers and reason (s) for approval.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map amendment
and waivers:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA2012- 00002, Riverside Village with waivers based on the
unresolved issues identified by staff in this Executive Summary.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION — Special Use Permit:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP 2013- 00001, Riverside Village with reason(s) for approval.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP 2013 - 00001, Riverside Village based on the recommendation of
staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment I: Planninq Commission Staff Report, dated April 9, 2013
Attachment II: Application Plan, and Code of Development, dated 5/21/12, rev. 5/6/13
Attachment III: VDOT Letter from Troy Austin, dated May 21, 2013
Attachment IV: Staff Comment Letter from Claudette Grant, dated June 5, 2013
Attachment V: Staff Corr,ment letter from Glenn Brooks, dated June 9, 2013
ZMA 201200002 and SP 201300001
PC July 30, 2013
Executive Sununary Page 4
Attachment A