Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202000013 Correspondence 2021-04-05 (4)SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Design Focused Engineering April 5, 2021 Andy Reitelbach County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia22902 RE: Response Letter #1 for ZMA2020-13 Pantops Overlook Hotel Dear Andy, Thank you for your review of the rezoning request for Pantops Overlook Hotel. This letter contains responses to County comments dated January 22, 2021. Our responses are as follows: 1. Responses to Planning, General Application Comments, are attached. 2. Responses to Daniel Butch, Planning — Transportation, are attached 3. Responses to Francis MacCall, Zoning, are attached 4. Responses to Frank Pohl, Engineering, are attached 5. Responses to Betty Slough, Building Inspections, are attached 6. Responses to Margaret Maliszewski, ARB, are attached 7. Responses to Richard Nelson, ACSA, are attached 8. Responses to Adam Moore, VDOT, are attached Planning — General Application Comments 1. Revise the narrative and application plan with the assigned application number for this project, ZMA2020-00013. RESPONSE: The narrative and application plan have been updated with the assigned application number. 2. The acreage of the subject parcel is slightly different between the first paragraph of the project narrative and the table of information at the beginning of the narrative. Clarify this discrepancy, and ensure the correct acreage is also reflected on the application it RESPONSE: Thank you for bringing the discrepancy to our attention. Site acreage has been clarified in the application to reflect the correct acreage, which is 2.687 AC. 3. Include the zoning overlay districts of the subject parcel in the narrative's table of information — Entrance Corridor and Steep Slopes — Managed. RESPONSE: The overlay districts are now included in the narrative. 4. It appears that this property is actually zoned only PD-MC —the R-15 and HC zoning designations shown on GIS were in error. Revise the application plan and project narrative to reflect this situation. RESPONSE: Comment received. References to R15 and HC have been removed. 5. Revise the footer of the project narrative to identify the correct project. It currently references a different rezoning application. 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com RESPONSE: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The footer has been corrected. In the section titled "Consistency with the Zoning District," it appears there is a typo in the first sentence, as it references the intent of the "PD-SC" district, instead of PD-MC, which is what the property is currently and proposed to be zoned. RESPONSE: Thank you for highlighting this sentence. This has been revised to reference the PD- MC district. 7. In the narrative, include a section on the impact of this development on police and fire -rescue services. RESPONSE: An analysis on the impacts on public safety has been added. 8. Provide information in the project narrative on the landscape easements that are proposed to be removed. This proposal is indicated with labels on the application plan. However, it doesn't appear that there is any information or explanation for this action in the narrative. Also, provide the deed book and page number on the application plan for these easements. RESPONSE: Comment received. Deed book and page numbers for these easements have been included on the application plan. Additional information about the landscape easements have been included in the project narrative. 9. In order to remove the landscape easements from the property, the Special Use Permit SP2002- 00013 will also need to be amended. Submit an SP application to amend this special use permit. Review of this SP and its public hearings can occur simultaneously with this rezoning application. RESPONSE: Comment received. An SP application has been submitted with the ZMA resubmission so that conditions approved with SP2002-13 can be amended and the easement may be vacated. 10. Provide a legend or additional labels on sheets 5 and 6 to identify the features that are depicted, including the building, the parking areas, and the retaining walls and their proposed heights. RESPONSE: A legend has been included on sheets 5 and 6 to clarify site features. Schematic retaining walls and heights are additionally shown with this submission. 11. Overlay the tree conservation area and the landscape easements over all the sheets so that staff has a better understanding of where they currently are located and how the proposed construction on the site will affect those areas. RESPONSE: The tree conservation area and the landscape easements, one to remain and one to be removed, are now shown on each sheet for staff review. 12. There is a retaining wall shown on sheet 6 near the landscape easement proposed to remain; however, this wall is not depicted on sheet 5. Ensure all features are depicted across all applicable sheets. RESPONSE: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The sheets have been revised for consistency. 13. Are there any connections (vehicular or pedestrian) that are proposed with the adjacent parcels, either to the southeast or the northwest? RESPONSE: Vehicular and pedestrian connections to the southeast or northwest are not proposed at this time. A connection to the northwest, TMP 78-13, leads to a vast parking lot without 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com existing pedestrian infrastructure; furthermore, the parcel does not provide interconnectivity to properties beyond TMP 78-13. To the southeast, development is not proposed in this area at this time due to the shape of the parcel and existing topography. In addition to the steep slope drop in this area, vehicular and pedestrian connections could not be easily provided in this area due to the presence of an existing storm pond. The applicant did explore the possibility of establishing a pedestrian connection from a point internal to the site to parcels east however, to establish a usable pedestrian connection the applicant would have to secure a pedestrian access easement. The applicant's attorney made repeated attempts to contact SunTrust Bank, an adjacent property owner, but was unsuccessful in obtaining a response. The applicant and the owner of TMP 78-73B 1 could not come to an agreement that was acceptable to both parties when working through the terms of the easement. 14. Section 18-25A.4.1 discourages direct access of PD-MC development from existing public streets, instead encouraging internal connections with the rest of the PD-MC. The proposed development does not appear to provide these internal connections, instead providing direct access to a major public highway, Route 250, RESPONSE: The possible vehicular connection to the PD-MC would be through Abbey Road, between SunTrust Bank and Hansen Road Professional Center. However, the existing travelway stands at 520', with the FFE of the proposed hotel to sit at approximately 493'. This >20' drop would need to occur over a distance of 100', which would not be feasible in meeting requirements for safe and adequate access for vehicles, while providing needed parking for 125 rooms on -site. While connections through public streets are discouraged in the PD-MC, the existing conditions necessitate the use of retaining walls along adjacent parcels to create a buildable pad. Moreover, a right turn lane is present on Route 250 along the property's frontage, that would easily provide safe movement from the property to the PD-MC. 15. Furthermore, Section 18-25A.5 encourages pedestrian access and connections among the different parts of the PD-MC. Such connections do not appear to be provided, other than a sidewalk along the frontage of the property. RESPONSE: Comment received. While Section 18-25A.4.1 encourages internal connections throughout the PD-MC, existing topographic conditions, existing stormwater infrastructure, and the inability to coordinate with adjacent property owners creates barriers in providing interconnectivity to the Rivanna Ridge PD-MC. With the presence of existing pedestrian infrastructure on Route 250, the proposed plan would provide a pedestrian connection to Route 250, which would facilitate pedestrian movement towards the existing PD-MC connections and ultimately to destinations within the PDMC such as restaurants, grocery stores, and bus stops. 16. Provide more information on the proposed locations for parking, including underneath the building. With 125 rooms proposed in the hotel, at a minimum, 125 parking spaces will be required, plus any additional spaces required of the accessory uses such as restaurants. It is unclear to staff where all of these spaces will be situated on the site, especially with other required elements, such as parking lot landscaping and a dumpster pad. RESPONSE: Comment received. The applicant will comply with applicable marking minimums to serve the proposed development unless an alternative to parking minimums is pursued and approved at the site plan stage. Given the property's topographic relationship to adjacent parcels, if a parking alternative were pursued at site plan it would most likely be for TDM as guests may arrive at the hotel via rideshare or they may carpool. 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com 17. Is the underground/under-building parking being considered as one of the hotel's four stories? Or would this be an additional level of the building? Provide height calculations for the hotel use alone, and for all uses, including the parking to help staff better understand what is proposed. RESPONSE: Underground parking is no longer being proposed. The hotel is proposed to be four stories; additional language has been added to the maximum building height note on Sheet 2 that says the maximum building height will be "the lesser of 4 stories or 65'." Four stories is within the recommended height range called for this site in the Pantops Master Plan and 65' is the maximum by -right height allowable in a PD-MC. 18. The application plan indicates that the building will be a maximum of four stories. The renderings of the site that were provided also depict the hotel as being four stories, but with no stepback, as required by 18-21.4. If a hotel of four stories is proposed with no stepback, a special exception approved by the Board will be required. Submit a separate application for a special exception, including a narrative explaining the justification for this request. See also the table in 184.20(a). RESPONSE: A special exception to allow for the construction of a fourth story without a stepback is submitted with the ZMA request. 19. Clarify the cross-section exhibit that was provided. The red dotted line appears to be labelled as 500 at the left of the hotel building, and 480 along the same line to the right of the building, above a label that says 492. Also, there appears to be a single retaining wall that is roughly 35 feet tall to the right of the hotel building, whereas the application plan depicts at least two stepped retaining walls in this location. Also, see comments from the ARB below for more comments regarding the retaining walls. RESPONSE: The cross section exhibit has been revised to more accurately depict the proposed grading, including the stepped retaining walls, as shown on the concept plan. 20. Advisory Comment: A community meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 25, 2021, at the Pantops Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting. Additional comments may be provided once this meeting has taken place. RESPONSE: Comment received. 21. Advisory Comment: If this rezoning application is approved by the Board of Supervisors, additional site development plans will be required, which include initial and final site plans, ARB plans, VSMP plans, WPO plans, etc. RESPONSE: Comment received. Comprehensive Plan Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan and Pantops Master 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 Pantops Master Plan identifies Tax Map Parcel (TMP) 07800-00-00-073A7 as Community Mixed Use and Parks & Green Systems land uses. The Community Mixed Use classification (page 31) calls for mixed use development with a mix of residential, commercial, retail, office and other uses in walkable development pattern. Primary uses in this designation include hotels, as is proposed with this rezoning. It is recommended that single -use buildings, such as this hotel, be constructed to allow for future conversion of the first floor to ground -level retail or similar uses. The height of buildings is recommended to be 2-4 stories. Although it appears that the hotel is proposed to be four stories, additional height appears to be added to the building to accommodate parking underneath. In addition, stepbacks are recommended. Although no request for a special exception for stepbacks was submitted, the renderings that were provided with the application do not appear to show any stepbacks on the fourth floor. 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com The Parks and Green Systems designation (page 32) calls for open space and green systems, with few buildings. It appears this proposal meets those recommendations by not proposing any buildings or other structures within the area of the parcel that is designated as Parks and Green Systems. The Community Mixed Use design guidance (page 33) suggests interconnected streets and human scaled development. There do not appear to be any interconnections proposed with this plan, and the several large retaining walls that are proposed do not lend themselves to being human scaled. The Rivanna Ridge shopping center is a designated urban center in the Pantops Master Plan (page 35). The subject property is located on the outskirts of this center's core, but within the % mile walkshed of the urban center. Rolkin Road is proposed as one of the main streets through this center, connecting it with the surrounding areas. The Master Plan recommends (page 39) that parcels along "Dealership Row," such as the subject parcel, have buildings brought closer to the street, with relegated parking and a sense of appropriate scale. The subject property is located within the Monticello Viewshed (page 53), and it is recommended that the applicant connect with the staff at Monticello to discuss this issue and determine whether there are any ways to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development on the Viewshed. (It is staff's understanding that the applicant has already contacted Monticello to inform this of this application.) View corridors along Route 250 have also been identified as important components of the Pantops community (page 54), and it is recommended that design of new buildings along this corridor take this community resource into account. Neighborhood Model 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 below on relevant aspects of the Neighborhood Model. More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed plans are provided. Pedestrian Orientation This principle is partially met with the provision of sidewalks along the frontage of the property and internally. However, there are no other pedestrian connections with the adjacent parcels. In addition, there are several tall retaining walls proposed for this site that could loom over the sidewalks and produce a sense of enclosure. RESPONSE: Retaining walls have been staggered to create more of a human scale along the walls. Please see above for discussion regarding edestrian connections with adjacent parcels. Mixture of Uses This principle is not met for this parcel alone, as only one use, a hotel, is proposed. However, as a parcel within a PD-MC, there is a wide range of uses within this district, and the hotel would contribute to a greater mixture of uses both within the PD-MC district and within the Rivanna Ridge center. This proposal would be the only hotel within the Rivanna Ridge center, providing a use that doesn't currently exist there. Neighborhood Centers This principle is not really applicable to this project. However, the larger Rivanna Ridge shopping center is a designated center, and this proposal would concentrate further development on the edges of that center and rovide additional commercial uses near the center. Mixture of Housing This principle is not applicable as no housing is proposed on this site of Types and Affordability with this rezoning request. 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com Relegated Parking This principle is not applicable as no housing is proposed on this site of with this rezonin request. Interconnected Streets This principle does not appear to be met, as the only access is proposed and Transportation from Route 250. There do not appear to be any proposed interconnections; :Networks either vehicular or pedestrian, with the adjacent parcels to the southeast and north/northwest, especially internal connections with the rest of the Rivanna Ridge PD-MC. RESPONSE: Please refer to the discussion above regarding vehicular and edestrian connections. Multimodal This principle is partially met, as sidewalks are provided along Route 2.- Transportation and internally. Other transportation opportunities do not appear to be Opportunities accommodated, however. Parks, Recreational This principle is not really applicable to this project, however, no Amenities, and Open development is proposed for the rear of the property, which is designated Space as Parks and Green Systems, helping to keep this area forested and rovidin a buffer between the adjacent residential district. Buildings and Spaces of The numerous tall retaining walls proposed with this project are not Human Scale consistent with providing spaces of human scale. It would be helpful to provide more information on the amount of parking proposed to be placed below grade/underneath the building, however, relegating much of the parking in such a way does help to create buildings and spaces of human scale. RESPONSE: Underground parking has been removed from the application plan. Retaining walls have been revised to be of a smaller scale through staggering and planting. Redevelopment This principle is met, as this parcel is undeveloped but included within lar er Rivanna Rid e PD-MC development. Respecting Terrain and There are large areas of managed steep slopes on this property. Although Careful Grading and managed slopes are permitted to be disturbed, any grading or disturbance Re -grading of Terrain of these slopes must meet the requirements of County Engineering and 18- 30.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Any retaining walls that are proposed to be over six feet in height must be stepped or terraced. The retaining walls will also be subject to ARB review since this property is in the Entrance Corridor. RESPONSE: Comment received. Retaining walls shown with this submission are terraced, meeting the requirements of County Engineering and 18-30.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Clear Boundaries This principle is not applicable to the request. Between the Development Areas and the Rural Area Planning — Tranportation Daniel Butch 1. An avenue street typology is proposed for the Rolkin Rd. Extension on the southwestern segment of TMP 78-73A7, as called out in the Pantops Master Plan in the Future Street Network section (pages 17 and 20). See also Project R on pages 63, 64, and 72 of the Master Plan. 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com RESPONSE: Comment received. Development is not proposed in the area of the Rolkin Road Extension. The applicant is willing to work with the County to reserve a future dedication in this area of the site. 2. Entrance as shown as right in and right out would need to stay as is for potential road improvement and median installation on Rt 250. RESPONSE: Comment received. Zoning Francis MacCall 1. Property issues a. Please remove the reference to HC and R-15 zoning. The zoning map has been determined to be incorrect in a couple of places on this parcel. The map will be corrected soon. RESPONSE: Comment received. References to HC and R-15 have been removed. 2. Conformity with Zoning Ordinance shown on Concept plan for SPs or Application Plan/General Development Plan for ZMAs a. The uses should be listed as a hotel. The number of rooms proposed should be listed as a proposed maximum, as parking for the eventual number of rooms shown with a site plan. RESPONSE: Comment received. The proposed use has been updated to remove the number of rooms. b. Include maximum building height with the notation of the 4 stories. RESPONSE: The heading for the building height has been clarified to state "Maximum Building Height' of 4 stories. c. An amendment to the conditions of SP2002-00013 is required. See next comment. RESPONSE: Comment received. Please refer to our responses below. 3. Conditions (SPs) a. As shown on Sheet 4 of the plan, a portion of the landscape easement is proposed to be removed. That was a condition of SP2002-00013. That application needs to be amended at the same time as any action for approval of the proposed ZMA. A separate application is needed to be filed with an appropriate fee. RESPONSE: Comment received. An SP application amending SP2002-13 has been submitted concurrently with the ZMA resubmission. b. Amendment of conditions 4, 6, and 7 are required as the proposed development alters the screening requirements related to the eastern side of the development on TMP 78-13. The suggested revisions are noted in bold and may be further adjusted as needed with additional review. 1. Vehicles shall not be elevated; 2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in the areas indicated for display shown on the plan; 3. The use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the ARB, including landscape and lighting plans; 4. Provide screening trees to the east, south and west of the proposed parking area to reduce the impact of the loss of trees and to soften the appearance of the expanse of proposed pavement. Provide a mixture of sereeni .g tFeeS, OFfiffinental trees, and ShFubs throughout the slope of the grading easemen 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com „o nthe„east of the site A landseapn easement.. will be F nd foF nil site planting; 5. Provide the planting bed with the seven (7) Eastern Red Cedars in the central portion of the parking area as shown on the Minor Site Plan Amendment (SDP 02-34) dated March 8, 2002, revised November 4, 2002, 6.RatheF than eUeMlIte the s g tFees olo..o tl.e P eFt. line, nluster the some speeies inand alternate gFOU.. of seFee. ing tFeee to Bete o MOFe informal and n fttUF flliStie landseepe. f 7.Submit o landsespe easement for oil site planting; and 8. Provide screening trees that will grow to a height that will sufficiently screen the proposed parking area. This will require a wider planting area, which will necessitate the removal of most, if not all, of the 11 display parking spaces in the first row. RESPONSE: Thank you for outlining the needed changes. We have included these revised conditions in the ZMA narrative and application plan, as well as the SP application that will amend SP2002-13. Engineering Frank Pohl 1. Retaining walls located within Managed Slopes as shown on County GIS mapping must meet all design standards as required in County Code Section 18-30.7.5. The height of retaining walls is not indicated on the south side of the site adjacent TMP 78-73B 1, please show these wall heights on the plan. RESPONSE: Comment received. Retaining wall heights are included with this submission. 2. Project will require VSMP/WPO permitting [Chapter 17, County Code]. RESPONSE: Comment received. Architectural Review Board Margaret Mahszewski 1. The development, as proposed, requires significant retaining walls. The walls would be a major visual component of the development. It is not clear from the proposal that the walls will have an appropriate appearance for the Entrance Corridor (EC). At least one of the walls that are shown does not meet the Entrance Corridor guideline maximum height of 6'. Heights are not provided for the other long walls. Some landscaping is shown at the base of the lowest wall, but more will likely be needed at the base, depending on the wall height and material. Also, landscaping will be needed between walls, and at the top of the walls. Additional information should be provided: a. on wall heights b. to show that landscaping of substantial size and quantity can be provided at the base, top, and between retaining walls with the proposed wall type and layout. c. site sections, perspective views to clarify the appearance of the retaining walls and their visual relationship to the proposed hotel and the surroundings RESPONSE: Comment received. Retaining wall heights are included with this submission, as well as schematic landscaping that will be refined at site plan/ARB phase. Revised site sections have also been included with this submission. 2. Where will required parking be located if it can't be placed under the building? 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com RESPONSE: The proposed use for the hotel is 125 rooms maximum. If parking cannot be accommodated on site, a request for parking reduction will be pursued at site plan, as well as considerations for adjusting the number of rooms if an alternative to providing the parking minimum is not approved at site plan. 3. In sections/viewshed studies, it would be helpful if the scale of the section diagram and the aerial/map were made to match. RESPONSE: Comment received. Please refer to the revised plan and section which has been revised for clarity. 4. What is the purpose of analyzing the view from the office building on 78-731319 RESPONSE: Since viewsheds are important in the Pantops Master Plan we thought the view from a nearby property which may have a viewshed that may be impacted should be evaluated. Since the site sits considerably lower than parcels to the east, and the roofline of the proposed building will be lower than the roofline of the adjacent office building, we do not believe this proposed structure will have a significant impact on viewsheds, especially when viewed from atop Pantops Mountain. 5. Note that the hotel design is subject to ARB review and approval. The "precedent design image" included in the viewshed study should not be considered approved with this ZMA. RESPONSE: Comment received. A separate ARB application will be submitted at the site plan phase and the applicant understands the hotel design is subject to ARB review and approval. 6. The landscaping that is shown on the plans does not meet requirements for interior parking, perimeter parking and other requirements. Show that planting area is available to meet these requirements. RESPONSE: Planting within the parking area is now shown. 7. What plants will remain in the hi, pe easement on 78-13? RESPONSE: Currently, the landscape easement is sparsely planted however, the double - staggered row of evergreen trees along the edge of their curb, provide effective screening of the drive-thru from the Entrance Corridor. The limits of disturbance affiliated with the proposed development of the site would not extend to include the existing evergreen trees and so these are proposed to remain. Albemarle County Service Authority Richard Nelson 1. Is this site in the jurisdictional area for water and/or sewer? Yes 2. What is the distance to the closest water and sewer line, if in the jurisdictional area? Water is along Rt 250/Hansen Road. Sewer is on site. 3. Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on plan? Water pressures average —50-55 psi. A booster pump may be needed, depending on the number of stories. 4. Are there major upgrades needed to the water distribution or sewer collection system of which the applicant and staff should be aware? N/A 5. Are there other service provision issues such as the need for grinder pumps? A private booster pump may be needed, depending on the number of floors. 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com 6. Which issues should be resolved at the SP/ZMA stage and which issues can be resolved at the site plan/plat stage? 7. If the project is a large water user, what long term impacts or implications do you foresee? 8. Additional comments? Explore making a water connection at the water main stub -out at Hansen Rd, or extending the water main along TMP 78-13A to avoid crossing 250. Contact ACSA for draft water and sewer connection fees. RWSA sewer capacity certification will be required prior to site plan approval. RESPONSE: Thank you for providing water/sewer comments. The developer will be notified with this information for consideration at the site plan phase. VDOT Adam Moore 1. Who owns the access easements shown on the Plat for Hansen Road and the parking lot of the Hansen Road Professional Center? RESPONSE: The 50' access easement on Hansen Road is owned by Pantops Giant LLC and Hurt Investment Company (DB 2102 PG 92). The surrounding property owners, Hansen Road Professional Center LLC and Virginia School Boards Association, each own a piece of the permanent 24' non-exclusive access easement. 2. The proposed entrance shown on Sheet 5 of 7 of the Application Plan may be too close to the entrance of Hansen Road onto Route 250. Ensure this distance conforms with Table 2-2 of Appendix F of the VDOT Roadway Design Manual. RESPONSE: Thank you for your comment. The intention is to create a partial access entrance for the property, which will require 305' on a 45-mph principal arterial road and we have positioned the entrance 305' to comply with this requirement. 3. There appears to be a construction entrance onto the back -side of the subject property from the adjacent property, Auto Superstore. Is there an easement or agreement with Auto Superstore to access the subject property from this point, and would it allow for commercial access? RESPONSE: No, this access will be removed at the time of construction. 4. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other requirements. RESPONSE: Comment received. If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions, please feel free to contact me at kelsakshimp-en ing eering com or by phone at 434-227-5140. Regards, Kelsey Schlein Shimp Engineering, P.C. 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com