Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201600019 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2017-01-09 (3) 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 January 19, 2017 Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering 201 E. Main St. Suite M Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA201600019 Riverside Village Amendment Revision 12-19-16 Dear Justin: Staff has reviewed your resubmittal to add 36 units to the Riverside Village NMD. Staff questions, comments, and recommendations follow: Planning Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided below. Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. The Pantops Master Plan recommends this area for Neighborhood Density residential uses (3 – 6 units/acre) along with a few non-residential uses. In addition, part of the property is recommended for Parks and Open Space. Areas for development were established with ZMA201200002. Calculated density for ZMA201200002 was 7 units/acre, based on areas designated as Neighborhood Density residential. You originally asked for even greater density; however, that density was not supported by the Pantops community nor the Planning Commission because it was viewed as too far over the recommended density of the Pantops Master Plan. With this amendment, proposed density is 13 units/acre based on the area designated for Neighborhood Density (3-6 units/acre) which again exceeds the amount recommended in the Master Plan. As you know, on September 26, 2016, initial feedback from the Pantops Community Advisory Committee was positive and again on November 28, 2016, concerns for density were not raised. This information will factor into the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Regarding your proposed proffer changes, while there is currently no cash proffer policy in effect, staff is reviewing your request as a modification of the original zoning . For this reason, staff believes that cash proffers are appropriate for all units which do not meet the County’s affordable 2 housing definition. Because there is no policy related to workforce housing, staff cannot support elimination of cash proffers for these units. However, if you wish to exclude all of Block 1 from cash proffers for impacts on the basis of providing workforce housing, you will need to define workforce housing and the methodology to be used to enforce such a proffer. More information on this issue is provided with the Zoning comments. Rev. 1: Methodology and language for enforcing a workforce housing proffer has been provided. Please see additional information under the Housing section below. We can suggest two possible options to help you mitigate impacts of the 30 units which do not meet the County’s affordable housing definition. The first would be to provide a cash proffer calculated from the FY 2016-17 CIP ($7,419.91/multifamily unit). The other possibility would be to calculate a per unit cost to cover the difference between $971,189.00 and the total proffer amount that will result from constructing units 41 – 69. Otherwise, you will need to provide information on how the impacts from the 30 units will be mitigated. Rev. 1: No change; however, in our conversation on January 18, 2017 you indicated you will explore this option. Rebecca Ragsdale in Zoning will provide additional information on proffered amounts received to date for the first 69 units. Neighborhood Model Because the design of the project is not changing, the only applicable Neighborhood Model principles are Mixture of Use and Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open Space. The proposed changes will continue to provide a mixture of uses; however, the maximum amount of nonresidential square footage could possibly go as low as 8,000 square feet. Because the maximum amount of nonresidential square footage in the Neighborhood Density residential designation is 20,000 sq. ft., allowance for a reduction would bring the project into closer conformity with recommendations in the Pantops Master Plan. Regarding the ability to provide for multiple plazas rather than a single 5,000 sq. ft. plaza, staff is unable to assess whether this change is substantive or not. To evaluate this change, staff asks that you provide additional parameters to ensure that the plazas are amenities to the development and not just leftover spaces in hard to reach areas. Rev. 1: Thank you for the information provided in the letter of December 19. Staff still has concerns with the need for a commitment to ensure that the new plazas will continue to provide amenities for the development. However, in our conversation on January 18, 2017 you indicated that drawings will be provided for staff review to assist in developing language for such a commitment. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Rebecca Ragsdale: Code of Development and Application Plan  Sheet 2- Parcel overview should be updated now that the property has been subdivided.  Sheet 4- Parking notes- Zoning has had concerns about determining adequate parking since the initial rezoning of Riverside Village (ZMA 2012-02). However, the Board ultimately approved the calculation of 1 space/250 for non -residential uses. Note 3 must be revised to also include the requirement for guest spaces, per the ordinance below. 3  Sheet 4- Development block summary-What is the purpose of the 500 square foot reduction in commercial per residential unit? There is a limit of 20,000 gross square feet per building in Block 1 on Sheet 5 and a range of commercial/residential allowed in block 1. Is there a need for this additional stipulation?  Sheet 5-Table of Uses- Why are accessory uses/structures by SP in Block 1?  Sheet 6-Affordable Units by Type and Block-The notes under this table reference a cash in lieu of units option. This should either be deleted or cash in lieu of terms specified in Proffer 2. This table may also need updates to address workforce housing. Rev. 1: Changes to items above have been made. Modifications needed from this submittal are as follows:  Tax Map Parcel correction: The correct tax map parcel needs (TMP 078G0-00-01-000A0) to be on the application plan cover sheet and the first page of the proffers since this rezoning only applies to Block 1. Housing Rev. 1: The following information has been provided by Ron White:  The following are the estimated maximum rents that could be approved for affordable rental units. They are estimated since I don’t know what utilities would be paid by the tenant. NOTE: These rents could be approved for voucher holders. 1 bedroom $900 2 bedroom $1,000 3 bedroom $1,250 Since we do not have a policy for determining rents for workforce units, I would recommend multiplying each of the amounts above by 1.25. I believe that once you get this figure, you will find that it is likely close to what the market rents would be anyway.  As with rental units, there is no policy related to credits for work force housing; however, if units are to be for-sale, staff believes the maximum sales price for workforce housing would be $375,000. Proffers  Proffer 2-Just as affordable housing is defined in the proffers, workforce housing terms should be specified as well. It is recommended that the terms for workforce housing be 4 added to proffer 2.1 (reference Strategy 8a of the Housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan for some guidance)  Proffer 5- If you wish to exclude workforce units from cash proffers for impacts, you will need to add to the third-fourth line of Proffer 5, “and that is not classified as an Affordable Unit or a Workforce Unit…” Then you can delete Proffer 5.1. Rev. 1: Changes to items above have been made. Modifications needed from this submittal are as follows:  ZMA Number is not correct on the proffers and should be updated to reference ZMA201600019 Engineering and Water Resources Frank Pohl, County Engineer, has no objection to this project. Rev. 1: No change. Entrance Corridor The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: There is insufficient information to determine impacts of the proposal on the Entrance Corridor. Please provide additional information to clarify the following and to indicate how an appropriate appearance for the Entrance Corridor will be achieved: 1. The change in appearance of the buildings resulting from the reduction in commercial space and increase in residential units. 2. The distribution and appearance of the multiple plazas. This information is needed with the rezoning to ensure the possibility of an approvable site plan. Rev. 1: There isn’t much information in the EC guidelines about plazas; however, and the buildings will still need to go through ARB review. If you submit new designs for the plazas, the Design Planner can review them. Traffic The following comments have been provided by the County’s Transportation Planner, Kevin McDermott: From a transportation perspective this amendment may provide some benefi t through reduction in overall trips generated, although, it could increase the number of trips made during the peak hours. This could be offset through further promoting multi -modal options available because of the location of the development near transit , pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. To that end, staff recommends consideration of residential/visitor bicycle accomodations which could include covered bicycle parking and/storage areas to help reinforce multi -modal options available to users. Rev. 1: Thank you for considering inclusion of resident/visitor bicycle accommodations. Staff believes that making a commitment to provide such accommodations would be beneficial. VDOT Comments from VDOT are attached. Rev. 1: Attached letter from January 19, 2017 indicates that the project is generally acceptable. ASCA/RWSA The following comments related to the water and sewer have been provided by Alex Morrison of ACSA: Prior to approval the applicant shall correctly depict the existing water and sewer 5 infrastructure on site. This update should be shown on Sheet 7. I will be ready to recommend approval once this comment is addressed. The ACSA will review the water sewer connections once the final site plan for this block is submitted for review. Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the acti ons identified on “Action After Receipt of Comment Letter” which is attached. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. Resubmittals are received on the first and third Mondays of each month. The 2017 Submittal and Resubmittal Schedule may be found here: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/Community_Development /forms/schedules/Special_Use_Permit_&_Zoning_Map_Amendment_Schedule.pdf It may be possible to advance the application to the Planning Commission before April 4 if you resubmit on Feb. 6 as a result of the limited number of technical changes needed for this project. When you resubmit, please provide 5 copies of the plan and proffers. Notification and Advertisement Fees The zoning ordinance specifies that applicants pay for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees is needed: $__400______ Cost for newspaper advertisement __200______ Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) $__600______ Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing Prior to the Board of Supervisor’s public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing needed. $__400______ Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $_1000______Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. 6 Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is eechols@albemarle.org. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols, FAICP Chief of Planning enc: Resubmittal Form Letter from VDOT County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 6/7/2011 Page 1 of 1 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA # ______________________________________ Fee Amount $___________ Date Paid __________By who? ______________________________ Receipt # _____________Ck#_____________ By: ______________ Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or Zoning Map Amendment PROJECT NUMBER: __ZMA201600019_________________PROJECT NAME: Riverside Village Amendment ___________________________________________ X Resubmittal Fee is Required  Per Request □ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required ______________Elaine Echols____________ Community Development Project Coordinator ______________________________________________________ Name of Applicant Phone Number _________________________________1/19/17___ Signature Date ______________________________________________________ Signature Date FEES Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000 □ First resubmission FREE X Each additional resubmission $500 Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000  First resubmission FREE  Each additional resubmission $1,000 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500  First resubmission FREE  Each additional resubmission $1,250 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500  First resubmission FREE  Each additional resubmission $1,750  Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant’s request – Add’l notice fees will be required $180 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 bod y. MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER  Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $200 + actual cost of first-class postage  Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.00 for each additional notice + actual cost 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)