Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP202100003 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2021-05-19COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 May 19, 2021 Bret Flory 879 Junction Dr Allen, TX 75013 bfl ory(a)crossa rch itects. com RE: SP202100003 Caliber Collision Mr. Bret Flory: The resubmittal materials (received April 19, 2021) for your Special Use Permit application SP202100003 have been reviewed by members of Albemarle County staff and our partner agencies. Review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. After reviewing this letter, you may choose to: revise and resubmit the application; proceed with requesting a public hearing with the Planning Commission without revision or resubmittal; or withdraw your application. Please note that SP202100003 is currently "deferred - indefinite" pursuant to Zoning Ordinance (ZO) Section 33.52. Please reference ZO Section 33.53 for important details about the applicant's responsibilities for requesting action by the Planning Commission (PC) and Board of Supervisors. As always, CDD staff remain available to provide assistance and discuss this comment letter, or any other aspect(s) of your application, at your request. Please contact me with any questions and/or requests for assistance you may have. I can be reached at mgleason(a)albemarle.org or 434-296-5832, ext. 3097. The following information is organized as follows: A. Comments on the Special Use Permit B. How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan C. Additional comments from reviewers D. Additional information A. Special Use Permit Thank you for revising and resubmitting your proposal and including additional information to address comments provided by staff in the initial comment letter dated March 5, 2021. Staff have reviewed the revised materials submitted on April 19, 2021 and offer the following comments: 1. On the conceptual plan, staff recommend the following revisions: a. Remove the "Caliber Collision Vehicles Enter Only" signage label located in the right-of-way. Private business signage within the public right-of-way is unlikely to be accepted by VDOT. b. Remove the "Existing City Decorative Light Pole" label. The orientation and placement of these lights may change during the review of the site plan. c. There seems to be a conflict between the in/out circulation of the southern entrance and the "Caliber Collision Vehicles Exit Only" sign. Is the intension for the southern entrance to be limited to exiting vehicles? If not, please remove this label. d. Remove the "Existing Pylon Pole" label. e. Provide a label for the conversion of the existing sidewalk area into a planting strip. 2. Please be aware, comments from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) indicate that the southern proposed entrance does not meet the minimum entrance spacing (565 feet) for a 45 mph Principal Arterial road. As a result, VDOT will require an Access Management Exception at the site planning stage. While this exception is typically evaluated as part of the site planning process, failure to obtain the exception could have significant impacts on the special use permit. For context, special use permit approvals, as standard County practice, are conditioned such that development of the proposed site must be "in general accord" with the proposed conceptual plan. If the site plan fails to be in general accord with conceptual plan, an amendment to the special use permit condition is required. Since there is no "fast -track" for special use permit amendments, this would effectively mean a new special use permit review. Staff recommend the applicant pursue the Access Management Exception prior to the approval of this special use permit to ensure no significant changes are needed to the conceptual plan. 3. Please note, due to the placement of the 14-foot wide shared -use path, the available planting area will likely not be able to accommodate trees that meet the Entrance Corridor frontage tree size requirements. In which case, the proposed conceptual plan will preclude the final site plan from meeting landscape design requirements. Staff recommend the applicant follow up with ARB and Planning staff regarding whether substitutions, waivers, or exceptions to these requirements are possible. 4. Please also note, in reviewing the integration of the frontage condition recommended by the Places29 Master Plan, staff are concerned that the proposed frontage improvements may create unsafe conditions. To be specific, the placement, width, and ramping of the 14-foot wide shared -use path could be mistaken for a vehicular driveway or convenient vehicular drop-off location, rather than a pedestrian facility. This could lead to direct and significant conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. In addition, the posted speed limit along this section of Seminole Trail/Rt 29 is 45mph. In which case, vehicle drivers may not be able to successfully correct their movements if/when they realize the 14-foot wide shared -use path is not a driveway. Therefore, staff recommend additional safety -oriented measures be included in a future site plan to ensure frontage improvements allow for a safe pedestrian environment. Safety measures may include signage, bollards, pavement markings, and other design features. B. Comprehensive Plan Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan, which in this area is the Rio29 Small Area Plan, are provided below. Comments on conformity with the Rio29 Small Area Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. The Rio29 Small Area Plan designates this property, TMP 45-106, as a Core area. The Core designation is characterized by a highly urban and pedestrian -friendly environment. Buildings within this area are recommended to be 3-6 stories in height, built close to the street, have windows on the ground story along the street and active first floor uses. The plan also recommends pedestrian access and relegated parking in the Core area. In comparison with Rio29 Small Area Plan, the proposal is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Plan in three ways: use, street frontage design, and building form. The Rio 29 Small Area Plan explicitly states that auto service uses are not encouraged in the Core. However, the Plan does allow that these uses may be permitted by exception when the applicant can demonstrate that there will be minimal impacts on surrounding uses. The proposal is also inconsistent with the recommended street frontage design along Route 29, on which the subject property is located. The Plan designates Route 29 as a Through Corridor, prescribing an optimal street frontage design that includes a 5-foot to 25-foot frontage zone, a 14-foot shared -use path, and an 8-foot separation zone between the building face and the public street. Staff recommends the proposal work to incorporate these recommended street frontage design aspects in order to be more consistent with the Rio 29 Small Area Plan. Lastly, the proposal is inconsistent with the Rio29 Small Area Plan in that the existing building, to be utilized by the proposed body shop, does not align with the Plan's form and site design standards. The Plan recommends buildings 3-6 stories in height and massing that avoids expansive blank walls, in favor of transparent first floors to create visually interesting pedestrian environments. The existing building on this site is 1-story in height and includes expansive blank walls along the sides of the building which are visible from the Entrance Corridor. That said, since the proposed use does not intend to make significant changes to the existing building's exterior, staff acknowledges that the continuation of the existing building form is acceptable, as the current inconsistency with the Rio29 Small Area Plan is not being increased. Update 5119: Staff acknowledges additional information and revisions provided by the applicant to address conformity with the Rio29 Small Area Plan. The revised conceptual plan includes frontage improvements (e.g. shared -use path, separation zone, etc) that align with the recommendations of the Small Area Plan. Also, in evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed use on the subject property, staff acknowledges that many of the services offered by the proposed use will take place indoors and, as indicated by the applicant's narrative, the proposed use will likely not be a source of substantial or excessive noise, odor, dust, or vibration. The applicant's narrative also addresses environmental precautions and safety measures that will be observed by the proposed use. It is not clear, based on the conceptual plan, what buffering/screening features (e.g. landscaping) or topography may be preserved onsite. Based on the applicant's narrative, staff could find the proposed body shop use acceptable in this location as minimal impacts are expected to surrounding uses. C. Additional Comments from Reviewers Planning Comments Staff has reviewed revised materials submitted by the applicant on April 19, 2021. The following comments related to planning matters have been provided by Mariah Gleason: 1. Concerning a future site plan, the southern ingress/egress travelway does not provide at least a 20-foot travelway width in all areas. This travelway will likely need to revised to meet the County's requirements for two-way circulation provided in section 4.12.15. 2. Please keep in mind, approval of the special use permit in no way implies approval of a site plan or any modifications to any standards. 3. Should the special use permit be approved, development of the site and building cannot commence without an approved site plan and appropriate building permits. Zoning The Zoning reviewer, Lea Brumfield, Ibrumfield(a)albemarle.org, reviewed revised materials submitted by the applicant and has no objections to this proposal. Engineering The County Engineer, Frank Pohl, fpohl(a)albemarle.org, reviewed revised materials submitted by the applicant and has no objections to this proposal. Entrance Corridor/Architectural Review Board (ARB) The ARB reviewer, Khristopher Taggart, ktaggartCa-)albemarle.org, reviewed revised materials submitted by the applicant and provided the following comment: 1. Due to the 14' wide shared use path shown in the conceptual site plan, the available planting area will likely not be able to accommodate trees that meet the Entrance Corridor frontage tree size requirements. Fire/Rescue The Fire/Rescue reviewer, Howard Lagomarsino, hlagomarsino(a)-albemarle.org, reviewed revised materials submitted by the applicant. Fire/Rescue has no objections to this proposal, but offers the following information/comments for a future site plan: 1. Please provide a note on future plans of ISO fire flow for the structure's intended use 2. Please provide ACSA available fire flow test. 3. Knox Box will be required. Please place a note indicating this on the future plan. The location of this can be coordinated with the Fire Marshal's Office. 4. An unobstructed path of 20ft is required for emergency vehicle and fire apparatus access so that all portions of grade level are within 150 ft of the emergency vehicle and fire apparatus while on access road. 5. Gate on north side of building is too narrow and restricts access of emergency vehicles and fire apparatus. Width is required at 20 ft, unobstructed. 6. Clarify locations and distances to closest hydrants. 7. Clarify square footage of space and determine need for fire suppression sprinkler system (if required, fire department connection needs to be within 100 ft of a fire hydrant and on address side of building) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) The VDOT reviewer, Adam Moore, adam.moore(a�vdot.virginia.gov, reviewed revised materials submitted by the applicant. VDOT has no objections to this proposal, but offers the comments below for a future site plan. Please see the review letter attached for more information. 1. Please provide trip generation data. 2. The southern proposed entrance does not meet the minimum entrance spacing (565') for a 45 mph Principal Arterial road. An Access Management Exception is required. 3. Please provide right turn lane\taper warrant, and if required turn lane and taper must be provided. Please see VDOT's Road Design Manual Appendix F-pg., F- 96, for turn lane\taper warrants and required geometry. 4. Intersection sight distances must be shown on the Site Plan and profiles provided. 5. Entrance geometry must be provided on the Site Plan. Note that the minimum radius for a commercial entrance without a separate truck access is 42 feet. 6. Note that the final site 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. Building Inspections The Building Inspections reviewer, Betty Slough, bslough(a)-albemarle.org, reviewed revised materials submitted by the applicant and has no objections to this proposal. Albemarle County Service Authority (ASCA) The ACSA reviewer, Richard Nelson, rnelson(a)serviceauthority.org, reviewed revised materials submitted by the applicant. ACSA no objections to this proposal, but offers the following information/comments for a future site plan: 1. Proposed pavers in front of Calber Collision cannot encumber ACSA water easement along Rt. 29. 2. Fixture counts will need to be provided, once determined, to ensure the existing water meter is accurately sized. Natural Resources The Natural Resources Manager, Kimberly Biasiolli, kbiasiollio_albemarle.org, has no objections to this proposal. Additional Information SP Conditions While the language for potential conditions has not been developed, potential conditions are provided below. Once conditions are drafted, staff will send them to you. Development shall be in general accord with the major elements of the final conceptual plan and final narrative. Major elements could include the location of the building and parking areas, as well as frontage improvements including the 14-foot wide shared use path. Action after Receipt of Comments As noted above, after reviewing this letter you may choose to: revise and resubmit the application; proceed with requesting a public hearing with the Planning Commission without revision or resubmittal; or withdraw your application. Please note that SP202100003 is currently " deferred - indefinite" pursuant to Zoning Ordinance (ZO) Section 33.52. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is a fee for the second resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule and other related resources are attached and also provided for your convenience online at: https://www.aIbemarle.orq/government/community-deyeIoPment/apply-for/planning-and- site-development-applications Notification and Advertisement Fees Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Community Meeting Prior to requesting a public hearing with the Planning Commission and Board, a community meeting must be held in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 18- 33.37. The community meeting for this proposal was held on Thursday, March 25, 2021 at the Places29 Rio Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting. A summary of the meeting discussion and comments submitted by neighbors and participants following the meeting will be included in the staff report to the Planning Commission. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is mgleasonaalbemarle.org. Sincerely, kdua* Mariah Gleason Senior Planner, Community Development Department enc: Att. 1: VDOT Comment Letter Att. 2: Resubmittal Schedule Att. 3: Resubmittal Form COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street (804) 7862701 Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 Fax: (804) 7862940 April 29, 2021 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Mariah Gleason Re: Caliber Collision — Special Use Permit SP-2021-00003 Review #2 Dear Ms. Gleason: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Bret Flory, Architect, dated 16 January 2021, revised 16 April 2021, and find the special use permit generally acceptable; Previous comments still remain applicable; the following comments will still need to be addressed through the initial site plan submittal. 1. Please provide trip generation data. 2. The southern proposed entrance does not meet the minimum entrance spacing (565') for a 45 mph Principal Arterial road. An Access Management Exception is required. 3. Please provide right turn lane\taper warrant, and if required turn lane and taper must be provided. Please see VDOT's Road Design Manual Appendix F-pg., F-96, for turn lane\taper warrants and required geometry. 4. Intersection sight distances must be shown on the Site Plan and profiles provided. 5. Entrance geometry must be provided on the Site Plan. Note that the minimum radius for a commercial entrance without a separate truck access is 42 feet. 6. Note that the final site 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. Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further information is desired, please contact Willis Bedsaul at 434-422-9866. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. Sincerely, Adam J. Moore, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By: Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED: Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser Date Print Name Daytime phone number of Signatory FEES to be paid after application For original Special Use Permit fee of $1,075 ❑ First resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) Free ❑ Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $538 For original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000 ❑ FirSt resubmis5lon (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) Free ❑ Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $1,075 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 Revised 11/2/2015 Page 1 of 1 2021 Submittal and Review Schedule Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments Resubmittal Schedule Resubmittal Dates (1st and 3rd Monday of the month) Comments given to the Applicant Applicant requests PC Public Hearing AND Payment Due for Legal Ad (no additional resubmittals) Planning Commission Public Hearing No sooner than* Monday Wednesdav Friday Tuesday Jan 04 Feb 03 Feb 05 Mar 02 Tues Jan 19 Feb 17 Feb 26 Mar 23 Feb 01 Mar 03 Mar 12 Apr 06 Feb 15 Mar 17 Mar 26 Apr 20 Mar 01 Mar 31 A r 09 May 04 Mar 15 Apr 14 Apr 23 Ma 18 Apr 05 May 05 May 07 Jun 01 Apr 19 May 19 May 21 Jun 15 May 03 Jun 02 Jun 11 Jul 06 Ma 17 Jun 16 Jun 25 Jul 20 Jun 07 Jul 07 Jul 09 Aug03 Jun 21 Jul 21 Jul 30 Aug24 Tues Jul 6 Aug04 Aug13 Sep 07 Ju119 Aug18 Aug27 Sep 21 Aug02 Sep 01 Sep 10 Oct 05 Aug16 Sep 15 Se 24 Oct 19 Tues Sep 7 Oct 06 Oct 08 Nov 02 Sep 20 Oct 20 Oct 22 Nov 16 Oct 04 Nov 03 Nov 12 Dec 07 Oct 18 Nov 17 Nov 19 Dec 14 Nov 01 Dec 01 Dec 17 Jan 11 2022 Nov 15 Dec 15 Tues Dec 22 Jan 18 2022 Dec 06 Jan 05 2022 Jan 07 2022 Feb 01 2022 Dec 13 Jan 12 2022 Jan 21 2022 Feb 15 2022 Bold italics = submittal/meeting, day is different due to a holiday. Dates with shaded background are not 2021. 2022 dates are tentative. `Public hearing dates have been set by the Planning Commission, however, if due to unforeseen circumstances the Planning Commission is unable to meet on this date, your project will be moved to the closest available aaenda date.