Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300025 Executive Summary Final Site Plan and Comps. 2013-10-29.. 5 AL o� U �'IRGINIP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 October 25, 2013 Michael Myers, P.E., Dominion Engineering 172 S. Pantops Drive Charlottesville, Va 22911 RE: SDP201300025 Cascadia - Variations Dear Mr. Myers: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on, October, 2, 2013 approved the Variations #5 and #6 with the conditions recommended by staff. VARIATION #5- To Vary Garage Placement: 1. The garage door will be recessed a minimum of five (5) feet from the face of the porch for'Mist Haven L' and 'Stanhope' unit types as shown in the elevation exhibit dated 8/2/13. 2. The garage door will be recessed a minimum of eight (8) feet from the face of the porch for'Naples',D' and 'Naples N' unit types as shown in the elevation exhibit dated 8/2/13. VARIATION #6- Vary the Build- To Line: 1. Build to lines will match those shown on the Building Block Plan in the exhibit for Blocks 4 -7 only dated 4/20/13. 2. Only Lots 33'46-49, 65 -72, 79 -85 shall be allowed to vary from the eighteen (18) inch range per rote #1 on Page 16 of the Code of Development. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact.me at (434) 296 -5832. Sincerely, 4) David Benish Chief of Planning ; Planning Services," Cc: Cascadia Development LLC 170 South Pantops Dr Charlottesville Va 22911 *Attachment COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: October 2, 2013 SDP2013 -025 Cascadia - Final Site Plan- Variations #5 -6 from ZMA 2002 -004 ACTION: INFORMATION: SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST: CONSENT AGENDA: Special exception to authorize variations from the ACTION: X INFORMATION: Code of Development for garage placement and build to line for buildings. ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACT(S) ' REVIEWED BY: Mr. Benish, Ms. Yaniglos LEGAL REVIEW: No BACKGROUND: Cascadia was rezoned to Neighborhood Model District, with an associated application plan and Code of Development (COD), in August 2006 (ZMA2002 -004). The proposed development will require two variations ( #5 and #6) from the approved Application Plan and Code of Development (COD). There have been four previously approved variations. These variations are necessary before the final site plan can be approved by staff. The applicant is requesting the following two variations from the following two section requirements of the approved code of development: 1. Garage doors shall (face) towards, where possible, the alley, side yard, or to the side street. When a signle ale family dwelling's garage is facing a street it shall be recessed from the face of the building wall by three (3) feet. 2. The build -to line shall be a specific number and shall be measured from the front property line. Prior to site plan or subdivision approval, the Developer shall establish a specific build -to line for each Building Block. The build -to line shall be within the Front Build -to Line Range established in Table D. At least 50% of a structure's facade shall be built within eighteen (18) inches of either side of the build -to line within that Building Block. The "Structure's Facade" is definedas the main part of the structure exclusive of the types of structures listed in Footnote number 2 below. A "Building Block" is defined herein as a group of similar Unit Types located on the same side of a public or private road and, situated between the intersection of two travelways or alleys. STRATEGIC PLAN. 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community. DISCUSSION: VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES, AND STANDARDS OF DEVELOPMENT The variation requests have been reviewed for Zoning and Planning aspects of the regulations. Variations are considered by the Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under Chapter 18 Section's 33.5 and 33.9. Staff is recommending approval of these variatiom�requests. , s VARIATION #5- To Vary Garage Placement: The applicant submitted the following justification (Attachment A): " In order to address this COD requirement, we are hereby requesting a variation to allow the builder to use the front porch to qualify as the "building wall" to determine the distance that the garage is recessed. Included with this request, please find architectural elevations for three unit types that provide at least 5 feet`between the face of porch and the garage wall. This variation is being requested since the builder's standard housing products do not include a footprint where the garage is recessed from the actual face of the building wall. Unfortunately, it is not possible for the builder to create a new footprint for this project, so approval of the variation is necessary. Approval of this variation would not lessen the vision of the COD, since the full porches will serve to provide visual relief as the garages will not protrude past the perceived fronts of the houses." Staff analysis of the variation request under Section 33.9 is guided by the factors in Section 8.5.5.3(c) as provided below: CASCADIA VARIATION April 3, 2013 BOS ,, 1 AGENDA TITLE: SDP2013 -025 Cascadia- Final Site Plan- Variations #5 -6 from ZMA 2002 -004 October 2, 2013 Page 2 1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Allowing the porch.to be considered the building wall is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan by relegating the parking to a higher standard than that which was required for the Code of Development. The units will have a garage that will be recessed at a minimum of five (5) feet from the face of the porch. 2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development. Density is not increased. 3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development in the zoning district. g The timing and phasin of the development is unaffected. 4) The variation does not require a special use permit. A special use permit is not required. 5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application. This variation is in `general accord with the approved rezoning application while also addressing the developers desire to have certain unit types and builder. VARIATION #5 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variation request #5 with the following conditions: 1. The garage door,will be recessed a minimum of five (5) feet from the face of the orch for `Mist Haven L' and 'Stanhope' unit types as shown in the elevation exhibit dated 8/2/13. p 2. The garage door will be recessed a minimum of eight (8) feet from the face of the porch for `Naples D' and 'Naples N' unit types as shown in the elevation exhibit dated 8/2/13. VARIATION #6- Vary the Build- To Line: The applicant submitted the following justification (Attachment A): "To help address this COD requirement, we have provided a "Building Block'Plan" indicating blocks and build -to lines which will be made part of the final plan documents. However, in order to implement this plan, we are hereby requesting the following variations from the COD: 1. All lots that have frontage on roads with a curved centerline shall be allowed to vary from the 18 inch range described by Note #1 on Page 16 of the COD. 2. The front yard of the following corner lots shall be established based on the following: a. Lot 78 — Front Yard Setback on Boulder Hill Lane is 10 feet. b. Lot 68 — Front Yard Setback on Boulder Hill Lane is 15 feet. c. Lot 89 — Front Yard Setback on Future Roadway is 10 feet. d. Lot 91 — Front Yard Setback on Future Roadway is 10 feet. e. Lot 52 — Pl ont Yard Setback on Glissade Lane is 10 feet. 3. Lot 103 shall have, 'a 5' yard along its frontage with Delphi Lane." Staff analysis of the variation request under Section 33.9 is guided by the factors in Section 8.5.5.3(c) as provided below: 1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan by identifying what the build -to line will be and allowing for flexibility based on the engineering on the site. r 2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development. Density is not increased. "r. 3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development in the zoning district. The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected. L CASCADIA VARIATION April 3, 2013 BOS 2 a � AGENDA TITLE: SDP2013 -025 Cascadia- Final Site Plan- Variations #5 -6 from ZMA 2002 -004 October 2, 2013 Page 3 ,3 4) The variation doffs not require a special use permit. A special use permit is not required. 5) The variation is in, general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application. The variation is in general accord with the approved rezoning application by the creation of a 'Building Block Plan' that identifies what the build -to lines will be in certain areas VARIATION #6 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variation request #6 with the following condition: 1. Build to lines will match those shown on the Building Block Plan in the exhibit for Blocks 4 -7 only dated 4/20/13. 2. Only lots 33, 46 -49, 65 -72, 79 -85 shall be allowed to vary from the 18 inch range per note #1 on Page 16 of the Code of Development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of variations #5 and #6 with the conditions and recommendations listed in this report. ATTACHMENTS: A. Applicant request and exhibits. Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda 1, CASCADIA VARIATION April 3, 2013 BOS 3 �Y5 cA� ° .` 172 South Pantops Drive s f Dominion Charlottesville, VA 22911 y Engineering a 434,979.8121 (p) 434.979.1681 (f) DominionEng,com Transmittal Cover Sheet To: Megan Yanigios, ASLA Date: 8.21.13 Albemarle County Community Development Address: 401 Mcl.rtire Road Transmitted: By Mail M By Hand From: Michae(Myers, P.E. By Email Application: Final Site Plan - Variation Request Project: Cascad.ia (SDP 2013- 00025) For Pick -up Project #: Quantity Item Description 1 Variation Re uest Letter 1 Fee Check in the amount of $425.00 1 Variation Exhibit 1 Plan and Elevations for Mist Haven 1 Plan and Elevations for Naples 1 Plan and Elevations for Stanhope Comments: ; r; Delivered by: -r Received By: Date: For Pick -up: cc: Charlie Armstrong Paul Koppel Dominion Engineering. Client a Other At Dominion Engineering Oe a8 rs Dominion v y Engineering Oct rs g August 20, 2013 Ms. Megan Yaniglos, ASLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development Department Division of Current Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 172 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: Cascadia = Final Site Plan SDP 2093 -00025 - Variation Requests Letter Dear Megan, 434.979.8121 (p) 434.979.1681 (f) DominionEng.com Thanks very much for discussing resolution to outstanding comments from your letter dated May 17; 2013, specifically comments #4 and #6. In order to address these comments, it is necessary to request two variations in the Code of Development. To support the variation requests, we have provided this letter of justification. and attached plan and building elevations. Variation Request.A: Bullet Item #6 under Architectural Ornamentation and Fagade Treatments on Page 17 of the Code of Development states that: • Garage doors shall (face) towards, where possible, the alley, side yard, or to the side street. When a single family dwelling's garage is facing a street it shall be recessed from the face of the building wall by three (3) feet, Discussion: In order to address this COD requirement, we are hereby requesting a variation to allow the builder to use the front porch to qualify as the "building wall" to determine the distance that the garage is recessed. Included with this request, please find architectural elevations for three unit types that provide at least 5 feet between the face of porch and the garage wall, This variation is being requested since the builder's standard Housing products do not include a footprint where the garage is recessed from the actual face of the building wall. Unfortunately, it is not possible for the builder to create a new footprint for this project, so approval of the variation is necessary. Approval of this variation would not lessen the vision of the COD, since the full porches will serve to provide visual relief as the garages will not protrude past the perceived fronts of the houses, Variation Request i B: Item 1 under Lot and Building Height Regulations on Page 16 of the Code of Development states: 9, The build -to line shall be a specific number and shall be measured from the front property line. Prior to site plan or subdivision approval, the Developer shall establish a specific build -to line for each Building Block. The build -to line shall be within the Front Build -to Line Range established in Table D. At least 50% of a structure's fagade shall be built ele x'15 c �q, Dominion Engineering way' d s 172 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 434.979.6121 (p) 434.979.1681 (f) DominionEng.com within eighteen (18) inches of either side of the build -to line within that Building Block. The "Structure's Fagade" is defined as the main part of the structure exclusive of the types of structures listed in Footnote number 2 below. A "Building Block" is defined herein as a group of similar Unit Types located on the same side of a public or private road and situated between the intersections of two travelways or alleys. To help address this COD requirement, we have provided a "Building Block Plan" indicating blocks and build -to lines which will be made part of the final plan documents. However, in order to implement this plan, we are hereby requesting the following variations from the COD: 1) All lots that have frontage on roads with a curved centerline shall be allowed to vary from the 18 inch range described by the COD. Discussion: Based on the geometry of the lots and roads that have been established through the Preliminary Site Plan and Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval process, it is not possible to strictly . . adhere to the build-4o requirements around road curves without significantly impacting the site design. Approval of this variation is consistent with the vision of the COD. 2) The front yard of the following corner lots shall be established based on the following: a. Lot 78 — Front Yard Setback on Boulder Hill Lane is 10 feet. b. Lot 68 — Front Yard Setback on Boulder Hill Lane is 15 feet. c. Lot 89 — Front Yard Setback on Future Roadway is 10 feet. d. Lot 91 — Front Yard Setback on Future Roadway is 10 feet. e. Lot 52 — Front Yard Setback on Glissade Lane is 10 feet, Discussion: The COD is not clear on the setbacks for corner lots. For the above lots, we are holding the smallest limit of the front build -to line range to establish the yards on the specified streets. Approval of this variation is consistent with the vision of the COD. 3) Lot 103 shall have a 5' yard along its frontage. with Delphi Lane. Discussion: The establishment of a 5' yard along the Lot 103 frontage with Delphi Lane is appropriate for this development and is consistent with the townhouses located in the same block. Approval of this variation is consistent with the vision of the COD. We thank you for taking the time to work with us to develop the needed variations and look forward to your thoughtful rev.ew. Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information. Very trul o rs, Michae yers, P. 5; Attachments Cc: Charlie Armstrong Keith Lancaster 2 of 2 n. S E,., O ANtV VJ V' A 22 I v�11 0 w� O 0,Y) t V O Q W co r �* w Iil ..._ .,..p" 'rT c _ —�- e < w z Lu iQ N - fY N �- TILT ❑ ❑ M -10 a tiL ® ❑a❑ o ❑❑❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑) � j rml _ 7 lul 0 z 1L � B ® Q LL w D C) Ckf 0- Z O_ Li w Q � O Of Q = LL-Z Z_ Q ww >- CD Q }- Zcn0] 'L 4 >Z2lz m n�niq 1 1 ¢ � � W W t sm n0 .L f� u �. Q CD cn CD CD y? _� vi w o 1IL a Ir LJ LJ LJ l_ J �" wit ❑��� +L 11 0©® ❑11 El F] z z ❑�00 s_ d. WE } w uI to ®® 1 !U cL Ell m �a n w a � w° O n`m (� 11.1 �- ryL 0 Q LJ ° cy- o 0 zQ w w C) ¢ >- zmm n1NNN U 4 C s >°`�� w O v o tJ, cv i W Cfl LU o i y v w ( w o a � v> T t w P e5 _ o I Z " r } C! _ ❑ !U IF 000 N� ILI Q �000 ts) 00❑ L+ L � {- � 000 0 �orxi o LU lu �LKw Sao J iu .L11L1_L.L 1�±— I m EE W HL a LLJ m ~ i I o Z�w �a -� z a cr C? vi Qw �o o= zQ w w � o¢� Z m m > -•.SE r 0) cpV tNN -, O .-1 N h a �� I O D " %' (--- es —� a �% J H5 E5 t r I I® IY CC CD ui �� 0 o d y w — I �� N ❑ LL LU - ❑❑�❑ �n z ❑a ❑ ❑a _ -- ❑ tu W ❑ ❑■ I-- - ® ES O E d ---- -- w Q LD � o � w 0 a. z o vi �= ¢ U �o C 2 O 7 Q Cwt O <L ?- Z m co 10 fill 11 1 14 2 glop" m I-Opp! 7 1�� ■ Red= mi 141m. IRA AN .220-1111M.—W —0 FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR m m �. CASCADIA - BLOCKS 4-7 RIVANNA DISTRICT, ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VA ma I BUILDING BLOCK PLAN