Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP202000015 Correspondence 2020-10-19WILLIAMS M U LLEN Direct Dial: 434.951.5709 vlong@williamsmullen.com October 19, 2020 VIA EMAIL: mreitelbach(cilalbemarle.org Andy Reitelbach County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: Response Letter #1 for SP 2020-00015 Animal Wellness Center Dear Andy, Thank you for your review of the special use permit request for Animal Wellness Center. This letter contains responses to County comments dated September 4, 2020. Our responses to each comment appear below. Planning — General Application Comments was given to this application, SP2020-00015, on RESPONSE: The application file number, SP2020-00015, has been added to the concept plan and project narrative. 2. Clarify the discrepancy in acreage of the parcel: the narrative states that it is 3.4 acres, while the concept plans identifv the acreaae as 3.45. RESPONSE: The approved site plan says "3.45 (per recent survey)," however the conveyances in the chain of title consistently describe the Property as 3.4 acres. The Concept Plan has been revised to show 3.4 acres. 3. Provide on sheet of the concept plan that this property lies within a state dam brea RESPONSE: The "state dam break inundation" zone designation on this property is now noted on Sheet 2 of the concept plan. 4. On sheets 5 and 6, there is a label identifying the 0' side setbacks; however, this line r1np- not match tin with the nrnnerty line that is denictF� r larifv this rfiscrenancv RESPONSE: Thank you for bringing our attention to this discrepancy in the property line; this discrepancy comes from the boundary difference between the surveyed boundary and the County GIS data. This discrepancy has been resolved by removing the GIS boundary for this property; the boundary is shown is per the 2008 survey completed by S.L. Key Inc. The side setback line has been addressed in the revised plans. 5. Clarify the request for proposed front setbacks. The narrative seems to suggest that a modification of the front setback is being requested to allow for something greater than 20'. However, the concept plan demonstrates that a structure can be placed within the 321 East Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 T 434.951.5700 F 434.817.0977 williamsmullen.com l A Professional Corporation October 19, 2020 Page 2 maximum 20' setback (permitted through administrative waiver) without interfering with any easements, including the proposed right-of-way dedication. The maximum front setback cannot be any greater than 20'. Planning staff has no objection to permitting a RESPONSE: AWC intends to dedicate an amount of right-of-way that will allow the proposed building to comply with the 20' setback requirement. The Property currently has no dedicated right-of-way along Crozet Avenue. The proposed right-of-way would allow a future turn lane in this area of Crozet Avenue. Although no turn lane is proposed or required for the Project, the proposed right-of-way allows for future road improvements consistent with the Crozet Master Plan. 6. Include in the narrative section on public farility and infrastructure impacts if there are RESPONSE: There are no anticipated impacts of the Project on the fire and police departments. The application narrative has been updated accordingly. 7. In the narrative, revise the setback modification requests. (See the Zoning comment RESPONSE: The application narrative has been revised to respond to the comments regarding the conditions of approval of the setback modification. 8. What is the proposed height of the new building? The DCD requires the minimum height of a building to be 30 feet, or two stories. A special use permit is required for any building proposed to be only one story. RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment. The proposed height for any new building on the Property would comply with the DCD minimum height requirements. The proposed expansion of the existing building will be consistent with the one-story height of the current building. 9. Identify on the concept plan the proposed location of the pedestrian access from the front of the parcel to the side or rear of the front building, and back toward the rear 1'.i1A;nn ;n ----- ao nno om� RESPONSE: Comment received. The Concept Plan has been revised to show adherence to Sec. 18-20B3(D); a pedestrian connection has been added from Crozet Avenue, along the side of the proposed building and back towards the existing building where the building expansion is proposed. At this point, the plan is conceptual and so there may be slight modifications to pedestrian connectivity at site plan. However, we understand that it is important to demonstrate that requirements such as Sec.18- 20B3(D) can be incorporated into the Project design. Therefore, more detailed pedestrian improvements are shown on the revised Concept Plan. 10. Provide an estimated number of proposed parking spaces on this parcel. Also, identify RESPONSE: In the near term, AWC anticipates a need for approximately 35 parking spaces: 20 for employees on shift and 15 patient spaces. The parking area as shown on the Concept Plan could accommodate up to 70 parking spaces. These additional parking spaces would be constructed to serve the proposed future phase of development when that phase is constructed. October 19, 2020 Page 3 Photosimulations of the proposed parking are attached to this letter. In addition, a video simulation of the proposed parking improvements is available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/lHS_bPizTg44zmkJtxAGskelwws_OT2_y/view. Please note that the parking proposed to be located behind the existing building would only be built if permitted by the terms of the existing drainage easement or any future amendment thereto over this area of the Property. 11. In accordance with 18-20B.4(D) and (E), landscaping and screening of the parking areas will be required. It is unlikely that this landscaping can be within easements. The concept plan as currently shown does not appear to provide enough space between the easements and the proposed parking area for this required screening and landscaping. Revise the concept plan to provide this screening and landscaping area. RESPONSE: The internal parking layout has been revised to remove most parallel parking spaces shown along the sides of the access driveway; removal of these spaces has allowed for additional width to accommodate required landscape screening. Alternatively, if at site plan, sufficient width cannot be accommodated to provide the required screening, an opaque wall or fence may be provided in accordance with 32.7.9.7(b). iz. in aaamon, the parcel to the south is zoned residential, R-2. Screening will be required in accordance with 18-20B.5(A). Provide more information on how this requirement for c rrooninn ,mill ho orhiovorJ RESPONSE: Because landscape screening requires at least 20' in depth, and due to the location of the drainage easement along the southern property boundary, an opaque wall or fence may be utilized for screening, or an alternative vegetative screening, given that the parcel to the south is owned by the County and used for stormwater management purposes and will not actually be used for residential purposes. If the parking spaces shown along the southern portion of the parking area are not provided once the design of the proposed expansion is finalized, there will be sufficient width to provide a landscape screening buffer instead of an opaque wall or fence. 13. Include in the project narrative a statement on how the proposed special use will -AA—, — . --i- ..f +k- ;-, ., ik-+ ,,. -. ail;.. -A ;- 1 o 7no o RESPONSE: An analysis of the four factors in Section 20B.8 is included in the revised application narrative. 14. Advisory Comment: A full list of proposed conditions for this special use permit will be provided prior to the Planning Commission public hearing. At a minimum, the conditions from the existing special use permit SP2008-00009 will be retained (with modifications to rofo ro nno fho r�rnnnc orl no,n, mnno n4l RESPONSE: Comment received. We request that we be provided with the opportunity to review these proposed conditions prior to the staff report for the Planning Commission being finalized, so that we can collaborate with you on any technical revisions to make sure they are workable for the applicant. 15. Advisory Comment: A veterinary use will be subject to the supplemental regulations find in 18-5.1.11 of the Zoninq Ordinance. RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged. Please note we are requesting an exception to reduce the setbacks required by Sec.5.1.11(b). October 19, 2020 Page 4 16. Advisory Comment: Site plans and VSMP plans will be required at the site development stage if this special use permit is approved by the Board. (See also 18- 20B.7.) RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged. 17. Advisory Comment: Also, at the site plan stage, an extension of the sidewalk will be required so that a sidewalk is provided along the entire frontage of this parcel. RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged, thank you for bringing this to our attention at this time. 18. Advisory Comment: A community meeting with nearby residents and property owners is required prior to a public hearing. Such a community meeting is currently scheduled for September 9, 2020. Additional comments may be provided based on the discussion and feedback from that meeting. RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged, the community meeting was held virtually with the CCAC on September 9, 2020. Comprehensive Plan 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. The Crozet Master Plan identifies Tax Map Parcel (TMP) 056A2-01-00-00700 as Downtown and Greenspace. "Downtown is intended to be a commercial core and to provide many opportunities for employment." This special use request for expanding an existing business in downtown Crozet would further this goal of Downtown as a commercial core and employment center. The area designated for Greenspace is in the rear portion of the property, along Powells Creek and incorporating the associated WPO streat buffer and flood hazard overlay district. The proposal for this special use permit does not appear to propose any construction in this area, thus preserving the existing green areas and vegetation that occur at the back of the parcel and maintaining the master plan's goal for preserving important environmental features. The front and middle portions of the parcel are designated as Downtown, which is planned as a mixed -use area supporting a variety of uses. The proposal for a veterinary clinic conforms with the designation for commercial and employment uses in this area and also does not preclude other types of commercial/office uses if desired in the future. This proposal also supports the goal of redevelopment and infill in the Downtown area by expanding an existing building and constructing a second building on the same lot, closer to the street. It is unclear, however, whether this proposal supports the master plan's recommendation that all new buildings be at least two stories tall. A major greenway or trail is designated in the Parks and Green System plan for the rear portion of this property, along Powells Creek. The proposed use does not preclude this greenway from potentially happening in the future, allowing for conformance with the parks and green systems chapter of the master plan. RESPONSE: Thank you for your comments. Additional analysis of the Comprehensive Plan and the Crozet Master Plan has been included in the revised application narrative. Please note that the new proposed building would comply with the DCD height regulations. October 19, 2020 Page 5 Projects located within the Development Areas are typically reviewed for consistency with each of the Neighborhood Model Principles found in the Comprehensive Plan. Comments are provided (see attached document Consistency with Neighborhood Model) on relevant a, RESPONSE: Please see the attached responses to the comments on the Neighborhood Model Principles. Planning — Transportation Daniel Butch — Senior Planner RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged. The existing sidewalk is now shown on the updated concept plan. Zoning Rebecca Ragsdale — Principal Planner RESPONSE: The updated concept plan now shows the area for outdoor animal exercise. 2. ;oncept Plan] I recommend consolidating Sheets 5 and 6 RESPONSE: These sheets have been combined. The concept plan now shows the conceptual layout as well as grading and stormwater 3. [Concept Plan] Add parking setbacks to the plan sheets. RESPONSE: Comment received. T minimum parking setbacks are shown; a waiver is being submitted for front parking setbacks. to reflect or000sed V4VF RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged. The maximum side setback has been removed to reflect the proposed waiver. 5. [Sheet 21 Add DCD area and bulk regulations to this sheet (Section 20B.3(A)). The new building will be subject to Primary Building setbacks. RESPONSE: See Sheet 2 of the revised plans for DCD area & bulk regulations. Sheet 2 also lists the waivers requested from the area & bulk regulations. 6. [Sheet 4] Remove notes from this sheet. Label use of existing structures on the property. Confirm that all easements that affect this property are shown, including utility aacamFnts atr RESPONSE: Notes have been removed the Existing Conditions sheet. A note has been added to the concept plan that labels the main structure for Veterinary Office use. All easements affecting the property are shown (drainage, sanitary) and the existing utility lines are included in both the existing conditions and concept plan sheets. meet parking setbacks in the DCD. RESPONSE: Note has been removed. October 19, 2020 Page 6 8. [Sheet 6] Remove the second note. Primary Building setbacks (see definition below) will apply to the new building and this note is referring to a setback that applies to a Secondary Building. RESPONSE: Note has been removed. 9. [Waivers] Zoning has no objection to granting the follow waivers to the area and bulk regulations found in Section 20B.3(A): a. Increase front maximum setback from 10' to 20' In Increase to side setback. The maximum side setback apprnwpri h\i the ctor/agent must be established on the concept plan. RESPONSE: The Concept Plan has been updated to reflect these approvals. 10. [Uompliance with 5.1.11] Zoning has no objection to the proposed special exception to Section 5.1.11(b) to reduce the 200-foot setback from residential lot lines. Typically, a condition for such special exceptions has been: a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit information to the satisfaction of the County Engineer and the Zoning Administrator (or their designees) that demonstrate the sound attenuation qualities of the construction materials used in the renovation of the clinic can reasonably meet the fifty-five (55) decibel sound limit in County Code 18-5.1.11(b). RESPONSE: AWC would accept the condition described above. 11. [Compliance with 5.1.11] Regarding 5.1.11(d), will the vet be the sole use of the site or will the proposed building include office use for other tenants? Will there be any outdoor exercise areas? RESPONSE: It is possible that a commercial tenant will occupy a portion of the proposed building. The Applicant appreciates that the concerns for public safety articulated in Section 5.1.11(d) should be considered with the possibility of the veterinary use and other commercial use in the same building. However, Section 5.1.11(d) speaks of veterinary clinics in proximity to "other uses involving intensive activity such as shopping centers or other urban density locations." The potentially commercial use of a portion of the proposed building would neither involve "intensive activity" nor generate the number of visits as a shopping center or similar use. AWC respectfully submits that Section 5.1.11(d) is directed at larger mixed -use buildings than the proposed building. Any conditions on the Application imposed under Section 5.1.11(d) should be in keeping with the purpose of this rule. An outdoor animal exercise area is proposed and shown on the revised Concept Plan. 12. [Compliance with 5.1.11] Each commercial kennel, veterinary service, office or hospital, animal hospital and animal shelter shall be subject to the following: a. Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-conditioned buildings, no structure or area occupied by animals shall be closer than 500 feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For non -soundproofed animal confinements, an external solid fence not less than six feet in height shall be located within 50 feet of the animal confinement and shall be composed of concrete block, brick, or other material approved by the zoning administrator; b. For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be located closer than 200 feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For soundproofed and non - soundproofed confinements, sound measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line shall not exceed 55 decibels; October 19, 2020 Page 7 c. In all cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed building from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. d. In areas where such uses may be in proximity to other uses involving intensive activity such as shopping centers or other urban density locations, special attention is required to protect the public health and welfare. To these ends the commission and board may require among other things: Separate building entrance and exit to avoid animal conflicts: Area for outside exercise to be 1 or other means. RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged. Thank you. Engineering & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department Frank Pohl — County Engineer RESPONSE: Comment received. Thank you. E911, Community Development Department Brian Becker— E911 plans reviewer RESPONSE: Comment received. Thank you. ARB Margaret Maliszewski — Chief of Planning proposed building is consistent with the scale of the vernacular architecture in Crozet. However, the conceptual building footprint shown on sheet 5 appears to be considerably larger than the average vernacular building in RESPONSE: The building envelope does not indicate the shape or size of the ultimate building, but shows its general location and building envelope. These details would be reviewed at the site plan stage, which would include review by the ARB. 2. 1 he potential parking area appears extensive. Does the plan dlustraM Lhe number of parking spaces that would be required for buildings of the sizes shown, or does it exceed that number? Parking relegated behind a building is most appropriate. Shift the parking that is proposed along the driveway to locations south of the existing parking area and RESPONSE: The potential parking area shows approximately 70 parking spaces, where 35 parking spaces would be needed for the existing Animal Wellness Center structure and the proposed building addition (20 employees + 15 guest spaces). Parking behind the existing building is desired and is proposed there if permitted by the terms of the existing drainage easement or any future amendment to it. This additional parking would be relegated, behind the existing building. Additional parking spaces are depicted for the future front building phase, which could be increased square footage of veterinary use, another commercial tenant, or a mixed - commercial building. Although the parking may appear extensive, providing adequate parking is currently a constraint for the existing operation. The parking proposed would provide ample parking for employees who will be on -site all day and for patients who will be visiting the office throughout the day. The nature of this use is more automobile - oriented because often ill patients often require vehicular transportation. Once the proposed new building is in place, the additional proposed parking will be relegated by October 19, 2020 Page 8 the new building. Parking has been adjusted to remove parallel spaces closer than 85' to the entrance. 3. Expanded parking is shown adjacent to the drainage easement on the south side of the property, eliminating planting area. With the illustrated layout, the drainage easement also appears to limit planting area on the east side of the property. There are power lines and, presumably, an associated easement, along the east side of the property that could also limit planting area. Revise the concept plan to show all utilities and easements, and to show that plantino area will be available to meet all landscape requirements RESPONSE: The concept plan has been updated to show conceptual landscaping per EC Design Guidelines. Depending on the timing of construction of the future front building, landscaping will adjust accordingly to screen the parking lot in the interim. 4. Is it anticipated that the parking lots will be illuminated? RESPONSE: The Applicant has not made a decision on this issue at this time; this decision would be made at the site plan stage. Note, however, that the existing business does not utilize lighting in the parking lot. 5. The ARB narrative references landscaping shown along the front and sides of the orooerty No landscaping is shown on the plans that were submitted. Is a drawing RESPONSE: Conceptual landscaping is now shown on the concept plan. 6. The ARB narrative states that 'thoughtful landscaping will help achieve a visual transition" between the DCD and open space to the south. Please explain more about RESPONSE: Conceptual landscaping is now shown on the concept plan. The conceptual landscaping depicted is in accordance with DCD and Entrance Corridor guidelines. Measures provided to screen the parking lot will be decided at site plan in accordance with DCD and Entrance Corridor regulations. A conceptual landscape design depicting the proposed site improvements prior to the "future phase of development" is now included in the concept plan. Building Inspections Division, Community Development Department Michael Dellinger— Building Inspections Plans Reviewer view, no objection. Albemarle County Fire -Rescue Shawn Maddox — Fire & Rescue Plans Reviewer Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Tim Padalino — Chief of Parks Planning •lion has No Objection to SP202000015. RESPONSE: Comment received. Thank you. 2. ACPR Recommendations Please note: this recommendation is not intended to be the basis for an unfavorable factor in the staff report, and is not intended to be the basis for a recommended condition of approval of SP202000015. Rather, this (below) is a more general October 19, 2020 Page 9 recommendation regarding the development and use of this subject property, in direct relation to the formally -adopted community vision and goals contained in the adopted Crozet Master Plan and (particularly) the Parks & Green Systems Plan. ACPR planners have reviewed this proposal and this subject property, and have concluded that the most appropriate use of the lower/rear portion of the subject property -- which includes a Flood Hazard Overlay area (100-year floodplain) as well as a Water Protection Ordinance buffer area (stream buffer) -- is as a greenway. This conclusion is consistent with the adopted community vision and formal recommendations in the Crozet Master Plan's "Parks & Green Systems Plan," which recommends and depicts a "major greenway" along Powells Creek in the rear portion of this subject property. Therefore, ACPR recommends that a portion of the subject property be dedicated to the County either through a deed of greenway easement or through a fee simple dedication. Either such greenway dedication would help to implement the Crozet Master Plan; and would help to protect the riparian area and water quality of Powells Creek in an area that is directly upstream from the County -owned regional stormwater management facility. ACPR staff, including the Chief of Parks Planning and the Greenways Supervisor, remain available to discuss this greenway recommendation for TMP #056A2-01-00- 00700 (in particular) as well as the Crozet Parks & Green Systems Plan and/or the County Greenways program (in general). RESPONSE: Comments acknowledged. Thank you. Albemarle County Service Authority Richard Nelson — ACSA Plans Reviewer -ire changes to the number of fixtures if the SP is RESPONSE: This detail will be confirmed at the site plan stage. Existina buildina is currently served by public water and sewer. RESPONSE: Comment received. Thank you. VDOT Adam Moore — Area Land Use Engineer be dedicated to the Commonwealth of Virginia, Route RESPONSE: Comment received. Area has been allocated for right of way dedication to the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the plans show the area for future dedication. 2. Please note that the proposed entrance must show conformance with the VDOT Road nP.Sinn Manual appendices B(1) and (F). as well as any other applicable standards. RESPONSE: Comment received. Area has been allocated for right of way dedication. The proposed entrance improvements will be designed in accordance with applicable VDOT standards. RESPONSE:. Turn lane warrant analyses are provided with this submittal. The analysis that was run to inform the warrants was based on a much larger expansion that is October 19, 2020 Page 10 different from what is proposed in the near term. In the near term, Animal Wellness Center proposes to approximately double its existing building footprint size. Since turn lanes are not warranted for a much larger expansion, they are not warranted in the near term. During site plan review, revised warrants will be provided to reflect what exactly is proposed. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Dyon Vega — RWSA Plans Reviewer —at may affect this proposal None Known 2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification X- Yes No 3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known 4. 'Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known RESPONSE: Comments received. Thank you. Should you require anything further in connection with this application, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 951-5709 or vlonciawilliamsmullen.com. We appreciate your assistance with this application. Sincerely, Valerie W. Long cc: Animal Wellness Center Project Team Attachments: Responses to Staff Analysis of Neighborhood Model Principles Revised Plans Revised Application Narrative Photosimulations of Expanded Parking Preliminary Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Special Exception Application October 19, 2020 Page 11 Responses to Staff Analysis of Application's Consistency with Neighborhood Model Principles Pedestrian More information is needed for this principle. The existing sidewalk Orientation along Crozet Avenue is not depicted in the concept plan. In addition, potential connections from the front of the parcel to the proposed front building and then back toward the existing rear building are not depicted. Response: The existing sidewalk along Crozet Avenue is now shown on the revised Concept Plan. Likewise, a sidewalk is shown running along the north side of the driveway and in the proposed new parking area leading up to the front of the proposed expansion of the existing building. Sidewalk connections to the proposed new building would be provided when that phase of the Project is undertaken. Mixture of Uses This proposal is for only one use, a veterinary clinic and accessory uses, that requires a special use permit. However, this use would not prevent other uses from potentially being located on the parcel in the future. Response: This principle seems to be more about encouraging a mixture of uses within a neighborhood rather than on a single parcel. This principle expressly provides that "[a] mixture of uses may be provided in different buildings with close proximity to one another" and that "[n]ot every area or building is expected to contain a mixture of uses." Comprehensive Plan, pages 8.16-8.17. AWC contributes to the Downtown area as its sole veterinary clinic, and thereby enhances the mixture of uses in the neighborhood. Neighborhood This property is not located within a neighborhood center; however, Centers the Downtown area can be considered a center for the entire Crozet community, and this use contributes to the mix of commercial uses and employment centers recommended for the Downtown area. Mixture of Housing This principle does not apply to this proposal. Types and Affordability Interconnected This principle does not really apply to this proposal, as it fronts on Streets and Crozet Avenue, and there are no other nearby streets to connect to. Transportation Networks October 19, 2020 Page 12 Multi -modal This principle could be strengthened. The concept plan only shows Transportation parking areas and travelways for automobiles. The sidewalk along Opportunities Crozet Avenue is not currently depicted. Also, potential areas for the bicycle parking required by the Zoning Ordinance for the DCD is not identified on the concept plan. Response: The Concept Plan has been updated to show the sidewalk and required bicycle parking. Parks, Recreational This principle is met. The Greenspace-designated area in the rear Amenities, and Open portion of the parcel is not proposed for development, preserving Space the environmental features located there. In addition, since no development is proposed in that area, the greenway as proposed in the master plan for the rear of the property could still potentially happen in the future. Buildings and Space This principle could use more information. It is unclear exactly how of Human Scale large the proposed new building at the front of the site would be. Response: These details would be addressed at the site plan stage. Building form and height are strictly regulated in the DCD. Relegated Parking This principle is mostly met. However, some of the parking near the front of the property does not appear to provide for the necessary area required for landscaping and screening. In addition, the parking setbacks are unclear. Response: The landscaping and parking setbacks have been addressed in the revised Concept Plan. In addition, relegated parking is proposed behind the existing building, and once the future building is constructed, all parking will be relegated behind that building. Redevelopment This principle is met. An existing building is proposed to be expanded. A new building is also proposed for the property, supporting infill development and a greater streetscape along Crozet Avenue. Respecting Terrain This principle is met. There are no steep slopes on this property, and Careful Grading and all proposed new development remains outside of the and Re -grading of floodplain and the stream buffer. Terrain Clear Boundaries This principle does not apply. This property is not adjacent to the with the Rural Area Rural Areas.