HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201700008 Review Comments 2017-12-18 •
December 18, 2017
milCounty of Albemarle estone
c/o: Community Development
attn:J.T. Newberry
401'Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA201700008 and SP201700022 CASPCA Expansion and Amendment- RESUBMITTAL
Dear Mr. Newberry,
ZMA201700008 and SP201700022, and the related special exception requests, are hereby resubmitted
for your review and consideration. I have attempted to address all comments and recommendations
received from you on November 7, 2017; please see below for your comments and our responses. We
hope that our responses sufficiently address all items, but are available for a meeting if anything
warrants additional discussion.
County/Agency Comments and Our Responses:
VDOT, Inspections, and Fire/Rescue
Each of these reviewers commented that they had "no objection" to the proposed plans.
• Noted.
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.
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 the simultaneous ZMA and SP applications is to
eliminate the need for future legislative requests. In that spirit, these comments are aimed to ensure
the site can appropriately accommodate all of the conceptual elements shown on the 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 further discusses the
importance of screening and buffering this type of area.
300 2nd Street NE,Charlottesville VA 22902
i 434.245.5805 I F 866.948.7684
To this end, staff notes the retaining walls shown for the parking area are considered to have a
"negative visual impact" as described under Section 32.7.9.7. We request additional information about
how the remaining undisturbed area between the parking area and Berkmar Drive can be sufficiently
utilized to mitigate this impact.
• The existing treeline has been shown more clearly on this revision, making it easier to see
what trees will remain between the proposed parking lot/retaining wall and Berkmar Drive.
There is also now a dimension on the plan showing that we have over 30 feet between the
retaining wall and Berkmar(28' if the ROW is expanded). This area provides sufficient space
to provide any additional landscaping deemed necessary for adequate screening during the
Site Plan review.
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 Starch). These plans labeled their respective right-of-way area as "reserved for future dedication
for public use upon demand of the County."
• The 52' right-of-way line has been removed from the plan; now only the 44' right-of-way
reservation is shown, and is labeled as suggested.
Ideally, the additional information provided to address this principle will include a conceptual
landscape plan to demonstrate this area is capable of adequately screening the proposed parking area.
• As discussed by phone,we feel there is sufficient space to provide any additional landscaping
'14.11,,, deemed necessary for adequate screening during the Site Plan review. The Site Plan should
be submitted in late January or early February and will include a landscape plan for this 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" slopes. Appendix 8 in the Comprehensive Plan contains
additional design guidance for slopes to be 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.
• The layout has been revised slightly to allow for improved grading in several areas on the site.
n, We've reduced areas of 2:1 slopes to aim for 3:1 when possible, but existing steep slopes
create the need for walls or the use of 2:1 slopes in some areas (which will be stabilized per
Pa County/geotechnical requirements). We feel this revised grading plan is the best
'"s9Nt. compromise of steep slopes, maintenance of existing trees,and minimization of retaining
walls. In an effort to maintain as many trees as possible, especially along Berkmar,2:1 slopes
3A1P11
are used in some areas.
Staff is particularly concerned about the 2:1 slopes shown adjacent to the shaded area labeled as
"Future Expansion, Size/Location TBD." Please revise this label and add additional notes to clarify what
the shaded area represents. Is this area meant to identify the potential footprint for future building(s)?
IIPage 2 of 7.
•
• As discussed over the phone,we have removed the shaded area labeled as "Future
Expansion, Size/Location TBD." It was meant to convey a possible location and footprint of
the future training center, but it appears it created more confusion than clarity. We have
now indicated a restricted area where the training center may be located. This does not
show the exact location, but it does show the area where it will not be located. The scope of
the training center is still under review by the CASPCA, but they anticipate the size of the
building will be between 10,000—30,000 square feet.Trails, exercise areas and other
associated site improvements may be located outside of this restricted line, but those uses
will have very minimal impact and will not involve major grading.
• The slopes previously shown have been removed since we do not yet know the exact location
of the future training center.
Also, this grading encroaches within the "approximate limits of existing wetlands" and the shaded area
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.
• Timmons has completed their wetland survey and found there are no wetlands identified on
the site. While there are no wetlands existing,the current plan tries to limit the disturbance
to, and around,the intermittent stream. A tree conservation area has been provided along
the stream and the location of the future building has been restricted to minimize potential
future impacts. It's possible there could be minor impacts with the future development (per
all applicable regulations/requirements), but we will strive to minimize them as
improvements on TMP 45-88 are designed in the future.
• The grading previously shown have been removed since we do not the exact location of the
future training center as this point in time.
Finally, additional notes or labels about the walking trail (such as the proposed standard from the
Design Standards Manual for the trail and how it will be accessed by users) will allow staff to confirm
whether or not the potential impacts to the wetland area can be sufficiently mitigated.
• It appears that this comment is seeking information about the trail system as it would relate
to impacts the wetlands. As indicated above,there are no wetlands identified on the site.
• The trails are intended to be similar to the existing trails on the main CASPAC parcel;these
trails are mulch, dirt, and in limited places,gravel.
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) in addition to the 200' separation?This clarification
will allow staff to fully evaluate and document the waiver requests.
• As discussed over the phone, in an effort to eliminate any possible confusion in the future,
we would like to include the entirety of Section 5.1.11(b) in our special exception request.
Page 3 of 7.
We do not believe that any of the building additions will contribute sound that is above the
55-decibel limit, but we want to make sure that any existing sound from the previously
approved outdoor kennel space is properly accounted for. Also, in an effort to prevent
confusion,we would like to request exception from both section (a) & (b)for both parcels.
As an example, another recent application requesting a waiver from this section provided information
about the construction materials that will be used to soundproof their 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 allowed staff to support
the waiver request in their case.
• Included with this resubmittal is a statement from the project architect that demonstrates
how the proposed construction standards for the building additions will attenuate sound.
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
designation. The staff report specifically noted what are generally accepted to be some of the more
objectionable uses that were proffered out of other rezonings in the area, which allowed those
requests to be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
• he zoning on the main CASPCA parcel (45-86) does not include any use limitations. We plan
o submit a Boundary Line Adjustment while the Site Plan is under review to combine TMPs
f (, 45-86 and 45-88 into one parcel. If we limit the uses on 45-88, once it is combined with 45-
86,we will have created one parcel that has two different zoning regulations that fall on
either side of an imaginary line. We are concerned this will lead to unnecessary confusion in
. the future for both the CASPCA and County staff, so at this time we do not propose to limit
any of the uses permitted in the C-1 district.
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.
• Timmons has completed their wetland survey and found there are no wetlands
identified on the site. While there are no wetlands existing,the current plan tries to
limit the disturbance to, and around,the intermittent stream. A tree conservation
area has been provided along the stream and the location of the future building has
been restricted to minimize possible future impacts. It's possible there could be minor
911 Page 4of7.
impacts with the future development(per all applicable regulations/requirements),
but we will strive to minimize them as improvements on TMP 45-88 are designed in
the future.
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.
• As noted above,Timmons has completed their wetland survey and found there are no
wetlands identified on the site.
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.
• Noted. We will attempt to use as many native plants as practical when the landscape
plan is submitted.
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.
• The parking numbers have been revised to be consistent on the plan and schedule.
However,the plan submitted with this application is conceptual, so the actual total
number of proposed parking spaces has yet to be determined. This conceptual plan is
an attempt to determine where and how many spaces might realistically be located
on the site. There is no parking standard for animal shelters (that we could find) but
the CASPCA currently borrows approximately 25-30 spaces from an adjacent property
owner and still finds themselves frequently short on parking. The shared parking
arrangement with the neighbor will cease at some point, so we want to make sure we
provide adequate parking. A parking determination will be submitted with the Site
Plan submittal (likely in January).
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
11) ar Page 5 of 7.
as how trees will be conserved along the edges of TMP 45-88. A new Tree Conservation Plan
may be required.
• Some of the areas previously noted as conservation areas will be impacted with this
SP Amendment. The area along Berkmar will be reduced to allow for construction of
the proposed parking lot. The area along the property line between the two parcels
will also be impacted. Areas along the northern and eastern property lines will not be
impacted, nor will the row of screening evergreen trees. Please see the revised
conservation area noted along Berkmar and the grading plan for reference. The buffer
area around TMP 45-88 will not be impacted by grading, as required by the ordinance.
Also, on TMP 45-88,the area outside of the line that restricts the location of the
training center will not have major impacts;trails and exercise areas may be located in
this area, but no major clearing will be proposed. If there are particular areas of
concern that we haven't addressed, please get in touch with us to discuss. A tree
conservation plan, if needed,will be submitted with the Site Plan.
• In case it's helpful,this comment was included in the notes by J.T. Newberry dated
9/10/15 regarding a Mandatory Pre-Application meeting held 8/31/15:
One of the main issues we discussed related to the history behind condition#1 of the existing special use permit,which
calls for a tree conservation plan and is labeled as a'tree conservation area'on the latest approved final site plan
(SDP200700063).I determined that this condition was suggested in 2007 because the Open Space and Critical
Resources Plan identified this area as an'Important Wooded Area'for a variety of reasons.However,this area was
reconsidered with the adoption of the Parks and Green Systems map and is no longer identified for protection.As a
result,staff does not anticipate that it would be recommended to remain as a tree conservation area.
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.
• Noted. If required,fencing will be provided similar to existing fencing on the main
parcel.
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]
• Noted.The CASPCA finds no issue with these conditions; we can discuss#5 in more
detail when it's appropriate.
111 Page 6 of 7.
r '
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.
• Noted. Any required landscaping will be shown on the Site Plan.
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.
• Timmons has completed their wetland survey and found there are no wetlands
identified on the site.
ASCA
The following comments have been provided by Alex Morrison:
Any expansion would require fixture counts to verify the water meter size. If an up-size is required
there would be additional connection fees. From the CCP it looks like they are proposing work on 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.
• Noted. A boundary line adjustment to combine the two parcels is planned to be submitted
during the Site Plan review. After the BLA is approved, all proposed work will be on one
parcel.
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
likely doesn't warrant a shelter but a bench and concrete pad could increase the attractiveness of
transit service that would serve the SPCA facility.
• The CASPCA is willing to provide the requested concrete pad and bench as part of their
renovation and expansion project; see notes on concept plan. If Berkmar is widened, it
seems this improvement will be destroyed, but the CASCPA is willing provide it in the 4
meantime to help improve the aesthetics and functionality of the Berkmar corridor.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this application. Please get in touch if you need further
clarification, or if we need to discuss any of our responses in more detail.
Very truly yours,
26Lb
Ellie C. Ray, PLA
Page 7 of 7.
lkoshelterplanners.com
December 12, 2017
Ms. Ellie Ray
Milestone Partners
300 2nd Street, NE
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: 1708—Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA (CASPCA); Renovations &Additions
Construction to minimize Sound Transmission
Dear Ms. Ray:
You have requested I provide information regarding the quality of construction anticipated in the three small
additions of new kennels for CASPCA.
Plans for the expansion of the SPCA include two"Quiet Kennel" spaces of 450 square feet each and 4 kennels
each. These will be located on either side of the existing Mechanical space at the center, and behind the
existing, western bank of kennels with their outdoor kennels facing into the building's courtyard. There is also
planned two "Isolation Kennel" spaces of 425 square feet each and 3 kennels each. None of these kennels
include any outdoor kennels; all are contained within new walls and roof.
Construction of the new kennels will consist of 8" single wythe CMU's (concrete masonry units)with 1.5"thick
metal furring and expanded polystyrene insulation on the exterior with 1/2" plywood and "Hardi-plank" cement
board siding. The ceiling will include ribbed, perforated acoustic metal panels with 6 mil., black Polyethylene
plastic sheeting on top of which will rest 9"—R30 glass fiber insulation. The insulation fills the space between
roof trusses. Atop the trusses will be 5/8" exterior grade plywood, 30 lb. roofing felt and 40 year composite
shingles. Per building code requirements the roof's soffits will necessarily be vented.
The CMU walls will provide a Sound Transmission Coefficient(STC) rating of 55 due to its mass and the
addition of exterior finish applied. The metal ceiling panels are designed in conjunction with the polyethylene
and insulation to trap sound waves and diminish their transmission to adjacent spaces within the building. We
have successfully used this described system in numerous animal shelter s to contain the barking of dogs to
their housing spaces when adjacent to administrative and public spaces in the building.
STC ratings are applied within buildings to provide designers with a quantifiable means of establishing norms of
air borne noise transfer from one space to another. While this is not normally applied to space outside of the
building the STC rating will provide the expected level of noise containment on the same basis as between
spaces within the building.
Far greater a consideration would be the level of noise contributed to the exterior environment from the existing,
outdoor kennels in the building's courtyard. These are both roofed and turned towards one another in an effort
to subdue the effects of dogs barking beyond the SPCA's property. We are not adding any outdoor kennels to
the SPCA. The noise transmission from the new additions as described in this letter should not add to the
current level of noise generated by the outdoor kennels.
Best regards,
•
William B. Daggett, J ., AIA, NCARB
dwg architects—dba/shelterplanners.com
2345 Earlysville Road
Earlysville, VA 22936
Phone: 434-242-5811