Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200700008 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2008-05-23COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development - Planning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3439 Fax (434) 972 -4126 May 22, 2008 Ms. Valerie W. Long Williams Mullen 321 E. Main Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA 2007 -008 Airport Road Limited Partnership Review Comments- 4/21/08 resubmittal Dear Valerie: Thank you for the recent resubmittal of a rezoning on Airport Road. This rezoning involves 3.67 acres total, with a portion to be rezoned from C1 Commercial now to PDMC Planned District Mixed Commercial zoning to allow for a hotel on the site. The review comments consolidated in this letter reflect review of the following items you submitted: • Cover letter dated April 21, 208 • Plan titled "Airport Road Limited Partnership Zoning Map Amendment" dated 8/10/07 and last revised 4/16/08, prepared by Timmons Group • Amended rezoning application to PDMC and ownership information • Proffer Statement dated April 16, 2008 for Airport Road Limited Partnership These items have been reviewed for responsiveness to both staff review comments and the Planning Commission's September 18, 2007 work session comments summarized here: 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. ZMA 2007 -008 Airport Road Limited Partnership May 23, 201 • 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. Staff believes that the revised plan has provided a positive response to some areas of concern on the previous plan, in that the building height has been reduced and the building is closer to Airport Road. However, the plan submitted has not been revised to address a significant number of issues, including grading, retaining walls, and respecting the topography of the site. Architectural Review Board (Margaret Maliszweski) 1. Issue: Scale Second Revision Comment: The applicant has indicated that the building height will be reduced from 5 stories to 4 stories. This revision is an improvement that is expected to help the development better meet the EC Guidelines. However, the applicant should be aware that changes to the building form, including but not limited to step- downs, setbacks and alternate roof forms, may still be required by the ARB for a 4 -story building. 2. Issue: Parking Second Revision Comment: The parking has been reduced to one row along the EC, which is appositive change. The central landscape area along the EC has been removed. It was a positive feature of the proposal. However, it is anticipated that the EC Guidelines can be met without it. 3. Issue: Planting Second Revision Comment: The revised plan shows the gas line shifted to the south, allowing for additional planting area along the front of the property. This is an improvement. However, a 10' planting depth is not consistently shown at the perimeter of the site. In some cases, retaining walls occupy a portion of the planting area, leaving insufficient area available for planting. See "Grading" for additional comments. 4. Issue: Mechanical equipment Second Revision Comment: The building form has been revised. A mechanical equipment area has not been identified on the plan. All ground- mounted and building- mounted equipment shall not be visible from the EC. Architectural treatments, fully integrated into the building and the site (for example, building mounted - equipment hidden by a roof or ground - mounted equipment located behind the building), are required to eliminate visibility of the equipment from the EC. 5. Issue: Building form and appearance Second Revision Comment: Information on the appearance of the proposed building has not been provided. Changes to the building form and footprint may be required to achieve an appropriate appearance for the EC. A Certificate of Appropriateness for the site plan and building design is required prior to final site plan approval. 6. Issue: Grading ZMA 2007 -008 Airport Road Limited Partnership May 23, 2011 First Revision Comment: Proposed grading has been added to the plan. The extensive use of retaining walls (both in length and height) indicates that the proposed development does not meet the ARB Guideline calling for "respect for existing topographic characteristics ". The Guidelines call for development that works with the topography; for example, a development that utilizes stepped building heights and terraced parking. When retaining walls over 6' tall are considered, they should be terraced and terraces should be deep enough to provide for significant planting area. As currently illustrated, this is not achievable. Second Revision Comment: This comment stands. The retaining wall on the west side of the property has been broken into two walls, and stepping tall retaining walls is generally more appropriate than using a single tall wall. However, the stepped walls still far exceed the 6' height that is the typical height over which the ARB requires terracing. The walls on the west side of the site currently reach double and triple that 6' height. Sufficient planting area has not been consistently provided along all walls. 7. Issue: Biofilters Second Revision Comment: The revised plan identifies 2 biofilters at the front of the proposed building. The biofilters will be required to have the appearance of fully landscaped site elements that are fully integrated into the overall development. Biofilters with an "engineered" appearance will not meet the EC Guidelines. Engineering (Glenn Brooks) 1. The grading plan is very aggressive, creating much of the site with retaining walls. It will be difficult to develop adjacent properties that respect terrain and relate topographically to this site. It also appears as though grading easements will be needed from the neighbors. 2. The two entrances immediately off of Airport Road on the main access way may present a queuing problem that extends into Airport Road. This type of arrangement, also with parking immediately inside the site entrance, is usually not permitted during review of the site plan. However, it is recognized that the neighboring property has an existing entrance in this location already. Current Development (John Shepherd) and Zoning (Bill Fritz) 1. On sheet C -1, identify the property adjacent to the buffer as being zoned RA rather than R -4 and under "Building Height (rear) change 144.33' to the correct figure. 2. There are critical slopes on the parcel associated with the adjacent Storage Center Development, adjacent to Airport Road and in the area of an old house site. Manmade critical slopes can be disturbed without a waiver if they are shown on a previously approved plan. The slopes that were created by the development of the Storage Center on Parcel 41 H1 appear to be exempt based on this criterion. We have not identified approved plans that demonstrate that the other critical slopes on the site were created by such plans. Therefore, unless the applicant produces plans showing the creation of the critical slopes on the site, said slopes require a waiver from the Planning Commission. It is recommended that this be processed as part of the review of the ZMA. 3. Parking: The plan correctly states that 1 space per room is required by the hotel use. The area of the meeting space and the area of the restaurant if it is open to the public also must be specified. Additional parking must be provided for the meeting space on the basis of 1 space per 75 square feet. Additional space must be provided for the restaurant space open to the public on the basis of 13 spaces per 1,000 square feet. This can be discussed further if there are questions. These revisions must be shown on Sheet C -1. ZMA 2007 -008 Airport Road Limited Partnership May 23, 2008 4. Setbacks: Section 25.6 provides that the setbacks set forth in Section 21 apply to the PD -MC district. To clarify this, in addition to showing the setbacks on the plan, please label the 30' building setback from the ROW, the 10' parking setback from the ROW, the 20' buffer from the RA district, the 20' parking setback from the RA district and the 50' building setback from the RA district. In addition, note on the plan that the disturbance of the buffer as shown on the plan requires Planning Commission approval. The building is proposed to be taller than 35 feet. As provided in section 21.4, yards are increased 2 feet for each foot of height in excess of 35 feet. Setbacks, including increased setbacks based on height, can be modified by the Board of Supervisors as part of the rezoning. Section 8.2 allows for the modification of any regulations of sections 4, 5, 32 and the district (25A PD -MC). Section 25A.6 states that the regulations of section 21 shall apply to the PD -MC district. Regulations contained in section 21, which include increased setbacks due to height, are considered to be part of the district regulations and can be modified by the Board. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Staff has not yet received comments from VDOT but will forward those to you when they are available. Proffers • The Board of Supervisors has recently expected higher levels of runoff reduction practices and stormwater management measures to address impacts of development, in the form of proffers. Staff can provide you sample language from recently approved rezonings, such as those in Hollymead Town Center, for you to consider. • Section 1 -A of the proffers dated April 16, 2008 should be amended to make it clear that any change of use will be subject to the parking requirements for that proposed use. • Staff may provide additional comments on the proffers once VDOT comments are received. Staff believes that this proposal, if you wish to proceed in the process with this design, should be scheduled with the Commission for a public hearing. You mentioned in conversations since the work session in September that the engineers had worked through the various scenarios and design suggestions made by the Commission. However, there was nothing in the resubmittal that addressed that issue. If you would like to have a work session with the Commission, it would be helpful to provide additional exhibits. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. I can be reached at (434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3439 or rragsdale@albemarle.org. Sincerely, Rebecca Rebecca Ragsdale Senior Planner COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 To: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner From: John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration Subject: ZMA- 2007 -08 Airport Road Limited Partnership Date received: April 22, 2008 Date of Comment: May 21, 2008 These comments replace my comments dated May 13, 2008. These make it clear that the Board can modify or waive regulations contained in section 21, including increased setbacks based on height. These address the revised application plan received April 22, 2008 and offer these comments. 1. The disturbance of the buffer requires a waiver from the Planning Commission. It is recommended that this be processed as part of the review of the ZMA. 2. On sheet C -1 identify the property adjacent to the buffer as being zoned RA rather than R -4. 3. There are critical slopes on the parcel associated with the adjacent Storage Center Development, adjacent to Airport Road and in the area of an old house site. Manmade critical slopes can be disturbed without a waiver if they are shown on a previously approved plan. The slopes that were created by the development of the Storage Center on Parcel 41 H1 appear to be exempt based on this criterion. We have not identified approved plans that demonstrate that the other critical slopes on the site were created by such plans. Therefore, unless the applicant produces plans showing the creation of the critical slopes on the site, said slopes require a waiver from the Planning Commission. It is recommended that this be processed as part of the review of the ZMA. 4. Parking: The plan correctly states that 1 space per room is required by the hotel use. The area of the meeting space and the area of the restaurant if it is open to the public also must be specified. Additional parking must be provided for the meeting space on the basis of 1 space per 75 square feet. Additional space must be provided for the restaurant space open to the public on the basis of 13 spaces per 1,000 square feet. This can be discussed further if there are questions. These revisions must be shown on Sheet C -1. C A inetpub \wwwroot \cityviewlazerfiche_i nteg ratio n\tem pdoch olde r\2451 1.doc 5. On sheet C -1 under "Building Height (rear) change 144.33' to the correct figure. 6. Setbacks: Section 25.6 provides that the setbacks set forth in Section 21 apply to the PD -MC district. To clarify this, in addition to showing the setbacks on the plan, please label the 30' building setback from the ROW, the 10' parking setback from the ROW, the 20' buffer from the RA district, the 20' parking setback from the RA district and the 50' building setback from the RA district. In addition, note on the plan that the disturbance of the buffer as shown on the plan requires Planning Commission approval. The building is proposed to be taller than 35 feet. As provided in section 21.4, yards are increased 2 feet for each foot of height in excess of 35 feet. Setbacks, including increased setbacks based on height, can be modified by the Board of Supervisors as part of the rezoning. Section 8.2 allows for the modification of any regulations of sections 4, 5, 32 and the district (25A PD -MC). Section 25A.6 states that the regulations of section 21 shall apply to the PD -MC district. We have determined that regulations contained in section 21, which include increased setbacks due to height, are considered to be part of the district regulations. 7. 1 recommend that Section 1 -A of the proffers dated April 16, 2008 be amended to make it clear that any change of use will be subject to the parking requirements for that proposed use. Pease contact me if you have questions. C A inetpub \wwwroot \cityviewlazerfiche_i nteg ratio n\tem pdoch olde r\2451 1.doc COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 To: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner From: John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration Subject: ZMA- 2007 -08 Airport Road Limited Partnership Date received: April 21, 2008 Date of Comment: May 13, 2008 I have reviewed the revised application plan that was received on April 16, 2008 and offer these comments. 1. The disturbance of the buffer requires a waiver from the Planning Commission. It is recommended that this be processed as part of the review of the ZMA. 2. On sheet C -1 identify the property adjacent to the buffer as being zoned RA rather than R -4. 3. There are critical slopes on the parcel associated with the adjacent Storage Center Development, adjacent to Airport Road and in the area of an old house site. Manmade critical slopes can be disturbed without a waiver if they are shown on a previously approved plan. The slopes that were created by the development of the Storage Center on Parcel 41 H1 appear to be exempt based on this criterion. We have not identified approved plans that demonstrate that the other critical slopes on the site were created by such plans. Therefore, unless the applicant produces plans showing the creation of the critical slopes on the site, said slopes require a waiver from the Planning Commission. It is recommended that this be processed as part of the review of the ZMA. 4. Parking: The plan correctly states that 1 space per room is required by the hotel use. The area of the meeting space and the area of the restaurant if it is open to the public also must be specified. Additional parking must be provided for the meeting space on the basis of 1 space per 75 square feet. Additional space must be provided for the restaurant space open to the public on the basis of 13 spaces per 1,000 square feet. This can be discussed further if there are questions. These revisions must be shown on Sheet C -1. 5. On sheet C -1 under "Building Height (rear) change 144.33' to the correct figure. C A inetpub \wwwroot \cityviewlazerfiche_i nteg ratio n\tem pdocholder \24354.doc 6. Setbacks: Section 25.6 provides that the setbacks set forth in Section 21 apply to the PD -MC district. To clarify this, in addition to showing the setbacks on the plan, please label the 30' building setback from the ROW, the 10' parking setback from the ROW, the 20' buffer from the RA district, the 20' parking setback from the RA district and the 50' building setback from the RA district. In addition, note on the plan that the disturbance of the buffer as shown on the plan requires Planning Commission approval. The building is proposed to be taller than 35 feet. As provided in Section 21.4, yards are increased 2 feet for each foot of height in excess of 35 feet. The plan must be revised accordingly. 7. 1 recommend that Section 1 -A of the proffers dated April 16, 2008 be amended to make it clear that any change of use will be subject to the parking requirements for that proposed use. Pease contact me if you have questions. C:\ inetpub \wwwroot \cityviewlazerfiche_i ntegration \tem pdocholder \24354.doc ALg�,�� �'IRGINZ�` COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Rebecca Ragsdale FROM: Margaret Maliszewski RE: ZMA- 2007 -08: Airport Road Limited Partnership - Hotel DATE: May 6, 2008 I have reviewed the application plan with revision date of 04/16/08 for the above referenced project and I have updated my comments on the proposal. Comments identified as "2 °d Revision Comment" are the current comments based on the 04/16/08 revision. 1. Issue: Scale Original Comment: The hotel is proposed at five stories tall, plus a full roof. This is considerably taller than the existing nearby buildings and it is expected to appear overscaled and uncoordinated within the corridor. Three or four stories would be more appropriate. Changes to building form and roof form, and additional stepping of building height, could help mitigate the overall height. As illustrated, five stories is a concern for the Entrance Corridor. First Revision Comment: Original Comment stands. Second Revision Comment: The applicant has indicated that the building height will be reduced from 5 stories to 4 stories. This revision is an improvement that is expected to help the development better meet the EC Guidelines. However, the applicant should be aware that changes to the building form, including but not limited to step- downs, setbacks and alternate roof forms, may still be required by the ARB for a 4 -story building. 2. Issue: Parking Original Comment: The application plan shows a double row of parking adjacent to the Entrance Corridor. A single row of parking would be more appropriate for the EC, but the central landscape area provides an appropriate break in the parking row along the corridor and should be retained. First Revision Comment: Original Comment stands. The applicant has asked for clarification regarding the central landscape area: The central landscape area should be retained, even if the plan is revised to include only a single row of parking between the hotel and the EC. Second Revision Comment: The parking has been reduced to one row along the EC, which is appositive change. The central landscape area along the EC has been removed. It was a positive feature of the proposal. However, it is anticipated that the EC Guidelines can be met without it. Issue: Planting Original Comment: The application plan shows limited planting area at the perimeter of parking areas and travelways in several locations around the site. A minimum 10' planting depth should be provided at the perimeter of the site, free of utilities and easements, to allow for appropriate planting. First Revision Comment: The 10' planting depth is not consistently shown. In some cases, retaining walls occupy a portion of the planting area, leaving insufficient area available for planting. See "Grading" for additional comments. A Charlottesville Gas easement is shown across the front landscape strip along the EC. The landscape strip should be increased in depth to provide utility -free landscape area. Second Revision Comment: The revised plan shows the gas line shifted to the south, allowing for additional planting area along the front of the property. This is an improvement. However, a 10' planting depth is not consistently shown at the perimeter of the site. In some cases, retaining walls occupy a portion of the planting area, leaving insufficient area available for planting. See "Grading" for additional comments. 4. Issue: Mechanical equipment Original Comment: There appears to be a mechanical/service area at the east end of the building. It is recommended that this area be moved to the back of the building to a location that will not be visible from the EC. If it remains in the location illustrated, it will require an architectural treatment that provides an appropriate appearance for the EC. First Revision Comment: The building footprint has been reversed. There appear to be sufficient opportunities for screening ground equipment with architectural and landscape treatments in the indicated locations. Second Revision Comment: The building form has been revised. A mechanical equipment area has not been identified on the plan. All ground- mounted and building- mounted equipment shall not be visible from the EC. Architectural treatments, fully integrated into the building and the site (for example, building mounted - equipment hidden by a roof or ground- mounted equipment located behind the building), are required to eliminate visibility of the equipment from the EC. Issue: Building form and appearance Original Comment: Information on the appearance of the proposed building has not been provided. Changes to the building form and footprint may be required to achieve an appropriate appearance for the EC. First Revision Comment: Original Comment stands. The applicant's memo indicated that a Certificate of Appropriateness would be required at building permit review stage. This is incorrect. A Certificate of Appropriateness will be required prior to final site plan approval. Both the site plan and building design will be reviewed by the ARB at that time. Second Revision Comment: Information on the appearance of the proposed building has not been provided. Changes to the building form and footprint may be required to achieve an appropriate appearance for the EC. A Certificate of Appropriateness for the site plan and building design is required prior to final site plan approval. 6. Issue: Grading First Revision Comment: Proposed grading has been added to the plan. The extensive use of retaining walls (both in length and height) indicates that the proposed development does not meet the ARB Guideline calling for "respect for existing topographic characteristics ". The Guidelines call for development that works with the topography; for example, a development that utilizes stepped building heights and terraced parking. When retaining walls over 6' tall are considered, they should be terraced and terraces should be deep enough to provide for significant planting area. As currently illustrated, this is not achievable. Second Revision Comment: This comment stands. The retaining wall on the west side of the property has been broken into two walls, and stepping tall retaining walls is generally more appropriate than using a single tall wall. However, the stepped walls still far exceed the 6' height that is the typical height over which the ARB requires terracing. The walls on the west side of the site currently reach double and triple that 6' height. Sufficient planting area has not been consistently provided along all walls. 7. Issue: Biofilters Second Revision Comment: The revised plan identifies 2 biofilters at the front of the proposed building. The biofilters will be required to have the appearance of fully landscaped site elements that are fully integrated into the overall development. Biofilters with an "engineered" appearance will not meet the EC Guidelines.