The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZMA201800005 Review Comments 2019-04-15 } • TM LER 28 Blackwell Park Lane,Suite 201 Warrenton,VA 20186 BOH PHONE 540.349.4500 ENGINEERING April 15, 2019 Via Hand Delivery Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596 Attn: Tim Padalino, AICP Re: ZMA-2018-00005 Zoning Map Amendment — 3rd Review Response PT Hotel, LLC 1628 State Farm Boulevard Charlottesville,VA 22911 Albemarle County BE#V172065 Dear Mr.Padalino: Bohler Engineering is pleased to submit on behalf of Shamin Hotels, the Zoning Map Amendment 4th 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 Planning 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 does not agree with the applicants that the proposal(as contained in the resubmittal materials submitted on 10/29) meets the front stepback requirements or intent. The reliance on the porte cochere to satisfy the front stepback requirement is not acceptable, per the definition of Stepback in Zoning Ordinance Section 3 ("Definitions") or per the technical requirements for front stepbacks in Zoning Ordinance Section 4 ("General Regulations"), subsection 4.20(a). None of the proposed stories which would begin above 40 feet in height or above the third story have been stepped back from the stories below. Therefore, staff believe the proposal should be revised and resubmitted prior to being taken to the Planning Commission for a public hearing — either by complying with the front stepback requirements, or by proposing to establish an alternative stepback requirement through a written submittal of a special exception 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). Response 1: Stepbacks have been provided. See attached elevations. CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM B O H L E R Tim Padalino,AICP ENGINEERING PT Hotels,LLC Zoning Map Amendment 3rd Review Comments April 15,2019 Page 2 of 4 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."). Additionally, staff acknowledge that the application plan submitted on 10/29 shows the porte cochere (which is technically considered to be part of the "structure")to be 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..."). 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 State Farm Boulevard 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. Response: Comment noted. 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. Staff acknowledges the information specified on the revised Application Plan (dated 10/29/2018) which demonstrates that the proposed hotel's height (64' 11.5") would be in compliance with the maximum building height regulations (65' max). Staff also acknowledges the renderings (dated 10/26/2018) provided with the resubmittal application materials. Thank you for providing additional detailed information about the proposed hotel's appearance within the context of this site on Pantops. Staff also acknowledges the recent coordination with Ms. Liz Russell, Manager of Planning and Projects with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, to understand what concerns the Foundation has and to discuss potential mitigation techniques. It is the understanding of Community Development Department staff that the Foundation has unresolved concerns about potential impacts to the viewshed from Monticello relating to building size/height, building materials/color palette, and parking lot visibility (and more specifically to unmitigated visibility of vehicles which can produce long-distance glare when sunlight if reflected off of vehicles). Specifically, on 8/30/2018,Ms. Liz Russell shared the following comments: "...I have approximated the site of the proposed hotel and the line of sight from the North Terrace of Monticello. Based on what I know about visibility of Pantops, this is going to be the most"viewable"spot on the Mountaintop towards the site. CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WWW.BOH LERENGINEERING.COM 41 u TE D• TM • B O 1 1 L 1\ Tim Padalino,AICP ENGINEERING PT Hotels,LLC Zoning Map Amendment 3rd Review Comments April 15,2019 Page 3 of 4 What this tells me is that we will—at certain times of the year—be viewing the hotel and parking lot's south corner and façade. However,based on the distance from Monticello, I feel that with appropriate use of muted colors (on façade and roof), impacts to historic views can be minimized. I have attached comments on the rendering—can you share the color palate for exterior materials? I am concerned that light gray may read as white and be highly visible. Please include proposed roof color as well." And "...glare from vehicles in the parking lot can be reduced via trees. Are there any trees planned at the corner of the site or along State Farm Way?" CDD staff requests updated information regarding the coordination with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation,relating to the questions and concerns identified by Ms.Russell. In addition to (and separate from) the comments, questions, and concerns identified by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, CDD staff also believe the design of the façade on the northeast side of the proposed building(facing towards the US 250/Richmond Highway Entrance Corridor) should.be improved, as it appears to be a six-story wall that is devoid of any architectural elements on floors 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. Based on the two most recently- submitted renderings (dated 10/25/2018 and 10/26/2018), it also appears that the façade on the southwest side of the building may be a similar or identical design. Although the design is still conceptual at this stage, additional information on proposed materials and additional design details would be beneficial, as staff believe that such a blank wall in that location has an inappropriate appearance. Response 2: Please see revised building renderings. Comment 4: Review Process: Staff acknowledge the request for deferral (pursuant to County Code §1833.52)received 11/8/2018. • Moving forward, 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. More specifically, the primary unresolved items involve: a.) the front stepback requirements; b.) the building's appearance, visibility, and impact on viewsheds; and c.) justification for the proposed reduction in parking requirements (please see comment#5, below). However, you may request a date for a public hearing with the Planning Commission if you wish to proceed without further revision. Please review the attached Action After Receipt of Comment Letter memo for more information about potential next steps. And please contact me to coordinate your preferred course of action; I will be available to promptly respond and assist. Response 4: With the resubmission of this application,we believe these items have been resolved. CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WWW.BOH LERENGINEERI NG.COM yy B O H L E R Tim Padalino,AICP ENGINEERING PT Hotels,LLC Zoning Map Amendment 3`d Review Comments April 15,2019 Page 4 of 4 Comment 5: 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). CDD-Zoning staff have reviewed the email provided with the resubmittal application materials (dated 10/29/2018, and sent from Mr. Peter Rudiwicz, Vice President, Architecture, Design & Construction for Hilton — Focused Service Brand), and have determined that more information is necessary in order to make a favorable finding. In seeking County approval to reduce the minimum required number of parking spaces for this proposed hotel, additional information and justification beyond "A parking ratio of 92%is approved for this project"would be necessary. Response 5: The room count is now 109 and 120 spaces have been provided exceeding the standard parking ratio of 1.0 space per guest room. Engineering-Frank Pohl,P.E., C.F.M: Comment 1: 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 1: The storm drain pipe is not located under the retaining wall. Comment 2: [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 2: A proposed level spreader will be provided to dissipate concentrated stormwater flows.Full design information will be provided in the VSMP review process. 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 ,' t C. Wright, P.E. CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM