HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200000009 Review CommentsCOUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
April 22, 2009
Richard Spurzem
Neighborhood Investments-NP,LCC
PO Drawer R
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Re: Variation request dated March 9, 2009 accompanying SDP -2008-00041 North Pointe
Preliminary Site Plan dated March 10, 2009 for North Pointe Northwest Residential Area
Dear Mr. Spurzem:
Thank you for your submittal of the variation request, pages 1 — 3 attached. You have
requested three variations with the submitted preliminary site plan:
To change the general location, number, design, layout and orientation of buildings and
parking areas such that residential units are oriented parallel to Northwest Passage.
To replace a section of Northwest Passage which had sidewalks and street trees on
only one side of the street with sidewalks and street'trees on both sides of the street.
To have buildings and parking between Northwest Passage and Stormwater
Management (SWM) Facility #10.
The first variation, to change the general location, number, design and orientation of buildings
parallel to Northwest Passage, is approved as shown on the preliminary site plan. This
approval is conditioned on planting strips being provided with street trees between the back of
the curb and the sidewalk as indicated in the second variation approved below. This street
section must be provided on both sides of Northwest Passage across your property where
residential units abut the street.
A corresponding variation, to have sidewalks and street trees on both sides of the street, is also
approved.
The analysis which I used for these two variations, which are approved as part of the
preliminary site plan review, follows:
Section 8.5.5.3 of the Zoning Ordinance allows the Director of Planning to grant minor variations
to the arrangement of buildings and uses shown on the plan, provided that the major elements
shown on the plan and their relationships remain the same as long as:
1) The variations are consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive
plan. The proposed variations for building orientation and a different street section support
the Neighborhood Model for a pedestrian orientation and buildings and spaces of human
scale. The proposed variations are not in conflict with the Neighborhood Model.
2) The variations do not increase the approved development density or intensity of
development. The variations would allow for more building coverage on the property;
however, the variation would not increase the approved density or intensity of the
development.
3) The variations do not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any
other development in the zoning district. The variation will not adversely affect the timing
and phasing of development or any other development in the zoning district.
4) The variations do not require a special use permit. The variations do not require a
special use permit.
5) The variations are in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved
rezoning application. This variation is in conformity with the approved rezoning which, in
part, was intended to support the principles of the Neighborhood Model.
The third variation requested, to have buildings and parking between Northwest Passage and
SWM Facility # 10, will have to be considered in conjunction with the review of the final site
plan. Based on comments by the Director of Community Development, there is a strong
likelihood that appropriate design for erosion control, stormwater management and safety is not
possible with the design shown on the preliminary site plan. While I note that you have shown
slope reconstruction yielding 3:1 slopes on the site plan, according to the Director of Community
Development, it is extremely unlikely that SWM Facility # 10 can function as shown on the
preliminary site plan. (See comments from Director of Community Development.) I recommend
that you discuss concepts with Engineering staff before the final site plan is submitted. In
addition, as I said in my letter of January 30, 2009, the site plan needs to demonstrate
appropriate design for the appearance from the Entrance Corridor (U.S. 29). Visual depictions
would be suitable for this purpose.
Because the Director of Community Development can approve the preliminary site plan
contingent upon the appropriate demonstrations of stormwater management, consideration of
your requested variation related to SWM Facility #10 can be deferred to the final site plan.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or need more information.
Sincerely,
lam?
V. Wayne ilimberg
Director, o Planning
Cc: Larry Davis
Mark Graham
Elaine Echols
Amelia McCulley
Gerald Gatobu
2