Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202000013 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2021-01-22COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434) 296-5832 Fax (434)972-4176 January 22, 2021 Ms. Kelsey Schlein Shimp Engineering, PC 912 E. High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 kelsev(a),shims-engineerin2.com / 434-227-5140 RE: ZMA202000013 Pantops Overlook Hotel Dear Ms. Schlein: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA202000013, Pantops Overlook Hotel. We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be addressed before we can recommend favorably on your ZMA request. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. Our comments are provided below: Planning — General Application Comments 1. Revise the narrative and application plan with the assigned application number for this project, ZMA2020-00013. 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 plan. 3. Include the zoning overlay districts of the subject parcel in the narrative's table of information — Entrance Corridor and Steep Slopes — Managed. 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. 5. Revise the footer of the project narrative to identify the correct project. It currently references a different rezoning application. 6. 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. 7. In the narrative, include a section on the impact of this development on police and fire -rescue services. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 13. Are there any connections (vehicular or pedestrian) that are proposed with the adjacent parcels, either to the southeast or the northwest? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 18-4.20(a). 19. Depict on the application plan the buffer area that is required for commercial areas adjacent to residential districts. See 18-21.7(c). Such a buffer area will be required adjacent to the R-15 zoned property to the southwest of the subject parcel. Additional screening in this area also is likely required. Also see the table in 18-4.20(a) for setback and buffer requirements when adjacent to residential districts. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 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. 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 staffs 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. 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 provide additional commercial uses near the center. Mixture of Housing Types This principle is not applicable as no housing is proposed on this site or with this and Affordability rezoning request. Relegated Parking This principle appears to be partially met; however, more information would be helpful. It looks like some of the parking is proposed to be placed underneath the hotel building, which would screen it from Route 250. Interconnected Streets and This principle does not appear to be met, as the only access is proposed from Route 250. Transportation Networks There do not appear to be any proposed interconnections, 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. Multimodal Transportation This principle is partially met, as sidewalks are provided along Route 250 and Opportunities internally. Other transportation opportunities do not appear to be accommodated, however. Parks, Recreational This principle is not really applicable to this project; however, no development is Amenities, and Open Space proposed for the rear of the property, which is designated as Parks and Green Systems, helping to keep this area forested and providing a buffer between the adjacent residential district. Buildings and Spaces of The numerous tall retaining walls proposed with this project are not consistent with Human Scale 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. Redevelopment This principle is met, as this parcel is undeveloped but included within the larger Rivanna Ridge PD-MC development. Respecting Terrain and There are large areas of managed steep slopes on this property. Although managed Careful Grading and Re- slopes are permitted to be disturbed, any grading or disturbance of these slopes must grading of Terrain 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. Clear Boundaries Between This principle is not applicable to the request. the Development Areas and the Rural Area Planning - Transportation The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Daniel Butch, Transportation Senior Planner, dbutch@albemarle.org: 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. 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. Zoning Division, Community Development Department Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planinng staff. Francis MacCall, Zoning Chief of Planning, finaccall@albemarle.org. Engineering & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planinng staff. County Engineer, Frank Pohl, fpohl@albemarle.org. Building Inspections Division, Community Development Department Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planinng staff. Betty Slough, Building Plans Reviewer, bslough@albemarle.org. albemarle.org. Architectural Review Board, Community Development Department The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski, ARB Chief of Planning, mmal iszewskigalbemarle.org: 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 2. Where will required parking be located if it can't be placed under the building? 3. In sections/viewshed studies, it would be helpful if the scale of the section diagram and the aerial/map were made to match. 4. What is the purpose of analyzing the view from the office building on 78-73B 1? 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. 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. 7. What plants will remain in the landscape easement on 78-13? Albemarle County Fire -Rescue The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Shawn Maddox, Fire & Rescue plans reviewer, smaddox@albemarle.org: Fire Rescue has no objections to the zoning map amendment. SNM Albemarle County Service Authority Please see the attached comments from ACSA plans reviewer, Richard Nelson, melsongserviceauthority.org. Virginia Department of Transportation Requested changes; please see the attached memo provided by the VDOT contact — Adam Moore, adam. moorea,vdot.virainia. eov. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Dyon Vega, Civil Engineer, dvegarivanna.org: To be filled out by RWSA for ZMA's and SP's 1. Capacity issues for sewer that 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 Let me know if you have any questions. RWSA has no conflict. Dyon Vega Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter," which is attached. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience online at: https://www.albemarle.org/home/shonublisheddocument?id=358 Notification and Advertisement Fees It appears that the Public Notice Requirement fees have already been paid for this application. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is areitelbachgalbemarle.org, and my phone number is 434-296-5832 ext. 3261. Sincerely, Andy Reitelbach Senior Planner Planning Division, Department of Community Development enc: Memorandum from Albemarle County Service Authority Memorandum from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) ZMA2020-00013 Action After Receipt of Comments Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Form ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT— Information from Service Providers To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's 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. 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 forsee? 8) Additional comments? Explore making a water connection at the water main stubout 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. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street (804) 7862701 Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 Fax: (804) 7862940 January 7, 2021 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Andy Reitelbach Re: Overlook Hotel: Pantops PDMC Amendment ZMA-2020-00013 Review # 1 Dear Mr. Reitelbach: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated 7 December 2020, and offers the following comments: 1. Who owns the access easements shown on the Plat for Hansen Road and the parking lot of the Hansen Road Professional Center? 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. 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? 4. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendices 13(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other requirements. Please provide a digital copy in PDF format of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further information is desired, please contact Doug McAvoy Jr. at (540) 718-6113. VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING January 7, 2021 Attn: Andy Reitelbach 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 Charlottesville Residency DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER FIRST SET OF COMMENTS Your project has been scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission for March 23, 2021, which is 90 days from the date your application was accepted for review. State Code requires a 90-day review by the Planning Commission unless the applicant requests deferral. As you will read in this comment letter, staff recommends changes to your project to help you achieve approval. Without these changes, staff cannot recommend approval to the Planning Commission. If you would like to address the comments you must request deferral by February 19, 2021. If you choose not to request deferral, staff will take your project to the Commission as originally submitted, but without a recommendation of approval. Instructions for requesting a deferral are outlined below Please note that you can submit revisions even if you defer your application. Please do one of the following on or before February 19, 2021: (1) Request deferral to resubmit to address comments, pursuant to Section 33.52(A)(1). Please understand that if a deferral request is made, the Planning Commission public hearing date will be later than March 23, 2021. (2) Request to proceed to a Planning Commission public hearing on March 23, 2021. All advertising fees must be paid by February 19, 2021. (3) Withdraw your application. (1) Deferral Request and Resubmittal To request deferral, you must submit a request in writing to defer action by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The request may be made by email. You may request a deferral for up to 36 months from the date your application was accepted for review, which is December 23, 2023. However, all outstanding information necessary for Commission action must be submitted by June 23, 2023, according to the published schedule. (See Section 18-33.52 (A)(2) of the Albemarle County Code). Revised 10-9-18 MCN (2) Proceed to Planning Commission Public Hearing on March 23, 2021 At this time, you may request that your application proceed to public hearing with the Planning Commission on March 23, 2021. With this option, staff will take your project to the Commission as originally submitted, but without a recommendation of approval. (3) Withdraw Your Application If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing. Resubmittals As stated above, a deferral does not preclude you from resubmitting the application to address changes based upon the comments. If you would like to resubmit after you defer, you may do so following the resubmittal schedule. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your submittal. The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.) Failure to Respond An application shall be deemed to be voluntarily withdrawn if the applicant requests deferral pursuant to subsection 33.52(A), and fails to provide within 120 days before the end of the deferral period all of the information required to allow the Board to act on the application. (See Section 18-33.53 (C) of the Albemarle County Code). Fee Payment Fees paid in cash or by check must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator. Fees may also be paid by credit card using the secure online payment system, accessed at http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=21685. Revised 10-9-18 MCN FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Cldl By: Resubmittal of information for Zoning Mau Amendmentx"` PROJECT NUMBER THAT IIAS BEEN ASSIGNED: ZMA2020-00013 Pantops Overlook Hotel 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 Print Name FEES that may apply: Date Daytime phone number of Signatory ❑ Deferral of scheduled blchearin at applicant's request $194u Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,688 ® First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $1,344 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $1,881 To be Daid after staff review for Dublic notice: Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $215 + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.08 for each additional notice + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (averages between $150 and $250) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 Revised 11/02/2015 Page 1 of 1