HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202000009 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2020-08-03County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Tod Kanellopoulos, Planner
From: Leah Brumfield, Senior Planner
Division: Zoning
Date: 8/3/2020
Subject: Initial Comments for ZMA202000009 Forest Lakes PDSC
The following comments are provided regarding the above noted application:
1. The parcel 46134-3, with 3.43 acres is subject to proffers per ZMA1988-16 Forest Lakes
Associates, which rezoned the parcel from R-1 to PD-SC. Proffer number 4 of the
ZMA1988-16 approval included a limitation of 10,350 vehicle trips per day to the commercial
zoning subject to the approval.
a) In a letter dated January 6, 1998, Zoning Administrator Amelia McCulley determined
that the traffic proffer of ZMA1988-16 may be interpreted to allow a reduction of total
site vehicle trips based on multiple -use trips and pass -by traffic. These reductions
were determined to allow for a 12% reduction for multiple land uses and a 24%
reduction for pass -by traffic, for a total reduction of 36%. This letter additionally
referenced the ITE Trip Generation Manual in its determination of traffic per use.
b) Site plan SDP2003-87 calculated the total vehicle trips per day allocated per the
developments existing at the time, with a remaining 2,776 vehicle trips per day.
c) The application materials provided for this ZMA include an updated traffic generation
summary, with changed uses, new uses, and different ITE calculations. If these
calculations are correct, the parcel retains 3,230 vehicle trips per day. However, staff
strongly recommends these calculations be verified by a staff traffic planner with
current knowledge of ITE calculations.
2. Application plan:
a) The application plan should clearly label potential building and parking envelopes
with a total permissible square footprint and total square footage. These envelopes
can be shown as conceptual in location, orientation, and shape, but must be labeled
with and demonstrated the possibility of the upper limit of parking and building
footprint. Sheet 6 of the Forest Lakes PD-SC Amendment, showing Conceptual
Grading and Utilities, shows a conceptual building footprint, but does not include
Initial Zoning Comments ZMA202000009
parking or footprint square footages.
b) Recommended to include a reference on Sheet 3 of the Forest Lakes PD-SC
Amendment, Site and ZMA Details, to Section 18-9.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, to
clarify which uses are recommended.
c) Internal and external access to the site includes a right turn out of the parcel
extension abutting the Exxon gas station onto Rt. 29. Please confirm with VDOT that
this turn is permitted, as current alignment of the street indicates it may only be a
right turn onto the Exxon site.
3. Per Section 18-25.6, include a transportation plan with projected automobile and truck traffic
generation. This may be difficult based on the inexact nature of this rezoning request, but a
general traffic generation based on a few key expected uses, including "general retail,"
"restaurant," 'office," and "self-service storage facilities," will suffice.
4. ZMA1988-16 permitted a total of 71,800 square feet of shopping center development on
Tracts II and III (subject property), plus development on additional outlots. As the applicant
has noted, Tract II has been developed with 57,022 SF of shopping center use, leaving
14,778 SF remaining for development on Tract III. The applicant has requested an
additional 95,222 SF of development, bringing the total remaining developable square
footage to 110,000 SF on Tract III. This increase more than doubles the total square footage
permissible in the development. The existing Forest Lakes PD-SC and surrounding
commercial development consists entirely of single -story retail uses, and based on the
conceptual footprint shown on Sheet 6 of the Forest Lakes PD-SC Amendment, achieving
110,000 SF of usable square footage would require a four-story building greatly contrasting
with the surrounding existing structures.
Consideration of this ZMA must include prior proposals for the property, which recently
included a four-story self-service storage facility. This use would not meet the overarching
planned development goals of a unified development with appropriate and harmonious
physical development.