The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZMA201600022 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2017-02-24p� .4L �37 �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 February 21, 2017 Justin Shimp, PE Shimp Engineering 201 E. Main Street Suite M Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA201600022 2511 Avinity Drive Dear Justin: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the ZMA2016-22 to rezone the property to R1 Residential to PRD. 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 (Elaine Echols) 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. Land Use: • This project is designated for Urban Density residential use on the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods Master Plan, which has a recommended density of 6.01- 34 units per acre. No other specific recommendations are made in the Master Plan for this area. • The Comprehensive Plan promotes different levels density for new development in the development areas based in large part on context. Sensitivity to existing neighborhoods is important with infill development and redevelopment. Strategy 2o. in the Development Areas Chapter speaks to redevelopment in this way: Redevelopment can bring about a positive change to an area; however, care should be taken in designing new buildings and structures. Creating a more urban area with greater densities can affect existing neighborhoods as well as historic buildings and sites. Care is needed so that redevelopment complements rather than detracts from nearby neighborhoods ❑r historic properties. Massing, scale, building style, materials, and other architectural elements should tie together new and old buildings. Guidelines for redevelopment may be needed to help ensure compatibility. Strategy 6b addresses this issue, as well. The Economic Development Chapter provides recommendations on ways the County could promote redevelopment of areas to transform them into attractive and accessible centers for employment. While low density development generally is not anticipated in the Development Areas, the location and proposed design weigh heavily in rezoning decisions. From the information provided, it is difficult to tell how compatible this project might be with the Avinity project next door. If providing additional information at this time is not possible, you might benefit from taking this project to a Planning Commission worksession to obtain direction as to their comfort level on recommending the design and density to the Board of Supervisors as submitted. Neighborhood Model You are proposing a fairly high density development on a less than an acre of land. High density development is supported by the Comprehensive Plan when it reflects principles of the Neighborhood Model. The following describes how the proposed development meets or does not meet the principles of the Neighborhood Model. Pedestrian Orientation Sidewalks are not shown on the rezoning plan; however, the site plan requirements will require that safe and convenient access be provided to parcels on both sides of the property. Staff recommends that the application plan include sidewalks across the frontage of the lot. While the sidewalks can be either private or public, public sidewalks remove liability from a property owner. This principle is not met. Mixture of Uses This proposal is for residential use and, due to the small size of the parcel and proximity to both a school and employment area, no mixed use element is viewed as necessary. This principle is not applicable. Neighborhood Centers The development is not part of an identified center; however, it is near Cale Elementary School which acts as a center for the neighborhood. The closest designated center on the Master Plan is near Monticello High School. This principle is met. Mixture of Housing A single housing type is shown on the plan which, given the size of the site Types and Affordability and its location adjacent to a mixed housing type development, is acceptable. Will affordable units be provided? If so, the application plan should reflect the way in which they are to be provided. More information is needed. Interconnected Streets The application plan shows a connection to Avinity Lane but no pedestrian and Transportation or vehicular connection to the property to the south. More discussion on Networks the properties to the south are provided in the Zoning comments. This principle is partially met. 2 Multi -modal As mentioned earlier, sidewalks are needed to provide pedestrian access Transportation to the existing system. Bicycle racks are recommended. Opportunities This principle is not yet met. Parks, Recreational The amenity area for this development appears to be a 30' by 62' Amenities, and Open courtyard. An open space area facing Avon Street might be another Space amenity area; however, it is hard to tell how it can function as an amenity with an emergency accessway going through it. Pedestrian access to Cale Elementary is needed if recreation will be provided at the playground behind Cale during non -school hours. Sufficient area needs to exist for smokers and dog walkers. This area does not appear to exist. Is it possible for this project to be connected to Avinity such that residents may access Avinity amenities? More information is needed. Buildings and Space of Insufficient information has been provided to assess whether buildings Human Scale and spaces of human scale are provided. Please see comments concerning the Entrance Corridor. More information is needed. Relegated Parking A very positive feature of the application plan is the relegated parking provided with the design. This principle is met. Redevelopment Redevelopment of an existing single family structure is proposed. This principle is met. 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 managed or preserved slopes on the grading of Terrain property. Due to the relative flatness of the parcel, no grading information appears to be necessary. Please be aware that when regrading disturbed properties, a 3:1 slope is preferred over a 2:1 or 1:1 slope and any retaining walls should be terraced at 6 feet. Clear Boundaries with The property is not adjacent to a Rural Area boundary. the Rural Area Not applicable to this request. Additional Planning Comments • As of the date of this letter, a community meeting has not been held. Prior to resubmitting the project, a community meeting should be held. Questions and answers from that meeting are often invaluable to a successful project. • While access from Avinity Drive is viewed as a positive aspect of the project by creating the opportunity for relegated parking, staff is concerned about that the applicant may not have legal access to use the driveway for the development as proposed. Please demonstrate that this ability exists, either through deed or acknowledgement of the owner of the property containing the easement. A sidewalk connection from Avinity Drive along the driveway will also be needed to this site. • An easement will be needed across TMP 90-35G for emergency access. Please demonstrate that you have permission from the owner to place an emergency access easement on this property. • Please note that this project does not meet the minimum 3 acre requirement for a PRD, although a special exception can be approved to reduce the minimum acreage. Alternatively, the project could be added to Avinity to create a larger Avinity PRD district. (see Zoning notes.) Another option is the Neighborhood Model District which has no minimum acreage requirement. If you wish to request a special exception with this application, please include a letter with justification as part of your next submittal. 3 Note 4 on the application plan says, "This application plan shows the general configuration of two multi -family buildings along with parking, sidewalks, and landscaping for zoning purposes. The precise location, sizes, and quantities of parking, landscaping, sidewalks, and buildings are subject to reasonable change at the time a site plan is submitted." Since the application plan is a requirement for a planned district, this note will need to be modified or removed. What you showed on page 4 of your application plan can suffice as a concept plan but not the application plan. The following items are required for the district and appear to be missing from your application plan and need to be shown on the resubmitted plan: • the general location of bicycle facilities; • building envelopes; • parking envelopes; • the general layout for water and sewer systems; • the identification of central features or major elements • standards of development including proposed yards and open space characteristics Although you have indicated that the application plan is just a concept at this point (see bullets above as to what is a requirement) staff has concerns that the site will not be able to accommodate all components required for site plan approval. For example, how will you provide screening of the parking lot? Where will trash receptacles be located? As this part of the County redevelops, it will be important to create similarity in streetscape design. Please consider continuing the streetscape from Avinity along Avon across the frontage of your site. While buildings may be closer to the street than Avinity, the difference should not be extreme. Also bear in mind that, as with Avinity, sidewalks to building entrances from a sidewalk along Avon Street will be needed. Architectural Review Board Comments (Margaret Maliszewski) • The building form, scale and mass should be compatible with recent development in the area. It is not clear from the submittal information that this compatibility will be achieved. This proposal is scheduled for ARB review on March 6. It is recommended that conceptual elevations and/or perspectives of the proposed buildings, or photos of similar buildings, be submitted as part of a revised rezoning application submittal, and for ARB review, to show how compatibility will be achieved. • Stormwater management facilities should be provided underground to avoid negative visual impacts on the Entrance Corridor. • Landscaping, signage and other site elements approved with the Avinity development and located adjacent to the subject parcel should be included on the plan for context. Zoning Comments (Amelia McCulley) PRD zoning requires a minimum of 3 acres unless a special exception is granted or it is an extension of an existing PRD (Section 19.5). As discussed in the preapp, either adding this property to the existing Avinity development or combining several parcels into this one PRD rezoning, makes sense. While eligible for a special exception request, the subject property less than 1/3 the size of the minimum acreage for establishment of a freestanding Planned Residential District. I question whether this small acreage can support the necessary infrastructure and amenities for a Planned Development district. If the applicant intends to proceed as proposed, this question, as well as the special exception criteria should be addressed in writing. 4 • Planned Residential Development Section 19.6.1 requires not less than 25% of the area to be within common open space. Please provide a further breakdown for each area within the open space calculation to show / list how this area requirement is met. Please also refer to Section 4.7 in terms of the intent and limitation on certain elements and address how these requirements are being met. It is difficult to see how the several smaller areas are meeting the character and intent for open space. • As noted in my preapplication comments (#3), this property is subject to infill building setbacks. this amounts to a minimum building setback of 35 feet and not the 25 feet shown on the plan. In addition, the side setbacks should be 10 feet instead of 5 feet. If you disagree with this advice concerning setbacks, as noted in my comments, please provide your basis for determining a different setback. Due to how constrained the site is to meet technical requirements such as open space and setbacks, I recommend that this be addressed at this time and not with subsequent actions. • Parking is proposed very close to the southern property line. This will not provide adequate area to meet screening requirements for parking {Section 32.7.9.7 (a)(2)1. In addition, it will likely require a grading/construction easement on the adjoining property. • Please provide a breakdown of the proposed unit mix in terms of numbers of bedrooms. This is relevant to confirm that the site can be adequately parked. While we do not intend to require more parking than is necessary and there may be some provision for parking reduction due to the transit access, the site constraints make it necessary to consider it at this time. • Please clarify that the existing easement allowing access to Avinity Drive legally allows access for a proposed new development such as this. • Emergency access on adjoining property crosses the open space. Not only does that involve subtracting the area of the access from the open space area, but the access further limits the resulting open space from meeting intended purposes. • Please remove the first note #4 from sheet 4. There are two different notes #4. The first one involves language allowing "reasonable change" which can be debatable and problematic. The ability to make changes from the application plan is already addressed by the Zoning Ordinance. • Keep in mind the height limit is 65 feet. A stepback is required for over 40 ft or 3 stories, whichever is less. Engineering Comments (Frank Pohl) • A VSMP application and permit will be required prior to Final Site Plan approval. • Applicant states "stormwater management shall be accommodated in the open space area on the southern end of the site or a stormwater management facility may be placed under the parking area." Please identify these possible SWM areas on the plan. SWM facilites cannot be used as open space. How will discharge from the site be managed? Offsite easements may be required to convey stormwater discharge to an adequate channel. A small portion of the parking area is shown on the adjacent parcel. Permanent easements are required for any offsite improvements/grading/emergency access. Recommend sidewalks along street frontages with connections to the site. Fire Rescue (Robbie Gilmer) • Fire Rescue has no objections to the rezoning of the property. We do suggest the owner work with ACSA to make sure they have the available fire flow as needed. ACSA Comments — to be forwarded 5 RWSA (Victoria Fort) • Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known • Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification Yes X No • Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known • "Rarl Flaac" raaarrlina carvira nrrniitinn 11lca attarhmantr, if naraccarvl NnnP Known inia Deoartment of Transoortation Comments — to be forwarded 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. D--k-;++mil 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 eechols@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832, ext. 3252. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols, FAICP Chief of Planning Planning Division Enc: Action after receipt of comment letter Resubmittal form 11 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 Revised 1-29-16 mcy FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # C<» By: Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or��, Zoning Map Amendment � �IIY'ANtiPF PROJECT NUMBER: ZMA201600022 PROJECT NAME: 2511 Avinity Drive ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required Elaine K. Echols Community Development Project Coordinator "' e &""/, Signature Date ❑ Per Request X Resubmittal Fee is Not Required Name of Applicant Signature FEES Phone Number Date Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,075 X First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $538 Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,150 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,075 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,688 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,344 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,881 ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add'l notice fees will be required $194 To be paid 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. MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER 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) $1.00 for each additional notice + actualcost of first-class postage Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (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 1/24/17 Page 1 of 1