HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200700001 Review Comments Waiver, variation or substitution requirement 2015-12-30AL
IRGINZ�
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone 434-296-5832
Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins
From: Ellie Ray, PLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: December 30, 2015
Subject: Hollymead Town Center Area A-2\ ZMA 07-01 & ZMA 10-06
Variation Applications from Approved Plans and Code of Develoament (Variations #1-4
Four variation requests to the Code of Development for Hollymead Town Center Area A-2 (dated 9/12/07) were
submitted December 22, 2015 (by request dated December 21, 2015). Staff met on December 29th to review
the requests and has determined that additional information is necessary for completion of our review. Once
this additional information is provided, staff will review the requests and determine if they are ready to proceed
to the Board of Supervisors for consideration.
Variation #1: From the request, "The approved Code of Development permits multi -family development with
Blocks C2, C4, and D2 on Table C of the Code of Development. Table D of the approved Code of Development
was altered between the Planning Commission approval in August 2007 and the Board of Supervisors approval
in September 2007, and this table is no longer consistent with the approved application Plan. This variation is
requesting a modification to Table 4 to allow multi -family units to be developed within Blocks C2, C4, and D2,
which is consistent with the approved application plan. No increase in density is being sought with the variation
request, the applicant is requesting for multi -family units to be constructed within these blocks."
Analysis:
• Staff assumes the request is to modify Table D, not Table 4.
• Guidance from Zoning regarding a possible variation to approve multi -family units in these blocks
indicated that any variation request would need to include information regarding to which blocks the
non-residential square footage in Table D would be relocated; this information has not been provided.
• While the request indicates that no increase in density is being sought, the unit numbers proposed on
the Initial Site Plans for these three blocks are above the permitted number of units in Table D
(SDP201500050 & SDP201500063).
o Table D allows a maximum of 8 SFA units and 20 mixed-use units in Block C2 (28 total units),
while the initial plan proposes 46 multi -family units.
o Table D allows a maximum of 76 SFA units and 20 mixed-use units in Block C4 (96 total units),
while the initial plan proposes 57 multi -family units (it is unclear if the initial plan covers the
entirety of Block C4).
o Table D allows a maximum of 65 mixed-use units in Block D2, while the initial plan proposes
109 multi -family units.
• Table D allows an overall maximum of 1222 dwelling units, with a fairly even mix of the three types (SFA
(30%), multi -family (40%) and mixed-use (30%)). This request does not provide information on a
rebalancing of unit types or unit numbers in the remaining HTC A-2 blocks.
Additional information requested:
• Provide a revised Table D that demonstrates to which Blocks in HTC A-2 this request proposes to
relocate the non-residential square footage indicated for Blocks C2 (5,000 sf retail, 5,000 sf office) and
D2 (20,000 sf retail, 100,000 sf office). Consider revising the table to provide minimums and maximums
of non-residential square footage for each block, or a footnote with such information.
• Provide a revised Table D that demonstrates a rebalancing of unit numbers and unit types for all
residential potential within HTC A-2. This should include moving unit numbers to the proper columns
(SFA, M -F or M -U) and maintenance of an overall maximum of 1,222 units.
• Clarify if the Initial Site Plan under review for Block C4 is for all of this block or only a portion. If area
within C4 remains, make sure the revised Table D provides adequate units for the remaining portion.
Variation #2: From the application, "The variation is requesting a modification to the front setback of the
structures from the right-of-way. In Block C2, C3, C4, and D2, the front yard setback is 0-5'. This variation is
requesting a modification to the setback for 0-10 feet for all proposed structures within these blocks."
Analysis:
• The current front setback requirement is 1-6', not 0-5.
• Staff finds the request for a front setback of up to 10' acceptable and in keeping with current setback
requirements in the Zoning Ordinance.
Additional information:
• Staff will recommend approval of a front setback range of 1-10' for Blocks C2, C3, C4 and D2; if the
applicant desires a minimum of 0' please clarify the need for 0'.
• The recommendation for approval will be sent to the Board of Supervisors when all other variation
requests are also ready for recommendation.
• Building 4 in Block D2 (SDP201500050) does not meet the requested maximum 10' setback, and will
need to be moved closer to Meeting Street to meet the new setback requirement.
Variation #3: From the application, "A variation in the spatial enclosure is also required with the modification in
the front setbacks. While 4 story units are proposed along Meeting Street and 3 story units are proposed along
Lockwood Drive within these blocks, the spatial enclosure minimum ratio of 1:2 may not be achieved with the
additional setbacks. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variation to the chart to allow a minimum spatial
enclosure of 1:2.5."
Analysis:
• Staff assumes this request is to modify Table F (page 20) in the Code of Development.
• Zoning has determined that Table F illustrates how certain ratios might apply, but that the spatial
enclosure requirement is under "Architectural Standards" on page 22 of the Code. The Architectural
Standards lists spatial enclosure ratios between 1:1 and 1:3 for Mixed Use/Community Service districts
and between 1:2 and 1:3 in Urban Density districts.
Additional information:
• The requested spatial enclosure ratio (1:2.5) falls within the permissible range, therefore no variation is
necessary.
• Actual building heights have not been provided on the Initial Site Plans, therefore staff is unable to verify
if the required spatial enclosure ratios have been met.
Variation #4: From the application, "The variation is requesting a modification to the linear parks within Block C
and Block D. The approved COD requires 41,600 SF of a linear park in Block C and 12,600 SF of a linear park
in Block D. This variation is not requesting a reduction of the total requirement of the linear park, but a
modification in the location of the parks. This variation request would reduce the linear park within Block C from
41,600 SF to approximately 36,000 SF, and increase the size of the linear park on Block D from 12,600 SF to a
minimum of 18,200 SF. The total minimum square footage of the linear park will not change, and the linear park
shall align with the existing linear park network already in place."
Analysis/Additional information:
• Staff finds the request for a modification of the location of certain portions of the Linear Park acceptable
and in keeping with the intent of the Code of Development.
• The Initial Site Plan for Blocks C2 and D2 reflects this modification request.
• Staff will recommend approval of this request; the recommendation for approval will be sent to the
Board of Supervisors when all other variation requests are also ready for recommendation.
Please contact Ellie Ray at the Division of Current Development by using erav@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832
ext. 3432 for further information.
2
EXHIBIT 5
Hollymead Town Center Area A-2
Changes Requested by the Planning Commission
At their July 24, 2007 Public Hearing
1. Provide cash proffers in an acceptable form as outlined by staff. Done
2. The cost of the impact is expected to be $11,853,200; no longer relevant
3. Provide credits of $1,575,000, bringing the total cash proffer for impacts to $10, 278,200;
no longer relevant
4. Make all other proffer changes identified by staff as having been verbally agreed to by the
applicant; done
5. Provide phasing in the proffers, to be approved by staff; no longer relevant
6. Include all other proffers that exist in Exhibit F to the staff report; done
7. Provide an erosion and sediment control proffer similar to, but not less than the one
approved for Area A-1 indicating the amount of area that can be disturbed at any given
time; done, except that Biscuit Run proffers are more restrictive than HTC A-1 proffers
and the applicant has provided proffers similar to Biscuit Run.
8. Commit that all mixed use buildings will be LEED certified. The Commission does not
support the LEED certification as a credit. done
9. Make the following changes:
Take out the cash buyout in the affordable housing proffer; done
Change the proffer for completing Meeting Street and Town Center so that they
are not bonded for completion but will be completed within a year of approval of
the rezoning; done
Clarify the proffers regarding the community park; done
Clarify the amount of land proffered for the recycling center; done
Amend the Code to reflect changes identified by staff; done
Change the application plan to show the required cross sections or design for
Meeting Street south of Town Center Drive. done