HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201000024 Legacy Document 2010-08-30IRGPa
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
March 26, 2010
Mr. Scott Collins
800 E. Jefferson St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Variation request for SDP 10 -24 dated March 5, 2010 for ZMA 2006 -005 Avinity
Dear Scott:
The County has received your variation request (Attachment A) for the modifications listed below:
1. Request to change the mixture of units from 80 multifamily(condo) and 44 townhouses to 24 multifamily
(condo) and 100 townhouse units.
2. Modify the amenity package from a clubhouse, fitness center, pool, and park to a clubhouse, fitness
center, meeting room, covered pavilion, terrace and open park area.
3. Remove the systems of retaining walls.
4. Reorient the units and private streets within the development.
5. Change the road sections in terms of r.o.w. width, on- street parking, and sidewalks
6. Add a new road not included in the rezoning.
This letter serves to provide approval of the variations 1, 3, 4, and 6 in keeping with the depictions on the
Preliminary Site Plan entitled Avinity Preliminary Plan prepared by Collins Engineering last revised 3/8/10 and
the attached application.
Variation request 1 is approved because a mixture of housing types is preserved.
Regarding variation request 2, this item may be varied, provided the Agent finds that the proposed amenities
are equivalent to or in excess of the requirements of Section 4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance. I am asking that
Gerald Gatobu respond to your substitution request.
Variation requests 3, 4, and 6 are approved because the reorientation allows grading for the development to be
closer to existing grades. Original conversations with you indicated that there would be no retaining walls on
the site; however, the reviewing engineer has informed me that small retaining walls may be needed at the
perimeter to prevent drainage onto foundations of units. Variations 3, 4, and 6 are granted with the proviso
that retaining walls will be four feet or less and the townhouses on the perimeter of the site are provided with
architectural features that serve to relegate the parking and create a face to the street. Some of our prior
conversation regarding this issue was captured in Attachment B, an email which I sent to you on January 6,
2010. This email describes the need for variation in setback, use of roof pitch, and use of porches and
potentially balconies to deemphasize the parking in the front of the townhouses. The goal is to prevent the
appearance of a continuous parking lot.
Similarly, the backs of units of Lots 39 — 44 and 69 — 74 which face the loop street must have architectural
features such as projections and porches as indicated on the Avinity Exhibit dated 12 -17 -09 (Attachment C).
The Kenridge townhouses, referenced in Attachment B are shown in Attachment C for reference. Approval is
not given for the architecture shown in View B on Attachment C.
Regarding variation request #5, sidewalks are needed along the outside of the perimeter road and connecting
Lot 13 with Lot 14. These items should be shown on the final site plan which is provided for signature.
The need for a seventh variation has been identified through review of the site plan. If you provide a request,
we can approve the reduced internal setbacks for the townhouses that are shown on the site plan. This
request can be approved because the relationships of buildings to open space and streets which was
approved on the application plan has not been compromised.
Please provide a signature block for the Planning Division on the final site plan. When you are ready to submit
for signatures, please make sure that sidewalks are shown on the outside of the perimeter road and that a
sidewalk connects Lot 13 with Lot 14. Also, architectural elevations will need to be provided which reflect the
requirements noted above for variations 3, 4, and 6. Any retaining walls must be four feet or less in height.
Section 8.5.5.3 allows the director of planning to grant minor variations to change the arrangement of buildings
and uses shown on the approved zoning application plan, provided that the major elements shown on the plan
and their relationships remain the same. The findings are provided below:
1. The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, specifically the
Neighborhood Model principles of buildings and spaces of human scale, parks and open space, and
relegated parking. In addition, by allowing the buildings to step down the hill and limiting the height of
the retaining walls, respect for the terrain is better achieved.
2. The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development. No
additional units are proposed.
3. The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other
development in the zoning district.
4. The variation does not require a special use permit.
5. The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application.
The Director has indicated that the variations approved in this letter have met all of these findings.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 296 -5823 extension 3252.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Principal Planner
C: Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner
John Paul Diez, Reviewing Engineer
attachments
2
A'4
O L L I N 7 F ,_ 800 E JEFFERSON CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902
• 434 293 3719 1 434 293 3719
www.collins- ongineering.com
March 5, 2010
Elaine Echols
Principal Planner
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: AVINITY — REQUEST FOR VARIATION FROM ZMA -2006 -005
Dear Elaine:
On June 13, 2007 the Board of Supervisors voted to approve a zoning map amendment
for Avinity, located on the east side of Avon Street Extended, just south of Cale
Elementary School. The rezoning created a PRD zoning district consisting of 124
townhouse and condominium units located on 9.35 acres.
Since the rezoning was originally approved, ownership of the development has changed
and the site has been engineered in greater detail. As a result of this analysis, several
changes have been made to the plan in order to improve the site design, while
maintaining the overall spirit and intent of the original rezoning.
The following is a summary of the changes proposed with this variation request:
1. Mixture of units
2. Amenities
3. Retaining walls
ELEMENT OF ORIGINAL
PROPOSED
REZONING PLAN
MODIFICATION WITH
CURRENT PRELIMINARY
SITE PLAN
80 condominium units
24 condominium units
44 townhouse units
100 townhouse units
124 units total
124 units total
Clubhouse
+ Clubhouse with fitness
Fitness center
room & meeting room
• Pool
+ Covered pavilion
o Park
+ Terrace
Open park areas
Various systems of retaining
No retaining walls.
walls around the perimeter of
the site, up to 13' in height.
4. Orientation of units
5. Road sections
ELEMENT OF ORIGINAL
PROPOSED
REZONING PLAN
MODIFICATION WITH
CURRENT PRELIMINARY
SITE PLAN
Perimeter road provided rear
Perimeter road provides front
access to townhouse units in
access to townhouse units.
the back portion of the
development, such that units
faced the interior open space.
Avinity Drive (entrance road): Avinity Drive (entrance road):
• 62' r/w • 60' r/w
• Median • Median
• 2 way travel • 2 way travel
• No on- street parking • No on- street parking
Avinity Loop (perimeter road) Avinity Loop (perimeter road)
• 40' — 62' r/w • 30' r/w
• 2 way travel
• On- street parking
provided along front
portion adjacent to
condominiums
• Sidewalk provided
along front portion
adjacent to
condominiums
2 way travel
No on- street parking
• Landscaping & access
easement (no sidewalk)
Avinity Court
• New road not included
in rezoning.
• 30' r/w
The changes proposed have resulted in an overall improved design. The grading plan has
been revised to more closely conform to existing topography and reduce the amount of
import fill required to accomplish the project. Land disturbance along project boundaries
has been minimized and the use of retaining walls is no longer necessary. The road
design changes result in an improved streetscape by breaking up the townhouse facades
and framing the roads with the front of units. Varying townhouse sizes will break up
massing and provide visual interest. Parking will be better relegated within garages and
intermittent on- street parking.
Section 18- 8.5.5.3 (c) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance provides five (5)
criteria for approval of variations from approved planned development districts:
(1) is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan;
Response: The comprehensive plan designates this area as urban density. The proposed
multi - family use is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(2) does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development;
Response: The approved development density is the same as the rezoning. More
townhouses and less condominiums are being implemented from the original rezoning,
which may be perceived as lower density.
(3) does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development in the
zoning district;
Response: There are no other developments in the vicinity which are affected by this
plan. The preliminary site plan accommodates walkways and driveways to serve
adjacent neighbors, as shown in the rezoning plan.
(4) does not require a special use permit;
Response: The proposal does not require a special use permit.
(5) is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved application
Response: The changes proposed are consistent with the original design and intent of the
Avinity PRD.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any further information.
Since r ly,
Scott Collins
Attachment B
Elaine Echols
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:10 AM
To: 'Alan Taylor'
Subject: imaqes and Avinity
Attachments: TH with porch 4.jpg; TH with porch take 2.jpg
Hi Alan,
With regard to your proposals for Avinity, Wayne and I went out and looked at several townhouse developments in the
area, including Kenridge. I would encourage you to go out and look at it. It does reflect some architectural treatments
that help to relegate parking.
There are two different roof pitches reflected in the architecture there. The steeper roof pitch in relation to the location
of the driveway and garage helps to relegate the parking more than the less steep roof pitch. We would recommend
you consider the steeper roof pattern if you wish to replicate the Kenridge development.
Another development which we saw is the back portion of the Brookwood development in Charlottesville, off of 5'"
Street. Attached are photos showing another way in which the parking has a much less prominent appearance in a
townhouse development.
We recommend that you consider something such as the Kenridge and Brookwood examples in conjunction with the
architecture of the buildings proposed for Avinity, if you wish to pursue the variation to allow the plan provided in late
December.
Please let me know if we may be of further assistance of if you would like to meet again.
Elaine
Elaine K. Echols. A1CP
Principal Planner
Department of Community Development
Albemarle County. VA
434296-5823 x 3252
eechols"bemarle.ora
e
� � ;�►�0 � >Mi !� X11 # �,`
,,.,
Ira
� A I '�a�����ll ■e��� o�!l�dl a
.wrr n:
���
WWI&
•e =taw