Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA198900017 Action Letter ,---"-"~-~-,---~-_..--=~-~--- -._=..=~---"..~,,-- ~, -------~_._-'. I . ~.""."=.;'~, §: t~!\'¡;, ", ~ VI[-/(;I~\t- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning &Cqmmunity Development 401 MclntIre Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 ·January 8, 1990 Kurt Wassenaar P. O. Box 2666 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA-89-17 Midmont Limitêd Partnership Tax Map 76, Parcel 3 Dear Mr. Wassenaar: The Albemarle County Board of supervisors, at its meeting on December 20, 1989, unanimously approved the above-noted request to rezone 6.4517 acres from R-l, Residential to R-4, Residential. Property located on the southwest side of Midmont Lane near the School of Continuing Education. Please note that this request was approved as proffered in letters, dated october 30, and November 2, 1989, addressed to Mr. , James C. Bosworth, Jr., Senior Planner, Department of Planning and community Development, from Mr. Kurt Wassenaar, General Partner, Midmont Limited Partnership, Agent, Ms. Elsie Chamberlain Larsen; and as proffered by Mr. Wassenaar at the Planning Commission meeting held on November 9, 1989; and proffers verbally amended and clarified by Mr. Wassenaar, at the Board of Supervisors meeting on December 20, 1989, as set out below: 4. 5. section 15.2.1.1 Proffer Out; section 15.2.1.2 Proffer out; section 15.2.1.4 - The applicant proffers that the housing density on the project will not exceed 26 single-family attached cluster residential units of not more than three (3) bedrooms in each unit. section 15.2.1.12 Proffer Out; 'The applicant proffers that the general character of the site and specimen trees of 8" caliper or greater, 4" or greater caliper boxwood trees, and those '. additional areas identified as natural protection zones on the attached plan will be preserved. , 1- 2. 3. "T..'==--._.-" , 7. '/ Kurt Wassenaar Page 2 January 8, 1990 6. The applicant proffers to participate with Albemarle County and'the City of Charlottesville in the necessary traffic study and traffic improvements to the Midmont Lane/Alderman Road Intersection, including the installation of a traffic light at tl:1at intersection if it is deemed appropriate by the study and the authorities having jurisdiction. Th~ applicant proffers to contribute to the cost of the study and traffic imp:rovements on a pro rata b;3.sis using relative traffic volumes and for an amount not to exceed $25,000. . The applicant proffers that the.Miq.mónt residence will be submitted to the state l!:rchi~ebtural Historian and will work with him ,to determine a suitab:!.e plan for preservation. of the house section;&nd preserV:ation of the yard and large sI;t-ade trees immE!dd¡:atel~ ~ùrrounding the house. The a:þpl~cant proffers, ·to follow these guidelines and preservation plan, if lany. . .. .. ",' ..,' " ...... ,. ..', .. .,:';.! If y,ou should have any questions or comments regarding the " .... ", <....... .. .... ...,......" " '': '.'. .....<,.,..... "" ,,', :...... '<.'>, ....,...:. '......- I. ....:... "" "', above noted act~on, ple&se do not hes~tat~ to contact me. f . i Develqpmept VWC/jcw cc: Elsie Chamberlain Larsen Kathy. Dodson satyendraHuja f .~ " ,-"·;",,,,,~,";"~,':'f''i:''~i(j .......- .~... /",:,c , I \.,,' , ..··(l:tt;id~ "B , October 30, 1989 '-~~~, . OCT81 1989 PLANNING DIVISION J Mr. Jamès C. Boswonh, Jr. Senior Planner . Department of Planning and CO=unity Development 401 McIntire Ròad ' . Charlottcsville;Vñignia 22901-4596 ,,' ',", . , ',',C' . Re: ZMA - 89 -17 Midmont Limited Partnership Dear Mr. Boswonh, r, I am writing with respect to our discussion this morning on t.1e Midmont project and the proffer amendments, which the County would like to have on the above project. ACCordingly, Ihave revj,s~ thisletterto meet those needs and ask that you substitlltethis letter as the stateIì1ent of explaination and profferfor our ZMA application. As I mentioned to you previously, We feel that our, plan of development and the'attached proffers ~ completely meet the intent and sprit of the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood plan and the concerns and issues which have be¢nraised by the County and through the joint planning , agreement, the City. of Ch¡¡rlottesville,' with respect to this proposed zoni.\1g map , ameI1dment. . The substance ofmy lette<will be broken into tWo types: The first will be answers or explainations of intent,.fact, or undérstanding which either. clarify the proposed zoning map amendm~t or which identify existing conditions on the site which you maynorbe aware of or which will restate our understanding of the zoning regulations which apply to this project and which we will expect to be detailed for review and approval during the site plan review phase of the project. The second typeofreponse will be in theform of Proffers to the project which will bind the developmenrcharacteristics as apart of the zoning map amendment. I must start by stating that our proposed zoning map an:¡endment conforms as precisely as possible with the recotI)I]lendations of the Lewis Mountain - University Heights Neighborhood Study, the County Comprehensive Pla.'la..'ld the other CO=ents which have been received fromthe City of Ch¡¡rlottesville, and the, Planning staff. With respect to these planning guidelines I wo1lld like to. make the following points. The Lewis Mountirin Study specifically states: U preserve the existing historic, site and natural characteristics in development. U and low scale residential usès not exceeding four dwelling units per acre. ^- Intent I Understanding. The exiSting historic site and natural chai-âëteristicsconsists of approximately 6.5 acres with significant boxwood trees and other specimen trees, a lower area of the site which has a small creek: with large beds ofivy, several fragments of old gardens, a large circular drive area with gateposts and a heavily modified and dilapidated house built in three or more segments and with significanrexisting structurallÌ~mRze.· f " MidmOnt Project ZMA ~ 89 - 17 pg. -1 '. 1. Proposed Project Ourpropòsal will specifically involve the development of26 at'..ached cluster residential units of not more than three bedrooms. The units will be constructed approxiinately four blocks which conform roughly to the existing flat pad areas, on ,the site as shown on the an¡¡ched conceptplai1andwhich'l';il1 minh"i:>:e.the impacttoth~existing historic site and "Will nè¡t impinge on thè exìstingcrìticålslopes. A proffer for this density is given below. , 2. Natural Character arid Vegetation The boxwoods,specimen n;ees, the stream bed arid surrounds and the general character of the site with the entry ci!cle,are, without doubt of significance and will be protected completely in our, planned development Aproffer for this protection .is given below. 3. Hòuse i " 'I '.," "." ¡ We have carefully examined the existing house and have spoken with the architectural historians at the State for assistance init's èvåluation. 'While we would like to preserve any historically significant portions of the existing ,house, only one part of it has.~y aspect , ~ which would fall within this catagory ,and the state archite-."tUrål historian did not feel that this section was sufficiently intact to recommend preservation. ,'This section is dates back to the mid 1700's, has had very extensive I}1odifications in walls, chimneys removed, roof , replacement, and rework of the .interiorsuch thadt is difficuItto,~en develop-a .,preservation plan that would make sense. In addition the house is in verypoorrepair with 'water damage, foundation cracks andwou!drequirecomplete gut1:Ù1g of the. m.terlor to be usable. As such it is our opwon, and that of thearcJ:ritev"tUrål historians, that an effort to preServe the house should be considered and examined. ',Our developq:¡ent 'te;µ¡¡ ,agrees with this·and will make a reasonable effort to .either utilize or repair the . 1700's part of the house ' as part of our plans submitted.for site planreview.:Becausewe R."è uncert¡ùnthat this house section ,can reasonably be repaired or utilized we¡¡re unable to proffer this aspect ' and feel that itwould!»unwise to incorportate this into the zonirigconditions for this property. ' 4.A:tchitei:türal Character We feel that the new buildings wruch are constructed should be of a type R.'ld character which is consistent with the historical character of the site and it is our intent that this will govern the design of the buildings. Iam'unawareof any current mechanism which exists in the County for architectural review and therefore while we would bewilling to submit our architecturald.esignsfor County'review at the detail plan review level, any proffer to this effect would be unacceptable to the County because of it's enforcibility. 5. Traffic The ttaffic impact oftrus project has been raised as an issue,R.'ld we agree that this aspect oftheprojcct must be considered. We fee1that the Levi'is Mountain Study and the Comprehensive Plan obviously considered this as a component issue in making their density ==endations for this parcel. We have respected the study and plan recommendations and our proposed projectis actually slightly less dense that that proposed. Also the development of single family cluster units will in our opL'1iongenerate a minimum of traffic onto Alderman Road. It should also ,be noted that this project is within two blocks of the University and it is closer to the Ut)ÌVersÏty than most of the University parking lots. We therefore feel that ,the actual number of trips generated orlto , Midmónt Project ZMA - 89 - 17 pg. -2· . . , . '" . ~ '. ...... Ii '... .. ..11 ~., ) Alderman will be much less than the traditional trip generation estimate methodology would indi~~. . We do feel that the developer of this projectshould cooperate with the Çity ,and County in conducting a traffic stud~Öf this area and in working out ,an oPti!11wnsolu!ionto tÞis problem. Our deYelopn:lI~ntteamwillpledge to do this, Because the traffic intersection is within theÇity ofCharlones~e"tl1eCoµnty is unable to!\c;çept anyJormal proffers with respect to this intersection or access,routeand therefore no proffers are offered. ',' .- '. .¡. ~, . . '. . . 6. CcinetaryRoad . " '. We wish to clarify that the Old Cemetary Road right of way will not be retained as a public . right of way and will be dèveloped as a private driv~ . <:::C'> ,:",,- 7 . Site Utilities _ Existing 8"sanitary sewer line, 6:' domestic water and fire line al1dpower are all availi¡.ble on the property edge at Midmont land and with more than sufficient capacity to Servè the intended project· We .understandthatthesè utilities will need to be addressed in detail during theengineeringreviewofthe~te plan and will accept any reductions in ~ de¡1sity.thatthis may entailasaresultofthese utilities. . As you are aware this is a matter of law as defmedby County regulations and,the site plan approval proCess. 8. Crittal Slopes The applicant is aware that critical slopes exist on the ~te, agrees that he will not build on critical slopes, and cannot build on critical slopes without a specific variance which he does not' intèndto·seek. . . . f '......... , B.Proffers Baseddn the above undetstanding and factS we therefore wish to proffer the following conditions to our application for a zoning map amendment . 1~· . Section 15.2.1.1 .Proffer Out 2. Section 15.2.1.2 Proffer Out 3 . Section 15.2.1.4 TheappIicant proffers that the housing density on the project will not exceed twe!1ty six (26) single family attached duster . residential units. of not more thà'n< three (3) bedrooms in each unit. 4. Section 15.2.1.12 Proffer Out 5. The applicant proffers that the general character of the site and specimen trees of 8" caliper or greater, 4" or greater caliper boxwood trees, and those additional, areas, identified as, natural protection zones on the attached. plan ',will. be preserved. I 'i, Midmont Pi-ojeet ZMA - 89 - 17 pg.- 3 " ~ -~",. '. .. , '. C.~ummarv 11 .' 'I J * .' t.,' "," We feel that our proposed zoning map amendment has completely addressed the recommendations and intent outlined in the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Study, The County Comprehensive Plan, and the comments provided by the County Sta.."f and the City of Charlottesville. We have outlined a proposed project which fully protects the character and significance of the site and can' be developed with the maximum benefits to the County and adjacent areas and ,with minim..¡ negative impacts. As such, we repectfully :request that the proposed zoning map amendment and proffers be accepted for this parcel. PW Kmt Wàssenaax AJA -- General Partner, . MidmoÌ1t Limited Partnership Agent, Ms. Elsie Chamberlain Larsen . cc: Ms. Elsie, Chan:ilici-låii1 Larsen Mr. EdwårdLowry MidmOntLimited'partnershlp f MidIii()nt>PrôjectZMA'~' 89 -17 pg. -4 ",-----'--- -- - ___.__ "__n____ __________ , ~ . . ~.' ...: -,\" ... .. '" Wassenaar Associates P.o. Bo:t 2666; Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-2666 (8<») 971.:1920 , . II , , .. 1/ >Ji o J ',,' November 2, .1989 ID c:-:;;",-",,_,,-__~, ,'; 'V.. ..~'''~ ". 'ò~ ?~ '~...~ .t: ~í\'~'~ 'fî\~' '.:!i,,¡;¡~ \~"(""~v~"~n~ I't - I;J~'". 9 '" .... ~ "1· ,. . ',', . . ~ 'f' , NOV 2 1989.·..' '.' PLANNING DIVISION Mr. Jim Boswonh Senior Planner " .'. Department(')fgHuming and COIDm!1f1Ì!yDeveloptnent 401McIn¡jreROad." ".",., Charlottesyï11e,yn-ginia 229014596 RÊ: ~}89ci;;. Mìdmoiu Dear Mr. Boswonh, I am writing with respect to our discussion tOday concerning ù'1e Midmont ZMA above and: the specific issue which has been raised by Mr. Huja of the City and subsequently by the _ County concemingthe Alderman Road and l\1idmont Lane intersection with respect to traffic. f .Basedonourdiscussion, the applicant would like to zna1;e the following proffer with respect to the traffic issue, and this would be proffer rium!x;r six: 6. The applicant proffers to participate with Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville in the neCessary traffic study and ,traffic improvements to the Midmont Lane/Alderman Road intersection, including the installation of a traffic light at that intersection if it is deemed appropriate by the study and the authorities baving juriSdiction. The applicant proffers to contribute to the cost of the study and traffic improvements on a prorata basis using relative trafñc volumes and for an amount not to eXCeed $25,000. We feel that this will be a responsive contribution on our part to·the solution of the traffic problems which have been identified anhis intersection, and it is our hope that our participation will more than offset the additional traffic volume that our project may add to this intersection. ,'Please do not hesitateto contact me should you have any questions concerning this;· " Sincerely, I ~ Kurt Wassenaar, AlA KW!blz cc. l\1idmont Partners Ms.E1sie Chamberlain Larsen Mr. EdwårdLòwry , ''''!\O - ¡;.;.¡ Architects m ,"'