The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZMA201600005 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2016-06-17p� .4L 37 COUNTY �IRGi;31� 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 1, 2016 Rev1: June 17, 2016 Ashley Davies William Mullen 321 East Main Street Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 adavies@williamsmullen.com RE: ZMA2016-05 Foothills Daily Property Dear Ms. Davies: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the ZMA2016-05 to rezone the property to R-6 Residential. We have a few questions and comments which we believe should be resolved before your proposal goes to public hearing. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Planning Comments (Rachel Falkenstein) Staff's comments are organized as follows: How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan The Neighborhood Model analysis Additional planning comments Additional comments from reviewers Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report when this proposal goes to public hearing or a worksession. Rev1: No action required. Land Use: The majority of the project area (portions of TMP 56-57, 56-57B, 56A2-01-62 and 56k -A1) is designated Neighborhood Density in the Crozet Master Plan, which has a recommended density of 3-6 units per acre. This designation calls for housing to be primarily single-family detached with some attached/townhouses. The R-6 zoning district is consistent with the recommended density for Neighborhood Density; however, more information about unit types is needed to determine if the proposed residential mix is in keeping with this land use designation. FYI —The Planning Commission recently held a worksession on Adelaide, another rezoning proposal located in Crozet that is designated Neighborhood Density Residential. The Planning Commission came to a consensus that some single family detached units should be provided within this land use designation. They did not reach a consensus on the percentage of single family detached units, but stressed that the mixture of types of units is important. Portions of TMP 56-57 and 56A2-01-62 adjacent to Park Ridge Drive are designated Urban Density Residential, which has a recommended density of 6-12 units per acre. All housing types are found in this category, including single family detached, townhouses, and apartments. Please provide more information about what unit types are proposed in these areas. Rev1: Consider concentrating higher density units in areas designated for urban density. TMP 56A2-01-61 is designated Light Industrial in the Crozet MP. This area was not intended to be used residentially; however, due to the presence of the stream buffer which separates that parcel into two areas and the shallow depth of the southern part of the property zoned LI, staff believes we could support the proposed use of some residential and a stormwater facility here to serve the development. Development on this parcel should remain outside of the stream buffer. Transportation: This development proposes contruction of portions of two major throughoufares from the Crozet Master Plan: "Main Street" running east/west throught the site and "Eastern Avenue" running north/south through the site. Street sections for these roads are consistent with the recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan showing an avenue section with bicycle lanes, street trees and sidewalks. Parks/Greenways: The concept plan shows a greenway along the stream through the southern border of this property consistent with the Crozet Master Plan Greenspace Plan. The Master Plan calls for this greenway to be a key trail linkage between Crozet Park and Lickinghole basin. The location of the civic space shown on the concept plan is consistent with location shown on the Crozet Master Plan Greenspace Plan. Neighborhood Model The following describes how the proposed development meets or does not meet the principles of the Neighborhood Model. Pedestrian Orientation Sidewalks are proposed along all streets and a greenway trail is provided. A stronger commitment should be made for interconnectivity of streets. Consider adding a more direct pedestrian connection between the civic space and Crozet Park. This principle is partially met. Rev1: Consider adding a note to the plan or a proffer stating internal streets will be interconnected and cul-de-sacs will only be used where interconnections are not possible. Mixture of Uses This proposal is for residential uses only but will provide a civic space, greenway and important transportation features, as recommended by the Master Plan. This principle is met. Neighborhood Centers The development is not part of an identified center; however, it is adjacent to Crozet Park which is classified as a center in the Crozet Master Plan. A stronger pedestrian/bike connection should be provided to the park. This principle is met. 2 Mixture of Housing No commitment has been made to provide a mix of housing types within Types and Affordability the development. The provision of 15% affordable units will help achieve this principle. More information should be provided about the proposed housing types to ensure a mixture will be provided. More information is needed. Rev1: Comment addressed. A minimum of 10% attached dwellings and 50% detached dwellings is proposed. In addition to 15% affordable housing, this should provide a Rood mix of housiniz tvpes. Interconnected Streets Important connections and portions of roads identified in the Crozet and Transportation Master Plan of "Main Street" and "Eastern Avenue" are proposed with Networks this project. A stronger commitment should be made to provide interconnectivity within the neighborhood streets and connections to adjacent by-right developments. This principle is partially met. Rev1: Consider adding a note to the plan or a proffer stating internal streets will be interconnected and cul-de-sacs will only be used where interconnections are not possible. Multi-modal Bike lanes and sidewalks are provided along Eastern Avenue and Park Transportation Ridge Drive, sidewalks will be provided on neighborhood streets and a Opportunities greenway trail connection is provided. This principle is met. Parks, Recreational A greenway trail and civic space are provided in the areas shown in the Amenities, and Open Crozet Master Plan. Provide more details about the facilities provided Space within the civic space. More information is needed. Rev1: Comment addressed with note added to proffered plan. Buildings and Space of A commitment should be made for houses to face the public streets. Human Scale Where houses front on Park Ridge Drive and Eastern Avenue, driveways can be located off of private alleys located behind the houses. A grid street network within the development will help establish this design. More information is needed. QPvl: Comment addressed —ith note added +n proffered plan_ Relegated Parking The plan does not show enough detail to determine if this principle is met; however, new neighborhood model setbacks will help ensure this principle will be met. Rev1: Consider adding a front setback for front loaded garages that is several feet behind the primary residence for single family units. Redevelopment Not applicable to this request Respecting Terrain and A proposed grading plan was not provided as part of the concept plan; Careful Grading and Re- however, there are no identified preserved slopes on the property. Any grading of Terrain disturbance to the managed slopes on site will be required to meet the design guidelines within the ordinance. Clear Boundaries with Not applicable to this request. the Rural Area Additional Planning Comments Will the plan be proffered as part of this rezoning? If so, it should clearly state what commitments are being made. Staff can provide standard language for a "general accord" proffer for the concept plan. We believe the following are important elements that should be included as part of the proffered plan: o Main Street/Eastern Ave (already included on plan/proffers) o Interconnectivity of neighborhood streets o The Greenway Trail, built to a Class A standard (see Parks & Rec comments) o Treatment of Greenway Trail/Eastern Ave crossing; citizens have expressed a desire for a tunnel for the greenway trail rather than an at -grade crossing (see Parks & Rec comments) o Greenway trail connections (to Crozet Park, civic space) o The civic space and proposed facilities within o The number (or range) of dwelling units and a the mixture of unit types o Building orientation towards the public streets Rev1: Please include a "general accord" proffer within the proffer statement indicating you are proffering the plan and the important elements as noted above and shown or noted on the plan. See sample language below: Development and use shall be in general accord with the following revised plan prepared by Collins Engineering (PLAN NAME, dated , last revised ) (hereinafter, the "Layout Plan"), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Layout Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements as shown on the Layout Plan: a. b. C. Provide an exhibit to demonstrate that 35 units can be achieved with the by -right development of the property. Rev1: Provide lot sizes and exhibit to scale so dimensions can be checked. If bonus factors are being used in calculation, list these on exhibit. I I lt2 Dy -1 ISI IL pui Lion u, FUUL11111 t1 u�.�ii is ri iaze II shown on the concept plan does not match road plans currently under review for Foothill Crossing II. Please explain the discrepancy. The design for Foothill Crossing II with houses oriented towards the Park Ridge Drive with rear access through private alleys is more desirable and avoids the backs of houses facing the main street. Rev1: Comment addressed. Please note staff review and approval will be required for proposed changes to approved infrastructure or subdivision/site plans for the by -right portions of Foothill Crossing. Show all existing portions of the Crozet greenway trail on adjacent properties and show Crozet Dog Park on the concept plan (see Parks and Rec attached image). Rev1: Comment addressed. The amounts proffered with this rezoning are consistent with amounts recommended by the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee; however, the Board has not yet provided direction on the proposed amounts. We are currently operating under the adopted cash proffer policy with the CY 2014 maximum per unit cash proffer amounts. Rev1: Please note, the BOS recently appealed the cash proffer policy. Is phasing anticipated for this development? If so, please provide more information about the proposed phasing. Rev1: Comment addressed 4 FYI –The Post Master is now requiring group mailboxes for new developments in Crozet. If the rezoning is approved, please plan for group mailboxes with the site plan design. Rev1: Comment addressed Rev1 new comment: Note 3 on the concept plan states that all trees and sidewalks shall be maintained by the HOA. Is this intended to state all trees and sidewalks located outside of the VDOT right-of-way shall be maintained by the HOA? Architectural Review Board Comments (Margaret Maliszewski) MP 56A2-01-62 falls within the Rt. 240 Entrance Corridor. Development on this parcel is subject to ARB review. The applicant should anticipate that Entrance Corridor requirements will be consistent with the 2015 ARB review of the Foothill Crossings 2 site plan (ARB -2015-14). This included (but was not limited to) a requirement for trees along the north side of the parcel, with planting area clear of utilities and easements. A small portion of TMP 56A2-01-61 is included in the EC overlay. Any development within this area that is visible from the Rt. 240 Entrance Corridor is also subject to ARB review. Rev1: No new comments. Information for applicant remains the same as previous review Engineering Comments (Frank Pohl) Provide a brief description of the proposed stream crossing required for the connector road (fill and culverts, treatment of trail? etc.). Staff has reviewed VDOT guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations (Chapter 527) and is of the opinion that the minimum 5000 VPD threshold to require a TIA is not met for the proposed rezoning. Rev1: Comments addressed. Parks & Recreation Comments (Dan Mahon) Replace the at -grade crossing for the Crozet Connector Trail with bike/ped access provided under the Eastern Connector (see attached images). Secondary trail alignments shown on the plan should be adjusted to make a stronger connection to the Crozet Park trail and the Crozet Connector trailhead (see attached trails diagram). Greenway "trail" should be labeled and understood that it will eventually be built to Class A (paved) design standards. Rev1: Comments addressed. ACSA (Alex Morrison) An RWSA capacity certification will be required. A construction submittal to the ACSA will be required at the final site plan stage. The ACSA will request a 12" water main along the connector road. Rev1: No action required. RWSA (Victoria Fort) Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification Yes* Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known *Note that all development in the Crozet Area will require a flow capacity certification prior to final site plan approval. RWSA also wishes to review future site plans for this property for any conflicts with the existing 12" water transmission main on TMP 56-57 and TMP 56A2-01-62. Rev1: No action required 5 Virginia Department of Transportation Comments (Joel DeNunzio) See attached comments. Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action after Receipt of Comment Letter" which is attached. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. See resubmittal schedule is for resubmittal dates. Notification and Advertisement Fees Additional information regarding fees for notification and advertisement will be forthcoming. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. I can be reached at rfalkenstein@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832, ext. 3272. Sincerely, W WA-;�D Rachel Falkenstein Senior Planner Planning Division Enc: VDOT Comments Action after receipt of comment letter Resubmittal form 0 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1641 Orange Road CWpeper, Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner June 14, 2016 Ms. Rachel Falkenstein County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ZMA-2016-00005 Foothill Crossing Zoning Map Amendment Dear Ms. Falkenstein: We have reviewed the Foothill Crossing Zoning Map Amendment Application Plan, with the latest revision date of May 16, 2016, as submitted by Collins Engineering, and offer the following comment: • VDOT comments identified in a letter dated April 1, 2016 remain applicable. If you have further questions please contact Justin Deel at 434-422-9894. Sincerely, Adam J. Moore, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application (1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your submittal_ The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.) (2) Request Indefinite Deferral If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) (3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal. After outstanding issues have been resolved and/or when you are ready to request a public hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with Revised 1-29-16 mcy the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County. The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made on or before a resubmittal date. By no later than twenty-one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay. Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty-two (22) days prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. (4) Withdraw Your Application If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing. Failure to Respond If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date. Fee Payment Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator Revised 1-29-16 mcy FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By: Resubmittal of information for k» Zoning Mau Amendment .N PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED: ZMA201600006 Foothills Daily Rezoning Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser Print Name FEES that may apply: Date Daytime phone number of Signatory ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request $194 $1.08 for each additional notice + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (averages between $150 and $250) Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,688 ❑ First resubmission FREE 61 Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $1,344 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $1,881 To be Daid after staff review for Dublic notice: Most applications for a 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. ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $215 + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.08 for each additional notice + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (averages between $150 and $250) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 Revised 11/02/2015 Page 1 of 1