Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200700024 Resubmittal 2011-06-16pF AL U L L Ci7 �'IRGIT�Z�' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development- Planning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3439 Fax (434) 972 -4126 April 8, 2011 Michael Myers Dominion Engineering 172 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 RE: ZMA 2007 -024 Riverside Village SP 2007 -057 Fill in the Floodplain Review Comments - Resubmittal 2 /22/2011 Dear Mr. Myers: The resubmittal received for the February 22, 2011 deadline requesting to rezone 18.6 acres, approximately 8.8 acres of which is located in the floodplain, from R1 Residential to Neighborhood Model District for 110 to 162 residential units and 20,000 square feet of commercial/office space has been reviewed and comments are consolidated below. PANTOPS MASTER PLAN The Pantops Master Plan (PMP) was officially adopted on March 17, 2008. The land use designations for this property are Neighborhood Density, River Corridor Overlay, and Greenspace. The descriptions of these land use designations and insets of the Land Use Map and Parks and Green Systems maps with the subject parcel highlighted blue are included for your information. Please note the page numbers of the PMP are referenced after each section. Neighborhood Density Residential — 3 — 6 residential units per acre with residential support uses and limited non - residential uses. Neighborhood Density Residential areas will primarily accommodate single family dwelling unit types as well as institutional uses such as places of worship, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers including day care centers and preschools. Neighborhood Density Residential areas accommodate small areas of non - residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service, to serve residential uses. This may include corner stores of less than 4,000 square feet; live /work units above office and/or retail; small office buildings with less than 20,000 square feet; and studios /cottage occupations. (18) Greenspace — Sensitive environmental features including stream buffers, floodplain, and adjacent slopes. Typically only passive recreation will occur in these areas or greenway trails. Also includes open space areas that may be managed and owned by homeowners associations. (18) Free Bridge Lane -Focal Point of River Corridor This area offers the best river walk possibilities along Free Bridge Lane adjacent to the Rivanna River and includes the properties between Free Bridge Lane and Route 20 North, south of a stream and Darden Towe Park. A redeveloped area would relate to the centers at Pantops Shopping Center, Darden Towe Park, and the City of Charlottesville; however, the Rivanna River is the intended focal point. This area deserves a special designation because the property along the river is publicly owned and provides opportunities for an enhanced river park. Any future development in this area should be especially sensitive to river ecology. Free Bridge Lane as a river walk may mean future limitations to vehicular access. The proposed Framework Plan calls for two land uses adjacent to the floodplain: Urban Mixed Use and Urban Density. This area could include a recreational focus associated with the River Corridor, with possible canoe rental and other recreational opportunities. (26) Land Use Map 'Future Park I Parks and Green Systems Map The PMP identifies neighborhoods and centers in Pantops, and recommendations for the residential neighborhood where Riverside Village is located include (20 -21): Darden Towe Park/Stony Point Road (Cascadia/Fontana/Avemore Neighborhood) 1. Maintain the residential character of existing neighborhoods. 2. Allow for Neighborhood Density and Urban Density residential uses with a Neighborhood Service (NS) center. 3. Protect the rural scenic qualities of Route 20 from the northern edge of the development area south to Elks Drive/Fontana Drive where development along Route 20 should transition to an urban character to the City of Charlottesville. 4. Preserve stream corridors and floodplain in this neighborhood and allow for pedestrian paths in those areas, where natural features allow. 5. Retain existing amenities and open space within residential developments. PREVIOUS PC WORK SESSIONS For your information, I have included the Planning Commission's recommendations from the two previous work sessions. 2 December 18, 2007 A work session on SP- 2007 -00057 Hartman Property — Floodplain and ZMA- 2007 -00024 Hartman Property was held by the Planning Commission. In a power point presentation, staff reviewed the applicant's proposal. The Commission reviewed and discussed the proposal, answered the questions posed by staff and made comments and suggestions. The applicant made a presentation. Public comment was taken. No formal action was taken. The Planning Commission made the following comments regarding the questions posed by staff: • Does the Commission support staff's recommendation that the proposed extensive fill in the floodplain should not be permitted? In consensus, the Planning Commission agreed that fill in the floodplain should not be permitted. The Commission emphasized the recommendations of the Draft Pantops Master Plan for protection of the Rivanna River in making this recommendation. • Is the mix of land uses proposed appropriate for this site, including density and amount of office space proposed? In consensus, the Planning Commission believed that the proposed density was too high and that the applicant should not include the undevelopable floodplain acreage of approximately 8 acres towards density calculations. The Commission recommended that the lower range of Neighborhood Density, or 3 -6 units on the developable portion of the property, would be an appropriate density. The Neighborhood Model principles and design/layout of the proposed development should also be considered when evaluating density of the project. The Commission recommended that non - residential square footage for the project should not exceed 20,000 gross square feet of building area. The Commission acknowledged that the master plan has not been adopted and that by right the applicant could do 26 units with the bonus density. However, the Commission recommended that the percentage mix of land uses would be a more appropriate way of evaluating the amount of non - residential to residential square footage proposed in the development. Since the Commission recommended decreasing the residential density, they also recommended that the non- residential /office square footage should also be proportionally reduced. August 26, 2008 The Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA- 2007 -00024 Riverside Village (Concurrent SP- 2007 -057). The Commission reviewed and provided comments on the following four questions posed by staff. 1. Is the maximum square footage of non - residential land uses appropriate for this site, including 30,000 square feet of commercial/office space proposed in Block 1, or should the maximum allowed be reduced? The Commission had no concerns and felt the square footage per building was appropriate for the site. 2. Should additional land dedicated for the public park and amenities be required, in addition to park proffer? The Commission did not recommend that additional park land or amenities be dedicated. The Commission recommended that the applicant provide for urban amenities internal to the development, such as small pocket parks that may have seating. 3 3. Are the scale and massing of the mixed use buildings in Block 3 appropriate? Generally the Planning Commission liked the relationship of the buildings to the Rivanna River and did not have concerns about the proposed height of four stories. However, they recommended breaking up the massing of the buildings in Block 3. 4. Are the roof rain gardens approximately located adjacent to Route 20 or should they be relocated? The Commission believed that the rain gardens were a beneficial feature that should remain, but recommended they be relocated and not be placed adjacent to Route 20 and that pedestrian orientation of the buildings to the street should be improved. The Commission also felt that providing for green roofs and Low Impact Development (LID) in the development was positive. Other Commission comments: • Some Commissioners were concerned that the applicant's proposed plans would still impact the floodplain and recommended that the plans be revised to eliminate impacts in to the floodplain. • The Commission noted that future submittals and review of this proposal should address the proffer policy and provide adequate proffers to address all impacts of the proposed development, including schools, libraries, and fire rescue and police. • Some concern was expressed about making sure that the parking was adequate for residential /commercial, no matter what entities went into the commercial spaces. STAFF COMMENTS ON THE CURRENT APPLICATION: 1. The project is predominately residential, which meets the PMP goals of maintaining the residential character of the existing neighborhood. However, the residential net density proposed in the application is two to three times higher than the density recommended in the PMP. This is an 18.6 acre parcel, approximately 8.8 acres of which is in the floodplain. The PMP recommends 3 -6 units per acre, which would allow for 30 -59 units on the portion of the site outside of the floodplain. In 2007, the Planning Commission requested the applicant not to include the floodplain acreage in the density calculation and use the 3 -6 units per acre calculation to determine the net density. In 2008, the Planning Commission again expressed concern that the proposed density would adversely impact the floodplain. • Staff recommends no more than 59 units for the site as designated in the PMP. 2. Non - residential uses in areas designated Neighborhood Density are intended to be secondary and serve surrounding residential areas. The prior proposal showed offices along Route 20 and retail/commercial uses along the river corridor, which was more in keeping with the recommendations outlined in the PMP. Staff believes that non - residential uses along Route 20 should be limited to primarily office use since nearby Avemore and Cascadia will provide for neighborhood service uses in this area. The proposed maximum 20,000 square feet for non- residential uses also meets the standards set forth in the PMP. • Staff recommends limiting the type of commercial uses proposed along Route 20 (see also comments under "Parking" regarding type of use and parking requirements). 3. The use of street trees along Route 20 assists in the transition from rural to a more urban character in the area. Given the proffered frontage improvements, VDOT has indicated that street trees should be possible within the right -of -way and out of the clear zone. 4. A pedestrian path connecting the development to the river is proposed in the development, which enhances the site's natural features and meets the River Corridor guidelines outlined in the PMP. However, parking areas in Blocks 2 and 4, backyard areas in Block 2, buildings in Block 2, and 0 amenities such as the tot lot and volleyball court in Blocks 2 and 4 are proposed in the floodplain. The substantial disturbance proposed to the floodplain for this development does not meet this PMP guideline. Please review recommendations by the Planning Commission at the two previous work sessions held in 2007 and 2008. • Staff strongly recommends that you revise the plan to reduce the impact of the development plan on the floodplain. Amenities such as tot lots, pocket parks, and recreation space have been provided in the proposed development. A 5.95 acre public park has also been included on the plan and proffered (Proffer 1); however, the portion of the property that will be dedicated to public use for the park is not clearly shown in the general development plan or in the code of development. In previous reviews, the Parks and Recreation department has requested that some portion of the land dedicated for the park be located in an area outside the floodplain for facilities that may be needed for the park, such as public restrooms, a parking area, or playground (see applicant comment letter dated July 30, 2008). Since there will be a separate design process for the portion of the property dedicated to public use, any improvements in the park should not be shown with the plans for Riverside Village. • Revise the plan to show the exact location of the 5.95 acre park addressed in Proffer 1. Neighborhood Model: The zoning map amendment is to rezone a parcel from R1 to NMD in order to allow a mixture of residential, service, and commercial uses on the site. The following comments indicate how the proposed project complies with the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model: Pedestrian A system of sidewalks and trails is proposed within the development; Orientation therefore, this principle is met. Neighborhood Sidewalks, street trees, and parallel parking serving single family lots are Friendly Streets proposed. However, a pedestrian connection to the property adjacent to and Paths Road B should be established to encourage pedestrian accessibility to the proposed farmers market on that site. Interconnected The development plan shows an interconnection to the Elks Lodge north of the Streets and subject parcel, which supports this NMD principle. However, the stub -out Transportation needs to extend to the property line. Networks Parks and Open The tot lot should not be located in the floodplain. Space Neighborhood This property is located in the vicinity of Avemore /Cascadia and Pantops Centers Shopping center. This principle is met. Buildings and The 1 -2 story buildings and pocket green spaces located throughout the Spaces of Human development are compatible with the human scale; therefore, this principle is Scale met. Relegated Parking A majority of the parking is relegated; therefore, this principle is met. Mixture of Uses The proposed development provides for an appropriate mix of uses; however, the amount of non - residential proposed is less than the scale expected for Neighborhood Density Land Use designation. Mixture of Housing A mixture of housing types is included with the proposed development. Types and However, comments provided in this letter regarding the proffers addressing Affordability affordable housing should be addressed. Redevelopment This principle does not apply. Site Planning that There are important environmental features on the site, such as the 5 Respects Terrain floodplain, stream buffers, and critical slopes, that should be protected and maintain. Comments in this letter from several reviewers address the need for protection of the floodplain. Clear Boundaries This property is located entirely within the Development Area boundaries; with the Rural therefore, this principle does not apply. Areas CODE OF DEVELOPMENT (COD) Generally, it must be made clear what are non - enforceable objectives and what are specific requirements in the development narrative and the introductions to the blocks. Be aware that any feature listed in the code will become a requirement. As such, standards for these features must be established. If the standards are subjective, a staff position must be identified to be responsible for determining completion of these features. Also, please note that ARB review will be required for any site design, landscaping, and building design that is visible from the Entrance Corridor. I have provided a copy of the County's format for CODs, which includes examples of how information should be organized in tables. This format was not used for all sections of the Code in your resubmittal and is provided again with requested changes noted. 1. Please include a reduced copy of the application plan showing the designated blocks with Section II of the COD. 2. Density, setbacks, and building heights listed on page 14 should be shown in a single table. Include the standard notes regarding restrictions and requirements on this page as provided in the copy of the County's COD included with this letter. 3. Include on the cover sheet the ZMA and SP number and the tax map and parcel number. BY -RIGHT PERMITTED USE TABLE: 1. Block 5 on page 3 states that the design services and public visioning process for the park have been proffered and they have not. 2. As accessory apartments are only permitted in single - family dwellings, they would not be allowed in Block 4 as shown in the table. PARKING: 1. Parking tabulations should be shown in a single table. 2. For Block 1, the tabulations state that 89 spaces are provided, but only 83 spaces are shown on the plan. Coordinate the COD with the plan. 3. Be aware that the minimum design standards of section 4.12.16 will apply to the garages unless waived under the process established in section 4.12.2.c, which can be dealt with during the site plan process. 4. Page 7 of the COD should clarify that 184 spaces are provided for the townhouses in Blocks 2 and 3. 5. The commercial area only provides parking sufficient for an office use; yet the COD allows several commercial uses that would require additional parking. The applicant should review Section 4.12.6 and provide additional parking or remove the commercial uses to provide for office only. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - DETAILED COMMENTS Given the density of the proposed development, the location of dumpsters should be shown on the plan. RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY It appears the development will produce over 40,000 gallons of average daily sewage flow. As such, a capacity certification from RWSA will be required. At this time, it does not appear that the site will have any additional impacts on RWSA facilities. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING COMMENTS 1. The area designated as the public park does not show any improvements or parking. 2. The applicant is proposing 162 residential units. This scale of development requires the following recreational amenities: • 32,400 square feet (0.74 acres) of recreational area • 4 tot lots • 1 half basketball court The agent may modify the standards. The applicant should contact me directly to discuss recreational amenities to show on the application plan in accordance with Sections 4.16, 4.16.1 and 4.16.2, or they should be put on notice that approval of the rezoning does not constitute waiver or variation of the required recreational amenities and that recreational areas above those shown on the application plan may be required. 3. Near Route 20 at the east of the project Road B is a dead end. I recommend that it be connected to the travelway serving the commercial area, which would provide for improved on site circulation. 4. Decks are shown extending to the alley. Depending on the design of the decks the posts may restrict the area available for parking. Minimum parking dimensions are 9 feet wide. 5. The design of the boardwalk and bridge should be specified. 6. Units 14 thru 24 do not have frontage on a public or private street and cannot be subdivided. A modification can be processed during the rezoning only. COUNTY ENGINNER COMMENTS Engineering comments are provided in Attachment A. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR COMMENTS A separate ARB application and full review will be required by the ARB at a later time. The Design Planner provides review comments on rezonings, which are included below. 1. Trees are not spaced correctly on interior roads. A minimum spacing of 40' on center will be required. (Reference Sheet C4.) 2. The Green Space and Amenities Table on page 10 of the Code of Development indicates that there is to be a mix of trees and shrubs behind units 1 -12 in Block 2 in an open space buffer. This landscaping isn't shown on the plan. The table and plan should be coordinated. 3. The Green Space and Amenities Table on Page 10 calls for a mix of evergreens and shrubs for the landscape buffer behind units 65 -92 in Block 3. The word "trees" should be added after "evergreen ". 4. The 5th bullet under "Permitted Building Materials" should read as follows: "False, simulated and other similar building materials, including but not limited to EIFS, spandrel glass, vinyl siding, and simulated tile, shall not be permitted for buildings visible from the Entrance Corridor." The entire site is included in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. If the applicant's intent is for this standard to apply to the entire project, then the sentence should end at "... shall not be permitted." 5. Regarding the earth -tone color standard on page 12 of the Code, the color palette will be required at the time the ARB reviews the site plan and architecture for the site. The text should be revised to address this. Also, "earth- tone" is a very broad category. It is recommended that the applicant further refine the standard by naming a range of colors, for example, "medium to dark shades of brown, gray, and green ". 6. It is anticipated that the buildings in Block 4 will have some visibility from the EC. Recommendations were previously made to address this visibility in regards to the standards for roof pitch and design (page 12 of the Code). The previous recommendation stands. Revise the third bullet under "Roof Pitch and Design" to read: The mass of the two buildings in Block 4, as 7 well as their respective roofs, shall be broken up into several segments in order to achieve an appropriate appearance for the Entrance Corridor, to the extent the buildings are visible from the Entrance Corridor, and for the river corridor. A minimum of 2 or 3 distinct roof elevations shall be incorporated to achieve this. In addition to steps in the roof elements, other elements shall be incorporated, such as: balconies, chimneys, dormers and clerestories." 7. Under "Roof Pitch and Design" on page 12 of the Code, please clarify the meaning of "minimum 2 per building" in the 4th bullet. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION (VDOT) COMMENTS 1. The Route 20 plan included in the rezoning application needs to be correct prior to determining the extension of the culvert and fill in the floodplain. 2. The public roads in the development will be added to the state maintenance system under the SSAR's. The applicant will need to submit the items listed in 24VAC30 -92 -70 with the conceptual sketch to ensure that the proposed public roads can be added. Items not included in this application include: a. Proposed Functional Classification of each street. These streets appear to be local. b. The connectivity index. c. Reductions in the connectivity index. 3. The full frontage improvements to Route 20 do not appear to be in accordance with the Pantops Master Plan. Please see previous VDOT and Albemarle County comments sent to the applicant in November 2008 in addition to follow up comments sent by VDOT in December 2008. 4. The proffers state that a left turn lane and an additional southbound lane will be constructed, but the attached plan only shows a left turn lane and does not reflect the proffers. Please coordinate the plan with the proffers. 5. VDOT previously asked for an ultimate plan of Route 20 in accordance with the four lane section to accurately locate drainage structures and sidewalk in addition to ensuring that the extension of the box culvert is correct. This is not included in the plan and may have additional impacts to the floodplain for the fill section. 6. There is not enough distance shown along Route 20 to evaluate that the road widening has adequate tie -ins and transitions. 7. Add a right turn lane to enter the site. PROFFERS 1. Staff has reviewed the proffers for consistency with the Board's Cash Proffer Policy as it applies to addressing impacts of the proposed development. Cash proffers address impacts to the following facilities: schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety. The policy establishes a maximum cash proffer that the Board will accept for public facilities from residential rezoning applicants is $17,794.57 per SFD; $12,085.08 per SFA/TH; and $12,560.87 per MF unit, for market rate units (please note these figures are based on 2010 calculations). 2. The park dedication does not address any improvements (see Section C5c of the Cash Proffer Policy). Additionally, the applicant should state the park dedication to occur at a specific time, such as during the site plan process, and remove "at the request of the County" (see Section D 1 of the Cash Proffer Policy. 3. Proffer 2A: Please revise the following statement to read as such: "The Albemarle County Office of Housing or its designee shall work with the owner/builder on identifying and approving purchasers for affordable units." 4. Proffer 2B: Please note that the language "at their discretion," as proposed in Proffer 2B, has generally not been approved by the Board of Supervisors in the past. Staff recommends removing this language from the proffer. In addition, up to 162 market rate units are proposed. Additional information regarding the type of unit proposed to meet the affordable housing requirement is needed. If you proffer cash in lieu of units, the cash equivalent for an affordable unit is currently $21,125. Please note that the County, at its option, may request a cash proffer in the amount of $21,125 in lieu of affordable units. I have included suggested language for your resubmittal if your intention is to make only cash proffers for affordable housing. County ption for Cash In Lieu of Affordable Units: If at any time prio to the County's approval of any preliminary site plan or subdivision plat for the subject property which includes one or more for -sale Affordable Dwelling Units, the County's Housing Office informs the then- current owner/builder in writing that it may not have a qualified purchaser for one or more of the for -sale Affordable Dwelling Units at the time that the then - current owner/builder expects the units to be completed, and that the County will instead accept a cash contribution to the County to support affordable housing programs in the amount of Twenty -One Thousand One Hundred and Twenty -Five Dollars ($21,125) in lieu of Affordable Unit(s), the the then - current owner/builder shall pay such cash contribution to the County prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the Unit(s) that were originally planned to be Affordable Dwelling Units, and the then - current owner/builder shall have the right to sell the Unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of the purchaser(s). For the purposes of this proffer, such Affordable Dwelling Units shall be deemed to have been provided when the subsequent owner/builder provides written notice to the Albemarle County Office of Housing or its designee that the Affordable Unit(s) will be available for sale. When you are ready to resubmit, please provide that resubmittal on a resubmittal Monday (see attached schedule). Make sure to put my name on the cover page of your resubmittal. After you have resubmitted, staff will provide a set of written comments for your review prior to setting a public hearing. In those comments, we will advise you as to whether all substantive issues have been resolved or if additional resolution is needed. A public hearing with the Planning Commission will not be advertised until you advise us that the project is ready to proceed to a public hearing. At that time, the legal advertisement will be run in the newspaper and a staff report will be prepared to go to the Planning Commission. 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. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. I can be reached at (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3029 or ebrennan@albemarle.org and would be happy to meet with you to discuss these comments. Sincerely, Eryn Brennan Senior Planner 0 pF AL U L L Ci7 �'IRGIT�Z�' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development - Planning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3439 June 15, 2011 Michael Myers Dominion Engineering 172 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 RE: ZMA 2007 -024 Riverside Village SP 2007 -057 Fill in the Floodplain Review Comments - Resubmittal 5 /16/2011 Dear Mr. Myers: Fax (434) 972 -4126 Thank you for your recent resubmittal received on May 16, 2011 and the detailed response letter to the comments provided to you on April 8, 2011 regarding the request to rezone 18.6 acres, approximately 8.8 acres of which is located in the floodplain, from R1 Residential to Neighborhood Model District, and to construct 109 residential units and 12,000 square feet of commercial/office space. The application has been reviewed and comments are consolidated below. Analysis of the extent to which the resubmittal responded to the April 8, 2011 comments, and additional comments based on new information provided with this application, have been provided in bold red for your convenience. Information from the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to this parcel is included in Attachment A. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: 1. The project is predominately residential, which meets the PMP goals of maintaining the residential character of the existing neighborhood. However, the residential net density proposed in the application is two to three times higher than the density recommended in the PMP. This is an 18.6 acre parcel, approximately 8.8 acres of which is in the floodplain. The PMP recommends 3 -6 units per acre, which would allow for 30 -59 units on the portion of the site outside of the floodplain. In 2007, the Planning Commission requested the applicant not to include the floodplain acreage in the density calculation and use the 3 -6 units per acre calculation to determine the net density. In 2008, the Planning Commission again expressed concern that the proposed density would adversely impact the floodplain. • Staff recommends no more than 59 units for the site as designated in the PMP. The most recent submittal proposes 109 units (12 MF and 97 SF). While this constitutes a significant reduction from the 162 units proposed in the February 21, 2011 submittal, the net density of 11.2 acres per unit is still nearly twice as high as the density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that the initial application submitted in 2007 proposed 108 units for the site, and the PC requested then that the applicant reduce the net density. Staff recommends reducing the number of units for the development to comply with the density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for this parcel. 2. Non - residential uses in areas designated Neighborhood Density are intended to be secondary and serve surrounding residential areas. The prior proposal showed offices along Route 20 and retail /commercial uses along the river corridor, which was more in keeping with the recommendations outlined in the PMP. Staff believes that non - residential uses along Route 20 should be limited to primarily office use since nearby Avemore and Cascadia will provide for neighborhood service uses in this area. The proposed maximum 20,000 square feet for non - residential uses also meets the standards set forth in the PMP. • Staff recommends limiting the type of commercial uses proposed along Route 20 (see also comments under "Parking" regarding type of use and parking requirements). This comment has been addressed. The use of street trees along Route 20 assists in the transition from rural to a more urban character in the area. Given the proffered frontage improvements, VDOT has indicated that street trees should be possible within the right -of -way and out of the clear zone. • Street trees have been provided along Route 20. Although the issues outlined below can be addressed at the site plan stage, VDOT has provided these comments with the review of the rezoning for the benefit of the applicant. • Street trees need a flat area for planting; do not show them on 2:1 highway embankments. • Street trees in the public right of way need to be placed in accordance with appendix B -1 of the Road Design Manual, specifically the mature tree size and proximity to proposed intersections needs to be considered during design. • Deflection areas behind the guardrail on Route 20 need to be clear of all objects, including street trees. GR2 guardrails would be required at this location, which have a minimum 3' deflection area. Given the site and location of the proposed development, a minimum 5' deflection area would be preferred. A pedestrian path connecting the development to the river is proposed in the development, which enhances the site's natural features and meets the River Corridor guidelines outlined in the PMP. However, parking areas in Blocks 2 and 4, backyard areas in Block 2, buildings in Block 2, and amenities such as the tot lot and volleyball court in Blocks 2 and 4 are proposed in the floodplain. The substantial disturbance proposed to the floodplain for this development does not meet this PMP guideline. Please review recommendations by the Planning Commission at the two previous work sessions held in 2007 and 2008. • Staff strongly recommends that you revise the plan to reduce the impact of the development plan on the floodplain. Although the residences (parts thereof), parking, tot lot, and basketball court shown in the floodplain in the February 21 have been removed, development in the form of stormwater facilities, parking for the park, and road improvements are still shown in the floodplain. The County Engineer has provided the following comments regarding the most recent submittal: i. This latest revision (5) encroaches into the floodplain of the Rivanna River substantially for Rt. 20 improvements, parking and stormwater management, slope grades, and erosion control. Encroachments into the floodplain to increase development are not recommended for approval. Encroachments for stormwater management are not recommended for approval. The encroachment for the Rt. 20 improvements appears necessary, and could be recommended for approval with the special use permit and FEMA map changes. ii. A revision to the FEMA model and detailed study will be needed to ascertain the impacts to the flood levels and floodplain, and to allow FEMA to review and update the study area. This should be displayed in a way that can be presented to the Commission and Board. iii. It is recommended that no approvals be given for facilities, stormwater or otherwise, which would need substantial repair or replacement after flood events. If the Commission and Board are inclined to approve this residential development which adjusts the edge of the floodplain, it is recommended that a distance (margin of safety) be provided between residential units yards, and the expected floodwaters. Citizens will be concerned when water approaches residences, even if the engineering studies predict no direct impacts. It is also usually the case that flood levels increase as the overall community in the watershed grows, and residences built just outside of the floodplain can end up inside it. Amenities such as tot lots, pocket parks, and recreation space have been provided in the proposed development. A 5.95 acre public park has also been included on the plan and proffered (Proffer 1); however, the portion of the property that will be dedicated to public use for the park is not clearly shown in the general development plan or in the code of development. In previous reviews, the Parks and 2 Recreation department has requested that some portion of the land dedicated for the park be located in an area outside the floodplain for facilities that may be needed for the park, such as public restrooms, a parking area, or playground (see applicant comment letter dated July 30, 2008). Since there will be a separate design process for the portion of the property dedicated to public use, any improvements in the park should not be shown with the plans for Riverside Village. Revise the plan to show the exact location of the 5.95 acre park addressed in Proffer 1. The proffers and plan have been revised to provide for a 7.26 acre public park, and the exact location of the park has been shown on the plan. i. However, parking facilities and a watering station for the park (which would require a water connection, most likely from the bathroom facility) are proposed in the floodplain, which is contrary to what the Parks and Recreation department requested in earlier comments shown above. Please note that fill in the floodplain to accommodate parking for the park is not recommended for approval. ii. In addition, please note that any gravel parking proposed in the development would require waivers from sections of Chapter 18 of the County Code including Sections 4.12.15(a) [to allow gravel parking], 4.12.15(g) [to not provide curbing], and 4.12.16(e) [to not provide bumper blocks]. The last wavier may not be necessary as the applicant may intend to provide bumper blocks; however, this detail is not clear on the current plan. Although these issues can be addressed at the site plan stage, the applicant is encouraged to address them with the rezoning in order to avoid delays at the site plan stage. Neighborhood Model: The zoning map amendment is to rezone a parcel from R1 to NMD in order to allow a mixture of residential, office, and commercial uses on the site. The following chart addresses only those categories of the Neighborhood Model that were previously identified as issues in the February 21, 2011 submittal. Neighborhood Sidewalks, street trees, and parallel parking serving single family lots are proposed. Friendly Streets and However, a pedestrian connection to the property adjacent to Road B should be Paths established to encourage pedestrian accessibility to the proposed farmers market on that site. This comment has been addressed. Interconnected The development plan shows an interconnection to the Elks Lodge north of the Streets and subject parcel, which supports this NMD principle. However, the stub -out needs to Transportation extend to the property line. This comment has been addressed. Networks Parks and Open The tot lot should not be located in the floodplain. This comment has been Space addressed. Site Planning that There are important environmental features on the site, such as the floodplain, Respects Terrain stream buffers, and critical slopes, that should be protected and maintain. Comments in this letter from several reviewers address the need for protection of the floodplain. See comments from County Engineer on page 3. CODE OF DEVELOPMENT (COD) Generally, it must be made clear what are non - enforceable objectives and what are specific requirements in the development narrative and the introductions to the blocks. Be aware that any feature listed in the code will become a requirement. As such, standards for these features must be established. If the standards are subjective, a staff position must be identified to be responsible for determining completion of these features. Also, please note that ARB review will be required for any site design, landscaping, and building design that is visible from the Entrance Corridor. I have provided a copy of the County's format for CODs, which includes examples of how information should be organized in tables. This format was not used for all sections of the Code in your resubmittal and is provided again with requested changes noted. This comment has been addressed. 1. Please include a reduced copy of the application plan showing the designated blocks with Section H of the COD. • This comment has been addressed. 2. Density, setbacks, and building heights listed on page 14 should be shown in a single table. Include the standard notes regarding restrictions and requirements on this page as provided in the copy of the County's COD included with this letter. • This comment has been addressed. Include on the cover sheet the ZMA and SP number and the tax map and parcel number. • This comment has been addressed. 4. The applicant should remove the last sentence of the paragraph under "Architectural Review Committee" on page 14 because compliance with the architectural standards set forth in the COD will be reviewed by an internal committee and not by Albemarle County. The second sentence in this paragraph may also be removed. Staff will look further into the matter. 5. The Table of Contents in the COD states there are 23 pages, but only 19 have been provided. Coordinate the Table of Contents with the contents of the COD. Please note that the proffer form should not be included in the COD. BY -RIGHT PERMITTED USE TABLE: 1. Block 5 on page 3 states that the design services and public visioning process for the park have been proffered and they have not. • The description of Block 5 on page 6 states that the design services of the park have been included in proffer 1A and they have not. The proffer should simply state that the design shall be subject to approval by the director of the Parks and Recreation department. 2. As accessory apartments are only permitted in single - family dwellings, they would not be allowed in Block 4 as shown in the table. • This comment has been addressed. PARKING: 1. Parking tabulations should be shown in a single table. This comment has been addressed. 2. For Block 1, the tabulations state that 89 spaces are provided, but only 83 spaces are shown on the plan. Coordinate the COD with the plan. This comment has been addressed. 3. Be aware that the minimum design standards of section 4.12.16 will apply to the garages unless waived under the process established in section 4.12.2.c, which can be dealt with during the site plan process. Comment maintained for benefit of the applicant. 4. Page 7 of the COD should clarify that 184 spaces are provided for the townhouses in Blocks 2 and 3. This comment is no longer applicable because the applicant has stated on Page 9 that adequate parking and loading facilities will be in accordance with an approved site plan. Please note that an approved site plan must comply with the parking regulations of the Zoning Ordinance outlined in Chapter 18, Section 4.12. 5. The commercial area only provides parking sufficient for an office use; yet the COD allows several commercial uses that would require additional parking. The applicant should review Section 4.12.6 and provide additional parking or remove the commercial uses to provide for office only. This comment has been addressed. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - DETAILED COMMENTS Given the density of the proposed development, the location of dumpsters should be shown on the plan. This comment has not been addressed. RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY It appears the development will produce over 40,000 gallons of average daily sewage flow. As such, a capacity certification from RWSA will be required. At this time, it does not appear that the site will have any additional impacts on RWSA facilities. Comment maintained for benefit of the applicant. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING COMMENTS 1. The area designated as the public park does not show any improvements or parking. • Submit a parking study or provide confirmation from the Parks and Recreation department that the number of parking spaces provided for the park is sufficient. 2. The applicant is proposing 162 residential units. This scale of development requires the following recreational amenities: 0 • 32,400 square feet (0.74 acres) of recreational area • 4 tot lots • 1 half basketball court The agent may modify the standards. The applicant should contact me directly to discuss recreational amenities to show on the application plan in accordance with Sections 4.16, 4.16.1 and 4.16.2, or they should be put on notice that approval of the rezoning does not constitute waiver or variation of the required recreational amenities and that recreational areas above those shown on the application plan may be required. • With the number of residential units reduced to 109, the amount of recreational amenities proposed for this application meets County standards. 3. Near Route 20 at the east of the project Road B is a dead end. I recommend that it be connected to the travelway serving the commercial area, which would provide for improved on site circulation. This comment has been addressed. 4. Decks are shown extending to the alley. Depending on the design of the decks the posts may restrict the area available for parking. Minimum parking dimensions are 9 feet wide. This comment has been addressed. 5. The design of the boardwalk and bridge should be specified. This comment has been addressed. More specific information regarding construction would be required at the site plan stage. 6. Units 14 thru 24 do not have frontage on a public or private street and cannot be subdivided. A modification can be processed during the rezoning only. The applicant has requested this waiver. 7. The applicant has previously discussed providing traffic alternatives, such as bus service, for this development, but no accommodation for bus service has been included on the proposed plan. Previous comments provided by JAUNT also recommended providing bus service for this development (Attachment B). 8. It is not clear whether enough ROW exists for the parallel guest spaces shown along Private Roads A &B, as space widths appear to vary in depth throughout the plan. Please confirm all spaces are 20' long x 9' wide, as required under Section 4.12.16 of the County Code. This will be especially important during the site plan process. COUNTY ENGINNER COMMENTS Regarding the rezoning; (ZMA200700024) 1. The traffic study projects as much as a 10% impact on turning movements at the Rt. 250/Rt. 20 intersection, and no improvements have been proposed. Give the level of service failures with even just background growth, this is quickly becoming one of the worst congestion problems in the county, and this application should contribute in some proportion to the solution. The intersection's efficiency could be improved by lane widening on both sides at Rt. 20 and Riverbend, and a right - turn lane from Rt. 250. Note that lane improvements on this signal would serve to eliminate the split -phase function, thereby making a significant improvement to through- movements on Rt. 250. The applicant may wish to consider proffering 10% of the improvement costs necessary for these road improvements. The frontage improvements on Rt. 20 do not appear complete. Previous plans showed the widening to the eastern boundary. Also, the gap to the existing lane widening to the west leaves an odd constriction in lanes at this point, and it is not clear that lanes line up in either direction. All improvements should be to the project side of the street, holding the opposite curb line the same, such that no portion of the recent county project curb and sidewalk needs to be rebuilt. It is also noted that internal road layouts have changed; the travelway entrance to the right going into the site, just off the main entrance to Rt. 20, is too close and could cause queuing to block the entrance. In addition, it is unclear where surplus parking would take place if the roads will not allow it as proposed. Since surplus parking is inevitable on some occasions, it will likely block the street. 2. It should be noted that road improvements for this development cannot be built without substantial encroachment in the floodplain and buffer for erosion and sediment control. Removing permanent W1 facilities from the floodplain, as has been recommended with the special use permit, should keep these disturbances temporary. Therefore, encroachment in the floodplain to allow for road improvements could be acceptable for this development. The applicant appears to be anticipating a waiver of detention requirements. However, downstream channels and culverts under Free Bridge Lane will need to be adequate, or improved. This comment has not been addressed. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR COMMENTS A separate ARB application and full review will be required by the ARB at a later time. Only those comments provided to the applicant on April 18, 2011 that were not addressed have been included below. 1. Regarding the earth -tone color standard on page 12 of the Code, the color palette will be required at the time the ARB reviews the site plan and architecture for the site. The text should be revised to address this. Also, "earth- tone" is a very broad category. It is recommended that the applicant further refine the standard by naming a range of colors, for example, "medium to dark shades of brown, gray, and green ". • The "earth- tone" color requirement (page 13, Code) has been revised to state more specifically the color range that the applicant requires for exterior finishes in the development. As revised, however, no white or light colors could be approved for building trim or detailing. The applicant may wish to further consider the overall desired appearance for buildings in the development, while still limiting the color range for major building surfaces. 2. It is anticipated that the buildings in Block 4 will have some visibility from the EC. Recommendations were previously made to address this visibility in regards to the standards for roof pitch and design (page 12 of the Code). The previous recommendation stands. Revise the third bullet under "Roof Pitch and Design" to read: The mass of the two buildings in Block 4, as well as their respective roofs, shall be broken up into several segments in order to achieve an appropriate appearance for the Entrance Corridor, to the extent the buildings are visible from the Entrance Corridor, and for the river corridor. A minimum of 2 or 3 distinct roof elevations shall be incorporated to achieve this. In addition to steps in the roof elements, other elements shall be incorporated, such as: balconies, chimneys, dormers and clerestories." • The third bullet under "Roof Pitch and Design" in the Code (page 13) was revised to address Block 1 instead of Block 4. The recommendations made previously were intended for the larger buildings originally proposed in Block 4. If the applicant wants the identified design features to be applied to Block 1 buildings, architectural elevations should be submitted to illustrate how the roof design can be made appropriate for the EC. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION (VDOT) COMMENTS 1. The Route 20 plan included in the rezoning application needs to be correct prior to determining the extension of the culvert and fill in the floodplain. This comment has not been adequately addressed. See comments below. 2. The public roads in the development will be added to the state maintenance system under the SSAR's. The applicant will need to submit the items listed in 24VAC30 -92 -70 with the conceptual sketch to ensure that the proposed public roads can be added. Items not included in this application include: • Proposed Functional Classification of each street. These streets appear to be local. • The connectivity index. • Reductions in the connectivity index. • The connectivity index requirements cannot be reduced for the river when there is a state maintained road (Route 1421) between the development and the river; therefore, the connectivity index calculation needs to be recalculated. The full frontage improvements to Route 20 do not appear to be in accordance with the Pantops Master Plan. Please see previous VDOT and Albemarle County comments sent to the applicant in November 2008 in addition to follow up comments sent by VDOT in December 2008. The proposed Route 20 improvements for this site do not appear to have adequate lane shifts to accommodate the left turn lane. The median also cannot decrease in width between rel the cross section to the west and the proposed left turn lane; therefore, the plan needs to be revised. 4. The proffers state that a left turn lane and an additional southbound lane will be constructed, but the attached plan only shows a left turn lane and does not reflect the proffers. Please coordinate the plan with the proffers. The plan has been revised to coordinate with the proffers, but further design revisions are required as addressed in other comments. 5. VDOT previously asked for an ultimate plan of Route 20 in accordance with the four lane section to accurately locate drainage structures and sidewalk in addition to ensuring that the extension of the box culvert is correct. This is not included in the plan and may have additional impacts to the floodplain for the fill section. • The ultimate improvements to the Route 20 corridor are shown as previously requested, but, according to this plan, would require an entire reconstruction of the roadway, including the county constructed eastbound lanes and curb and gutter, sidewalks, drainage structures, etc. At the meeting with the applicant, we discussed holding the curb line of the eastbound lanes and constructing over to the westbound lanes. In addition to the above reconstruction required for this application, the proposed plan would require an extension of the box culvert under Route 20 on the south side of the road, elimination of the bus turnout and additional right of way and easements on the south side of the road. • A permanent slope and drainage easement will be required around the culvert extension and the highway embankment and needs to be shown on the plan. 6. There is not enough distance shown along Route 20 to evaluate that the road widening has adequate tie -ins and transitions. See comments provided above. 7. Add a right turn lane to enter the site. This comment has been addressed. 8. Manholes from sanitary and storm sewers need to be removed from state maintained pavement. 9. The corner clearance from the intersection at route 20 needs to be 225 feet as shown in figure F -103 in the VDOT Road Design Manual. 10. Parking setbacks from the intersection on Road "A" need to be in accordance with the setbacks shown on page B -1(49) of the VDOT Road Design Manual. 11. The undivided section of Road "A" needs to have parking on both sides. PROFFERS PLEASE NOTE THAT THE PROFFER FORM SHOULD NOT BE INLUCDED IN THE COD. The comments provided below address only the proffers submitted on May 16, 2011. 1. Staff has reviewed the proffers for consistency with the Board's Cash Proffer Policy as it applies to addressing impacts of the proposed development. Cash proffers address impacts to the following facilities: schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety. The policy establishes a maximum cash proffer that the Board will accept for public facilities from residential rezoning applicants, and these numbers have been provided below. • This proffer policy has not been addressed in the proposed proffers. Please provide a proffer addressing the cash proffer policy based on the number of proposed single- family and multi - family units for the development. Sample language for this proffer has been provided in Attachment C. Please note the starting year in proffer example 2B would need to be changed to 2012 if the rezoning is approved this year. • The County's CY 2011 proffer values per dwelling unit, based on recently available Marshall & Swift construction cost index data are hereby provided: SFD -- $19,089.09, SFA/TH -- $12,976.29, and MF -- $13,512.50. Rounded to the nearest $100, the figures are: SFD -- $19,100.00, SFA/TH -- $13,000.00, and MF -- $13,500.00. 2. In regards to proffer 1A, the current practice is to specify the date by which the proffer must be satisfied, e.g, if the rezoning was approved November 10, 2011, the proffer would begin: `By not later than November 10, 2016 ". "General development plans" no longer exist — all planned developments, including those in the NMD, now have "application plans." The Owner's estimated value of the proffer should not be included in the proffer itself. If the applicant would like to submit a separate document stating its estimated value of each of the proffers, they may do so. 3. In regards to proffer 1B, the proffer should state that the design should be subject to approval by VA the director of the department of parks and recreation. Again, the Owner's estimated value of the proffer should not be included in the proffer itself, and the proffer needs to state when the improvements will be done. Please note the location and number of parking spaces proposed in the proffer is subject to the approval of the County Engineer and the Parks and Recreation department and/or Zoning. 4. In regards to proffer 2A, the Owner may want to clarify that the proffer applies only to the first sale; sample language: "This proffer shall apply only to the first sale of each of the for -sale affordable units." This statement could be added as a final sentence in the proffer. 5. In regards to proffer 3, the proffer should indicate when these improvements will be done (i.e., in conjunction with the first site plan for the project). The proffer should also indicate that if the Owner dedicates the additional right -of -way at a time other than the subdivision of the property, it will be for the costs of the survey, the plat and the deed (a standard deed form would be provided); sample language: "If the public right -of -way is not dedicated by subdivision plat, the Owner shall be responsible for the cost of a survey and preparing the deed to convey the public right -of -way to the County." Note, however, that if this part of Route 20 is a primary highway, the dedication of right - of -way will be to the State, not the County. Again, the Owner's estimated value of the proffer should not be included in the proffer itself. Action after Receipt of Comment Letter After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions outlined below: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday (see attached schedule) (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. If you choose to go directly to public hearing, payment of the legal ad fees for the newspaper advertisements and notification of adjoining owners is required a minimum of twenty -one (21) days before the Commission's scheduled public hearing. Payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board of Supervisors public hearing will also be required prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing. Fees may be paid in advance and a payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. I can be reached at (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3029, or ebrennan @albemarle.org, and would be happy to meet with you to discuss these comments. Sincerely, Eryn Brennan Senior Planner cc: Bill Fritz (via email) Glenn Brooks (via email) Sarah Baldwin (via email) Amelia McCulley (via email) Bob Crickenberger (via email) Dan Mahon (via email) Joel DeNunzio (via email)