HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201800005 Correspondence 2018-10-30TM
BOHLER
E N G I N E E R I N G
Albemarle County
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Attn: Tim Padalino, AICP
Dear Mr. Padalino:
28 Blackwell Park Lane, Suite 201
Warrenton, VA 20186
PHONE 540.349.4500
October 29, 2018
Via Hand Delivery
Re: ZMA-2018-00005
Zoning Map Amendment — 2°d Review
Response
PT Hotel, LLC
1628 State Farm Boulevard
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Albemarle County
BE #V 172065
Bohler Engineering is pleased to submit on behalf of Shamin Hotels, the Zoning Map Amendment 3rd
Submission for the PT Hotel, LLC Project in Charlottesville, Virginia. The following is our comment
response letter addressing comments received from various departments dated October 3, 2018. Each
comment is addressed and responded to as follows:
Additional Planniniz Comments:
Comment 1: Stepbacks: A front stepback is required for the proposed structure per County Code
Chapter 18 ("Zoning Ordinance") Sections 25A.6, 21.4, and 4.20(a). Staff acknowledge
that Note 2 on Sheet 3 of the Application Plan states that "The applicant is requesting that
the County allow the building to have no front stepbacks."
However, this proposed modification to the front stepback requirements must be formally
requested through a written submittal of a request for waiver or modification, pursuant to
Zoning Ordinance Section 8.2(b)(1), inclusive of your justification for the proposed
waiver or modification relative to the findings that must be made per Zoning Ordinance
8.2(b)(3).
Therefore, the proposal should be revised and resubmitted (either by complying with the
front stepback requirements, or by proposing to establish an alternative stepback
requirement via the process described above) prior to being taken to the Planning
Commission for a public hearing.
Response 1: A stepback waiver modification is no longer being requested. Based on exhibit
(prepared by the project architect) included with submission, it is our opinion we
are meeting the stepback requirement.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
® BOHLER
L\ G I N E E R I v G
Tim Padalino, AICP
PT Hotels, LLC
Zoning Map Amendment 2nd Review Comments
October 29, 2018
Page 2 of 5
Comment 2: Setbacks: The proposed primary structure is subject to minimum setback requirements
and maximum setback requirements per Zoning Ordinance Sections 25A.6, 21.4, and
4.20(a).
The proposal appears to comply with the applicable minimum setback requirements ("10
feet from the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside
of the rightof-way; for off-street parking or loading spaces, 10 feet from any public street
right-of-way."). However, the proposal is not compliant with the applicable maximum
setback requirements ("30 feet from the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk
if the sidewalk is outside of the right-of-way... ").
Staff acknowledge that Note 3 on Sheet 3 of the Application Plan states that "The
applicant is requesting the County allow a minimum front building setback of 10' and an
max front building setback of 35' (to port cochere)." And staff are generally supportive
of the revised site layout you have provided on the Application Plan dated 9/4/2018,
particularly in regards to the revisions made to eliminate some parking spaces and bring
the drive aisle, port cochere, and main portion of the propose hotel closer to the public
ROW. This is viewed as an acceptable compromise which responds to the previous
review comments regarding the Neighborhood Model Principles, while still providing for
the programmatic needs of your project.
However, this proposed modification to the maximum front setback requirements must be
formally requested through a submittal of a written request for waiver or modification,
pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.2(b)(1), inclusive of your justification for the
proposed waiver or modification relative to the findings that must be made per Zoning
Ordinance 8.2(b)(3).
Therefore, the proposal should be revised and resubmitted (either by complying with the
front stepback requirements, or by proposing to establish an alternative stepback
requirement via the process described above) prior to being taken to the Planning
Commission for a public hearing.
Response 2: A waiver/modification is no longer being requested as the max front setback of 30' is
being proposed to the Porte Cochere.
Comment 3: Building Height, Viewsheds, and Visibility: The proposed hotel's height and location
(topographically prominent site) combine to create concerns about impacts to viewsheds
from State Farm Boulevard and from other locations in Pantops, as well as potential
impacts to the viewshed from Monticello. With the resubmittal materials provided on
9/4/2018, the proposed height of the structure has increased from sixty (6o) feet to
approximately seventy-four (74+/-) feet. This proposed increase in building height
increases the concerns referenced above.
Furthermore, the proposed height is not permissible per Zoning Ordinance Sections
25A.6 and 21.4; the maximum height is sixty-five (65) feet. Any proposal to modify or
waive the building height regulations must be requested through a submittal of a request
for waiver or modification pursuant to Zoning Ordinance 8.2(b)(1), inclusive of your
justification for the proposed waiver or modification relative to the findings that must be
made per Zoning Ordinance 8.2(b)(3).
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
1E BOH LER
E N G I N E E R I N G
Tim Padalino, AICP
PT Hotels, LLC
Zoning Map Amendment 2°d Review Comments
October 29, 2018
Page 3 of 5
Staff also request and strongly recommend that the applicants provide some type of
visual analysis of the proposed hotel (as viewed from multiple locations along State Farm
Boulevard, and as viewed from multiple locations within the Pantops neighborhood), as
requested by members of the Pantops Community Advisory Committee during the
community meeting on 7/23/2018. This type of visual information would be very helpful
in the County's evaluation of this proposal, and specifically in determining the
appropriateness of the proposed height, massing, and location.
Staff acknowledge the recent coordination with Ms. Liz Russell with the Thomas
Jefferson Foundation to understand what concerns (if any) the Foundation has, and to
discuss potential mitigation techniques (as may be applicable).
Response 3: The building height has been revised to 64'-11.5". Additionally, a thumb drive has
been provided with the proposed renderings.
Comment 4: Proffer Statement: Proposed proffers should not be provided solely as a Note on the
Application Plan or as a statement in the Project Narrative. Specifically, per Zoning
Ordinance Section 33.22(B), all proffers must be provided in a separate "proffer
statement" signed and notarized by all applicable owner(s) or authorized agent(s).
Such a proffer statement would include any voluntary commitments to: develop the
property in general accord with the Application Plan (with a reference to the plan date);
provide an easement, dedication of land, or similar to the County for public use,
regarding the area that is outside of the development envelope and is designated as
"Parks" on the future land use designation; or provide any other commitments to address
potential impacts.
Response 4: A proffer statement has been provided.
Comment 5: Review Process: Staff believes the questions, issues, and concerns identified in this
comment letter should be addressed through revision and resubmittal of the proposed
application plan and project narrative, to demonstrate compliance with County Code
requirements or to otherwise demonstrate a commitment to addressing and mitigating the
potential impacts associated with these questions, issues, or concerns.
Specifically, any requests to waive or modify the setback requirements, stepback
requirements, and/or building height regulations should be included in the resubmittal, as
well as any renderings or other digital models which help illustrate the proposed
building's physical characteristics in the context of it's physical location.
Due to the Board of Supervisors' action on 9/5/2018 to adopt zoning text amendments to
Section 33 of the Zoning Ordinance which affect the timing of review processes, it
appears that your application must be deferred until you resubmit revised application
materials. More information will be provided to you in the immediate near future
regarding the new procedural requirements for resubmittals and deferrals.
Response 5: We are submitting the revised application per the submittal deadline of 10/29/18.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
BOTH LER
Tim Padalino, AICP
PT Hotels, LLC
Zoning Map Amendment 2" Review Comments
October 29, 2018
Page 4 of 5
Comment 6: Required Parking Spaces: Staff acknowledge that the number of proposed parking spaces
have been reduced to accommodate previous review comments relating to Neighborhood
Model Principles, such as "Relegated Parking" and "Interconnected Streets and
Transportation Networks." For the proposed parking reduction for the hotel use, please
provide a written analysis and justification for the proposed use of a ratio of 0.92 parking
spaces per guest room (as opposed to using the standard ratio of 1.0 space per guest
room, as otherwise required by Zoning Ordinance Sections 25A.6, 21.3, and 4.12.6).
Specifically, any proposal to modify or waive the minimum number of required parking
spaces must be requested through a submittal of a request for waiver or modification
pursuant to Zoning Ordinance 8.2(b)(1), inclusive of your justification for the proposed
waiver or modification relative to the findings that must be made per Zoning Ordinance
8.2(b)(3).
Response 6: A letter has been provided by Hilton approving the 92% parking.
Comment 7: (Advisory) Additional Future Permitting Requirements: If this ZMA application is
approved, the proposed hotel development would be subject to approval of a Site Plan
and Water Protection Ordinance (WPO) Plan / VSMP Plan.
Response 7: Comment noted.
Engineering - Frank Pohl, P.E., C.F.M:
The County Engineer has indicated that these review comments can be addressed at the site plan and
VSMP review process.
Comment 1: VSMP permitting will be required [through the preparation and submittal of a Water
Protection Ordinance (WPO) Plan application, separate from the Site Development Plan
application].
Response 1: Comment noted.
Comment 2: Consider discharging stormwater at one of the rear corners to avoid piping under 4
retaining walls.
Response 2: Comment noted.
Comment 3: Consider providing interparcel connection to TMP 78-63.
Response 3: An interparcel connection will not be provided as it would reduce parking and
remove existing trees.
The following additional CDD-Engineering review comments (below) were provided by County
Engineer Frank Pohl, P.E., C.F.M. on 9/28/2018:
Comment A: I now realize the pipe discharging stormwater at the rear of the property contains water
from the public right of way. This pipe will need to be located in a public drainage
easements, and such, cannot be piped under the retaining walls. This comment can be
addressed during the VSMP review process.
Response A: Comment noted.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
BOH LER
E\ G I v E L R 1 N G
Tim Padalino, AICP
PT Hotels, LLC
Zoning Map Amendment 2"d Review Comments
October 29, 2018
Page 5 of 5
Comment B: [9VAC25-870-66(B)] - "Channel Protection. Concentrated stormwater flows shall be
released into a stormwater conveyance system..." Applicant will need to show there is a
channel at the outlet location, or may need to extend the outlet to the channel located near
the rear property line. This comment can be addressed during the VSMP review process.
Response B: Comment noted.
Albemarle County Fire & Rescue - Marshall Shawn Maddox
The following comments (below) have been provided by Deputy Fire Marshall Shawn Maddox on
7/16/2018:
Comment 1: VSMP permitting will be required [through the preparation and submittal of a Water
Protection Ordinance (WPO) Plan application, separate from the Site Development Plan
application].
Response 1: Comment noted.
Comment 2: Consider discharging stormwater at one of the rear corners to avoid piping under 4
retaining walls.
Response 2: Comment noted.
Comment 3: Consider providing interparcel connection to TMP 78-63.
Response 3: An interparcel connection will not be provided as it would reduce parking and
remove existing trees.
The following additional comments (below) have been provided by Deputy Fire Marshall Shawn
Maddox on 9/19/2018:
Comment A: Previous comments were not acknowledged on the resubmittal. There must be a 26' travel
way along at least one entire side of the structure due to the building height. The 26'
travel way should be a minimum of 15' and a maximum of 30' from the structure and be
parallel to the structure.
Response A: A 26' travel lane has been provided along the west side of the building.
Should you have any questions regarding this project or require additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (540) 349-4500.
Sincerely,
Bohler Engineering VA, LLC
C. Wright, P.E.
JC W/bb
H:\17\V172065Wdministrative\Letters\181029 ZMA 2nd Review CRL.doc
CIVILAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM