Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201300001 Action Letter 2013-10-23 (3)ZMA- 2012 -00002 Riverside Village PROPOSAL: Rezone 18.67 acres from R -1 zoning district which allows residential uses at a density of one unit per acre to NMD zoning district which allows residential, mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses at a density of 3 — 34 units /acre and special use permit under Sections 30.3.05.2.1(2), 30.3.05.2.2(1), and 30.3.05.2.2(3) of the zoning ordinance for fill of land in floodways. 112 maximum residential units proposed for a maximum gross density of 6 units /acre for the entire parcel and a maximum density of 11 units /acre for the area designated for development in the Comprehensive Plan. Five (5) commercial buildings (up to 50,000 square feet) also proposed. Some floodplain disturbance for parking and recreational areas. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes PROFFERS: Yes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Greenspace — undeveloped areas; Neighborhood Density Residential — residential (3 -6 units /acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools and other small -scale non - residential uses; and River Corridor — parks, golf courses, greenways, natural features and supporting commercial and recreational uses in Neighborhood 3 — Pantops Comp Plan Area. LOCATION: Located on the west side of Stony Pointe Road /Route 20 and the east side of Free Bridge Lane /Route 1421, approximately 350 feet south of the intersection of Route 20 /Elks Drive. TAX MAP /PARCEL: 07800000005800 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna DEFERRED FROM THE APRIL 9, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (Claudette Grant) AND SP- 2013 -00010 Riverside Village PROPOSAL: Rezone 18.67 acres from R -1 zoning district which allows residential uses at a density of one unit per acre to NMD zoning district which. allows residential, mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses at a density of 3 — 34 units /acre and special use permit under Sections 30.3.05.2.1(2), 30.3.05.2.2(1), and 30.3.05.2.2(3) of the zoning ordinance for fill of land in floodways. 112 maximum residential units proposed for a maximum gross density of 6 units /acre for the entire parcel and a maximum density of 11 units /acre for the area designated for development in the Comprehensive Plan. Five (5) commercial buildings (up to 50,000 square feet) also proposed. Some floodplain disturbance for parking and recreational areas. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes PROFFERS: Yes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Greenspace — undeveloped areas; Neighborhood Density Residential — residential (3 -6 units /acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools and other small -scale non - residential uses; and River Corridor— parks, golf courses, greenways, natural features and supporting commercial and recreational uses in Neighborhood 3 — Pantops Comp Plan Area. LOCATION: Located on the west side of Stony Pointe Road /Route 20 and the east side of Free Bridge Lane /Route 1421, approximately 350 feet south of the intersection of Route 20 /Elks Drive. TAX MAP /PARCEL: 07800000005800 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna DEFERRED FROM THE APRIL 9, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. (Claudette Grant) Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and explained the staff report. Background: - The Planniria Commission held a public hearing on April 9, 2013 in which the applicant requested to indefinitely defer. - The applicahi is requesting to rezone 18.67 acres from R -1, residential zoning district to Neighborhood Model District (NMD). - A special use permit request for fill of land in floodplains is also requested. The initial applicant response regarding the Planning Commission consensus from the April gth meeting is described in the executive summary. Some of the revisions now include a decrease in the maximum number of residential units proposed from 112 to 69 units. The proposed non - residential square footage has decreased from 50,000 square feet to 46,000 square feet. Special Use Permit request for fill in the floodplain is an outstanding issue. Staff explained a comparison in the presentation between the existing floodplain and the area the applicant wishes to fill in for a parking area, which would change the floodplain boundary. As described in the staff report staff does not support fill for the purpose of developing buildings, storm water facilities and parking areas. ATTACHMENT B Staff's Rezoning Recommendation ' Staff does not recommend approval of ZMA- 2012 - 00002, Riverside Village because of the following issues: • 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 Pantops Master Plan maximum density of 59 units. • The pedestrian mews concept needs to meet viable road standards for vehicles. • The fill in the floodplain proposal is not consistent with the Pantops Master Plan. • Impacts on public facilities and infrastructure have not been adequately addressed with cash proffers consistent with the cash proffer policy and /or other commitments. • The proffers are in need of technical revisions. • The Code of Development needs technical revisions. Staff's Special Use Permit Recommendation Staff does not recommend approval of SP- 2013 - 00001, Fill in the Floodplain because staff does not support fill for the purpose of developing buildings, storm water facilities and parking areas. The applicant submitted a response to the Commission last week after receiving the executive summary. Staff feels that the issues that they outlined in the executive summary still remain. Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. Mr. Dotson said staff made a reference to a pedestrian mews meeting certain established standards. He asked staff to explain that comment. „ Ms. Grant explained the applicant's proposal for the pedestrian mews as an area in the middle that would ,be a pedestrian sort of walk. She was not sure they would want to call it a road since what they are showings is a turnaround at the end of the mews. The issue is the applicant is sort of saying that this is a road. Based on the County Engineer's comments it is not a viable road since it does not meet the typical road standards that they would prefer to see. It does have to do with the dimensions of the curb, gutter and things that are not being provided in the proposal. However, Glen Brooks, County Engineer can speak to this issue. Mr. Dotson said it sounds like the applicant may explain further and suggested the Commission call on County Engineering at that time. Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for the applicant and public comment. He invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission: Justin Shimp, engineer representing the property owner, presented a PowerPoint presentation to explain the Neighborhood Model proposal for the site. There are some things that have changed from their last presentation. To start out they don't necessarily agree with the terms unfavorable in the staff report because some of these things are really more of a difference of opinion. The pedestrian mews is a very intentional design component so that when you live on this street a child can run out the front door of the house and not have to worry about getting hit by a car. That is not an unfavorable item because it is very intentional. He just wanted to point out that these things that are left are not items where they saw the staff report and listened to it. They have our own ideas about this and they look to the Commission to weigh in and point this forward one way or the other. Regarding the items of concern about the additional ten units of density where are those and why are those there. Again, this private street or mews what is this think all about. Then the fill required for our riverfront building, the mixed use plaza type of area. The other technical items they have said they need to plot the cash proffer policy and they will do so. That is something they need to get worked out. However, they need to know about whether this design is going to fly. That its really what is important to us. They will absolutely comply with those. The Board has made it clear that policy is to be followed and they understand that. They want to focus on the three items that they consider to be our big difference of opinion so to speak. First, is the additional ten units of density and why do they exist. They have set up the front area of Area A as mixed use area to have the potential for live /work type units above. They don't quite know if there is going to be a market that will fit into the plan. But, they wanted to leave that opportunity open. To leave in that opportunity and to make the rest of the project work they really needed to have the additional 10 units. They have up to 16 units allowed in that case. They have not necessarily proffered those affordable. They think those are more like a work force target. It is certainly not something an expensive unit, but it is a different housing type. The consistent theme of this whole development is a mix of housing type. It is sort of a village, but condensed down to a very small scale of the property ATTACHMENT B that they have. They are trying to touch all the elements of the different types of housing throughout the ,development. He explained the pedestrian mews concept. In response to staffs comment they agree this street from a technical standpoint has to support a vehicle because a fire truck has to get down it. They have sent their detailed design the Fire Marshall folks and they have looked at it and said this works for them. The question does a street have to drive down in front of the house. He asked if that is critical. He thinks of the Village at Ocracoke where cars are sort of second fiddle down there. Driving down the village people, bicycles and golf carts are primary and you kind of have to work around that in your car. So why do they need to have a big 30' road in front of the house. He did not think it is needs to. That is our concept here. The mews connects the civic plaza on Route 20. So they have an entrance to the neighborhood off of Route 20 and it connects to that through a path in the parking lot to the back where the river corridor is located. So it is an important element to us to provide something different that makes this an interesting neighborhood rather than just a street. It could be a public street there. However, that is not what they think makes a neighborhood interesting. So that is why this design feature is in here. They are happy to make it whatever technical standards as far as pavement, sections of things, and to accommodate a fire truck. They know the site plan requires that and they will do it at that time. If they follow from the front through the sort of pedestrian street or the mews and they get to the mixed use building. This is the same issue. There is some fill required for this. However, from a technical standpoint the fill is completely insignificant. So what are they getting here? They are trying to build a mixed use building that addresses the river as an entrance. On their neighborhood they have two sides or corridors. People travel on the green way and on Route 20. It is important to be able to connect those two and have sort of an entrance at both. That is why this building is very important. He pointed out that the parking lot itself is allowed in the floodplain. The reason the fill is necessary is to get it up at an elevation where they can have some residential type parking there. It is essential to make the building actually work as a mixed use building. They could do an office building there, for example, and the parking could be in the floodplain since it is allowed. However, that is not what works and it is not what makes it apart of the neighborhood. What he would stress here is that the good comes out of this creating this building is a potential for a running shop or a restaurant along the stream way corridor. In our mind that way outweighs any perhaps perceived impacts or straying from the policy of not filling in the floodplain. There really are no impacts as they see it. In his presentation he referred to a more detailed map than what staff had earlier. There are a few lines in the map indicating the FEMA map line shown in yellow from their high level mapping that might have been done in the 60's. They all know it is incorrect on pretty much any site. There is a blue line that represents the fill survey and verified elevation of floodplain. The green line is what they propose to change. What they have concluded is for block 5, the area with the mixed use building, the impact is zero. There is no change in velocity or elevation of the floodplain in that area. The road fill, which is fill for the road improvements that is recommended by staff, does have some very minor impact according to the model of a quarter of an inch. So that is an item to be considered in the world of a 30' depth of a flood zone. They don't think it is. But, that is what the model shows. So what they say is that it is a policy decision at this point. There is a real impact that people do not need to be worried about. The velocity is increasing downstream or upstream as it relates to the block 5 plan. It is simply a matter of does it make sense to develop the river front in that manner. They think it does. He explained the volumes there. He pointed out all the fill was very small relative to the site. Particularly, the fill is very small for block 5. The cumulative impacts were mentioned somewhat at the beginning about the traffic. They will certainly come up with the required cash proffer policy. A lot of those funds are designated for traffic improvements. One thing they think is ?: important to note is they are really right in the heart of the Development Area here. People who are living here have far less intersections to go through on average than somebody else. The density here, while it is going to produce an impact on roads, because of its location should produce less than elsewhere in the growth area. Without density in the growth area they will have people building in Louisa and Fluvanna and driving down Route 250 going through that intersection anyway. He used to do it himself. That is why they feel that it comes to an impact that the cash proffer will certainly adequately address whatever transportation impacts there may be. That concludes our presentation. The mews illustrates very well what they are trying to do and why they have these questions up before the Commission. He hoped they have the Commission's support tonight and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant. Mr. Randolph asked if with the pedestrian mews no emergency vehicle or fire trucks could access from the front of the house. ATTACHMENT B Mr. Shimp replied that is incorrect. Mr. Franco said what he understand is that the resident cars won't be going up and down that street. However, emergency vehicles, including fire trucks, will have access to that street. Mr. Randolph asked if the street was wide enough to accommodate those emergency vehicles, and Mr. Shimp replied that was correct. Mr. Lafferty asked since the FEMA limits on the floodplain differed substantially from what he had indicated have you taken any topo shots out there to see. Mr. Shimp replied the line they have on their plan is field surveyed. It is not off a topo. It is actually a field survey to the hundredth of a foot. Therefore, they are very confident of the lines shown. The FEMA line is based on very old topography. They have field surveyed that and have that exact location. There being no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Morris invited public comment. Nancy Carpenter, resident of the Scottsville District, said she was wondering about the affordable housing component since she did not see anything. in the description on line about the type of housing. It sounds like it is work force housing, which is great. However, they need a scale of affordable housing options for those who are anywhere from 20 percent of AMI up to 120 percent of AM]. She hoped should this project go through that there is a real conversation about affordable housing in Albemarle County and what that means from the Comprehensive Plan aspect, how that works into zoning; and then the actual development. If limited to work force housing only she ,.thinks they are leaving out a component of the population that could make this area of Pantops a more viable and vibrant area. Mr. Morris noted they will ask the applicant on the rebuttal to address that item. t_ There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action. Mr. Dotson asked to hear from County Engineering on the muse and the nature of the standards that. seem appropriate for that kind of function. He was curious what the objection is to this since the fire officials don't have an objection. Mr. Morris invited Mr. Brooks, the County Engineer, to address the Commission. Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, replied that the Fire Chief is typically concerned with access and protecting a house. That can be done with sprinklers, attachments on the house itself or with some other access than a street. Therefore, the Fire Chief says can he get to the units and if so he is fine. In engineering they are concerned with the roads and the streets. The Subdivision Ordinance and the site plan section of the Zoning Ordinance require streets and frontage units and lots to front on streets and roads. So they have to make a finding that each lot is accessible from a road or street. Some years ago they began allowing waivers of standards for roads and streets, which came about with the Neighborhood Model. They would waive things like curb and location, the width of the street to make it narrow in some cases, whether to have a sidewalk or not, and those kinds of details. They are now waiving the street altogether and creating a sidewalk. His objection would be it a sidewalk and not a street or road. If they would like to have lots front on large sidewalks, then great let's change the ordinance. But, he can't call it a road if they can't even have vehicles on it. Mr. Smith noted what he is saying is they can't have regular vehicle traffic. Mr. Brooks agreed because they cannot have a street function. They could have a fire truck if they removed the bollards. Mr. Morris commented as far as the overall plan and how the site is laid out in the Pantops area he sees this as potentially the type of thing that would be extremely advantageous of pulling in a residential community and making it almost a part of the Rivanna River. As they were saying the multi - purpose building could be overlooking the Rivanna River. If they are familiar with that area they have a number of trails right along the Rivanna that can then access whatever might be in there, such as a restaurant. He was simply saying was from the Pantops Master Plan view this is very advantageous since it is moving them to what they want. The thing he has as a real problem is the floodplain. He was hearing what Mr. Brooks was saying. It is a different concept, but he finds it a very interesting concept of the pedestrian mews. ATTACHMENT B Ms. Monteith noted one comment is that from all the modeling that has been going on in our community in terms of traffic modeling the largest single constraint they are going to have in the future is Free Bridge. To say that this is not going to be a traffic impact she thinks is not actually correct. Mr. Morris agreed because adding one more car just adds to the confusion. But, those cars are coming. Mr. Franco pointed out they have a proffer policy to deal with that. In looking at the plan he would say this is what they have been asking for, especially a component that embraces the river. In reading the technical arguments if that fill does not have an impact to the floodplain; then he did not have a problem with that occurring. Again, he sees it as part of what makes the components that they want the building close to the river doable. Therefore, from that aspect he was okay. The mews is a different concept, which he supports. If there is a way to look at it as a narrow road, even though it won't be open for traffic, he feels it would be beneficial to allow this to go forward. He thinks long term they need to be looking at how to encourage this and to provide for this in our standards. However, he thinks it is a good idea and can be worked through the process as a private road as long as it can accommodate a fire truck both with the structure and width of the pavement, the trees, and so on. Mr. Lafferty said he did not have a problem with the muse. However, he did have a problem with the fill in the floodplain. The Commission just went over a Comprehensive Plan that says you will not fill in the floodplain, which they recommended to the Board of Supervisors. Here they are saying it is okay to fill in the floodplain. It is not just on site when there is fill in floodplain. It is a cumulative effect. He had a problem because some of the things they asked for last time have not been done. This is an incomplete application. They have all said the traffic study needs to be done because that is the worse intersection around Charlottesville. The intersection is now operating at an "F" and will be an "F" minus. That needs to be taken account and they need to require things like that. He was disappointed that they have not done proffers or the traffic study. He thinks the mews is an interesting concept. He can understand where our engineer is coming from. But, it also makes more of a community. It is just an incomplete application. Mr. Benish clarified the traffic study has been submitted and some of the impacts are identified in attachment 4. The question is whether those have been addressed through the proffers and the plan of development. Mr. Lafferty pointed out the staff report says the revised proffers have not been submitted. Mr. Morris asked staff if there was affordable housing. Ms. Grant replied the applicant has said they will provide affordable housing, but the details are not clear. I Mr. Franco asked if it was proffered. Ms. Grant replied there is a proffer in the revised information the applicant submitted. However, the details are not within that proffer. Mr. Franco pointed out in looking at Attachment F, proffer 2 talks about a minimum of 15% affordable housing meeting the 80% AMI. Mr. Benish noted that is the intent. Mr. Franco asked if it just needs to be cleaned up to be standard language and Ms. Grant agreed. Mr. Smith said he did not have any problem with the floodplain if it were filling in the opposite direction and intruding into the floodplain. He felt it would be a different situation because this was back water area. Therefore, he did not have a problem with that or the mews as long as it is sufficient for traffic design and width, as Mr. Franco said. It is not a whole lot different from the Charlottesville Mall in that respect. Mr. Randolph said the Pantops Master Plan called for 59 units max and this application is 69 units. If the road for mews is built to road standards then certainly it would be able to handle the extraordinary weight of an emergency vehicle, such as a fire engine or tankard with water. The tonnage of that is significant. So the road has to be up to it. He did not see any evidence that the mews is being constructed in a way that is going to accommodate that kind of a vehicle. Otherwise, it would be a road. This is not a road. Thirdly, he had concerns about the floodplain. He would agree with Mr. Smith that there is a little room there if the only thing that was occurring was the floodplain was being filled in for the building. However, it is being filled in for storm water facilities and parking areas. He did not see that as appropriate for us to waive our normal prohibition of not building in the floodplain. He thinks it is really critical when they are down along the Rivanna River on a project ATTACHMENT B like this that they get it right because it will be a project that other developers will look to in the future. There are good things in here. The idea of the mews is a great idea. But, he thinks that it is not yet finalized or, crystal clear how it will work. The proffers are not as spelled out as he would like. There is not enough there to persuade him yet that he can approve this project. Therefore, he would be inclined to vote no. Mr. Lafferty pointed out regarding the filling in the floodplain that it is a reservoir and that water goes somewhere. It is like having a retention pond and filling it in and wondering why it is not working. It does have an effect. Mr. Morris invited the applicant to take advantage of the five minutes for rebuttal. Justin Shimp noted that affordable housing was mentioned. They definitely intend to provide that as part of this development. Again, they have a wide range of housing being affordable on up the scale. Regarding floodplain, they have a mechanism in a special use permit to weigh these individual cases. If it was truly never to be done the ordinance would say it is never to be done. He thinks one of the reasons that is in here is, as suggested, this area particularly they have to fill a significant amount to widen the road. That is considered to be okay. The fill in question that folks are wondering about is the back water area. It has no bearing on the capacity of the river. They have technical models to show that. They have always known because there certainly is a standard policy against this. To make this mixed use building work and make some kind of entry or river corridor work they need that area for parking. It is not adding on a new building. They are simply building the building there and raising the grade of the parking lot to accommodate some residential parking. Mr. Shimp said the special use permit application lays out a lot of considerations for when this should be allowed. There are questions like is this a good design for the county as a whole setting this river corridor model off to, a good start. It will be a really nice mixed use building. That can be weighed against what impacts that may or may not be delivered. They believe that mechanism is there for this particular case. To say that it should never be done is not really keeping with the zoning ordinance and the way it is crafted to allow these things in certain exceptions. Mr. Shimp noted regarding traffic there will be no impact. They certainly have said that they will pay the cash proffers. Those are designed to allocate for those sorts of things with development like this. Regarding the mews, the Subdivision Ordinance has particular waivers for private roads that actually reference Neighborhood Model type of developments. If they look at the illustration for the mews that was up earlier it has a list of four waivers. There is a i waiver for no curb and gutter; waiver for a sidewalk; and a waiver for alternative pavement. They are simply a 20' wide brick or paver road, which was not supposed to drive on. It has the same stone base a road does. It has the same drainage a road does. It is a road, but is just not open to vehicles. Because of that there are some alternative design considerations that go into it. He stressed that they believe that it very well can be road for purpose of t frontage, but they can't drive on it. All the houses on the mews have two -car garages with an alley behind. So they have parking there. It is just not in front. They think that part of the neighborhood is walking out the front door and walking to their, neighborhood's house without dodging cars. That is why it is there. Everyone has rear loaded garages in the back Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant. Mr. Randolph asked for clarification on how he sees the actual substructure of the mews. Mr. Shimp replied it would be something like a 6 "gravel base and then probably a layer of asphalt on top of that with a layer of bricks or pavers on top of that. A typical road may have two layers of asphalt. They have a layer of asphalt and a layer of some other surface. That is what gives it the structural strength to handle a fire truck. Mr. Morris closed the public comment to bring the matter before the Planning Commission for further discussion and action. Mr. Randolph asked to invite Mr. Brooks back for one further question. Mr. Morris invited Mr. Brooks to address the Commission. Mr. Randolph asked if they have a 6" gravel base with asphalt and pavers in his judgment would that be able to sustain the weight in the spring after the fall when there is greater porosity in the soil between 28,000 and 56,000 pounds, which is whattthe average tanker weights on a fire truck. Mr. Brooks replied yes if they have the correct sub soil it will support it. Mr. Loach said this falls on the same discussion they had with the school on Rio Road. The reason he voted for that it was in his estimation a net positive. There was also some mitigation by the developer themselves as far as making ATTACHMENT B sure that he proffered 50 %. On this particular one the same issue he has is with the traffic. At least on the other development it was a level "D" at the intersection, and this is a level "F ". He is swayed by the Pantops Advisory and Master Plan. The people there are saying they think their estimation after reviewing the project that it is in fact a new positive regardless of what they feel the traffic will be added on. He feels that the tie goes to the community since they have supported the application. Mr. Morris noted there are a number of people on the Pantops Advisory Council that would like not to see one more housing unit go in on Pantops. That is not going to happen. It is totally against the Comprehensive Plan, Master Plan, etc. They are in a Development Area. This one of the things they were talking about in transportation that behooves us to start looking at the transportation needs. Mr. Lafferty noted in the Long Range Transportation Plan Pantops is slated to be expanded into more lanes. He did not care if they made 20 the six lane road they still have to get across Free Bridge no matter how many lanes there are. Mr. Morris said it was a funnel, but was not the developer's problem with this. Mr. Lafferty pointed out that they always look at traffic, and Mr. Morris agreed and voting down an eastern connector. Mr. Dotson commented that certainly this is a thought provoking application. He felt it was creative and he intends to support it. On the flood plain he takes that it is a fact that they are supporting fill for the road and out of even handedness and if the quantities are comparable it seems like they should vote favorably on proposed fill. However, the ten units over is not that many. However, maybe that is sort of rationalizing. He thinks there is to be 16 live /work units over the commercial on the front. He did know whether all 16 units will eventually happen. It might end up being in compliance with the 59 units, but he did not know that. In terms of the mews, he thinks they have a waiver as a mechanism to handle that. It is an interesting concept. The proffers will, of course, be worked out. Therefore, he intends to support the request. Motion: Mr. Dotson moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of ZMA- 2012 -00002 Riverside Village with waivers and revisions to the application plan, Code of Development and proffers for reasons cited in the staff report (executive summary) for approval. (Revisions based on Attachment IV of Executive Summary) The motion passed by a vote of 5:2. (Mr. Randolph and Mr. Lafferty voted nay) Mr. Lafferty voted nay because of the traffic and the application does not seem complete. Mr. Morris asked for a motion on the special use permit. Motion: Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Dotson seconded to recommend approval of SP- 2013 -00001 Riverside Village. The motion passed by a vote of 5:2. (Mr. Randolph and Mr. Lafferty voted nay) Mr. Morris noted a recommendation for approval of SP- 2013 -00001 and ZMA- 2012 -00002 Riverside Village would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to a date to be determined. ATTACHMENT B