Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200700008 Action Letter Zoning Map Amendment 2007-09-27Phone (434) 296 -5832 Lrf2C;l1�ZA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 MEMORANDUM TO: Valerie Long 321 East Main Street, Suite 401 Charlottesville, VA 22902 FROM: Rebecca Ragsdale DATE: September 27, 2007 RE: ZMA2007 -00008 Airport Road Limited Partnership Dear Ms. Long : Fax(434)972 -4012 On September 18, 2007, the Albemarle County Planning Commission reviewed the above -noted item in a work session. Attached please find the section of the official action memo for this meeting describing the discussion and direction provided by the Commission on this item. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296 -5832. RR /SM ZMA- 2007 -00008 Airport Road Limited Partnership PROPOSAL: Rezone 2.098 acres from C1 commercial zoning district which allows retail sales and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) uses to Highway Commercial HC zoning district which allows commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to allow for construction of a hotel. PROFFERS: No EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE /DENSITY: Office Service - office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34 units /acre) in Hollymead Community. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 1770 Airport Road, Charlottesville, VA 22911. Property is located on the south side of Airport Road approximately 700 feet west of US 29 in the Hollymead Community. TAX MAP /PARCEL: 32 -41 B; construction of hotel will also include TMP 32 -41 H. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio (Rebecca Ragsdale) In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA- 2007 -0008, Airport Road Limited Partnership to provide guidance on the proposed use at this location, scale and intensity of development, including building height, and grading and layout as related to adjoining properties, along with any other issues the Commission believes are important to resolve before a public hearing. In power point presentations, staff and the applicant's representative, Valerie Long, reviewed the proposal. The Commission reviewed and discussed the proposal, made comments and suggestions and answered the questions posed by staff as follows. Public comment was not taken. No formal action was taken. The Planning Commission provided the following comments to staff's questions. Does the Commission support the hotel use on this site? The Planning Commission agreed that a hotel use was appropriate on this site. The Commission commented that, given the existing topography, it would be difficult to achieve the hotel as currently proposed on plans submitted, without extensive grading and massive retaining walls. Is the scale and intensity of use proposed appropriate, including building height? The Planning Commission felt the scale and intensity of the use was too great, including the building height, based on the proposed plan. The Commission commented that it appeared the plan presented was designed for a flat site and did not respond to the topography of the proposed site. Is the layout, design, and grading appropriate, especially in relation to adjoining property? The Planning Commission felt that the layout, design and grading were too intense and not appropriate, especially in relation to adjoining property. The Commission recommended additional relegated parking, with parking relocated behind the building and that underground /structured parking should be considered for this site. The grading plan could be reworked to be a lot more sympathetic with the adjacent properties. The Commission encouraged creative design from the applicant and to integrate the building and parking into the site, using the grades with buildings and parking. Regarding the applicant's request for 5 stories, the Planning Commission indicated that they needed more information. The Commission would be willing to consider the 5 stories, but it depends on what the applicant comes back with so they can see how it can be done. The Commission suggested the applicant consider LID, low impact design. The Commission commented that this site may require extensive landscaping. The Planning Commission questioned if the applicant had been working with the Service Authority on the sewer capacity. The applicant should contact the Service Authority and bring back additional information before the public hearing.