HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200400007 Review Comments Waiver, variation or substitution requirement 2017-06-16Phone 434-296-5832
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins(scott(a-)collins-enc)ineerinq.com)
From: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: January 19, 2016
Rev. 1: June 16, 2017
Subject: ZMA200400007 Belvedere Variation #53 #54 #55 #56 #57
Fax 434-972-4126
Five variation requests for Belvedere (ZMA 04-07) were submitted November 29, 2016 (dated November 22,
2016). We have determined that additional information is necessary for completion of our review. We have also
identified design changes for some of the variations that will be necessary for our recommendation of approval
of these requests to the Board of Supervisors.
Variation #53, 54, 55, 56 & 57: General comment for all five variation requests
1. Exhibits must be submitted, as specified below, with each variation request to support the request and be
utilized in any packet that may be forwarded to the Commission and/or Board for their review. These
variation requests are linked to the previously approved rezoning ZMA2004-7 and are not associated with
other previous submissions of plats or plans.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See below for comments that still need to be addressed in
reference to the exhibits for the specific variation requests.
2. [NEW COMMENTI Provide a comment response letter with the next submission of each of the
variation_ requests. Understanding how each comment has been addressed may aid in the review of
the next submission.
3. SEW COMMENT] Ensure the numbers and names of the exhibits are correct after the exhibits are
updated as specified below. Also, ensure they are updated in the variation request descriptions.
4. [NEW COMMENTI Revise titles of the exhibits such that "existing" is not utilized for roads, parking,
lots, etc. that do not vet exist.
Variation #53: Reauest to modifv the maximum densitv within the development blocks 7 & 9.
1. Planning staff will be able to support this variation request once the following items are provided and
addressed.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Planning staff will be able to support this variation request
once the following items are provided and addressed.
Additional information requested:
2. Provide an exhibit that shows in plan view the changes in park area, stormwater management area and
area of development lots, from the approved ZMA application plan to the approved subdivision plats and
plans. It would be helpful to note in the exhibit that those changes were allowed by the approval of Variation
#45 (approved on October 3, 2012).
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• Change the title on the ZMA graphic exhibit. It is not "existing" and should be labeled as
"ZMA Application Plan Open Space Exhibit".
• Provide a_legend within the graphic that associates the color and linetype to the specified
Block area.
• Rotate the view of the proposed exhibit such that it is 180 degrees from what was last
submitted and so that it matched the orientation of the ZMA exhibit. The comparison
between the two graphics is not clear when they are not oriented in the same direction.
General comments:
3. Note that this variation, if approved, would make the minimum and maximum number of residential lots in
Block 9 twenty-three. In order to meet that number of residential lots in Block 9, because of the reduced
development lot area that remains in the Block after the approval of Variation #45, Variation request #55 will
have to be approved, reducing the minimum lot width of the lots in Block 9. If variation request #55 is not
approved another variation, reducing the minimum number of residential units in Block 9, would be required
because there is not sufficient linear frontage in the remainder of Block 9 to meet the minimum lot
requirement in the current C.O.D (July 22, 2014).
Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Variation request #55 must be approved, reducing the
minimum lot width of the lots in Block 9, before this variation can be approved. See explanation
above.
4. [NEW COMMENTI Include in the exhibit packet the page from the Code of Development (C.O.D.) that
was provided with the first submission of this variation request. The packet submitted should
include all exhibits and graphics that are to be provided to the Commission and/or Board for their
review.
5. [NEW COMMENTI It is noted that the applicant wishes to expand this variation request to include a
change in the maximum residential densities for Block 4 & 6. Since that revision was submitted four
weeks after the last resubmission (on 5/9/17) it has not be reviewed. The inclusion of Blocks 4 and 6
in this variation request will be reviewed with the next resubmission.
Variation #54: Request to modify the preservation/conservation/open space areas within
blocks 7 & 9.
1. Planning staff is unable to support this variation request as it has been presented. Address the following
comments and then resubmit the variation request for review.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Planning staff is unable to support this variation request as it
has been presented. Address the following comments and then resubmit the variation request for
review.
Design guidance:
2. There appears to be an error in the math provided for the specified increase of open space in Blocks 7 and
9 of 1.03 acres. This does not appear to be correct. There appears to be only a difference of 0.11 acres
between the combined 'conservation area', "preservation area" and "other green space" as approved with
the initial rezoning and that shown in the currently approved Code of Development (Initial ZMA:
0.73+1.2+1.9+0.5=4.33, Current C.O.D.: 0.73+1.2+0.75+1.76=4.44). That increases to 0.30 acres when
"Block 9 preservation easements" are included (Initial ZMA: 4.33+0.07+0.63=5.03, Current
C.O.D.:4.44+0.09+0.8=5.33). Clarify where the increase of 1.03 acres specified in your application for the
special exception is found in the previously approved documents or revise the calculations.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• In the "Table 4 Green Space Tabulation — Proposed with Variation #54" it appears that three
out of four of the "Total" calculations at the bottom of the chart appear to be incorrect.
Revise the chart accordingly or clarify why these changes are not needed. See other
comments below for which addressing them may further impact the totals.
• The correction above will change the difference between the original ZMA open space and
the proposed change in open space with Variation #54. Revise the description accordingly,
once all comments are addressed, or clarify why this change is not needed.
• it is noted that the 6/6/2017 versions of the variation request and Belvedere Phase IS Road
Plan, not beinq reviewed at this time, updated the proposed 0.05 acres of open space
between lot 201 and Fowler Street to be "Conservation Area" and in the "Conservation Area"
COLUMN of the "Proposed with Phase IIB" portion of the Table 4 comparison table. That is
correct, however it also should not be in the "Block 9, Preservation Easement' ROW of the
comparison chart. It should be in the "Conservation Area" ROW of the chart.
3. 'l here is a portion of general open space within Block 9A, adjacent to a stormwater pond and behind lots
138, 139, and -140 that was designated as conservation area in the ZMA application plan. :See the attached
PIDIF for reference. A significant portion of the. required 0.73 acres of conservation open space in Block 9
would be met and the issue with outstanding conservation area would be greatly reduced if this area is
considered. it it is alreedy platted as "conservation open space" it should be considered in your
calculations. If it is riot already platted as "conservation open space" specifying this area as an area of
"missing" conservation open space in Block 9 and quantifying its sire would aid in theJustification for a
variation of Block 9 Conservation open space in th; C: C.D.
1: Comment Addressed.
Additional information requested:
4. "rovidc an exhibit showing and quantifying the. area not previously captured as Block 9 conservation area
",hat would hav been in L`lock 9€..
5. Provide an plan view exhibit that shows the changes in open space and development lots, from the
approved ZMA application plan to the approved subdivision plats and plans for Blocks 7 & 9. Quantify these
changes including designations of conservation, preservation and preservation easements. Include
information on how those changes were allowed by the approval of Variation #45 (approved on October 3,
2012) and how that impacted the area of conservation open space in Block 9 now able to be platted in the
latest subdivision plats.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed: Address the following:
• Rotate the view of the proposed exhibit such that it is 180 degrees from what was last
submitted and so that it matched the orientation of the ZMA exhibit. The comparison
between the two graphics is not clear when they are not oriented in the same direction.
• The color and hatch of the proposed open between lot 201 and Fowler Street does not match
those of either "conservation area" or the "open space" for Block 9. Ensure that the hatch
and color of the hatch for this area is correct for the exhibit.
• Provide a legend within the graphic that associates the color and linetype to the specified
Block area.
• Ensure that the labels for Blocks 7 & 9 are easy to read. In the original ZMA graphic the
labels for these two blocks are not obvious.
6. Provide a chart with all previously platted open space in Beivedere, the proposed open spaces with
Belvedere Phase IIB, and the totals for each open space type. This chart should show that with the
changes specified in this variation request that all of the open space requirements, up to and including Block
9, will be met.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• In the second to the last paragraph in the variation request description it states "The
proposed development updates many of the open space/conservation areas to preservation
areas". It appears that the open space/conservation areas are not being changed to
preservation areas but to general open space areas. Either revise the description to
accurately state the change or discuss this with the plan reviewer to clarify why it is correct.
• No information has been provided for "Park `A"', "Block 1", "Open Space Block 2" or "Block
2, Commons and Greenway" in the chart. Block 2 is almost fully built out and it appears
most if not all of open space areas should have already been designated in a site plan if not
(platted. It appears that the development lot in Block 1 does not include any ZMA Application
Plan specified open space and therefore all of the Block 1 open space should aiso have
already been separated from the development portion of the block. Include platted
information on open spaces for all blocks 1 through 9. If some areas have been designated
on an approved site plan but not separately platted then also provide information on those
areas. Until there is a whole picture of the open spaces for Blocks 1 through 9 it will be hard
to understand the total impact of this change combined with the changes in the previous
Blocks. If there is more open space platted or designated than is required in the C.O.D. then
staff may be able to support this variation for Block 9 open space. If the C.O.D. requirements
have not been met for Blocks 1 through 9 then an amendment to the ZMA may be required
and not a variation in order to request a decrease in open space.
General comments:
7. The variation request specifies a Linear Park 1". There does not appear to be a Linear Park "i". There is a
Linear Park "J" but it does not appear to be part of the 1.2 Preservation Area in Block 9. Although Table 4
Green Space Tabulation lists Linear Park "J" as being in both Blocks 9&10 the description of Linear Park "J"
on page 13 only mentions that it "Includes the Conservation area of steep bluffs and existing woodlands on
the south side of the Block 10." Block 9 is not mentioned in the description. Also, the ZMA application plan
only labels Linear Park "J" in Block 10. The requirement for all of the 5.35 acres of Linear Park "J" will need
to be addressed in Block 10. Therefore, the listing of Block Location for Linear Park "J" appears to be an
error and the proposed changes to Table 4 Green Space Tabulation should include a listing of only Block 10
for the location of Linear Park "J". Revise the "Table 4 Green Space Tabulation — Proposed with variation
#54" so that only Block 10 is specified for Linear Park "J" and update the variation request to not address
Linear Park "J" in Block 9.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Although the proposed open space table has been revised to
not include Block 9 in "Linear Park `J"' no mention of the change has been made in the description.
Include this change in the list of changes in the description for the variation and explain why it is
being requested.
8. Ensure that the areas shown in "Table 4 Green Space Tabulation — Proposed with variation #54" is correctly
tabulated and that the areas specified for Block 9 will be able to be met with the Phase IIB subdivision plat
and road plan.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• See Rev. 1: comment for #6 above.
• See Rev. 1: comment for #2 above.
9. After addressing the comments above submit an updated variation request with the updated charts and the
additional information specified above.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. After addressing the comments above submit an updated
variation request, and/or if needed and desired a ZMA Amendment, with the updated charts and the
additional information specified above.
10. INEW COMMENTI A ZMA Amendment may be required for the open space changes currently being
requested. Variations cannot address reductions in either the overall "Total Green" area of
Belvedere or a reduction to the "Total Preservation Area" for Belvedere. On a case by case basis
staff MAY be able to support a variation request that would reduce the "Total Conser vation Area" of
Belvedere if that space is shifted to one of the other categories AND if staff agrees that the intent of
the open space affected is being met (see comment below). This most recent submission is
requesting both a reduction in the "Total Green" area and the "Total Preservation" area for
Belvedere which can only be accomplished through a ZMA Amendment. If the applicant is wishes to
specify that additional open space is to be added to Block 10 in order to make up the difference. as
mentioned on page 2 of the description then they much specify those area, update the description,
and update the proposed tables and graphic to show that addition. Once such revisions are made
staff can then review them in order to see if thev are able to support the variation request.
11. ]NEW COMMENT] Specify in the variation request description the change of the 0.43 acres of
"conservation area" in Block 9A to general "other green space". Although this area is shown in the
ZMA Application Plan and proposed exhibits, and labeled with this change, no mention is
specifically `rade In the variation request description. Although staff has stated in the review of the
Phase IIB Road Plan that they could support such a change, because it was lust not platted correctly
as "conservation area" in Phase I even though its use appears to meet the original intent, this
change must be approved as part of the variation in order to be allowed. This specific example of
area not platted as "conservation area" is PART of the justification for the reduction it "Total
Conservation Area" for Belvedere.
12. [NEW COMMENT] Revise the area of the Table 4 comparison chart for "Difference from Rezoning —
Through Variation #54" to include the areas proposed with Phase IIB. The difference from the
rezoning for all of Block 1-9 must meet or exceed those specified in the ZMA, unless as mentioned
above the applicant chooses to include and increase the Block 10 open space areas in the variation
request in order to avoid the need for an Amendment to the ZMA. In that case Blocks 1-10 will need
to meet or exceed those totals.
13. FNEW COMMENTI Double check and revise all calculations in the charts to ensure that they have
been updated for all needed changes, are totaling correctly, and meet or exceed values approved
with the ZMA.
14. [NEW COMMENTI At the end of paragraph on Park "O', near the end of the first page, the last
sentence does not appear to be correct. It states, "... the remaining open space as moved to Block
9 for a stormwater management facility that captures the entire drainage area of the Belvedere
development." Reword this sentence to specify what portion of the Belvedere development drains
to this stormwater pond or to not specify the area of the drainage going to the pond. The whole
development does not drain to it.
15. [NEW COMMENTI Variation requests #53 (moving one lot from Block 9 to Block 7) and #55
(reducing the minimum lot width in Block 9) must be approved in order for the proposed Block 9
open space specified to be possible. Therefore those two variations must be approved before this
variation can be approved as currently submitted.
Variation #55: Request to modify the Minimum lot frontage for Block 9 residential units.
1. Planning staff will be able to support this variation request once the following items are provided and
addressed.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Planning staff will be able to support this variation request
once the following items are provided and addressed.
Additional information requested:
2. Provide a plan view that labels each lot that will be impacted by this proposed modification to the C.O.D.
and dimensions the proposed reduced frontages for each lot.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• It appears that the wrong road is specified in the variation request description. The future
connection to TMP 62-16D is not Shelton Drive, it is Fowler Street.
• Since TMP 62-16D is mentioned in the variation request description a label for that parcel
should be included in the graphics/exhibits. Add labels for TMP 62-16D to any
graphics/exhibits that show that parcel.
3. Provide the proposed wording for the change in the C.O.D (Page 8).
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The variation request description and exhibit do not match
the wording proposed for the C.O.D. The wording of proposed C.O.D. section would change the
allowed minimum frontage for ALL Block 9 lots, but since lots 197, 198, 199, 200 & 201 have not yet
been platted those are the lots for which it will be able to be immediately applied. Also, the
Belvedere Phase liB Road Plan (SUB2016-213) resubmitted on 6/6/2017 shows all five lots (Lots 197-
201) as being less than 60' in width and not iust the four shown in the Variation #55 exhibit dated
April 3, 2017. Address the following:
• Update the variation request description to specify that the change is to the Block 9
minimum lot width and could be applied to all Block 9 lots but that only five lots remain to be
subdivided.
• Revise the exhibit to show all five lots (197-201) as impacted by the requested change in the
C.O.D. and provide dimensions of the lot width on all five lots. If the Belvedere Phase IIB
Road Plan (SUB2016-213) resubmitted on 6/6/2017 is what is currently proposed ensure that
the exhibit represent the same lot widths.
• Revise the title of the Variation #55 exhibit to specify "Variation #55 — Exhibit 5 - Block 9 lots
not yet subdivided".
• Revise the proposed Variation #55 addition to the C.O.D. so that it states. "Revise the
minimum lot frnntane for Block 9 residential lots: reducina the minimum from 60'+ to 555+
Variation # 56 - Reauest to modifv the side vard setbacks for residential lots within Block 4.
1. Planning staff will be able to support this variation request once the following items are provided and
addressed.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Planning staff will be able to support this variation request
once the followina items are addressed. See below.
Additional information requested:
2. Provide a plan view that includes labels for each lot that will be impacted by the proposed modification to the
C.O.D. and dimension the proposed setbacks for each lot.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• The current C.O.D. specifies that any lot up to and including 60' in street frontage already
has a side setback of 3'. Only lots over 60' have a larger setback of 5'. Therefore, only lots
over 60' would need a variation in order to have a setback of 3'. This is correctly
represented in the description of the variation request but not in the exhibit or suggested
modification to the C.O.D. that has been submitted to support the variation request.
o Revise the wording of the proposed addition of note #7 to Table 9 of the C.O.D. so
that it states "Minimum Block 4 side setback is 3' for lots with street frontage of
greater than 60' in width."
o Revise the exhibit so that it is clear and accurate. Although there are a few options
for revising "Variation #56 — Exhibit 6 — Block 4 modified setbacks" the simplest is to
show all Block 4 lots in Phase II highlighted since the requested change to the C.O.D.
could impact all Block 4 lots, depending on the final lot configuration, and the Block
4 lots in Phase II are the only Block 4 lots that have not been subdivided.
o Revise the title of the Variation #56 exhibit to specify "Variation #56 — Exhibit 6 -
Block 4 lots not yet subdivided".
• The dimensions in the variation request exhibit do not show any lots over 60' wide. It
appears from the 4/3/17 & 5/30/17 submission of the Phase IIB Road Plan, which is different
from the variation request exhibit, that the requested variation would impact lots 46 & 56.
Revise the exhibit to show that there are lots that will be over 60' in width and dimension the
width of all Phase II Block 4 lots.
• Side setbacks are not shown for Lot 48 and one side of Lot 47. Ensure that the setbacks for
Lot 48 are shown correctly since it is split zoned and therefore has a very special setback
circumstance.
3. Provide exhibits that shows the existing C.O.D. Table 9: Block 2-10 Residential Lot Regulations and a
proposed table incorporating the change proposed with this variation request.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. As mentioned above, revise the wording of the proposed
addition of note #7 to Table 9 of the C.O.D. so that it states "wiinimum Block 4 side setback is 3' for
lots with street frontage greater than 60' in width."
General comments:
4. Ensure that the revisions to Table 9: Block 2-10 Residential Lot Regulations only affect the lots within Block
4 with a width of 60' or greater and not large lots in other Blocks. Note that the chart included in the first
submission of SUB201600213 Belvedere Phase IIB Road Plan did not incorporate this modification correctly
and therefore should not be utilized for this exhibit unless that submission's comments have been
addressed.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• Please note that the above comment should have read "... only affect the lots within Block 4
with a width of greater than 60' and not large lots in other Blocks."
• See Rev. 1: Comment for #3 above.
5. [NEW COMMENT] The number of lots shown in Block 4 are above the maximum allowed in the
current C.O.D. It is understood that the applicant is revising variations request #53 to include
charges to the maximum residential densities in Blocks 4 &-6 In order tai address this issue.
However, the representation of the Block 4 lots in the exhibit for this variation request must clearly
delineate which lots are already allowed with the current C.O.D. and which are subject to approval of
a pending variation request. Address the following:
• Revise "Variation #56 — Exhibit 6 — Block 4 modified setbacks" such that Lot 48 is clearly
shown to be above the allowed maximum lot count for Block 4 in the current C.O.D. and
pending approval of variation request #53. A different hatch type or color, as well as a label,
will likely be necessary to accomplish this.
Variation # 57 - Request to modify the Road Standards Table.
Planning Comments [Paty Saternye psaternyenalbemar le.org 434-296-5832 ext. 5250:
1. Planning staff is unable to support this variation request as it has been presented. Address the following
comments and then resubmit the variation request for review.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Planninq staff is unable to support this variation reauest as it
has been presented. Address the following comments and then resubmit the variation request for
review.
Additional information requested:
2. Provide an exhibit showing the proposed road sections and plan views for Roads H & I. Note that the plan
view shown in the first submission of Phase IIB Road Plans, in the portion of Belvedere Blvd that has a
median, did not match the road sections specified in this variation request.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Revise the street section for Barnett Street & and Shelton
Street to address the following:
• Move the tree on the right so that it is shown in the planting strip and not on the sidewalk.
• Include in the title for the section the road letters that correspond to the ZMA Application
Plan and C.O.D. Table 8 Road Standards.
3. Provide a parking analysis for Belvedere Blocks 4, 7 and 8 within the Neighborhood Model District (NMD)
and the R-4 zone by -right residential uses along the portion of Belvedere Blvd that extends beyond the
NMD. This analysis should consider the impact of the SOCA fields and the required parking specified in
SP2007-58. Include in the parking analysis a plan view exhibit and a chart showing how the parking
requirement for SP2007-58 (#6), the SOCA fields and the residential lots will be met. The impact of
driveway locations, for any residential lot without alley access, should be considered.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• A comprehensive parking study, inclusive of all areas specified and not as separate
calculations/exhibits for the individual blocs, must be submitted in order to consider
whether the SOCA SP requirement has been met without impacting the required parking
needed for all of the residential lots in the area and the possible need for on -street parking
for the Neighborhood Center. It is important to note that the comprehensive parking study
must include the following:
o The parking required for the SOCA fields (see below for that requirement).
o The parking required for all residential units within Blocks 4 (Phase II portion), 7 and
8 as was specified above.
o The Neighborhood Center uses. If all parking requirements for the Neighborhood
Center use will be met within the area of the Neighborhood Center, and no on -street
parking will be utilized to meet that requirement, that can be specified so that the
Neighborhood Center parking does not have to be considered in this comprehensive
Parking study.
o All R-4 residential lots (including those approved, those submitted and those planned
for the future) along both Belvedere Blvd. and Fowler Street. This must consider
both their parking requirements and the impact their driveways will have on the
available street parking.
o All of the parking spaces that will be available in the area of the study.
• Also address the following in reference to exhibits for the comprehensive parking study:
o Ensure that the parallel Parking spaces impacted by the driveways are shown
correctly. --
o Ensure that there is sErfficient distance between any driveway entrances and where a
parallel parking space begin. It does not appear in "Exhibit 8 — Proposed SOCA
Parking" that the parallel parking spaces will fit between the driveways as shown
along the by -right portion of Belvedere Blvd. Either confirm that VDOT will allow
parallel spaces that close to a driveway entrance or update the parallel parking
spaces, and the parking counts in the parking study, appropriately.
As the centerline of the road shows in the proposed exhibit. and as shown in the
Belvedere Phase IIB Road Plan currently under review, Fowler Street has parking on
the south side and not on the north side of the street. The submitted exhibit for
street parking for the SOCA fields shows parking on the north side of the street. For
the west portion of Fowler Street parking on the south side of the street would
generate fewer parking spaces than shown in the exhibit because of the street
intersections. Keep in mind two things. 1) The parking is shown on south the side of
Fowler in the Road Plan currently under review. The Road Plan and the variation
request exhibits need to be brought into alignment with each other. 2) If as one
previous submission suggested there is to be Single Family Detached lots with
driveways on the north side of Fowler Street to the east of Belvedere Blvd. that will
impact the parking count on that street if the parking is moved to the north side of
Fowler Street.
• Both "on-site" and "on -street" parking is to be provided for the SOCA field, and a total of 125
spaces are required, as specified in the April 10, 2008 revision of the memo from Glen
Brooks (attached). On page 4 of 8, under "iii." it notes that the "SOCA plan" shows 60 "on-
site" parking spaces. Even though they are referred to as "on-site" parking, because they
were within the "Special Use Permit Boundary", Sheet 03 of the "SOCA Special Use Permit:
All weather SVnthetic Turf Field" (attached) shows those 60 parking spaces along the R-4
portion of Belvedere Blvd and the extension of that road to the West and towards the 100'
Future R.O.W. for the Meadowcreek Parkway. The number of "on-site" parking spaces that
these portions of roads would generate have been reduced because of parallel instead of
perpendicular parking spaces and the addition of single family detached units in the R-4
zoned area to the east of Belvedere Blvd. The R-4 SFD units reduce the "on-site" parking
available for the SOCA field because of the driveways and because of the quest parking
requirements for the SFD lots, neither of which was considered in the SOCA SP submission.
In the comprehensive parking study provide information on how all 125 parking space that
are required to meet the SOCA SP condition will be met.
• Since the parking study is to be a comprehensive parking study, as specified above, update
and/or replace the "proposed" exhibits so that they address the proposed parking for the
whole specified area.
• Since Block 8, which is between the SOCA SP area and the Neighborhood Center, must be
included in this comprehensive parking study provide a proposed street and alley layout for
the block.
• Ensure that no proposed parking is shown on what will be alleys. Alleys are not designed
for parking along their edges in belvedere.
• Ensure that all required parking calculations utilize the maximum allowed carriage units in
each block and the maximum SFD units for the portions of blocks that have not yet been
subdivided.
• Ensure that all exhibits that are included in the variation request packet, and not existing
pages from the approved C.O.D. or Application Plan, have titles and exhibit number for
reference and specify if they are proposed. The proposed "Table 8 Road Standards" does
not specify that it is "proposed" and the exhibit showing the proposed road sections does
not have a title at all.
• In the proposed Table 8 Road Standards, for "Belvedere Blvd — Viiiage Green to Road H",
because this section has a median revise the "Paved Width, Min Fc -FC" so that it states "27'
inbound and outbound".
• In the proposed Table 8 Road Standards, for "Belvedere Blvd — Village Green to Road H",
revise the "ROW Width (3)" so that it is "83"' and therefore matched the section provided in
the current submission of the Belvedere Phase IIB Road Plan (SDP2016-213) revision set
date 5130117.
• In the proposed Table 8 Road Standards, for "Belvedere Blvd — Village Green to Road H",
revise the title so that the typo of the extra letter in "Green" is corrected.
• It is unclear what Exhibit 7 is supposed to be representing. Address the following:
o The background of the graphic appears to come from the ZMA Application Pian, but
additional roads have been added to it modifying what was actually approved. It is
also labeled as "existing" even though none of it has been built. What is shown is
neither existing nor approved.
o There was a graphic that was submitted with the Special Use Permit that showed
proposed roads and proposed parking that would support the "on-site" portion of the
SOCA parking requirements. However, Exhibit 7 does not look like that exhibit, does
not have the same parking confiquration as that exhibit, and shows parking beyond
the extents of that SP exhibit. If this exhibit is meant to address the "on-site" parking
that was proposed as part of the SP process, shown in the exhibit for the SP, and
mentioned in the April 10, 2008 revision of the "SOCA Facilities at Belvedere" memo
that addressed the SP parking requirements, please ensure that it accurately
represents what was shown and discussed at the time of the SP. Discuss this exhibit
with the plan reviewer prior to making modification for resubmission.
o If the exhibit is to remain, and if it is meant to represent the parking_ shown in the
parking exhibit for the SP, once the exhibit has been revised to accurately represent
those previous exhibits change the title on the SOCA Parking graphic exhibit. It is
not "existing" and if it is meant to do what is specified above it should be labeled as
"Variation #57 - Exhibit 7 - SOCA SP exhibit of proposed on-site parking".
Design guidance:
4. in the proposed 1 able 8 Road Standards, for "Belvedere 131vd Load H to the Properly Line" revise the title
io itr;te. for 'Belvedere Blvd - Road H to the Bounch rV of th- PkNID". 1 he lei= il) s46,E:t rtp.ndr ri s d not apply
,, ro��d�: t1i,i t.,f; of �k: i,iltl,,) re?oned, are
Rev. 1. Corn ment Ab .ir e s :ed.
5. In the proposed Table, 8 Road Standards, for "i ix It
. (Fast of -xelvcdc:-r� Blvd )", rev3:--c the "Exhibit II Gross
'S.o6cr�„ -;�i sp.cify.r-.iiuiar II (b)" for tuse roads. Tric, Section dc«irV, iickCxhi}it (.
)
:t�=r1 if has purl inn o,'I only one side. The proposca re,}ad section clom.,;ly re senn'b'r:s FxNbii 11(6) bui
t` d. Gti..l , re,: r r," tt� Sc:C tiC2riS ;.'it}1!Jn ,f, („i; R app it'.: tlO f7 �, lar t.
e, d.
v. InI a kilo. ;"v, .j w. i,. t.t_. ! ('s evise. the 4711Ct l'lumt: fC'r lhe ptiCiiOrl>P` H. i9 l er;th�', se Li/e .
� -]tae of Beivedere
i_ i`.'d. t% specif}° tkt at tkle\ .1 rieV8£'t ICt' C�ih&..- road! :ieel�:
hould be revised to si;zte
11 io i
'H (Barneit Sir .et - V%Ie si. of Belvedere Blvd.)" "I (IShelton Streei)” should be revi!;ed to stale. "I (Shellcn
Street 11;Vert (.:ii Belvedere Blvd.)'
Corr;ri-rent
7. After addressing the comments submit an updated variation request with the updated charts and the
additional information specified above and below.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. After addressing the comments submit an updated variation
request with the updated charts and the additional information specified above and below including
a comprehensive parking analysis for the area specified.
B. [NEW COMMENT] Revise the variation request description to address the following:
• The request specifies that "Four modifications" are being requested. "Five are actually
being requested (see below').
• Near the bottom of the first paragraph of the description states "The last two modifications
Include changes to Road I and H (East of Belvedere Blvd)." That is actually one change, not
two, since "i,H (east of Bel. Blvd.), K,P" is one line item in the table and therefore it would be
considered one modification.
• There are two modifications not listed in the description. They are the changes to "H
(Barnett Street - West of Belvedere Blvd)" and "I (Shelton Street - West of Belvedere Blvd)".
Those should be specified as modifications in the table in the variation request description.
• Note that at this time staff is unable to support roads H 8t I, west of Belvedere Blvd, having
parking on only one side of the street. It must be shown that the parking requirements for
the SOCA SP, the Neighborhood Center, all of the NMD residences (existing and proposed),
as well as any proposed R-4 residences along Belvedere Blvd and Fowler Street can be met
before staff can consider supporting this change.
Virainia Department of Transportation Comments [Justin Deel Justin.deel(c)vdot.vir inia.gov 434-422-9894]:
1. Belvedere Boulevard is being shown as having up to b,000 AD 1. I he proposed design does not rneet
roadway gr ornetry rec uirc rner s for roads with ADT this high. Roads with this much ADT roust be: designed
a collector roads.
Nev.
2. Concerning the requested changes to Roads H & I; as we are aware of parking issues in this area, without
further explanation we cannot recommend a change from previous approved plans to remove parking areas.
Rev. 1: Given the existinq parking concerns within Belvedere we do not recommend restricting
parking to one side of the street; however, we cannot require that parking be permitted on both
sides.
Engineering Comments [Frank Pohl fpohl(a)albemarle.org 434-296-5832 ext. 7914]:
1. Submit road cross sections and cloud proposed variations on a plan to define areas included in the request.
Show where lost parking for SOCA will be provided.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. It is still not clear how parking will be provided for SOCA. A
total of 125 spaces are required per letter from the County Engineer dated April 10, 2008. In this
letter it was stated that 60 spaces were provided onsite and 65 spaces were required as on-street
parking. On street parking is also required for the single family residential lots. Suggest applicant
provide an overall map of parking to confirm parking requirements are met.
Fire Rescue [Robbie Gilmer rgilmer(cDalbemarle.org 434-296-58331:
1. !-ascd on ;'MA netc;(I 'i 1/23/16. No cornIments or cbjc-:(tions,
<.ev. 0, ic^.in i.
[NEW REVIEWERI Transportation Planning [Kevin McDermott kmcdermott(Ialbemarle.org 434-296-5832 ext.
3414]:
1. [NEW COMMENTI The information provided does not provide a clear picture of where and how
parking will be accommodated. With existing parking concerns additional reductions in parking is
not recommended without a comprehensive parking analysis for the development that clearly and
graphically demonstrates how all parking is accommodated as necessary.
An updated Code of Development and Application Plan reflecting all variations approved since July 22,
2014 (the latest Code revision date) comprehensively will be required prior to Final Plat approval if the
variations are approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Please contact Pat �rnye in the Planning Division by using psaternyena.albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext.
3250 for further in ion.
10
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper. Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
May 26, 2017
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Patty Saternye
Re: Belvedere Phase IIB — Variation Request
ZMA-2004-00007
Review #2
Dear Ms. Saternye:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced application as submitted by Collins Engineering,
revised 3 April 2017, and offers the following comment.
* Given the existing parking concerns within Belvedere we do not recommend restricting
parking to one side of the street; however, we cannot require that parking be permitted on
both sides.
PIease provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response Ietter. If further
information is desired, please contact Justin Deel at 434-422-9894.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
014- 0. Iqao w
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Patricia Saternye
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT) <Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 4:09 PM
To: Patricia Saternye
Cc: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT); Scott Collins
Subject: ZMA20040007 Belvedere Phase IIB - Variation Request 12-29-16
Attachments: ZMA20040007 Belvedere Phase IIB - Variation Request 12-29-16.pdf
Paty,
Attached is our review letter for ZMA20040007 Belvedere Phase IIB - Variation Request, which includes the following
comments:
Belvedere Boulevard is being shown as having up to 5,000 ADT. The proposed design does not meet
roadway geometry requirements for roads with ADT this high. Roads with this much ADT must be
designed as collector roads.
2. Concerning the requested changes to Roads H & I; as we are aware of parking issues in this area,
without further explanation we cannot recommend a change from previous approved plans to remove
parking areas.
Justin
Justin Deel, P.E.
Land Development Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
434-422-9894
540-717-1408 (c)
Phone 434-296-5832
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins(scottCcDcollins-engineering.com)
From: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: January 19, 2016
Subject: ZMA200400007 Belvedere Variation #53 #54 #55 #56 #57
Fax 434-972-4126
Five variation requests for Belvedere (ZMA 04-07) were submitted November 29, 2016 (dated November 22,
2016). We have determined that additional information is necessary for completion of our review. We have also
identified design changes for some of the variations that will be necessary for our recommendation of approval
of these requests to the Board of Supervisors.
Variation #53. 54, 55. 56 & 57: General comment for all five variation reauests
1. Exhibits must be submitted, as specified below, with each variation request to support the request and be
utilized in any packet that may be forwarded to the Commission and/or Board for their review. These
variation requests are linked to the previously approved rezoning ZMA2004-7 and are not associated with
other previous submissions of plats or plans.
Variation #53: Request to modify the maximum density within the development blocks 7 & 9.
1. Planning staff will be able to support this variation request once the following items are provided and
addressed.
Additional information requested:
2. Provide an exhibit that shows in plan view the changes in park area, stormwater management area and
area of development lots, from the approved ZMA application plan to the approved subdivision plats and
plans. It would be helpful to note in the exhibit that those changes were allowed by the approval of Variation
#45 (approved on October 3, 2012).
General comments:
3. Note that this variation, if approved, would make the minimum and maximum number of residential lots in
Block 9 twenty-three. In order to meet that number of residential lots in Block 9, because of the reduced
development lot area that remains in the Block after the approval of Variation #45, Variation request #55 will
have to be approved, reducing the minimum lot width of the lots in Block 9. If variation request #55 is not
approved another variation, reducing the minimum number of residential units in Block 9, would be required
because there is not sufficient linear frontage in the remainder of Block 9 to meet the minimum lot
requirement in the current C.O.D (July 22, 2014).
Variation #54: Request to modify the preservation/conservation/open space areas within
Mocks 7 & A-
1. Planning staff is unable to support this variation request as it has been presented. Address the following
comments and then resubmit the variation request for review.
Design guidance:
2. There appears to be an error in the math provided for the specified increase of open space in Blocks 7 and
9 of 1.03 acres. This does not appear to be correct. There appears to be only a difference of 0.11 acres
between the combined "conservation area", "preservation area" and "other green space" as approved with
the initial rezoning and that shown in the currently approved Code of Development (Initial ZMA:
0.73+1.2+1.9+0.5=4.33, Current C.O.D.: 0.73+1.2+0.75+1.76=4.44). That increases to 0.30 acres when
"Block 9 preservation easements" are included (Initial ZMA: 4.33+0.07+0.63=5.03, Current
C.O.D.:4.44+0.09+0.8=5.33). Clarify where the increase of 1.03 acres specified in your application for the
special exception is found in the previously approved documents or revise the calculations.
3. There is a portion of general open space within Block 9A, adjacent to a stormwater pond and behind lots
138, 139, and 140 that was designated as conservation area in the ZMA application plan. See the attached
PDF for reference. A significant portion of the required 0.73 acres of conservation open space in Block 9
would be met and the issue with outstanding conservation area would be greatly reduced if this area is
considered. If it is already platted as "conservation open space" it should be considered in your
calculations. If it is not already platted as "conservation open space" specifying this area as an area of
"missing" conservation open space in Block 9 and quantifying its size would aid in the justification for a
variation of Block 9 Conservation open space in the C.O.D.
Additional information requested:
4. Provide an exhibit showing and quantifying the area not previously captured as Block 9 conservation area
that would have been in Block 9A.
5. Provide an plan view exhibit that shows the changes in open space and development lots, from the
approved ZMA application plan to the approved subdivision plats and plans for Blocks 7 & 9. Quantify these
changes including designations of conservation, preservation and preservation easements. Include
information on how those changes were allowed by the approval of Variation #45 (approved on October 3,
2012) and how that impacted the area of conservation open space in Block 9 now able to be platted in the
latest subdivision plats.
6. Provide a chart with all previously platted open space in Belvedere, the proposed open spaces with
Belvedere Phase IIB, and the totals for each open space type. This chart should show that with the
changes specified in this variation request that all of the open space requirements, up to and including Block
9, will be met.
General comments:
7. The variation request specifies a Linear Park "I". There does not appear to be a Linear Park "I". There is a
Linear Park "J" but it does not appear to be part of the 1.2 Preservation Area in Block 9. Although Table 4
Green Space Tabulation lists Linear Park "J" as being in both Blocks 9&10 the description of Linear Park "J"
on page 13 only mentions that it "Includes the Conservation area of steep bluffs and existing woodlands on
the south side of the Block 10." Block 9 is not mentioned in the description. Also, the ZMA application plan
only labels Linear Park "J" in Block 10. The requirement for all of the 5.35 acres of Linear Park "J" will need
to be addressed in Block 10.
Therefore, the listing of Block Location for Linear Park "J" appears to be an error and the proposed changes
to Table 4 Green Space Tabulation should include a listing of only Block 10 for the location of Linear Park
"J". Revise the "Table 4 Green Space Tabulation —Proposed with variation #54" so that only Block 10 is
specified for Linear Park "J" and update the variation request to not address Linear Park "J" in Block 9.
8. Ensure that the areas shown in "Table 4 Green Space Tabulation — Proposed with variation #54" is correctly
tabulated and that the areas specified for Block 9 will be able to be met with the Phase IIB subdivision plat
and road plan.
9. After addressing the comments above submit an updated variation request with the updated charts and the
additional information specified above.
Variation #55: Request to modifv the Minimum lot frontage for Block 9 residential units.
1. Planning staff will be able to support this variation request once the following items are provided and
addressed.
Additional information requested:
2. Provide a plan view that labels each lot that will be impacted by this proposed modification to the C.O.D.
and dimensions the proposed reduced frontages for each lot.
3. Provide the proposed wording for the change in the C.O.D (Page 8).
Variation # 56 - Request to modify the side yard setbacks for residential lots within Block 4.
1. Planning staff will be able to support this variation request once the following items are provided and
addressed.
Additional information requested:
2. Provide a plan view that includes labels for each lot that will be impacted by the proposed modification to the
C.O.D. and dimension the proposed setbacks for each lot.
3. Provide exhibits that shows the existing C.O.D. Table 9: Block 2-10 Residential Lot Regulations and a
proposed table incorporating the change proposed with this variation request.
General comments:
4. Ensure that the revisions to Table 9: Block 2-10 Residential Lot Regulations only affect the lots within Block
4 with a width of 60' or greater and not large lots in other Blocks. Note that the chart included in the first
submission of SUB201600213 Belvedere Phase IIB Road Plan did not incorporate this modification correctly
and therefore should not be utilized for this exhibit unless that submission's comments have been
addressed.
Variation # 57 - Request to modify the Road Standards Table.
Planning Comments [Paty Saternye psaternye(cDalbemarle.org 434-296-5832 ext. 5250:
1. Planning staff is unable to support this variation request as it has been presented. Address the following
comments and then resubmit the variation request for review.
Additional information requested:
2. Provide an exhibit showing the proposed road sections and plan views for Roads H & I. Note that the plan
view shown in the first submission of Phase IIB Road Plans, in the portion of Belvedere Blvd that has a
median, did not match the road sections specified in this variation request.
3. Provide a parking analysis for Belvedere Blocks 4, 7 and 8 within the Neighborhood Model District (NMD)
and the R-4 zone by -right residential uses along the portion of Belvedere Blvd that extends beyond the
NMD. This analysis should consider the impact of the SOCA fields and the required parking specified in
SP2007-58. Include in the parking analysis a plan view exhibit and a chart showing how the parking
requirement for SP2007-58 (#6), the SOCA fields and the residential lots will be met. The impact of
driveway locations, for any residential lot without alley access, should be considered.
Design guidance:
4. In the proposed Table 8 Road Standards, for "Belvedere Blvd — Road H to the Property Line" revise the title
to state for "Belvedere Blvd — Road H to the Boundary of the NMD". The NMD street standards do not apply
to roads outside of the NMD rezoned area.
5. In the proposed Table 8 Road Standards, for "I & H (East of Belvedere Blvd.)", revise the "Exhibit II Cross
Section" to not specify "Exhibit II (5)" for those roads. The proposed section does not match Exhibit 11 (5)
because it has parking on only one side. The proposed road section closely resembles Exhibit 11(6) but
does not match the any of the sections shown in the ZMA application plan.
6. In Table 8 Road Standards revise the Street Name for the portions of H & I on the west side of Belvedere
Blvd. to specify that they are for the west side of the roads. "H (Barnett Street)" should be revised to state
"H (Barnett Street — West of Belvedere Blvd.)" "I (Shelton Street)" should be revised to state "I (Shelton
Street — West of Belvedere Blvd.)"
7. After addressing the comments submit an updated variation request with the updated charts and the
additional information specified above and below.
Virginia Department of Transportation Comments [Justin Deel Justin.deel(@vdot.virginia.gov 434-422-9894]:
1. Belvedere Boulevard is being shown as having up to 5,000 ADT. The proposed design does not meet
roadway geometry requirements for roads with ADT this high. Roads with this much ADT must be designed
as collector roads.
2. Concerning the requested changes to Roads H & I; as we are aware of parking issues in this area, without
further explanation we cannot recommend a change from previous approved plans to remove parking areas.
Engineering Comments [Frank Pohl fpohl(@_albemarle.orq 434-296-5832 ext. 7914]:
1. Submit road cross sections and cloud proposed variations on a plan to define areas included in the request.
Show where lost parking for SOCA will be provided.
Fire Rescue [Robbie Gilmer rgilmer(cDalbemarle.org 434-296-5833]:
1. Based on ZMA Dated 11/23/16. No comments or objections.
An updated Code of Development and Application Plan reflecting all variations approved since July 22,
2014 (the latest Code revision date) comprehensively will be required prior to Final Plat approval if the
variations are approyod by the Board of Supervisors.
Please contact Pa a in the Planning Division by using psaternye(a)albemarle.orq or 434-296-5832 ext.
3250 for further idf at' n.
Belvedere Block 9 possible Conservation Area - 2_
01-5A-109 105 - -
62
710 -�► szG-al-;a-1ss Legend G-01arA-1D8r"� 62G' -015A-123
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
r-
'l403
5� Q ` a wu�Evasm
0 62G 15A-137 Ta'' '
per' 1085 N 104
G 62G-01arA-124 62G=01 -5A-125 tc""o"��nDa��
' o m.
B2G-01-03-'�03 505 R -0
507 - r,
1092
10861", , 0 62G -01-9A-140
513 0 `° 4
Oo Z s
�O
i2G-00 62G32G-0-1-
%
4 �- 1112
R
F1 -00.'s1108
82F mil 1118 � } '1
68 ft shy
- nr nry.
GIS -Web
Geographic Data Services
—.albemarle.org
i2H-4 B2F_1�402 a<, (434)296-5832
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources December