HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201400006 Correspondence 2015-04-23i�in .
H�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
April 23, 2015
Ms. Clay Green
1830 River Inn Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ZMA201400006 —Avon Park II
Dear Ms. Green:
Staff has reviewed your re- submittal requesting to amend ZMA2012- 00004, which was a rezoning
for 5.262 acres from R -6 Residential to PRD Planned Residential Development for a maximum of
32 residential units. We have several questions and comments which are listed below:
Planning
1. This is a reminder that there were some previous discussions regarding revisions to the HOA
Covenants in order to accommodate playground use between residents of Avon Park I and
Avon Park II. The tot lot area shown in Avon Park II was going to be revised for older children
and the tot lot area in Avon Park I was to be accessible for residents of both developments.
2. Please confirm that the proposed landscaping along the border of Avon Park I and II is agreed
upon with the adjacent property owners.
APPLICATION PLAN- DETAILED COMMENTS
1. See Sheet 6, the 5' sidewalk adjacent to the tot lot appears to end at the tot lot area. The
sidewalk should be extended to Avon Street Extended. There are other amenities in the area
that residents would need to get to, unless your intent is for the graveled access drive to
serve pedestrians also. Access in this vicinity of the proposed development is unclear.
2. With the addition of the 30' access easement on the adjacent property to the south, the
emergency gate needs to be located at the property line. The plan shows a fence going across
the property line, which will not work in case of an emergency and the need for access.
3. The BSL on the properties along the northern boundary went from 25' per lot on the
approved plan to 20' for lots 1— 3 and from 25' per lot on the approved plan to a variation of
25' to 35' -for lots 21— 26. The adjacent residents worked diligently with the applicant for
ZMA2012 -00004 to have the BSL be 25'. We recommend you work with the adjacent
residents to address this concern.
Zoning
The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Amanda Burbage:
Application Plan:
1. Setbacks — To allow for greater flexibility at the site plan stage, the applicant may wish to
consider establishing minimum front, rear, and side building setback lines (BSL) as an
alternative to establishing specific setbacks on the application plan. If specific setbacks are
desired for certain lots, it should be included as a note on the plan. Greg has advised that
the language for setbacks (on the application plan) should be stated in regulatory language
to establish it as a zoning regulation (see Zoning Ordinance Section 8.5.5.2 d). That
language could also provide for flexibility. An example of this type of regulatory flexible
language is: "Rear setbacks shall be a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet. This
minimum standard may be decreased by 5 feet on certain lots subject to Planning Director
approval." (This example is not to suggest specific numbers for setbacks but to suggest
language for flexibility.)
2. Landscape Easements —To allow for continued maintenance of landscape elements and
compliance with the application plan, the creation of landscape or open space is strongly
recommended. Our recommendation is that all required amenities be placed within open
space wherever possible. Only where that is not possible, should the amenities such as
landscaping be placed on private property — and only with an easement. For landscaping
proposed located along property boundaries, a landscape maintenance easement on the
adjoining property may be necessary. Please be aware that this would need to be done
during the subdivision process.
Engineering and Water Resources
See two attachments for comments; one related to engineering and water resources, and the
second related to the two waiver requests, which have been provided by Michelle Roberge.
Entrance Corridor
The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by
Margaret Maliszewski:
With appropriate landscaping, the proposed development is not expected to have a negative
visual impact on the Entrance Corridor. Note the following issues are for ARB review of the site
plan:
1. The architectural design of the attached units in lots 15 -20 will require ARB review and
approval. The ARB will expect the EC- facing elevations to be fully designed and that they
adequately address issues of form, material, blankness, scale and proportion.
2. Landscaping is critical to establishing an appropriate appearance for this development due
to the size and location of the stormwater facilities.
a. The EC Guidelines require that stormwater facilities be designed to eliminate the
engineered appearance of the facility and to fully integrate the.facility into the
surrounding landscape. Note that additional or alternate landscaping may be
required to fully integrate the eastern part of the development into the Corridor.
b. A landscape plan should be provided as part of the Initial Site Plan submittal. The
details of the landscaping can be worked out with the site plan, so the landscaping
shown on the application plan should not be considered final or approved.
2
c. The landscape plan submitted with the Initial Site Plan should show interspersed
ornamental trees along the EC frontage. Interspersing them in an irregular pattern
will help achieve a more natural appearance.
d. The landscape plan submitted with the Initial Site Plan should show trees added in
an irregular pattern on the new slopes that are proposed with regular grades.
e. Some trees are shown in easements. The landscape plan submitted with the Initial
Site Plan should resolve all planting /utility /easement conflicts without reducing the
quantity of trees proposed. (Check the tree in the sanitary easement near Lot 26,
trees in the water easement west of Lots 19 and 20, and the tree in the drainage
easement adjacent to the EC.)
f. Staggering the shrubs on the north side of the property would provide for a more
natural appearance.
3. Based on similarities to the previous plan, the following are likely to be required during
ARB review of the site plan:
a. Provide for review an architectural plan and elevations for the recreation shelter.
b. Provide details on the plan illustrating the appearance of the maintenance access
drive and chained access point. Show how these features will have an appropriate
appearance for the EC.
4. Please include in your next ARB submittal the site section illustrated on Sheet 8 of 10, but
without the exaggerated scale.
VDOT
See attached comments from Shelly Plaster related to traffic and transportation issues.
ACSA
The following comment related to Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has been provided
by Alexander Morrison.
1. The ACSA herby recommends approval of ZMA201400006.
Fire /Rescue
The following comments related to Fire /Rescue have been provided by Robbie Gilmer:
1. Letter from adjoining property owner to allow emergency access across TMP 90 -30B to
provide a 2nd point of access to Hathaway Extended.
2. Hathaway Street shall be marked No Parking on one side.
Deed of Easement
The deed of easement is under review by staff. Staff comments will be sent separately.
Proffers
1. On the Proffer Statement, the entire section before the AFFORDABLE HOUSING section
needs to be updated. See Zoning comments below.
2. On the third page of the proffer statement, item 1) b), the written dollar amount does not
match the numerical amount shown.
3. Proffer 3) b) the date needs to be updated.
4. Proffer 3) c) the by -right is PRD not R -1. This is an amendment to an existing zoning district.
am not sure the credit is applicable in this instance.
N
5. Proffer 4, the first sentence has a typo "sedin 1 ent"
6. Proffer 5, the allowed uses should also include some of the standard by -right uses that
Zoning requires. This proffer will need revision.
7. Proffer 6 c) needs to be corrected. The c) needs to be located in front of the correct
sentence.
8. Proffer 6 d), the last sentence should say "steeper" not "steep"
The following comments related specifically to the affordable housing proffers have been provided
by Ron White, Chief of Housing:
1. This proffer is more confusing than the original. The original clearly stated that the
affordable units would be accessory units in 6 two - family dwelling units. The new proffer
still has the 6 two - family units but also noted in 1) a) that affordable units would be
comprised on either single - family attached housing, condominiums or apartments /flats. If
the intent is to provide the six "accessory" units as apartments to meet the affordable
housing requirement, I question why all of the language regarding "for- sale" units is
necessary. Also, if this is the intent, there is no need for the cash in lieu language found in
3) b) (little confused by the lettering and numbering of sections) since this is applicable to
for -sale units only.
If the intent is to provide for -sale units as affordable units then the price point designated
in 1) a) should be deleted stopping the sentence after "VHDA's first -time homebuyer
programs: This will also take care of the discrepancy in the amount listed in narrative form
and numerical form. Just as a note, the maximum selling price is currently $243,750 based
on the VHDA index. Also, if the intent is to provide for -sale units, I would have issues with
the concept of "silent" second liens. The intent of the Affordable Housing Policy is to get
"affordable units" which would have selling prices capped using the VHDA index. This
proffer seems to say that the developer /builder could produce a unit that would sell for
and be valued at more than $243,750 with a net cost to the purchaser being deemed
"affordable" by selling the unit for less than market value using the "silent" second. In
reality, an affordable unit was not created.
My other comment is that as the revised proffer is written any unit previously identified as
an "accessory unit" is now identified as an apartment which will require that the eventual
purchaser of the two - family unit comply with the rental rates and reporting on those
units. Since we cannot require how a purchaser may use their property (renting the unit or
not), I am wondering who will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the Declaration
of Covenants that would require the units be maintained as a two - family dwelling unit.
The following comments related to proffers and zoning concerns have been provided by Amanda
B.urbage:
1. Please amend the proffer statement to refer to the current application number, ZMA 2014-
00006. (previous comment)
2. Add a statement that the current proffer statement supersedes the proffer statement
dated November 21, 2013 pertaining to ZMA 2012 - 00004. (previous comment)
3. The cash proffer amounts in the current proffer statement do not reflect the County's
2
current cash proffer policy. The current maximum per unit cash proffer amounts are as
follows:
• $20,986.76/ SFD (single family detached)
• $14,270.99/ SFA/ TH (single family attached/ townhouse)
• $14,870.61/ MF (multifamily)
Action after Receipt of Comment Letter
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday -- Schedule can be
found at this address:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/f`orms center /departments /Community Devel
opment /forms /schedules /Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.pdf
(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.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is
cgrant(@albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Community Development
C: Beau Dickerson
Bellevue Real Estate LLC
enc: Engineering and Waiver Comments
VDOT Comments
Resubmittal Form
W
a'
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
of ALTS tf .
�:-
�•i1�ct�I�
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
To:
Vito Cetta
From:
Michelle Roberge, Engineering Department
Division:
Engineering
Date:
April 1, 2015
Subject:
ZMA 2014 -00006 Avon Park II
The applicant is amending an approved ZMA2012000004. I want to reiterate my concerns for the site. There are
three elements that engineering focused on with this review. The first is adequate drainage, since the proposed
property is wedged in between Avon 1 from the north and Nobel'Heights from the south. The second is
adequate sizing of the stormwater management facilities that are feasible for the site. The third is ensuring there
is a safe distance from the townhomes to the SWM facilities. The biofilter and extended detention basin takes up
a large space and the townhomes slopes downward towards the facilities. You will find my comments below
requests for more clarification and calculations for the reasons aforementioned above. Typically, these
comments are asked at the WPO and Site Plan phase, but I highly recommend the applicant to provide
clarifications to prevent another rezoning and to ensure the structures can be built.
1. The maximum biofilter drainage area is 2.5 acres per Virginia DEQ stormwater design Spec No.9. I
recommend showing other BMPs that can be added to meet water quality.
Applicant has shown two biofilters.
2. 1 recommend Hathaway Street to be extended to the property line to provide vehicular and pedestrian
interconnections to future development on adjoining lands, terminating within the development with a
temporary turnaround per Albemarle County Code Chapter 18, Section 32.7.2.2(e).
I have reviewed the waiver.
I do not recommend approval of the waiver. It appears to be possible to build to the property line.
See my review of the waivers attached.
3. The layout of the sewage systems appears to have laterals that run across many lots. Also, it appears that
each lot will need a holding tank that will activate a grinder after reaching a certain level. Then finally the
waste can be pumped to an existing main. This system is not recommended as many easements will need
to be established. Maintenance will also be a burden since the laterals goes through many lots and the
private road. I recommend a sewer main on the private street to a private central sewerage system. Then
sewage can be pumped to a public existing main.
Engineering recommends approval of grinder pumps even though it is the Engineering Dept's
opinion that grinder pumps will be a burden to the homeowners of the affordable housing in the
event of a power outage and when the grinder pumps need maintenance. ACSA has expressed their
concern and believes a private pump station would present more of a public health issue in the
event of a failure. It appears ACSA will not provide a plan approval for any developments that
propose a private pump station within their jurisdicational area.
4. The area behind lots 21 -26 have runoff from the existing adjacent lots. Drainage inlets should be provided in
addition to the swale shown. The berm is not an adequate measure to redirect runoff.
I still recommend a yard inlet between lot 20 and lot 21 at minimum, and more is needed to meet the
proffer. This will convey runoff, for a portion of property between Avon 1 and Avon II, into a blofilter.
Please note proffer 6(e.), which refers to surface drainage may flow across up to three lots before
being collected in a storm sewer or directed to a drainage way outside of the lots.
The sidewalk in front of Lot 1 and 8 just ends. This also exists behind lot 15 -20. 1 recommend adjusting
slightly to tie proposed sidewalks with existing sidewalks.
Applicant has provided sidewalk for lots 15 -20 to the tot lot. I also recommend extending sidewalk
to Avon St. Please discuss with planning if there are future sidewalk improvements along Avon St.
New Comment:
6. 1 recommend showing a wall behind lots 15 -20 for the following reasons:
a) The slope between these lots and the bioretention is too steep. The design specs a minimum
slope of 3:1. The proposed design exceeds 3:1.
b) Lots 15,19 and 20 will need space for a landing outside the back door (at least a 3'x3' exterior
landing).The grading and swaie shown does not seem possible without a retaining wall. Deep
footing is a possibility, but 6(a) is still not met.
c) A wall provides a backyard for the following lots instead of a doorway to a steep slope that
eventually leads to a biofilter and extended detention basin.
7. The sidewalk to the tot lot should be ADA compliant. The steep slope does not meet it. Please
address.
B. I recommend the tot lot to be graded to a flatter slope. 10% for a playground does not sound
feasible. Please clarify what will be placed here. Also, this tot lot is very close to the extended
detention basin. For safety concerns, I'recommend enclosing the tot lot completely instead of the 3-
board farm fence.
9. Show adequate maintenance access to the biofilters and extended detention basin.
10. Provide calculations that the extended detention basin is sized correctly and will meet channel
protection. All I see is a note that states "additional detention shall be provided to eliminate the need
for offsite drainage." Please provide.
11. On the previously approved ZMA2012 -04, a ditch improvement and replacement of culvert along
Avon St. (SW of property) is shown. Please provide on this plan. This addressed frontage
improvements for the drainage system along Avon Street.
12. The sidewalks on- Hathaway St should be extended to the property line. This will affect the driveways
for lots 8 and 9 since 18' is the minimum length. I recommend the driveways for lot 8 and 9 to be
moved to Stratford Way.
13. Please make the portion of Stratford Way to the cul -de -sac a public road.
Virginia Runoff Reduction Method (VRRM) Spreadsheet for Quality Criteria:
14. Include the portion of HathawayStreet (Avon 1) in Site Area acreage in VRRM.
15. What does the .08 acres represent? This is shown on northern and southern sections of property.
16. Revise the site data tab acreage for Forest/Open Space, turf , and impervious.
17. In drainage area A tab, include open space acreage for biofilter area..
18. in drainage area B tab, include open space acreage for biofilter area.'
19. Bioretention level 2 appears to meet quality criteria. Please revise.
20. 1 suggest to pull the calculations from the plan and to provide in a separate report. In the summary
state the numbers might slightly change, but the location and size of the biofilters and extended
detention basin should remain the same for the site plan.
Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Dept at mroberge()albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 34
8 for further information.
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
-AL Li
o vg%�c h
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
To: Claudette Grant
From: Michelle Roberge, Engineering Department
Division: Engineering
Date: April 1, 2015
Subject: ZMA 2014 -00006 Avon Park II, Waiver Request for Private St. Authorization, Waiver for
Construction of Public Road Ext.
1) The applicant is requesting a waiver for the private street authorization of Stratford Way. Please note
that this application is to amend a previously approved ZMA201200004. The reason for amending the
ZMA is to relocate and reorient the affordable housing to meet parking requirements.
I recommend approval of Stratford Way with the condition to provide parking only on one side.
The proposed road meets VDOT standards; however, it does not meet Fire Rescue's requirement
for a 20' clear access. I recommend parking on the'southern side and "no parking" signs on the
northern side. Please note that my recommendation will impact the required parking spaces
again. It appears reducing the proposed lots is a solution to reduce the required parking spaces.
It is important to resolve the parking at this stage to avoid another rezoning.
29' Curb to Curb
P 7rk!nQ Both S ides
P) cwf
2) The applicant is requesting a waiver to not build Hathaway Street to the property line.
Per 32.7.2.2[eJ[J "All streets within a development shall be extended and constructed to the abutting
property lines to provide vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to future development on adjoining
lands, terminating within the development with a temporary turnaround. The arrangement of the streets shall
provide adequate access to adjoining lands within the development where necessary to provide for the
orderly development of the county including, but not limited to, reserving temporary construction easements
of sufficient area to accommodate the future completion of the street when the adjoining lands are
developed."
I recommend disapproval of the waiver. The justification for not constructing to the property line is
to avoid an offsite grading easement. The applicant also states it is a substantial offsite grading and
clearing. However, grading and easements are already shown to provide an emergency access from
Nobel Heights. It is possible to grade into the property and if easements are already being proposed
to address the emergency access road it is also possible to obtain easements to build Hathaway to
the property line.
Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Dept at mroberae(a)albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext.
3458 for further information.
2
C ;a�
ti *i
t�
1.1" 7NWE L'TH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1901 Orange Road
Culpeper. Vrginie 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
April 9, 2015
Ms. Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: ZMA- 2014 -00006 Avon Park II
Dear Ms. Grant,
We have reviewed the Avon Park II Zoning Map Amendment Plan, as submitted by Roudabush,
Gale & Associates, with a revision date of March I6, 2015 and offer the following comments:
I. We have no objection to the rezoning. In order to avoid a revision to an approved
Zoning Map Amendment Plan, Hathaway Street needs be constructed to the property
line of the adjacent parcel, in accordance with the Secondary Street Acceptance
Requirements (SSAR), and we also recommend extending the sidewalk to the
property line.
2. The plan should clearly state which portions of the street will be private or public.
The layout does not appear to agree with the typical sections.
3. During the initial site plan/road construction plan review the following items will
need to be addressed:
a. Ditch computations will be required along Avon Street Extended.
b. Pre - development and Post - development computations will be required to
verify the adequacy of the existing 21" CMP under Avon Street Extended. It
is understood that additional detention will be provided, however, it appears
the proposed ditch along the north side of the side remains uncontrolled, and
is a concentrated flow, which may have the potential to erode the existing
ditch line.
c. Additional detail (topo and/or spot elevations) should be shown along Avon
Street Extended.
d. We recommend extending the proposed 8" waterline in Hathaway Street. The
blow off valve should be located outside of the pavement.
e. In order to reduce the number of bends within the roadway the 8" waterline
should maintain the same alignment as the existing 12 ".
f. The proposed sanitary sewer manhole should be relocated outside of the cul-
de -sac.
g. The following information should also be provided: road profiles, line of
sight profiles, storm profiles, sanitary sewer profiles, storm sewer
computations, signage etc.
If you need further information concerning this project or if you wish to schedule a meeting
please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422 -9894.
Sincerely,
Shelly A. Plaster
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
NJIi VNl 1l L' UJL' VIVLY' Jr ii or 61v1A ii
Fee AmOLHA $ Date Paid By who?
Receipt /l CH By:
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or
`l:
J ti A�F�'+
Zoning Map Amendment !�lKNNI)'
PROJECT NUMBER: 2ff1 qao tt _C LPROJECT NAME: •t- yuo Peat m
2"'Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
0,(a- i,•tk -i-Fe_,, Qlra n�— Community Development Project Coordinator
Name of Applicant
Signature
FEES
Phone Number
Date
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$500
cost of first -class postage
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,000
_,....
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500
❑ First resubmission
FREE
I
Each additional resubmission
$1,250
cost of first -class postage
Fbmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500
irst resubmission
FREE
• Each additional resubmission
$1,750
❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add'1 notice fees will be required
$180
To be raid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission
and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing
a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice
are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be
provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body.
TR A yr rur, rue •rn rnTTNTV. nF ALREMART:F. /PAN,MF,NT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER
i' Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$200 + actual cost of first -class postage
$1.00 for each additional notice + actual
Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after rift), (50)
cost of first -class postage
Actual cost
> Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
(minimum of $280 for total of 4 publications)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296 -5832 Fax: (434) 972 -4126
6/7/2011 Pate 1 of 1