HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300001 Correspondence 2013-04-08 Nomar Al
IV AIM
.....,
ENGINEERS
SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
ASSOCIATES
April 8,2013
Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: The Lofts at Meadowcreek—ZMA 201300001
WWA Project No. 213010.00
Dear Ms. Grant:
This letter is to document and respond to agency review dated March 25, 2013. Our
responses are as follows:
A. Planning/Neighborhood Model:
1. Comment: Pedestrian Orientation— Sidewalks are proposed to be provided
along Rio Road and connecting to the proposed new building. This principle is
addressed.
Response:
Acknowledged.
2. Comment: Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths—The entrance onto
the site is a driveway leading to parking under the subject building and to a few
parking spaces that are at grade on the property. Sidewalks and pathways are
provided on the site along with street trees. This principle is addressed.
Response:
Acknowledged.
3. Comment: Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks—Due to
the sites location, interconnected streets will be difficult to provide. This
property is located on a major road that is proposed for future transit. Providing
a transit stop for this area is recommended. This principle is not fully
addressed.
Response: An area along the Rio Road frontage north of the proposed site
entrance from Rio Road has been reserved for a transit stop (see Sheet Number
3 of 5).
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone (434) 984-2700 •Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
'groI
4. Comment: Parks and Open Space—The amount of open space provided for
this project is minimal. Does it meet the 20% required for green space? If yes,
please show it. If the parks/open space provided on the site is not adequate,
perhaps providing funding for a sidewalk from this proposed development to
nearby Pen Park is an option. This principle is not met.
Response: The Open Space Detail on Sheet Number 5 of 5 has been adjusted to
delineate open/green park space. Green space exceeds the 20% requirement.
5. Comment: Neighborhood Centers—The minimal open space provided on the
site does not appear to be a neighborhood center. The indoor fitness center is
relatively small. If there is equipment in the fitness center, is there enough
space for a community gathering? This principle is not met.
Response:
Due to the size of the site, a"Community Center" is not practicable. Applicant
will work with its affiliate company to allow residents of Lofts at Meadowcreek
to have use of amenities at Treesdale.
6. Comment: Buildings and spaces of Human Scale—The proposed building
appears to be three to four stories of living space. The parking area is located
below the building. Maximum building height is proposed at 60 feet. He
Treesdale project across the street has a height limitation of 35 feet. The site
plan for Treesdale also states that "maximum building heights shall not exceed
3 stories and a basement level. Any building taller than 35 feet shall require
additional setbacks from the property lines." Depending on how the proposed
building works with the terrain of the land, it might not be a space of human
scale. Demonstrate how the proposed 60 foot tall building will be a space of
human scale. Will the scale of this proposed building be in keeping with the
scale of buildings in the surrounding area? This principle is not met.
Response: A grade calculation has been provided on Sheet Number 5 of 5.
The Code of Development (Section IX) has been revised to demonstrate human
scale.
7. Comment: Relegated Parking—The proposed parking is shown to be located
under the building and there are a few at grade parking spaces located at the
rear of the site. This principle is addressed.
Response:
Acknowledged.
8. Comment: Mixture of Uses—This proposal does not provide a mixture of
uses. Do you wish to request a waiver of this requirement from the Board of
Supervisors? If yes, please provide this waiver request. Per Section 20A.8(b)
of the Zoning Ordinance, please provide a different use present within one-
3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville,VA 22911 •Telephone (434) 984-2700 • Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 2 of 12
quarter mile of the proposed district that accomplishes the mixture of uses
within the neighborhood. This principle is not addressed.
Response:
A waiver of the Mixture of Uses is being submitted concurrently with the
resubmission of the ZMA 201300001 documents.
9. Comment: Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability—This proposal
does not provide a mixture of housing types. Do you wish to request a waiver
of this requirement from the Board of Supervisors? If yes, please provide this
waiver request. Per Section 20A.8(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, this is an infill
project. What are the two (2) housing types present within one-quarter mile of
the proposed district? How will we know if the VHDA financing has been
accomplished? We need something tangible that addresses affordable housing.
Will proffers be provided to address the affordable housing requirement? This
principle is not addressed.
Response:
A waiver of the Mixture of Housing Types is being submitted concurrently with
the resubmission of the ZMA 201300001 documents.
Applicant to provide a Letter of Intent/Commitment Letter from VHDA prior to
Board of Supervisors' meeting.
Applicant will respond regarding proffers by April 12, 2013 per email
correspondence with Claudette Grant dated April 1, 2013.
10. Comment: Redevelopment—This is the redevelopment of an existing single
family house. This redevelopment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
This principle is met.
Response:
Acknowledged.
11. Comment: Site Planning That Respects Terrain—The existing building will
be replaced by a new larger building. It appears critical slopes will be
disturbed. Will a waiver be required or provide information that shows that a
waiver is not necessary. Minimal disturbance to the terrain is suggested.
Response: A critical slope waiver request is being submitted concurrently with
the resubmission of the ZMA 201300001 documents.
12. Comment: Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas—Not Applicable.
Response:
Acknowledged.
3040*vemore Square Place • Charlottesville,`TA 22911 •Telephone (434) 984-2700 • Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 3 of 12
B. Application Plan-Detailed Comments
1. Comment: Transit service is proposed for Rio Road. We suggest you work
with staff and CAT representatives to show an appropriate location for a future
bus stop on the plans. The County in working with CAT may request
additional improvements that relate to future transit service on your site (i.e.
bus shelter, bench).
Response: See response to Planning/Neighborhood Model Comment 3 —
Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks.
2. Comment: The zoning of Treesdale is actually PRD, not R-4 as labeled on
drawing.
Response: Sheets 2, 3 and 4 of 5 have been revised to denote the PRD zoning
district for the Treesdale project.
3. Comment: Sheet 2 of 5 shows the adjacent property as Pine Crest Orchids,
which apparently is no longer located there.
Response: The reference to Pine Crest Orchids has been deleted.
4. Comment: Make sure you have addressed Section 20A.4(d) of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Response: As of 4/1/13, this Section of the Zoning Ordinance has been
repealed. However, the plan has been revised to address this comment. The
existing topography is field shot by WW Associates. The source of
survey/topography to include horizontal and vertical datum has been added to
the Site Data Information on the Application Plan cover sheet. Conceptual
grading at the rear of the building has been added along with additional spot
elevations (see Sheet Number 4 of 5).
C. Code of Development (COD)-Detailed Comments
1. Comment: Page 1 —The "Pine Crest Orchids" home occupation is no longer on
the adjacent site there is a new home occupation for acupuncturist located in the
residence. The property to the south is residential with home-occ, not "retail
location".
Response:
The Code of Development has been revised to reflect current use of property to
the south.
3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville,`T A 22911 •Telephone(434) 984-2700 • Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 4 of 12
*oar Nwov
2. Comment: Page 2—Master Plan for Development Area Section should refer to
Places 29 Master Plan.
Response:
The Code of Development has been revised to reference Places 29 Master Plan.
3. Comment: Page 5 —The number of parking spaces provided does not seem
adequate for 65 residential units.
Response:
The Code of Development has been revised to increase parking from sixty-eight
to seventy-four parking spaces.
A waiver of the off-street parking requirements is being submitted concurrently
with the resubmission of the ZMA 201300001 documents.
4. Comment: It may be useful (easier to keep track of) to show open space area as
a block with no development.
Response: The open space area has been provided in a block area format and
tabulated. The Code of Development table has been revised.
5. Comment: Page 6—V. Table of Uses by Block, Should this be V. or VI.? How
does this table relate to V.(1) on page 5? What does the P in the table stand for,
permitted or prohibited? Are accessory uses and buildings including storage
buildings permitted or not? This is a bit confusing.
Response:
The Code of Development table has been revised.
6. Comment: Page 6, maximum density in units per acre should be 23 not 24.
Response:
Sixty-five units are proposed on 2.80 acres yielding 23.21 units per acre, which
is rounded up to 24 units per acre.
7. Comment: Page 8 —IX. Architecture form, massing, and proportions of
structures. The features are not illustrative as described on page 2, but
committed to with the language on page 8. Please clarify.
Response:
The Code of Development has been revised with details regarding features.
3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville,VA 22911 •Telephone(434) 984-2700 • Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 5 of 12
8. Comment: Page 8 —X. Landscape Treatments, confirm that this section is
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance regulations and that the Virginia
Landscapes list is consistent with Albemarle County list.
Response:
The Code of Development has been revised.
9. Comment: Page 9— Stormwater Management, where is Exhibit A on the
Application Plan? What is proposed: basin detention, retention, bio-filter/rain
garden? How will it be designed and related to the open space "Community
Center Park" as described in the COD? In summary, provide more information.
Response: Exhibit A to the Code of Development is the reduced copy of the
Lofts at Meadowcreek Application Plan. The proposed stormwater facility has
been graded out and labeled accordingly.
10. Comment: Make sure you have addressed Section 20A.5(c), Section 20A.5(i),
Section 20A.5(i)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Response:
Section 20A.5(c): A waiver of the Mixture of Housing Types is being submitted
concurrently with the resubmission of the ZMA 201300001 documents.
Section 20A.5(i): See Exhibit A and Code of Development Sections V, VI, VII,
VIII, IX
Section 20A.5(i)(7): Not applicable.
D. Zoning—The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by
Ron Higgins:
1. Comment: A critical slopes waiver will be needed.
Response: This waiver request is being submitted concurrently with the
resubmission of the ZMA 201300001 documents.
2. Comment: The height limit of the proposed building needs to be measured per
the zoning ordinance, from the curb elevation at the street. If the intent is for
the maximum building height to be 60 feet from the curb elevation at the street,
this scale would not necessarily seem appropriate for this area.
Response: A calculation of"Height of Building" in accordance with the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance definition has been provided on Sheet
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,V A 22911 •Telephone (434) 984-2700 •Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 6 of 12
ggo
Number 5 of 5. Section IX of the Code of Development has been revised with
details regarding building scale.
3. Comment: This will require a parking analysis and modification for the
number of spaces proposed.
Response:
A waiver of the off-street parking requirements is being submitted concurrently
with the resubmission of the ZMA 201300001 documents.
Section 20A.3.b regarding parking study requirements has been repealed
effective 4/1/2013.
4. Comment: The uses shown as "Community Center" do not meet the definition
for such centers.
Response:
Due to the size of the site, a"Community Center" is not practicable. Applicant
will work with its affiliate company to allow residents of Lofts at Meadowcreek
to have use of amenities at Treesdale.
E. Engineering and Water Resources—The following comments related to
engineering and water resources have been provided by Michael Koslow:
1. Comment: Please revise entrance to prevent currently proposed skewed
intersection with Rio Road.
Response: The entrance horizontal geometry has been revised accordingly to
eliminate the skew.
2. Comment: Recommend coordination with the proffered Treesdale traffic
signal; will defer to VDOT regarding if a traffic impact analysis is warranted.
Response: The Rio Road frontage improvements were coordinated with
Mr. Joel DeNunzio, P.E. of the VDOT Charlottesville Residency. As required
by Mr. DeNunzio, these improvements are not within the functional area of the
intersection to be signalized (Rio Road— State Route 631 and Pen Park Lane—
State Route 1481). The improvements shown were agreed upon with
Mr. DeNunzio to mitigate project traffic impacts. Per our March 27, 2013
meeting, you agreed to defer this issue to VDOT.
3. Comment: Please reroute SWM access road. It is unrealistic to stop traffic on
Rio Road for maintenance activities for the BMP pond as proposed. Due to
infrequency of maintenance, will defer to VDOT if maintenance traffic every 6
months is acceptable.
3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville,`TA 22911 •Telephone(434) 984-2700 • Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 7 of 12
Response: Per our 3/27/13 meeting, it was agreed that you would defer to
VDOT on this issue.
4. Comment: Please indicate proposed grading for SWM facility. Proposed fill
over existing sewer main at north end of property would need to be coordinated
with ACSA.
Response: The requested grading has been added to the plan (see Sheet
Number 4 of 5). The grading reflects the volumes/surface area required and
does not impact the existing ACSA facilities.
5. Comment: Please re-route proposed lot drainage. Proposed pipe cannot
conflict with proposed building for maintenance purposes. Please provide a
minimum 10' buffer between edge of building and pipe centerline.
Response: The drainage pipe has been revised as requested (see Sheet Number
4 of 5).
6. Comment: Please designate area shown as "New Treeline" on sheet 4 as a
conservation area [18-8-4.e.1] as indicated on p. 4 I-11 "Site Planning That
Respects Terrain" in proposed Code of Development. A minimum of 20% of
the gross acreage proposed to be rezoned must be devoted to green space [18-
20A.9.a.1].
Response: Per our 3/27/13 meeting, it was agreed to delete the New Treeline
and replace with tabulated green/open space area at a minimum of 20 percent.
F. VDOT—Comments have not been received. Staff will send comments upon
receipt.
See response to Comment E.2. above
G. ASCA/RWSA—Comments have not been received. Staff will send comments
upon receipt. The following comments related to Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority (RWSA) has been provided by Victoria Fort:
1. Comment: There are ongoing discussions between the RWSA and ACSA
regarding the location of the water service tap. This may be resolved during the
site plan review.
Response: Acknowledged and will be resolved with the site plan review
process.
H. Fire/Rescue— See the attachment for comments related to Fire/Rescue that have
been provided by Howard Lagomarisno.
3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville,`TA 22911 •Telephone (434) 984-2700 •Fax (434)978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 8 of 12
As agreed upon in our 3/27/13 meeting, you concurred that the Fire Marshal's
comments could be addressed by stating that each comment is acknowledged and
that it is to be addressed during the Site Plan Review process.
1. Comment: Every building or facility shall have an approved fire access road
that shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions
of the exterior walls of the first story of the building (503.1.1).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan Review process.
2. Comment: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum, unobstructed
width of 20 ft. and vertical clearance of 13 ft. 6 inc. (503.2.1) Dimensions.
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan Review process.
a) Comment: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet
(9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access
shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of
accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and
power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access
roadway (D105.1).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan Review process.
b) Comment: Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum
unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders, in the
immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet
(9144 mm) in height.
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan Review process.
c) Comment: At least one of the required access routes meeting this conditions
hall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572 mm) and a maximum of
30 feet (9144 mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one
entire side of the building (D105.3).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan Review process.
d) Comment: Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall
be provided with width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table
3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville,VA 22911 ■Telephone(434) 984-2700 • Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 9 of 12
D103.4 (generally: 150 ft. to 500 ft. dead end road will require either a 96 ft.
radius cul de sac, 60 ft. "Y" or 120 ft. hammerhead) (D103.4).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan Review process.
3. Comment: Exterior doors and openings required by this code or the
International Building Code shall be maintained readily accessible for
emergency access by the fire department. An approved access walkway leading
from fire apparatus access roads to exterior openings shall be provided (504.1).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan Review process.
4. Comment: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers
and building numbers.
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan Review process.
5. Comment: Approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly
legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers
shall contrast with their background.
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan Review process.
6. Comment: Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters.
Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum
stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where?
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan Review process.
7. Comment: Access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be
viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be
used to identify the structure (505.1).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan Review process.
8. Comment: The fire department connection shall be indicated by an approved
sign mounted on the street front on the side of the building. Such sign shall
have the letters "FDC" at least 6 inches (152 mm) high and words in letters at
least 2 inches (51 mm) high or an arrow to indicate the location. All such signs
shall be subject to the approval of the fire code official (912.2.2).
3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville,VA 22911 •Telephone (434) 984-2700 • Fax (434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 10 of 12
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan Review process.
9. Comment: Immediate access to fire department connections shall be
maintained at all times and without obstruction by fences, bushes, trees, walls
or any other fixed or moveable object. Access to fire department connections
shall be approved by the fire chief(912.3).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan Review process.
10. Comment: Clear space around connections. A working space of not less than
36 inches (762 mm) in width, 36 inches (914 mm) in depth and 78 inches (1981
mm) in height shall be provided and maintained in front of and to the sides of
wall-mounted fire department connections and around the circumference of
free-standing fire department connections, except as otherwise required or
approved by the fire chief(912.3.2).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan Review process.
I. Housing—The following comments related to Housing have been provided by Ron
White:
1. Comment: Proffers have not been provided. See Proffer section below for
proposed suggestions. If you do not want to provide proffers for affordable
housing, you should justify your reason. One explanation could be that
Treesdale, located across Rio Road has 88 units of tax credit support affordable
housing.
Response:
Applicant will respond regarding proffers by April 12, 2013 per email
correspondence with Claudette Grant dated April 1, 2013.
J. Proffers
1. Comment: Proffers have not been submitted. A proffer statement is needed
with the application.
Response:
Applicant will respond regarding proffers by April 12, 2013 per email
correspondence with Claudette Grant dated April 1, 2013.
3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville,`JA 22911 •Telephone(434) 984-2700 • Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 11 of 12
2. Comment: More information is needed on housing affordability to assess any
housing proffers. Staff suggests proffering a certain number/percentage of units
meeting the County's affordable criteria which would allow those units to not
be subject to the capital proffers.
Response:
Applicant will respond regarding proffers by April 12, 2013 per email
correspondence with Claudette Grant dated April 1, 2013.
3. Comment: Cash proffers need to be provided.
Response:
Applicant will respond regarding proffers by April 12, 2013 per email
correspondence with Claudette Grant dated April 1, 2013.
4. Comment: Will amenities be proffered?
Response:
Applicant will respond regarding proffers by April 12, 2013 per email
correspondence with Claudette Grant dated April 1, 2013.
I trust that the above responses and plan changes properly address the outstanding items.
If there are any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
WW Associates, Inc.
Vaiv-c;//111,An-a24-2_
David M. Jensen, P.E.
Vice President
3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville,VA 22911 •Telephone (434) 984-2700 • Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 12 of 12
lea u[esltolrne ]Lainld, lL..IL..(C""j
1821 Avon Street,Suite Zoo Charlottesville,Virginia 22902
Phone:434.979.2900 ]Fax:434-979`0001
May 13, 2013
Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Re: The Lofts at Meadowcreek—ZMA 201300001
WWA Project No. 213010.00
Dear Ms. Grant:
This letter is to document and respond to agency review dated May 1, 2013. Our
responses are as follows:
A. Planning/Neighborhood Model:
1. Comment: Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks—Rev. 2
The application plan now shows an area fronting on Rio Road, north of the
proposed site entrance that has been reserved for a transit stop. A proffer
addressing the transit reservation area is also provided. This principle is
addressed.
Response:
Acknowledged.
2. Comment: Parks and Open Space—Rev. 2 Sheet 5 of the plans now shows
the breakdown of the open/green space at the required 20%. As previously
described above, staff believes this could be an opportunity to provide funding
for a sidewalk from this proposed development to nearby Pen Park. Since you
have met the required 20%, this is a suggestion and not a requirement. This
could be a good opportunity to provide pedestrian interconnection, an outdoor
amenity, since what is being proposed is somewhat minimal. It is possible
that providing this funding for a future sidewalk could assist you in mitigating
impacts from the proposed development. This principle is addressed.
Response:
Acknowledged. Applicant requires information regarding existing proffers
regarding sidewalks for adjacent parcel (Charlottesville Catholic School).
3. Comment: Neighborhood Centers—Rev. 2 While it is understood that there
are site constraints relating to size and the inclusion of a neighborhood center,
staff wonders about the practicality of resident crossing the very busy Rio
Road to access amenities at the Treesdale community across the street. This
principle is not fully met.
Response:
A neighborhood center, as envisioned for larger Neighborhood Model
developments, is not practicable for this site. Applicant has addressed this
principle to the extent feasible by providing a fitness center that can
accommodate informal community gatherings. In addition, by providing
access to amenities at the nearby Treesdale community (Phase 1), residents at
all income levels will have an increased opportunity for interaction. The Land
Use standards for the Development Areas recognize that "as individual
proposals are considered, all of.the principles of the Neighborhood
Model...may not he equally applicable to any specific proposal. _It is
recognized that there are multiple applications of the principles of'the
Neighborhood Model and balanced, rational and reasonable application of
those principals is expected. " Albemarle County Land Use Plan Amended
July 10, 2002, page 19.
4. Comment: Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale—Rev. 2 Sheet 5 of the
plans now provides a grade calculation for the building and the Code of
Development provides information demonstrating the human scale of the
building. This principle is met.
Response:
Acknowledged.
5. Comment: Mixture of Uses—Rev. 2 A waiver request has now been
submitted. This principle is now addressed.
Response:
Acknowledged.
6. Comment: Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability—Rev. 2 A waiver
request has now been submitted. Proffers addressing affordable housing have
been provided. Applicant will provide a Letter of Intent/Commitment Letter
from VHDA prior to board of Supervisor's meeting. This principle is now
addressed.
Response:
Acknowledged. Approval for Virginia Housing Development Authority
(VHDA) funding is contingent upon resolution by Board of Supervisors as
required by VA Code§ 36-55.30:2B.
7. Comment: Site Planning That Respects Terrain—Rev. 2 A critical slope
waiver request is now submitted. This principle is now addressed.
Response:
Acknowledged.
B. Application Plan—Detailed Comments
1. Comment: The note on Sheet 4 of 5 states new building structure 1 story
garage 2 story loft units building height 60' from garage floor to roof peak see
height of building calculations sheet 4 of 5. Should say sheet 5 of 5.
Response:
The sheet reference has been corrected. Also, the building height has been
corrected.
2. Comment: Provide more details for area reserved for Jaunt/CAT. For
example, the language shown on the plan should be similar to the language in
the proffer, so there is no misinterpretation of what is being referred to or
requested. Also the plan should reference the related proffer so that someone
reviewing the plan knows there is a specific proffer related to this area on the
plan.
Response:
A detail of a combined Jaunt/CAT bus pull-off has been added to Sheet 5.
The location reference for the bus pull-off has been deleted on Sheet 4 and
replaced with a note specifying the mechanism of locating the bus pull-off.
3. Comment: This is not a requirement, primarily a suggestion: While the
proposal is consistent with the Master Plan, the proposed building is larger
and denser than the existing single family residence, and it will be a change
for the existing adjacent residence. Consider providing and making a
commitment on the plan to a landscaped buffer and/or fence to the area on the
subject site that is adjacent to the existing residence. Staff suggests working
this out with the adjacent resident.
Response:
Acknowledged.
C. Code of Development(COD)—Detailed Comments
1. Comment: Exhibit A should be labeled. I think this refers to the plan?
Response:
The Application Plan is Exhibit A. which has been labeled as such in the
upper right corner.
2. Comment: Page 2— The last sentence in the first paragraph - "Specific lot
boundaries and building locations shown on exhibits are for purposes of
illustration only and should not be construed as final." is confusing, as the
plan is typically proffered. How much change in the location of lot boundaries
and buildings, do you anticipate? It is possible that minor changes might be
acceptable and/or could potentially be varied if needed. Stating illustrative
only could leave a wide range of possibilities. Please provide some
clarification.
Response:
The last sentence in the first paragraph of Page 2 has been deleted.
3. Comment: Page 3 —5. Neighborhood Centers states that Residents at the
Lofts of Meadowcreek will have access to amenities across the street at
Treesdale through a Shared amenities Agreement to be recorded prior to
issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The amenities provided on the site are
minimal and could benefit from being upgraded. While we understand what
you are proposing, this seems like an awkward agreement to enforce in the
code of development. Should it be a proffer?
Response:
The common ownership of Treesdale and Lofts at Meadowcreek allows for
ease in sharing amenities between the properties. The same management
company will provide leasing and maintenance services for both properties,
and would ensure the shared uses.
4. Comment: Page 5 The blocks should be delineated on the plan to avoid any
confusion.
Response:
The plan has been revised to delineate the land mass associated with Blocks A
& B.
5. Comment: Page 5 The paragraph referring to Block A describes Parking for
70 cars and 4 surface parking spaces will be provided. These numbers are not
consistent with what is described on the cover sheet of the plan. Please clarify.
Response:
The Code of Development has been revised to match the revised parking
shown on sheet 4 of the Application Plan.
6. Comment: Page 8 —IX. Architecture form, massing, and proportions of
structures. It is somewhat confusing to have illustrations in the code of
development, which is meant to be the code for how a project is developed.
Illustratives that are examples and not standards begin to be unclear for
reviewers regarding what you count and do not count. Please clarify. One
suggestion might be to attach this information as an example that is not part of
the code of development.
Response:
Architectural illustrations have been removed from the Code of Development,
and are now attached as examples, and Code of Development language has
been revised to clarify.
D. Zoning—The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by
Ron Higgins:
1. Comment: Need more justification for parking modification (parking data?).
Response:
A revised parking modification letter with ITE data is included in this
submittal.
2. Comment: Parking modification request has errors in# of garage vs. surface
spaces.
Response:
See response to comment D. 1.
3. Comment: Height calculation method is acceptable. However, top of roof is
512.1 on cross-section, not 520.5, resulting in height of 45.2'. Note that this
height is more than that of surrounding properties.
Response: The building height calculation on Sheet 5 has been corrected. As
noted in Section IX, due to the contours of the property, the highest point of
the loft roof is 35' above the average street elevation along Rio Road. In
addition. height calculations for the neighboring Treesdale development range
from 35' to 44'.
E. Engineering and Water Resources—The following comments related to
engineering and water resources have been provided by Michael Koslow:
1. Comment: Critical slope waiver request was reviewed and engineering
recommends approval of the critical slope impacts waiver request.
Response:
This is understood.
F. VDOT—Comments have not been received. Staff will send comments upon
receipt.
G. Fire/Rescue—Provided by Howard Lagomarisno
As we have discussed, it is important that you understand the concerns raised by
Fire/Rescue. Mr. Lagomarisno has explained that the current plan would not be
approved by Fire/Rescue. And Fire/Rescue has overriding authority on site plans
over planning. In other words, a non-approval from Fire/Rescue could hold up the
approval of this site plan and development until the outstanding issue is resolved.
Mr. Lagomarisno did explain that one way to resolve this issue would be to
sprinkler the building. You have verbally explained that this is something you plan
to do. Providing this information to us in writing will assist us in resolving this
issue.
1. Comment: Every building or facility shall have an approved fire access road
that shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all
portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building (503.1.1)
Response: An automatic sprinkler system will be installed in the building.
Applicant anticipates the system will conform to National Fire Protection
Association NFPA 13R: Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in
Low-Rise Residential Occupancies. This item will be addressed during the
Site Plan review process.
2. Comment: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum, unobstructed
width of 20 ft. and vertical clearance of 13 ft 6 in. (503.2.1) Dimensions.
Response: See response to comment G.1.
3. Comment: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet
(9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access
shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of
accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power
lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway
(D105.1).
Response: See response to comment G.1.
4. Comment: Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum
unobstructed width of 26 feet(7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders, in the
immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet
(9144 mm) in height.
Response: See response to comment G.1.
5. Comment: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition
shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572 mm) and a maximum of
30 feet (9144 mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one
entire side of the building (D105.3).
Response: See response to comment G.1.
6. Comment: Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be
provided with width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table
D103.4 (generally: 150 ft to 500 ft dead end road will require either a 96 ft
radius cul de sac, 60 ft"Y" or 120 ft hammerhead) (D103.4).
Response: See response to comment G.1.
7. Comment: Exterior doors and openings required by this code or the
International Building Code shall be maintained readily accessible for
emergency access by the fire department. An approved access walkway
leading from fire apparatus access roads to exterior openings shall be provided
(504.1).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan review process.
8. Comment: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers,
building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that
is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property.
These numbers shall contrast with their background.
Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers
shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke
width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and
the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other
sign or means shall be used to identify the structure (505.1).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan review process.
Comment: Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted
because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life-
saving or fire-fighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized to require a
key box to be installed in an approved location. The key box shall be of an
approved type listed in accordance with UL 1037 and shall contain keys to
gain necessary access as required by the fire code official (506.1).
•
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan review process.
Comment: An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire
flow for fire protection shall be provided to premises upon which facilities,
buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or
within the jurisdiction (507.1).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan review process.
9. Comment: The building construction type and size will be needed to
determine fire flow requirement and hydrant spacing.
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan review process.
10. Comment: Fire protection equipment shall be identified in an approved
manner. Rooms containing controls for air-conditioning systems, sprinkler
risers and valves, or other fire detection, suppression or control elements shall
be identified for the use of the fire department. Approved signs required to
identify fire protection equipment and equipment location shall be constructed
of durable materials,permanently installed and readily visible (509.1).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan review process.
Comment: Approved access shall be provided and maintained for all fire
protection equipment to permit immediate safe operation and maintenance of
such equipment. Storage, trash and other materials or objects shall not be
placed or kept in such a manner that would prevent such equipment from
being readily accessible (509.2).
Response: Acknowledged. Details to be provided in the Site Plan which shall
be submitted for review and approval.
11. Comment: With respect to hydrants, driveways, buildings and landscaping,
fire department connections shall be so located that fire apparatus and hose
connected to supply the system will not obstruct access to the buildings for
other fire apparatus. The location of fire department connections shall be
approved by the fire chief(912.2).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan review process.
12. Comment: Fire department connections shall be located on the street side of
buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire
department vehicle access or as otherwise approved by the fire chief(912.2.1).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan review process.
13. Comment: Fire hose threads and fittings used in connection with automatic
sprinkler systems shall be as prescribed by the fire code official (903.3.6).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan review process.
14. Comment: The location of fire department connections shall be approved by
the fire code official (903.3.7).
Response: Acknowledged. Details to be provided in the Site Plan which shall
be submitted for review and approval.
15. Comment: The building construction type and size will be needed to
determine fire flow requirement and hydrant spacing (there will be a
requirement that a hydrant be within 50 feet of the fire department connection
and arranged so that when an engine is connected to the hydrant and FDC, it
does not obstruct access for other apparatus).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan review process.
16. Comment: The fire department connection shall be indicated by an approved
sign mounted on the street front or on the side of the building. Such sign shall
have the letters "FDC" at least 6 inches (152 mm) high and words in letters at
least 2 inches (51 mm) high or an arrow to indicate the location. All such
signs shall be subject to the approval of the fire code official (912.2.2).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan review process.
17. Comment: Immediate access to fire department connections shall be
maintained at all times and without obstruction by fences, bushes,trees, walls
or any other fixed or moveable object. Access to fire department connections
shall be approved by the fire chief(912.3).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan review process.
18. Comment: Clear space around connections. A working space of not less than
36 inches (762 mm) in width, 36 inches (914 mm) in depth and 78 inches
(1981 mm) in height shall be provided and maintained in front of and to the
Nfte
sides of wall-mounted fire department connections and around the
circumference of free-standing fire department connections, except as
otherwise required or approved by the fire chief(912.3.2).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan review process.
19. Comment: Sufficient fire flow for a project this size needs to be provided.
Response: This comment is acknowledged and will be addressed during the
Site Plan review process.
H. Proffers:
1. Comment: Proffer 1 needs more detail. For example, does this refer to both
travel lanes or one side of traffic? When is this going to happen? What is the
trigger?
Response:
Proffer 1 has been revised.
2. Comment: Proffer 2 language needs to be consistent. For example, if you are
referring to bus pull-off then refer to bus pull-off in the entire paragraph
instead of lane located within the Property. Also see previous comment in this
letter regarding application plan and note on the plan referring to the location
of CAT and JAUNT service. Have you checked to make sure that this location
is adequate for JAUNT? They typically prefer to drop off and pick up at the
building door.
Response:
Proffer 2 has been revised.
3. Comment: Proffer 3 the sentence at the top of page 2.seems to be referring to
for sale units and I do not think there are any for sale units in this
development. Please clarify.
Response:
Proffer 3 has been revised.
4. Comment: Cash proffers have not been provided. You have submitted a letter
describing a request for credit from the Treesdale Park project. As you are
aware, the County has a cash proffer policy in which applicant's with
proposed residential development offer cash proffers for the issues covered by
the policy, as there are impacts to the County's capital improvements
pertaining to roads, public safety, libraries, schools and parks that would be
impacted by the rezoning but are not being addressed. By not providing cash
proffers this level of impacts to the County from this proposed development is
not being addressed. Let us know if there are other improvements related to
your proposed development that you plan on providing that we are not aware
of. Perhaps they could help mitigate the impacts that may occur from this
proposed development. As you have proposed with the Treesdale
development, I am not aware of previously developed projects serving as
mitigation to impacts for a future development, unless it is part of a phased
development. Ultimately, the decision regarding cash proffers and whether
they are acceptable or not comes from the Board of Supervisors.
Response:
Acknowledged.
5. Comment: As previously mentioned in this letter, will amenities be
proffered?
Response:
The Application Plan which includes the on-site amenities is included in the
proffers.
The following comments related to the proffers have been provided by Ron White:
1. Comment: I question why the affordable units in this development would be
specifically designated. Generally for rental property, the requirement would
be to maintain the minimum number of units as affordable but those units
could float within the development. If other funding sources require that the
units be specifically designated, we can work with that but I don't see a need
for our part.
Response:
Proffer 3 has been revised.
2. Comment: The last sentence of 3. describes affordability for for-sale units.
Since earlier in that section it states that the units will be for lease,this could
be deleted from the proffers.
Response:
Proffer 3 has been revised to delete the reference to for-sale units.
3. Comment: Under 3.A. the first sentence would read better as ... maximum net
rent provided by the County Office of Housing based on fair market rents
published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Response:
Proffer 3 has been revised to address this comment.
4. Comment: Under 3.C., we probably do not need a copy of the rent or lease
agreement. Rather as each affordable unit is leased, we should be provided a
unit number, last name of tenant, lease date, and lease amount. The last
sentence provides the option to request leases if we feel like we need them.
Response:
Proffer 3 has been revised to address this comment.
Comment: Section 4. should be deleted from the proffers since there is
nothing in our policy defining "workforce housing". As proposed,the
requirement for units serving households up to 120% of the area median
income is a commitment to one of the funding sources. That source would be
better equipped to monitor this condition.
Response:
Proffer 4 has been deleted.
I trust that the above response and plan changes properly address the outstanding items.
If there are any questions, plea - : :tact me.
Sincerely,
4111Or'.A0
William N. Park
Manager
Now
Original Proffers X
Amendment
PROFFER STATEMENT
ZMA No. 2013-00001,Lofts at Meadowcreek
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 061A0-00-00-01500 and 061A0-00-00-01700
Owner(s)of Record: MARY J. DICKENS
Date of Proffer Signature: APRIL ,2013
2.8+/-acres to be rezoned from RESIDENTIAL-R-4 to NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL DISTRICT(NMD)
MARY J. DICKENS is the owner(the"Owner") of Tax Map and Parcel Number 061A0-00-00-01500 and
061A0-00-00-01700(the"Property") which is the subject of rezoning application ZMA No. 2013-00001, a
project known as"LOFTS AT MEADOWCREEK"(the"Project"). The term "Owner"as referenced herein
shall include within its meaning the owner of record and successors in interest. The "Application Plan"refers to
Exhibit A to the Code of Development last revised May 10, 2013
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby voluntarily proffers the
conditions listed below which shall be applied to the Property if it is rezoned to the zoning district identified
above. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and the Owner acknowledges that the
conditions are reasonable.
1. Rio Road Improvements. At its expense,the Owner shall plan, design, bond and construct travel lane
improvements to be dedicated for public use on its land fronting Rio Road (State Route 631) in general
accord with the Application Plan. Construction shall occur in sequence with construction activities of
the proposed multi-family structure and issuance of required permits by County of Albemarle and/or
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). After issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy, Owner
shall coordinate road acceptance procedure with VDOT.
2. Transit Reservation Area. The Owner shall reserve an area for a bus pull-off from Rio Road within the
northwest portion of the Property within the common open space in general accord with the Application
Plan. Should fixed-route bus service associated with the Charlottesville Area Transit(CAT) ever be
extended to serve the section of Rio Road adjacent to the site, upon demand of the County,the Owner,
at its own expense, shall construct the bus pull-off to accommodate a bus pulling off Rio Road and
picking up riders. In conjunction with the bus pull-off area,the Owner shall also construct a small
transit shelter to complete the bus stop. The specific design standards of the bus pull-off and the shelter
shall be determined by VDOT,CAT, and the Director of Community Development within sixty days of
the County's formal request for the transit stop. In the absence of any fixed-route service,the Project
shall be designed to accommodate the CAT On-demand Link or JAUNT service within the community
as a means of providing public access to residents per the existing programs.
3. Affordable Housing. The Owner shall provide affordable housing equal to twenty percent(20%)of the
total residential dwelling units within the Project in the form of for-lease affordable dwelling units(the
"Affordable Units"or"Affordable Dwelling Units"). Each site plan for land within the Property shall
note the aggregate number of units designated for Affordable Units. The Owner shall convey the
responsibility of constructing the affordable units to any subsequent purchaser of the Property. The
current Owner or subsequent Owner shall create units affordable to households with incomes less than
80%of the area median family income (the "Affordable Unit Qualifying Income"), such that tenant-
1
Now' wr+'
paid rent and tenant-paid utilities(with allowances for utilities to be those adopted by the Housing
Office for the Housing Choice Voucher Program) do not exceed 30% of the Affordable Unit
Qualifying Income.
A. Rental Rates for Affordable Units The initial net rent for each for-rent Affordable Unit when the
Unit(s) is available for occupancy shall not exceed the then-current and applicable maximum net
rent provided by the County Housing Office based on fair market rents published by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. In each subsequent calendar year,the monthly
net rent for each for-rent affordable unit may be increased up to three percent(3%). For purposes of
this proffer statement,the term "net rent" means that the rent does not include tenant-paid utilities.
The requirement that the rents for such for-rent Affordable Units may not exceed the maximum
rents established in this paragraph 3A shall apply for a period of five (5)years following the date
the certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for each for-rent Affordable Unit, or until the
units are sold as affordable units as defined by the County's Affordable Housing Policy approved by
the Board of Supervisors February 4, 2005, whichever comes first(the "Affordable Term").
B. Conveyance of Interest—All instruments conveying any interest in the for-rent affordable units
during the Affordable Term shall contain language reciting that such unit is subject to the terms of
this paragraph 3. In addition, all contracts pertaining to a conveyance of any for-rent affordable unit,
or any part thereof, during the Affordable Term shall contain a complete and full disclosure of the
restrictions and controls established by this paragraph 3. At least thirty(30)days prior to the
conveyance of any interest in any for-rent affordable unit during the Affordable Term, the then-
current owner shall notify the County in writing of the conveyance and provide the name, address
and telephone number of the potential grantee, and state that the requirements of this paragraph 3
have been satisfied.
C. Reporting of Rental Rates—During the Affordable Term, within thirty(30) days of each rental or
lease term for each for-rent affordable unit, the then-current owner shall provide to the Albemarle
County Housing Office the unit number, last name of tenant, lease date, and lease amount. In
addition, during the Affordable Term,the then-current owner shall provide to the County, if
requested, any reports, copies of rental or lease agreements, or other data pertaining to rental rates as
the County may reasonably require.
OWNER
MARY J.DICKENS
21039460_2.doc
2