Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201000006 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2010-04-29O Ar,N �'IRGINti�` COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176 April 30, 2010 Randy Hooker Engineering Design Associates P.O. Box 50067 Richmond, VA 23250 RE: SP2010- 00006, Baugh Auto Body Dear Mr. Hooker: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for a special use permit to allow operation of an auto body shop in a Light Industrial district. We have a number of questions and comments that we believe should be resolved before your application for a special use permit goes to public hearing. We would be glad to meet with you on these issues to discuss them. Our comments are consolidated below: Planning Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive 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 Comprehensive Plan designates TMP 32 -56 as Industrial Service. The proposed auto body shop is in conformity with this designation. The draft Places29 Master Plan, which has not yet been adopted, designates this parcel as Office /Research & Development (R &D) /Flex/Light Industrial. The proposed auto body shop use is also in conformity with this designation. Neighborhood Model Staff has reviewed the proposed auto body shop to evaluate how it complies with the 12 principles of the County's Neighborhood Model. Staff notes that this proposed use would be located in an existing building on an already developed site. No major changes are proposed in the building or paved parking areas, which take up most of the site. Since so few changes are being made to the site, a full Neighborhood Model analysis is not appropriate. The following changes are recommended: • Landscaping, fencing, and screening, as requested by the Architectural Review Board. Zoning The following comments have been provided by Amelia McCulley related to zoning matters: SP2010- 00006, Baugh Auto Body Comment Letter, April 30, 2010 2 1. Rental Cars: A condition of this Special Use Permit will be needed to clarify that the rentals are for body shop customers only. Additionally, the outdoor storage of rental cars within the Entrance Corridor necessitates a second Special Use Permit for outdoor storage. Staff notes that the County has received the application for this second Special Use Permit. 2. Proposed Vehicle Storage Area: Is the proposed area large enough to accommodate 25 cars? Staff is concerned that this area may be undersized. 3. Proposed Sign: this Special Use Permit does not determine approval of the sign as shown on the plans. A sign application must be submitted and approved per the conditions in Chapter 18- 4.15.3 & 4.15.14. 4. Once an operable vehicle is dropped off, where will it be stored? 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: • Required screening /fencing and other changes (new asphalt paving, new landscaping, relocated fence, new fence, and any other changes) will require amendment to the site plan. A letter of revision is acceptable. The letter of revision application is available here: http://www.albemarle.or.q/upload/images/forms center /departments /community developme nt /forms /applications /Application Letter of Revision.pdf Engineering and Water Resources Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, indicates that there are no engineering issues with the proposed use on this developed site. Improvements to the site circulation and reductions in impervious cover appear practical with the application, and are recommended. Staff notes that there is a stream buffer at the rear of the site, but no activity is proposed close to it. Comments from Gary Whelan, Albemarle County Service Authority, are included in Attachment A. Comments from Justin Weiler, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, are included in Attachment B. Entrance Corridor Margaret Maliszewski has provided detailed comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines. The full text of her comments is attached to this letter (see Attachment C). Please review these comments, as attached. In the section of her comments on requested changes, Ms. Maliszewski asks the applicant to submit an ARB application. Staff notes that this application has been received and is now being reviewed. The recommended conditions of approval will be incorporated into the staff report after the complete list of conditions is reviewed by staff, the County Attorney, and the applicant. VDOT VDOT staff has not requested any changes (see Attachment D) . Special Use Permit Conditions Staff will be recommending a number of conditions, including landscaping, screening, fencing, and other matters to be addressed by the Architectural Review Board. Draft language will be forwarded to you for your review shortly after you resubmit. SP2010- 00006, Baugh Auto Body Comment Letter, April 30, 2010 Resubmittal or Public Hearing State law and County ordinance direct that action on a special use permit 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 April 30, 2010 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.) Please be 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. I may be reached at (434) 296 -5832, x. 3438 or by e-mail: jwiegand(a�albemarle.org Sincerely, kdith C. Wiegand Senior Planner Development Areas Attachments Attachment A — Comments from Albemarle County Service Authority, dated Attachment B — Comments from Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, dated Attachment C — Comments from County's Design Planner, dated Attachment D — Comments from Virginia Dept. of Transportation, dated CC: Amelia McCulley, Zoning SP2010- 00006, Baugh Auto Body Comment Letter, April 30, 2010 Bill Fritz, Current Development Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Margaret Maliszewski, Design Planner H.M.C. Holdings, LLC 300 Preston Ave., Suite 300 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Baugh, LLC 6018 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 4 SP2010- 00006, Baugh Auto Body Comment Letter, April 30, 2010 ATTACHMENT A ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – Information from Service Providers SP201000006 Baugh Auto Body To be filled out by ACSA for ZMAs and SPs 1. Site is in jurisdictional area for water and sewer service. 2. Distance to the closest water line if in the development area is on site. Water pressure is with gallons per minute at psi. 3. Distance to the closest sewer line if in the development area is on site. 4. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal: none known 5. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification —J—Yes No 6. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal: none known 7. Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary): Existing fire hydrants around structure are private. Supply line size for these hydrants is unknown. Oil /water separator will be required. Backflow prevention is required. Separate water meters may require easements. SP2010- 00006, Baugh Auto Body Comment Letter, April 30, 2010 ATTACHMENT B From: Justin Weiler [jweiler @rivanna.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 10:12 AM To: Judith Wiegand Cc: Michelle S. Simpson, PE; 'Gary Whelan' Subject: SP201000006 Baugh Auto Body Judith, 0 RWSA has reviewed the application for SP201000006 Baugh Auto Body. Below is a completed copy of the form that was provided to us by Elaine Echols for SP applications. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks. Justin To be filled out by RWSA for ZMAs and SPs 1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known 2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification _ X _Yes 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 Justin Weiler, E.I.T. Civil Engineer Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: 434.977.2970 ext.206 Fax: 434.295.1146 Im SP2010- 00006, Baugh Auto Body Comment Letter, April 30, 2010 (C� of AL ® M �'IRGINtP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 ATTACHMENT C Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Judy Wiegand FROM: Margaret Maliszewski RE: SP- 2010 -06: Baugh Auto Body DATE: April 19, 2010 I have reviewed the plan for the above -noted application and I have the following preliminary comments. Additional and /or revised comments will be provided following ARB review. Information for applicant Rental Vehicles: • The rental car parking included in the proposal requires a Special Use Permit (SP) for outdoor storage. That SP requires ARB comment prior to review by the Planning Commission. An ARB application is required, with 8 copies of the concept plan. I have tentatively scheduled this for review by the ARB on May 17. That meeting begins at 1:00 in Room 241 of the County Office Building. Mitigation for outdoor storage of vehicles typically involves conditions related to vehicle location and orientation, Landscaping, and lighting. As part of the concept plan that will be presented to the ARB, the auto body and related screening fence issues will also be available for ARB discussion at the May 17 meeting. Screening Fence: • The ARB has not previously established approved styles of screening fences, but we have begun working with the ARB to establish approvable screening fence styles and /or more specific guidelines for selecting appropriate screening fences for the Entrance Corridors. • The March 9, 2010 concept plan includes metal panel and wood board fence details. Initial discussions with the ARB suggest that these designs are not likely to be approved as presented. An alternate fence design will likely be required. Staff will recommend SP conditions of approval requiring that the fence design, and landscaping associated with it, be subject to ARB approval and resolved at the site plan (site plan, amendment, or letter of revision) review stage. • It should be noted that planting along the fence would require that the fence be shifted further back from the Rt. 29 right -of -way to provide sufficient space for the plants to grow on site. It is anticipated that a minimum of 10' will be necessary, but a planting area deeper than 10' could be required by the ARB. The ARB could also require the addition of landscaping elsewhere on site (along the Rt. 29 frontage, at the perimeter or parking areas, at the interior of parking areas, SP2010- 00006, Baugh Auto Body Comment Letter, April 30, 2010 0 etc.) to offset impacts of the proposal. Such planting plan could also be resolved at the site plan review stage. • Barbed wire visible from the Entrance Corridors is generally not approved by the ARB. It is recommended that the barbed wire be eliminated from the proposal. Alternatively, the applicant might devise a method of incorporating barbed wire into the fence so that it will not be visible from the EC. Drawings clearly illustrating the lack of visibility of the barbed wire would then be required. • Other design issues the ARB will consider relative to the fence may include (but aren't limited to): material, color, texture, finish, method of stepping to follow slope, general configuration, repetition of design/subdivisions in the design, proximity to the EC /degree of visibility, durability /appearance over time, and coordination of the fence design with the building. The ARB could identify additional issues not listed here. • Although staff will recommend that the fence design and landscape issues be resolved at the site plan review stage, the ARB may provide additional comments on these issues and /or suggest alternate or additional conditions of approval at the May 17 ARB meeting. Sign: • Information has been provided on a new freestanding sign. Please note that the sign location, design and treatment won't be approved until a sign permit is applied for, reviewed and approved. However, we are happy to provide informal comments on informal sign proposals now, or at any other time before an actual sign permit is applied for, at the request of the applicant. • The sign details provided on sheet 5 of 5 don't appear to completely match the existing condition shown on the layout plan (sheet 4 of 5), particularly regarding the existing sign location. The existing sign is non - conforming. If it is removed, a new sign will have to meet all requirements of the ordinance, including the maximum size of 32 s£ Also, an easement is noted on the sign details, but it is not clear what type of easement this is or what the full extent of the easement is. These issues will have to be clarified with the sign permit application. Requested changes 1. Please submit an ARB application for this proposal, with 8 copies of the concept plan, as soon as possible. 2. Please clarify the chain link fence information included on the plan. Please clarify "existing fence to be removed /relocated ". 3. With a condition requiring future ARB approval of the screening fence design, it may be clearer to remove the screening fence details from the concept plan. 4. For clarity, please shade or cross -hatch the full extent of the vehicle storage area. SP2010- 00006, Baugh Auto Body Comment Letter, April 30, 2010 Recommended conditions of approval 1. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the method of screening the vehicle storage area, including but not limited to: fence material, color, texture, finish, configuration, detailing, location, and supplemental planting. 2. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the landscape plan, which will likely include planting to mitigate negative impacts of the screening fence. Landscaping shown on the concept plan may be modified to meet the requirements of the Architectural Review Board. Please note that these recommended conditions could be revised or expanded as a result of ARB comments at the May 17 meeting. SP2010- 00006, Baugh Auto Body Comment Letter, April 30, 2010 10 ATTACHMENT D From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 12:12 PM To: Judith Wiegand Subject: RE: SP2010 -00006 Baugh Auto Body Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Judy, don't have any comments on this SP. I had recently been working with the applicant on the entrance and determined that it is adequate for the proposed use and I required them to remove the additional entrance that was located on the taper of the right turn lane. They have adequately removed the entrance and everything looks fine. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 joel.denunzio@vdot.virqinia.gov