Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201700022 Review Comments 2017-11-07 Aof8 l;1� ®, ,�41 NIV,141: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4176 November 7, 2017 c; Ellie Ray Milestone Partners 300 2nd Street NE Charlottesville,VA 22902 k eray@milestonepartners.co RE: ZMA201700008 and SP201700022 CASPCA Expansion and Amendment Dear Mrs. Ray: Thank you and your team for presenting at the Places29-Rio Community Advisory Committee meeting on October 26th. This meeting fulfills the community meeting requirement under Section 33.4 of County Code. Staff has reviewed the initial submittal for the CASPCA special use permit amendment and rezoning. We have a few questions and comments which are listed below. We believe these items should be resolved before your proposal goes to public hearing. We would be glad to discuss these issues further. VDOT, Inspections, and Fire/Rescue Each of these reviewers commented that they had "no objection"to the proposed plans. Planning Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided below. As you know, comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. There are also some review comments in anticipation of issues that could arise during the site plan review process. It is our understanding that one goal of these simultaneous applications is to eliminate the need for future legislative requests. In that spirit,these comments are aimed to ensure the site can accommodate all of the conceptual elements shown on the rezoning plan. Neighborhood Model—Relegated Parking The staff report for the Preapplication Worksession discussed some of the applicable principles of the Neighborhood Model, and one of the specific questions discussed with the Planning Commission focused on relegated parking. The Planning Commission was not supportive of redesigning the site to relegate the proposed parking area at the front of the site, but did agree that screening and buffering would be important. Objective 6 in Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan also highlights the importance of screening and buffering this type of area. Staff notes the retaining walls shown for this parking area are considered to have a "negative visual impact" as described under Section 32.7.9.7 and requests additional information about how the remaining undisturbed area between the parking area and Berkmar Drive can be sufficiently utilized to mitigate this impact. To clarify the area available for screening and buffering, staff recommends that the edge of the "44' Future R/W" line identified on the plan to be used. Currently, both a 44' and 52' right-of-way lines are shown. A 44' right-of-way reservation would be consistent with other recent rezoning approvals along this section of Berkmar Drive, such as ZMA201400008 (CMA Properties) and ZMA201600009 (Wood Von Storch). These plans label the right-of-way area as "reserved for future dedication for public use upon demand of the County." Ideally,the revised information to address this principle will include a conceptual landscape plan that demonstrates this area can adequately screen and buffer the proposed parking area. Neighborhood Model—Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading and Regrading of Terrain The preliminary grading shown on Sheet C2.1 notes that 2:1 slopes will be created. The Comprehensive Plan recommends grades at a maximum of 3:1 or 4:1 slope and against establishing slopes that would qualify as either "managed" or"preserved." Appendix 8 in the Comprehensive Plan contains additional design guidance that is more consistent with this principle. Please revise the plan as necessary to incorporate this guidance or provide additional information about why 2:1 slopes are unavoidable. Staff is particularly concerned about the 2:1 slopes shown adjacent to the area labeled as "Future Expansion, Size/Location TBD." Please revise this label and add additional notes to clarify more specifically what the shaded area represents. Is this area meant to identify the potential footprint for future building(s)?Also,-this grading encroaches within the "approximate limits of existing wetlands" and the shaded area (which may include the edges of a building?) immediately abuts the wetlands. Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan identifies wetlands as one of the most important areas to protect within the Development Areas. Please revise the plan such that preliminary grading and possible future building footprints do not encroach or abut existing wetland areas.The County Engineer recommends at least a 25 foot buffer between the wetlands and disturbed areas. Finally, additional notes or labels about the walking trail (such as the proposed standard from the Design Standards Manual and how it will be accessed) will allow staff to confirm whether or not the potential impacts to the wetland area have been sufficiently mitigated. • Special Exception Requests Staff is generally supportive of the special exception requests but additional information is needed. Specifically, will the new additions be soundproofed in any way? If so, how?Also, are you requesting relief from the 55 decibel limit in Section 5.1.11(b) as well? Another recent application requesting a waiver from this section provided information about the construction materials that will be used to soundproof the proposed space.These applicants also provided a draft of a Type 1 Certified Engineer's Report to indicate that they will not exceed 55 decibels at the nearest residential property line. This information will allow staff to fully evaluate and document the waiver requests. Proffers and SP Conditions Please clarify whether or not the rezoning on Parcel 88 proposes to limit any of the uses permitted in the C-1 district. The staff report for the Preapplication Worksession and several Planning Commissioners indicated that a comprehensive plan amendment was not necessary to the extent that the proposed uses on this parcel could be deemed compatible with surrounding residential designations.The staff report specifically noted some of the more objectionable uses that were proffered out of other rezonings in the area to be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Comments from the Zoning Division discuss potential SP conditions based on the current application. Natural Resources The following recommendations and comments related to natural resources have been provided by David Hannah: 1. Given the ecological value of wetlands, any current or future construction and related activity should avoid the wetlands.There appears to be adequate land area and design flexibility to accomplish this. A delineation of the wetlands would be needed to ensure they are avoided and protected. 2. The presence of the wetlands presents a great opportunity for public outreach and education. I would encourage the applicants to develop signs and interpretive information to inform visitors to the facility about the wetlands. Trails, walking paths, and other landscaping features should avoid impacts to the wetlands.There may be local nonprofit groups or other organizations, including the county's Natural Heritage Committee, that would be willing to assist. 3. I am encouraged by the applicants stated desire to retain as much of the existing vegetation and wooded area as possible.This provides many benefits, including some amount of wildlife habitat. The proximity of the land to the Rivanna River Reservoir increases the value of the habitat, even though it is limited in size. Any landscaping of the property should include the use of native plants only, as this will help ensure the quality of the vegetation for use by local wildlife. 3 Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Ron Higgins: 1. Please clarify the parking schedule on sheet C2.0 (site plan). The schedule states that 23 spaces would be removed and 75 added for a net gain of 52, but the "Total Proposed" states a net gain of 44 over the original 50. Additionally, please provide information for how the additional parking need was calculated. 2. A major concern will be the provision of screening and tree conservation. Conditions from prior SPs have referenced a Tree Conservation Plan entitled "Charlottesville/Albemarle S.P.C.A. ZMA 2000-005, SP 2000-022, revised November 6, 2007" (condition 1, SP2007-44), as well as a row of screening evergreen trees to be planted along the north side of the property (condition 2, SP2007-44). Please address how proposed changes will affect the aforementioned plan, as well as how trees will be conserved along the edges of TMP 45-88. A new Tree Conservation Plan may be required. 3. The area labeled "Area For Future SPCA Support Facilities—size and location to be determined" on TMP 45-88 references "new buildings, exercise areas, walking trails, dog parks, and other facilities"to be determined subsequent to this rezoning. Following the precedent set in SP2007-44,these areas may be required to be fenced to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Potential Conditions (1-3 carried over from prior SPs) 1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan; 2. Fundraising activities and other special events shall not occur unless a zoning clearance has been issued by the Department of Community Development; 3. Animals may be walked and/or exercised outside only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. While animals are outside,they must be supervised and be either on a leash if outside the fenced area or contained within a fenced area if not on a leash; 4. Support facilities located on TMP 45-88 must be shown on an approved site plan and fenced to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator; 5. [Tree Conservation Plan/screening placeholder] Engineering The following comments related to engineering have been provided by Frank Pohl, County Engineer: 1. Slopes exceeding 3:1 shall be planted with groundcover. Bonds could potentially be held longer until slopes are stabilized. 2. Wetlands should be protected and recommend providing a minimum 25-ft buffer. Suggest the applicant provide documentation from a wetland specialist if they wish to get any closer than 25-ft. ASCA The following comments have been provided by Alex Morrison: Any expansion would require fixture counts to verify the water meter size. If an upsize is required there would be additional connection fees. From the CCP it looks like they are proposing work on 4 two separate parcels. Separate water meters will be required for building on separate parcels. DEQ may require confirmation that the private pump station is adequately sized. Maintenance agreements will be required of buildings on separate parcels tie into the same private pump station. • Transportation The following comments related to transportation have been provided by Kevin McDermott: The Places 29 Master Plan and referenced planning documents recommend transit stops include shelters, benches, and stop information. The existing stop located on Berkmar along the site frontage likley doesn't warrant a shelter but a bench and concrete pad could increase the attractiveness of transit service that would serve the SPCA facility. Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions 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. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience. Notification and Advertisement Fees Recently,the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require 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: $_278.80_Cost for newspaper advertisement $_215.00_Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200+ actual postage/$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) $_493.80_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. $_278.80_Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $_772.60_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. 5 Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is iewberry@albemarle.org. Sincerely, ,4 N.AKA,,Aer J.T. Newberry Senior Planner CC: Li Lopez, llopez@milestonepartners.co Enc: Action After Receipt of Comments Resubmittal Schedule Resubmittal Form 6