Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201000003 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2010-04-02pF AL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4012 April 2, 2010 Ms. Valerie W. Long Williams Mullen 321 East Main St., Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 -3200 RE: ZMA -09 -001 5th Street — Avon Center - Zoning Map Amendment SP2010 -003 5th Street — Avon Center — Parking Structure — Special Use Permit Dear Ms. Long: Thank you for your recent submittal of SP2010 -003 and your recent re- submittal of ZMA 2009- 001, both received on February 16th for Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 76 -M 1 -2A; 76 -M 1 -2B; 76- M1 -4A; and 77 -11E. We have a few questions and comments which are indicated below: Application Plan: Planning • Show the dimensions for the Pedestrian Friendly Corridor Conceptual Section shown on Sheet number 2 of 3. • The interior circulation is unclear. For example, what will be the circulation layout for Building G? Zoning The following comments have been provided by Amelia McCulley and Sarah Baldwin related to zoning matters: • The Application Plan Amendment appears to contain more changes, aside from the mentioned phasing. Rather than rely on two application plans, please submit one amended plan that contains original approved features along with the revised phasing and changes. Some noted changes include the absence of 100 year floodplain, pedestrian connection to Willoughby and roundabout at Bent Creek Road and building layouts. Current Development The following comments have been provided by Bill Fritz related to how your proposal may or may not be able to meet site plan or subdivision ordinance requirements in the future: • In the "north sector" an amenity is shown at the end of "Conceptual Site Circulation ". It is not clear if this site circulation is pedestrian or vehicular. If vehicular, a conflict with the amenity may occur. • The amenity in "north sector" is not defined. Engineering and Water Resources The following comments have been provided by Glenn Brooks related to engineering and water resources: • It is not clear on the proposed plan if the road layout and roundabouts are changing. This should be clarified, either by better correlation with existing plans, or defined changes. Proffers Planning: • We have previously discussed the need for the proffers to be submitted with track changes, so we can have a version of the proffers that shows the original proffers with the proposed changes. Please submit this. • Rather than rely on two sets of proffers, please submit one amended set of proffers that contains the pertinent original approved proffers along with the requested changes. • Please clarify proffer l OD. Is the only change the second sentence? Is the rest of the approved proffer still the same and a part of proffer l OD? • Proffer 13 A. 9. Describes that a sidewalk and plaza/amenity area including all landscaping for such area will be completed with Phase 1. Will landscaping in the amenity area be affected when Phase 2 occurs? • Proffer 1. G. of the approved proffer states that the Owner shall provide a paved parking area on the Property consisting of no less than twelve (12) spaces either: i) within the area labeled "Future Development Areal" ....... or ii) in conjunction with the construction of a parking area for another use,.... The revised Proffer 13 C. states that the outparcel area shown on the Original Application Plan as "Future Development Area 1" shall not be developed. Given the revised language in Proffer 13C, do you still want proffer 1. G. to provide the option it describes? Zoning: • Please address when Proffers 4 & 5 will be completed since they do not appear included in amended Proffer 13- Phasing. • Proffer 1G addresses a transit stop; park and ride lot within the "Future Development Area," which has been removed with this submittal. Please address this proffer and an alternative location for the transit stop. Current Development: • Proffer 6 states in part "Prior to issuance of a building permit for any proposed LEED Compliant Commercial Space..." Aren't all of the commercial spaces intended to be LEED Compliant? • Proffer IOD. What is "extensive roof design "? • Proffer 13 should include parking as a feature to be built in phase one. • Do the revised proffers affect the size of buildings B and D? Engineering: • What is meant by "extensive roof design" in Proffer IOD? Architectural Review Board (ARB): • The proposed replacement text for the second sentence of paragraph l OD of the original proffers mentions "extensive roof design ". This phrase isn't clear. Also, Buildings are proposed with larger areas. This could make it more challenging for the building designs to meet the EC Guidelines. Particular guidelines that may become issues are those that deal with human scale, the treatment of long walls, and the use of architectural connecting devices. Staff recommends the following: In the proffers (and wherever else it might appear), rewrite the "extensive roof design" phrase to clarify its meaning. You should be aware that the larger building areas will likely make it more challenging to meet the EC Guidelines. Particular attention should be given to establishing appropriate scale, wall treatment, and connecting devices. Development Framework: Architectural Review Board (ARB): The following comments have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines: • The language under "Other Conditions of Development for Building Zones C/E and F" is vague and will make future review difficult. Among the unclear phrases are: facades... oriented within a streetscape and urban design form, facades and rooflines ... integrated with the north /south streetscape, and integrated into streetscape design. Does this mean facades and rooflines will be either perpendicular or parallel to the north/south street? Does "integrated into streetscape design" mean something more than "will be present "? Staff recommends you revise the language under "Other Conditions of Development for Building Zones C/E and F" to more clearly and simply state the intent. Planning: • The approved Development Framework includes language that states that the parking and parking structures are subject to subsequent parking impact study. This should also be included in the revised Development Framework. • Please explain the increase of Building Zone G to 90,000 sfgfa described in the revised Development Framework from 75,000 sfgfa described for Building Zone G in the approved Development Framework. • See the attached Comprehensive Plan Amendment, approved September 8, 2004. Land Use S. states that the largest single big box footprint should not exceed 150,000 square feet. Please explain the maximum individual anchor store size of 160,000 sfgfa shown in the revised Development Framework. This is an increase from that described in the approved Development Framework showing a maximum individual anchor store size of 150,000 sfgfa. • Please explain the planned uses that are no longer shown on the revised Development Framework. Engineering: • The change in the mix of uses may require a revision to the traffic study. The traffic generation tables should be revised and an assessment made of the possible impacts of the proposed changes. The county will defer to VDOT on traffic study requirements. Other Issues: Current Development: • The stream crossing SP necessary to provide access to this property should be submitted and reviewed at the same time as this rezoning amendment. Critical Slopes Waiver: Engineering: • The critical slope waiver is recommended for approval. However, your analysis letter necessitates the following comment: There is almost always a small risk of (1) large scale movement of soil, (2) excessive stormwater runoff, and (3) siltation. These risks are not eliminated, but minimized as much as can be expected. In addition, the "limits of disturbance" on the plan will need to be expanded slightly to accommodate construction erosion control, and permanent stormwater management at the perimeter. SP 2010 -003 — Parking Structure: Architectural Review Board (ARB): • Parking structure height is proposed up to 5 stories, which is equivalent to 60'. 60' is double the height of buildings illustrated in site sections that were reviewed by the ARB under ZMA -2006- 09 /ARB -06 -135. Any parts of proposed parking garage(s) that will be visible from the ECs will be required to meet all of the EC Guidelines. This means that even if the "back" of the structure is visible from the EC, the ARB will likely require that it be designed as a "front ". The taller the structure, the more likely it will be visible from the ECs. Deck -top lighting will likely be an issue that will be challenging to overcome. Staff recommends a roofed parking structure; with one or more levels below ground is recommended. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA): • The flow acceptance for this project has been issued, but will expire in January 2011 if this project is not under construction by that time. • RWSA is concerned about the storm water outfalls to Moores Creek for this project. RWSA owns a sewer interceptor that runs along the north bank of Moores Creek and RWSA will want to review the proposed storm outfalls (at the site plan stage) to ensure that you will not alter the stream in such a way that causes increased erosion along the north bank. Fire Rescue: • Approval is based upon letter from agent of applicant dated February 16, 2010. Planning: • The following section of the Zoning Ordinance is provided for your information and guidance regarding parking structures: §32.7.2A PARKING STRUCTURES (Added 2 -5 -03) In addition to all other requirements, each parking structure shall be subject to the following: a. The developer shall submit architectural elevations with both the preliminary and final site plans. The elevations shall be part of the approved final site plan. b. The developer shall submit drawings, photographs or other visual materials showing the proposed parking structure and surrounding structures (if any exist) and land uses. c. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or building shall be screened from public view to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development with materials harmonious with the building or they shall be located so as not to be visible from public view. d. Air handlers shall be located so that emissions are directed away from any adjoining residential development. e. The structure shall be designed so that the light from all vehicle headlights and all lighting fixtures will not routinely shine directly outside the structure. • While staff understands that you do not anticipate the development of a parking structure for several years, due to the environmental sensitivity of the area, staff is concerned about extending this SP for an additional 10 years. The language of § 15.2- 2209.1 of the Code of Virginia automatically extends this SP until July 1, 2014. VDOT Comments from VDOT are attached. Resubmittal or Public Hearing State law and County ordinance direct that action on a ZMA and SP, be taken by the Planning Commission within 90 days of the date that application was made to the Planning Commission, unless a deferral is requested. The Board of Supervisors is obligated to take action within 12 months after the Commission's action. (The date that the application to the Planning Commission is considered to be made is approximately two weeks after the submittal date.) We request that, within [30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE LETTER] you: • Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule OR • Request that the application be scheduled on a specific Planning Commission public hearing date in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed to by the applicant and the County, OR • Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If you resubmit, please provide that resubmittal on the first or third Monday of the month. (These days are resubmittal Mondays. The full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page.) Make sure to put my name on the cover page of your resubmittal. After you have resubmitted, staff will provide a set of written comments for your review prior to setting a public hearing. In those comments, we will advise you as to whether all substantive issues have been resolved or if additional resolution is needed. A public hearing with the Planning Commission will not be advertised until you advise us that the project is ready to proceed to a public hearing. At that time, the legal advertisement will be run in the newspaper and a staff report will be prepared to go to the Planning Commission. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Planning Division C: New Era Properties, LLC Avon Holdings, LLC Rev. 3-29-10 Attachments