HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300012 Special Exception 2017-12-06OFALB Albemarle County
Meeting Agenda
�RGIN�'
Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, Rivanna District Norman G. Dill
Supervisor, White Hall District Ann H. Mallek
Supervisor, Jack Jouett District Diantha H. McKeel
Supervisor, Samuel Miller District Liz A. Palmer
Supervisor, Scottsville District Rick Randolph
Supervisor, Rio District Brad L. Sheffield
County Executive, Jeffrey B. Richardson
Clerk, Claudette K. Borgersen
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 1:00 PM Lane Auditorium
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. Recognitions:
6.1. 17-555 Innovation Award from Virginia Government Finance Officers' Association
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (on next sheet)
1:15 p.m. - Action Item:
9. 17-621 Review of County Stream Buffer Regulations
(David Hannah, Natural Resources Manager)
2:15 p.m. - Work Sessions:
10. 17-646 Stormwater Infrastructure Management Program
(Greg Harper, Chief of Environmental Services)
Albemarle County Page 1 Printed on 121812017
Board of Supervisors Meeting Agenda December 6, 2017
CONSENT AGENDA
8. FOR APPROVAL (by recorded vote):
8.1. 17-639 Approval of Minutes: September 6, September 13, September 19, and
October 17, 2017.
8.2. 17-638 FY 2018 Appropriations
(Lori Allshouse)
8.3. 17-613 Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle Regional Emergency Operations Plan
(Allison Faroe)
8.4. 17-624 Appointment of Replacement Assistant Fire Marshals
(Howard Lagomarsino)
8.5. 17-585 Arrowhead Farm Lane Road Name Change
(Andy Slack)
8.6. 17-644 Downtown Crozet Initiative Commercial District Affiliate Status Resolution
(Holly Bittle)
8.7. 17-642 Extension of Deferral Request for ZMA2010-00018 Crozet Square
(Elaine Echols)
8.8. 17-627 ZMA201300012 Rivanna Village - Special Exception Request to Code of
Development.
(Chris Perez)
8.9. 17-628 SDP201600029 Spring Hill Village Special Exception Request.
(Rachel Falkenstein)
8.10. 17-637 Resolution to accept road(s) in VDOT Project 9999-002-900, C-501,
B-676 into the State Secondary System of Highways. (Rio Magisterial
District)
8.11. 17-551 Resolution to accept road(s) in the Connor's Ridge Subdivision into the
State Secondary System of Highways. (White Hall Magisterial District)
8. FOR INFORMATION (no vote necessary):
8.12. 17-630 County Grant Application/Award Report
(Holly Bittle)
Albemarle County Page 4 Printed on 121812017
CHI—
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
From: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Date: December 6, 2017
Re: Request for Special Exception for a Variation to the Code of Development Regarding "Table 7.1
— Parking Schedule" and "Table 3.3 Lot Regulations" for ZMA2013-12 Rivanna Village
TMP: 07900-00-00-025A0, 08000-00-00-04600, 08000-00-00-046A0, 08000-00-00-046CO
08000-00-00-046D0, 08000-00-00-046E0, 08000-00-00-05000, 08000-00-00-05100, 08000-00-00-
052A0, 08000-00-00-055A0, 093A1-00-00-00300, 093A1-00-00-00400, 093A1-00-00-00200
Magisterial District: Scottsville Magisterial District
School Districts: Stone -Robinson Elementary, Burley Middle, Monticello High
Zoning District: Neighborhood Model District (NMD)
Summary of Request for Special Exception:
The applicant is requesting to amend two tables within the Code of Development, Table 7.1-Parking Schedule
and Table 3.3 — Lot Regulations for Rivanna Village. The applicant is requesting that Table 7.1 be amended to
allow the guest parking requirements within the COD to match those required in the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant is also requesting changes to Table 3.3 to modify setbacks within the residential lots. Further
information and analysis is provided in the staff analysis in Attachment B.
County Code § 18-8.5.5.3 and § 18-33.5 allow special exceptions to vary approved Application Plans and Codes
of Development upon considering whether the proposed variation: (1) is consistent with the goals and objectives
of the comprehensive plan; (2) does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development;
(3) does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development in the zoning
district; (4) does not require a special use permit; and (5) is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the
approved application. County Code § 18-33.5(a)(1) requires that any request for a variation be considered and
acted upon by the Board of Supervisors as a special exception. Please see Attachment B for full details of staff s
analysis.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) to approve the special
exceptions.
Attachments:
A — Application Materials (Applicant Justification; Proposed COD Table 3.3 Lot Regulations, Currently
Approved COD Table 3.3 Lot Regulations; Currently Approved COD Table 7.1 Parking Schedule; Proposed
COD Table 7.1 Parking Schedule)
B — Staff Analysis
C — Resolution
CONCEPTS, PC
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 30, 2017
TO: Albemarle County Zoning Office
FROM: Mark Keller — Terra Concepts, PC
Alan Franklin — Alan Franklin, PE
RE: Rivanna Village — ZMA 2013-12 — Variation Request Addition
The information below is intended to accompany the current Variation request being processed at this time
and to act as an addition thereto.
TMP Designations for Rivanna Village:
07900-00-00-025A0 08000-00-00-04600 08000-00-00-046A0 08000-00-00-046C0
08000-00-00-046D0 08000-00-00-046E0 08000-00-00-05000 08000-00-00-05100
08000-00-00-052A0 08000-00-00-055A0 093A1-00-00-00300 093A1-00-00-00400
093A1-00-00-00200
Variations Being Sought:
Applicant wishes to amend Table 7.1 of the Code of Development for Rivanna Village as it pertains to
quest parking only. Currently, the Code of Development requires that ALL residential units provide guest
parking at the rate of 1 space per 4 units.
The Applicant wishes to maintain the base parking requirement for units, but to change the Code of
Development such that guest parking is not required for SFD units or for SFA units where parking is
provided in a congregate fashion in parking lots. This would be changing the code for Rivanna Village so
that it aligns with current Albemarle County code.
Reasons & Justifications
When Rivanna Village was conceived it was not designed in any unorthodox configuration that suggested
an unconventional parking requirement would be necessary to meet the community's needs. The wording
of the guest parking requirement found in Table 7.1 was an unfortunate mistake that, in certain instances,
is requiring more parking to be provided than is deemed necessary.
The SFD units proposed for the community are of two types; standard homes with 2-car, front -loaded
garages and Neo-Traditional units with 2-car, rear -loaded garages. The standard homes, which are the
vast majority of the SFD units, have parking for 4 cars on each lot, so the guest parking issue does not
apply to these units. The Neo-Traditional units, of which there will be 26-27, will not have space outside the
garage for additional parking for guests so, according to the current COD, guest parking is required for
these units. If current Albemarle County code applied, no guest parking would need to be provided for
these units.
In terms of SFA units, there are villas, which are large, wide townhouses, as well as more traditional
townhomes. All of the villas will have a 2-car garage and parking for two additional cars on each lot. Like
the standard SFD units, guest parking is a moot point because four spaces for parking are on each lot. The
traditional townhomes will have either a 1-car garage with a second space for parking outside the garage
or they will have parking for two cars each in congregate parking lots. According to the current COD, guest
MASTER & SITE PLANNING / ENTITLEMENT ]PROCESSING / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
2046 Rock Quarry Road Louisa, Virginia 23093 • 434-531-3600 • rmkeller@terraconceptspc.corm
CONCEPTS, PCB
parking is required for all townhouse units. If current Albemarle County code applied, no guest parking
would need to be provided for these units when they are served by a parking lot.
There is not a paucity of parking planned for the community. There has always been a requirement for a
certain degree of centrally -located, non-residential uses and a large public park is being constructed in the
heart of the community. Parking accommodations for these special uses will be achieved through on -street
parking on the roads immediately adjacent to these areas. Of course, residential guests are not precluded
from using on -street parking so, in effect, there are considerable parking accommodations in the denser
portions of Rivanna Village and around the park. The exact number has yet to be determined because
sight distance at intersections and final driveway locations dictate the precise yield.
What this change permits the Applicant to do is provide `balance' so that parking can be provided where it
is most needed and not provide excessive parking where it is unnecessary. Specifically, it would permit the
Applicant to refrain from providing guest parking for townhomes served by parking lots (where it normally is
not required anyway). For townhomes with a garage and driveway, the small number of guest parking
accommodations can be met on the street directly in front of the unit. Finally, Neo-Traditional SFD units
would no longer require guest parking so 7 fewer on -street spaces would have to counted as providing
guest parking for these residential uses.
MASTER & SITE PLANNING / ENTITLEMENT ]PROCESSING / ]LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
2046 Rock Quarry Road Louisa, Virginia 23093 • 434-531-3600 • mkellcr@tcrraconccptspc.com
August 30, 2017
Request for Special Exception for a Variation to the Code of Development Regarding
"Guest Parking Spaces" for ZMA2013-12 Rivanna Village
(CURRENTLY APPROVED)
Off -Street Parking. Off-street parking shall be provided according to the following Parking
Schedule.
TABLE 7.1— Parking Schedule
USE
RATIO
Residential
2 per dwelling unit
Residential guest parking
1 per every 4 dwelling units
Non -Residential
See note 1 in Section 7.1
Notwithstanding the foregoing, parking requirements may be further reduced based upon the
recommendation of a Shared Parking Plan approved by the Director of Community Development or
designee pursuant to Section 4.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
(PROPOSED)
Off -Street Parking. Off-street parking shall be provided according to the following Parking
Schedule.
TABLE 7.1— Parking Schedule
USE
RATIO
Residential
2 per dwelling unit
Residential guest parking
1 per every 4 dwelling units
Non -Residential
See note 1 in Section 7.1
Notwithstanding the foregoing, parking requirements may be further reduced based upon the
recommendation of a Shared Parking Plan approved by the Director of Community Development or
designee pursuant to Section 4.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
*Guest parking is not required for Single Family Detached (SFD) units or for Single Family Attached (SFA) units
where parking is provided in parking bays/parking lots.
ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
Civil Engineering, Site Planning, and Land Development Consulting
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 30, 2017
TO: Albemarle County Zoning Office
FROM: Alan Franklin, PE
RE: Rivanna Village — ZMA 2013-12 — Variation Request
The information below is intended to accompany the Application for Variations and Approved Plans,
Codes and Standards of Development for the above project.
TMP Designations for Rivanna Village:
07900-00-00-025AO 08000-00-00-04600 08000-00-00-046AO 08000-00-00-046CO
08000-00-00-046DO 08000-00-00-046EO 08000-00-00-05000 08000-00-00-05100
08000-00-00-052AO 08000-00-00-055AO 093A1-00-00-00300 093A1-00-00-00400
093A1-00-00-00200
Variations Being Sought:
Applicant wishes to amend Table 3.3 of the Code of Development for Rivanna Village as follows...
1. To remove the words "or alley" from footnote #1 and to change 15' to 10'.
2. To reduce the Minimum Rear Setback for all residential categories from 10' to 5'.
4. To reword footnote #4 to better clarify the declaration with new wording to read, "Building
envelope for individual lots may vary when a utility or landscape easement encroaches on a lot to
a greater degree that the prescribed setbacks.
Reasons & Justifications
When this community was being planned conventional residential units were the only type being
considered and the code was written to accommodate generic development. At this time, in certain
locations, neo-traditional single-family detached units, with rear -loaded garages, are scheduled to replace
townhomes that were to be served by a relegated parking lot. Items 1 & 2 above will permit garage
facades to reside closer to the travelways at the rear of certain lots. Placing the garages closer to the
travelway and thereby reducing the paved distance between garage door and travelway will discourage
parallel parking outside of the garage.
Item 4 above simply restates in a clearer fashion that on certain lots one may not be able to build right up
to the minimum setback line due to encroachments that may be associated with utility or landscape
easements.
427 Cranberry Lane PHONE (434) 531-5544
Crozet, Virginia 22932 E-MAIL alan@alanfranklinpe.com
3.3 Lot Regulations. (PROPOSED)
TABLE 3.3 — Lot Regulations
Area and
Area and Bulk
Setback Regulations
Bulk
Regulations
Regulations
Minimum
Maximum Lot
Min. Front
Min. Side
Min. Rear
Lot Size (s.f.)
Size (s.f.)
Setback
Setback
Setback
(ft.)
(ft.)
Single Family
3,000
None
10
5
5
Detached
Single Family
3,000
None
10
5
5
Attached Villas
(e.g. duplex or
multiplex)
Single Family
1,300
None
10
5
5
Attached
Townhouses
Non -Residential,
N/A
N/A
0(5)
0(5)
0
Multifamily and
Mixed -Use
Buildings
1. Whenever a unit has a road at its side, the minimum side yard setback is increased to 10 feet.
2. There shall be no minimum setback (i.e. zero ft.) along the side property line at the point of
attachment of two or more single family dwelling units of any type.
3. Intentionally Omitted.
4. Building envelopes for individual lots may vary when a utility or landscape easement encroaches on
a lot to a greater degree than the prescribed setbacks.
5. Build -To Lines: Structures in block D to be built to the property line along the frontage of all public
roads except where property lines are radii.
3.3 Lot Regulations. (CURRENTLY APPROVED)
TABLE 3.3 — Lot Regulations
Area and
Area and Bulk
Setback Regulations
Bulk
Regulations
Regulations
Minimum
Maximum Lot
Min. Front
Min. Side
Min. Rear
Lot Size (s.f.)
Size (s.f.)
Setback
Setback
Setback
(ft.)
(ft.) (1)
Single Family
3,000
None
10
5 (3)
10 (4)
Detached
Single Family
3,000
None
10
5 (2)(3)
10 (4)
Attached Villas
(e.g. duplex or
multiplex)
Single Family
1,300
None
10 (4)
5 (2)(3)
10 (4)
Attached
Townhouses
Non -Residential,
N/A
N/A
0 (s)
0 (5)
0
Multifamily and
Mixed -Use
Buildings
1. Whenever a unit has a road or alley at its side, the minimum side yard setback is increased to 15
feet.
2. There shall be no minimum setback (i.e. zero ft.) along the side property line at the point of
attachment of two or more single family dwelling units of any type.
3. Intentionally Omitted.
4. Setbacks for individual lots may vary when a utility or landscape easement encroaches on a side
yard.
5. Build -To Lines: Structures in block D to be built to the property line along the frontage of all public
roads except where property lines are radii.
STAFF PERSON:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Christopher P. Perez
December 6, 2017
Staff Analysis for Special Exception to Vary the Code of Development Regarding "Guest
Parking Spaces" for ZMA2013-12 Rivanna Village
The COD requires that all residential units provide off-street guest parking at a ratio of 1 space for
every 4 dwelling units. This requirement is more than what is required under the Zoning Ordinance
for guest parking. The applicant requests to change the COD so that guest parking is not required
for Single Family Detached (SFD) units or for Single Family Attached (SFA) units where parking
is provided in parking bays/parking lots. This modification aligns the COD with the County's
current parking requirements in the Zoning Ordinance.
VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES, AND STANDARDS OF DEVELOPMENT
Each variation request has been reviewed for zoning and planning aspects of the regulations. Variations
are considered by the Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under County Code §§ 18-33.5 and 18-
33.9. Staff analysis under County Code § 18-8.5.5.3(c) is provided below.
The applicant is requesting to amend Table 7.1 of the Code of Development (COD) for Rivanna Village
as it pertains to residential guest parking.
1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
The variation is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of
development.
The variation does not pertain to density.
3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other
development in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected.
4) The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning
application.
This variation is in general accord with the approved rezoning application. During the rezoning
for Rivanna Village, additional parking above and beyond what is required under the Zoning
Ordinance was not identified or required, this was simply an oversight in the writing of the COD.
Staff Analysis for Special Exception to Vary the Code of Development Regarding "Table 3.3
Lot Regulations" for ZMA2013-12 Rivanna Village
The applicant requests to change the COD to modify some of the setbacks in order to provide
additional leeway in siting residential structures on lots. The changes the applicant is requesting
followed by staff comment (in italics) are provided below:
1) Revise footnote #1 to remove the words "or alley" and change "15 feet" to "10 feet".
The modification permits the minimum side yard setbackfor units adjacent to alleys to remain 5 feet as specified
in the minimum side setback column of Table 3.3. It also maintains a greater minimum side setback, but to a
slightly lesser degree, than is currently prescribed in the COD for units adjacent to roads. Staff has no objection
to the proposed modifications because the modified setbacks go beyond the minimum side setback requirements
provided for in standard by right residential zoning districts. Additionally, the modified side setbacks maintain
a greater side setback for lots adjacent to roads in an effort to prevent a feeling of enclosure while driving down
the main roadways of the development.
2) Reduce the rear setback for Single Family Detached (SFD) units and Single Family Attached (SFA) units —
(for Villas & Townhomes) from a 10 feet minimum to a 5 feet minimum.
Staff has no objection to this modification. In all cases the travelway serving the various unit types maintains a
minimum of 20 feet width and is accessible by emergency response vehicles. With these changes, the
requirements regarding building separation (clear zone) will still be met.
3) Reword footnote #4 to better clarify the requirement: "Building envelope for individual lots may vary when a
utility or landscape easement encroaches on a lot to a greater degree than the prescribed setbacks. "
The revision more clearly states the requirement but does not have any substantive effect on the regulation. The
revision is to assure that the home builders more clearly understand they may not be able to build to the minimum
setback line due to encroachments that may be associated with utility or landscape easements.
VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES, AND STANDARDS OF DEVELOPMENT
Each variation request has been reviewed for zoning and planning aspects of the regulations. Variations
are considered by the Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under County Code §§ 18-33.5 and 18-
33.9. Staff analysis under County Code § 18-8.5.5.3(c) is provided below.
The applicant is requesting to amend Table 3.3 — Lot Regulations of the Code of Development (COD)
for Rivanna Village as it pertains to setbacks.
1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
The variation is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of
development.
The variation does not pertain to density.
3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other
development in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected.
4) The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning
application.
The applicant requests to change the COD to modify some of the setbacks in order to provide
additional leeway in siting residential structures on lots. This variation is in general accord with
the approved rezoning application.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
FOR ZMA2013-12 RIVANNA VILLAGE
TO VARY THE CODE OF DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Owner of Tax Map Parcel Numbers 07900-00-00-025A0, 08000-00-00-04600,
08000-00-00-046A0, 08000-00-00-046C008000-00-00-046D0, 08000-00-00-046E0, 08000-00-00-05000,
08000-00-00-05100, 08000-00-00-052A0, 08000-00-00-055A0, 093A1-00-00-00300, 093A1-00-00-00400,
093A1-00-00-00200 filed a request for special exceptions to vary the Code of Development approved in
conjunction with ZMA2013-12 Rivarma Village to amend the guest parking space requirements of Table 7.1
and to amend the lot regulations of Table 3.3.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the
Memorandum prepared in conjunction with the special exception request and the attachments thereto,
including staff s supporting analysis, and all of the factors relevant to the special exceptions in Albemarle
County Code §§ 18-8.5.5.3, 18-33.5, and 18-33.9, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the special exceptions to vary the Code of Development approved in conjunction with ZMA2013-
12 Rivanna Village, as described hereinabove, subject to the conditions attached hereto.
I, Claudette K. Borgersen, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Ave Nay
Mr. Dill
Ms. Mallek
Ms. McKeel
Ms. Palmer
Mr. Randolph
Mr. Sheffield
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
ZMA 2013-12 Rivanna Village — Special Exception Conditions
1. Table 7.1 shall be revised as shown on the Exhibit entitled "Request for Special Exception for a
Variation to the Code of Development Regarding "Guest Parking Spaces" for ZMA 2013-12 Rivanna
Village" dated August 30, 2017.
2. Table 3.3 shall be revised as shown on the Exhibit entitled "Rivanna Village — ZMA 2013-12 — Variation
Request, 3.3 Lot Regulations (Proposed)" dated May 30, 2017